Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Verso Publishes Norman Finkelstein’s diatribe that “Jews have too much power in Britain.”

with 13 comments

Image result for norman finkelstein on charlie hebdo

Finkelstein, “Jew have too Much Power in Britain” – to join Gerry Downing in Socialist Fight? 

The chimera of British anti-Semitism (and how not to fight it if it were real)

Amongst Finkelstein’s pseudo-learning we hear that,

Jews have too much power in Britain. The three richest Brits are Jewish.[12] Jews comprise only .5 percent of the population but fully 20 percent of the 100 richest Brits.[13] Relative both to the general population and to other ethno-religious groups, British Jews are in the aggregate disproportionately wealthy, educated, and professionally successful.[14] These data track closely with the picture elsewhere. Jews comprise only 2 percent of the US population but fully 30 percent of the 100 richest Americans, while Jews enjoy the highest household income among religious groups.

Jews comprise less than .2 percent of the world’s population but, of the world’s 200 richest people, fully 20 percent are Jewish.

Jews are incomparably organized as they have created a plethora of interlocking, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing communal and defense organizations that operate in both the domestic and international arenas. In many countries, not least the US and the UK, Jews occupy strategic positions in the entertainment industry, the arts, publishing, journals of opinion, the academy, the legal profession, and government. “Jews are represented in Britain in numbers that are many times their proportion of the population,” British-Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer notes, “in both Houses of Parliament, on the Sunday Times Rich List, in media, academia, professions, and just about every walk of public life.”

The wonder would be if these raw data didn’t translate into outsized Jewish political power. The Israel-based Jewish People Policy Planning Institute rhapsodizes that “The Jewish People today is at a historical zenith of wealth creation” and “has never been as powerful as now.”[18]

It is certainly legitimate to query the amplitude of this political power and whether it has been exaggerated,[19] but it cannot be right to deny (or suppress) critical socioeconomic facts.

He continues, froth speckling,

Were it not for the outsized power of British Jews, it’s hard to conceive that British society would be interminably chasing after a hobgoblin. True, although fighting anti-Semitism is the rallying cry, a broad array of powerful entrenched social forces, acting on not-so-hidden agendas of their own, have coalesced around this putative cause. It cannot be gainsaid, however, that Jewish organizations form the poisoned tip of this spear.

He (provisionally) concludes with that mind-reading ability that is the gift of those able to see beyond mere appearance,

..the truth is, Jewish elites do not for a moment believe that anti-Semitism is a burning issue. If they truly feared that it posed a clear and present danger now or in the foreseeable future, they wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops that Corbyn was a “fucking anti-Semite.” For, if the UK was awash with closet anti-Semites, then, logically, broadcasting this accusation would hand Corbyn free publicity as it would be dulcet tones to the ears of potential voters. Far from damaging him, its diffusion could only facilitate Corbyn’s victory and pave the way for a second Holocaust.

On the contrary, Jewish organizations know full well that vilifying Corbyn as an anti-Semite would drastically reduce his appeal, as anti-Semitism resonates only among assorted antediluvians, troglodytes, and fruitcakes. In other words, the irrefutable proof that Corbyn’s pursuers don’t believe a word they’re saying is that by labeling him an anti-Semite they hope and expect to isolate him.

However, as the accusation is manifestly a red herring, it’s also possible that the current hysteria will pass most people by entirely, not because they are unconcerned by anti-Semitism but because it hardly occurs to them as an issue at all. If the controversy has an effect it will be restricted to exacerbating divisions in the Labour leadership and perhaps also adding to a more general perception that the stories promoted by mainstream media are fake news.

Here is another aspect of Finkelstein’s politics that makes this Blog loathe him even more: he spat on the graves of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

“World renowned political science professor says he has ‘no sympathy’ for staff at Charlie Hebdo.”


New Left Review and Verso Stalwart Tariq Ali has had many friendly echanges with Finkelstein.

Perhaps he will invite him to the follow up to this event:

It would be remiss, surely, if Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan, pioneers in this matter, did not get an invite as well.

Why Marxists must address the Jewish Question concretely today

…the outcome of WWII, and then the rise of Israel, destroyed this worldview among the imperialist bourgeoisie. What took its place was an emerging understanding that the Jewish bourgeoisie was an important reserve for the survival of capitalism itself, particularly in its ability to see beyond narrow national horizons and look out for the interests of the bourgeois class on a broader basis.

As a distinct caste, this depends on the Zionist project for its internal coherence; without it this caste would disappear through assimilation into the separate imperialist bourgeoisies. The end of ethnocracy in Israel would spell the defeat of this extra resource of imperialism, which today’s Western ruling classes value highly indeed.


Image may contain: text

Written by Andrew Coates

August 22, 2018 at 11:50 am

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When people like the SWP were critical of this charlatan; from Socialist Review (SWP mag) , Sept 2000:


    The Holocaust Industry
    Norman G Finklestein
    Verso £16.00
    The Holocaust Industry
    With this book Norman Finkelstein attempts ‘to represent my parents’ legacy’. Since his parents were Holocaust survivors, that is a stern task.
    Finkelstein has garnered enormous publicity for his argument that the real danger to the memory of Nazism’s victims comes not from the Holocaust deniers but from the ‘prominent, self proclaimed guardians of Holocaust memory’. He argues that the horror of Hitler’s death camps has been subsumed by an ideology constructed by a ‘Holocaust industry’ that has hijacked the memory of those who were murdered in order to boost the state of Israel, and the role it plays in aiding US imperial domination of the Middle East.
    A second theme of Finkelstein’s argument is that the ideological construct of the ‘Holocaust industry’ has been used to justify the shift to the right among US Jews in the years since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, with opposition to their politics being declared ‘anti-Semitic’.
    Finally he denounces as a ‘double shakedown’ recent efforts to win compensation, particularly from Swiss banks and German companies, for Holocaust survivors. According to Finkelstein, most survivors’ claims were settled after the war. It is, he says, the lawyers and the institutions of the ‘Holocaust industry’, rather than the survivors, who have been the main beneficiaries of the settlements reached in the late 1990s. Tragically, Finkelstein’s years of political confrontation with the pro-Israeli Jewish establishment in the US have distorted his judgement and produced a book that does more harm than good.
    Finkelstein does have some insights into the way the Holocaust has been used in Jewish, Israeli and US politics over the last 50 years, but these are lost amidst the author’s provocations and polemic, and he condemns the outpouring of work on the Holocaust in recent years. Books, films and the construction of new museums on the Holocaust are scathingly dismissed. ‘Too many public and private resources have been invested in memorialising the Nazi genocide,’ writes Finkelstein. ‘Most of the output is worthless, a tribute not to Jewish suffering but to Jewish aggrandisement.’
    It is true that the hardline Zionists have increasingly cited the Holocaust as an excuse for the violence and terror meted out by the Israeli state. It is true that hypocritical politicians will appear at Holocaust memorials and then go away and play the race card. But it is also true that the memory of the Holocaust is the biggest barrier to the rebirth of a modern Nazi movement.
    Finkelstein seems unaware that one major explanation for the growth of Holocaust studies and memorials has been as a reaction to the growth of new Nazi movements around the world. He has clearly forgotten Jörg Haider’s malevolent influence on the Austrian government, or French Nazi leader Le Pen’s remark that the Holocaust was ‘a mere detail of history’, or the recent murderous Nazi attacks on Jews in Germany. He also defends free speech for Holocaust deniers, and attacks those who expose them for giving publicity to ‘obscure cranks’. He tells us the Nazi historian David Irving has made an ‘indispensable’ contribution to our knowledge of the Second World War. This is the David Irving who sees himself as the intellectual leader of Europe’s new Nazis, and who was shown during his recent libel trial to be a systematic falsifier of history.
    Unlike Finkelstein I have no Holocaust survivors in my family. In the 1930s my mother’s family lived in London’s East End, where they were involved in the fight against Oswald Mosley’s Blackshirts. My father’s family lived in Germany before the war. Some made it out by 1939, others simply disappeared. While I was reading Finkelstein’s book my parents were sorting out the papers of an 88 year old fellow refugee.
    The letters reveal the horror of living under Nazi rule before the Holocaust, and the racism and cynical hypocrisy of the politicians who talked about tolerance but slammed the doors in the face of those fleeing oppression. My parents hope the correspondence will find a home in one of the Holocaust museums–probably one that Finkelstein condemns–either in Britain or Berlin. This will not be an act of Jewish aggrandisement, but their memorial to a victim of the Nazis.
    There is an important history to be written about the Jews, racism and politics after the Holocaust. It would have to begin with the physical destruction of the anti-Zionist socialist tradition among Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. It would have to talk about the cynical way the Allies refused to bomb the gas chambers even though they knew what was going on there. It would have to deal with the failure of much of the leadership of world Jewry to fight for an open door policy for refugees before the war, and for rescue during the conflict. It would have to discuss the very real anti-Semitism which existed among the political elite worldwide before and after 1945, and the confusion caused by Stalin’s rush to recognise the state of Israel even though the country was born amidst the ethnic cleansing of up to 1 million Palestinians. It would have to explain the politics of the Cold War and the changing strategies of imperialism in the Middle East.
    Only in this context is it possible to discuss the way the Holocaust has been used by certain sections of the Jewish establishment to defend the indefensible. Finkelstein makes only passing references to this history.
    Quoting his mother Finkelstein says, ‘The time is long past to open our hearts to the rest of humanity’s sufferings.’ Unfortunately his book offers no help to those who are today fighting humanity’s sufferings.
    Mike Simons

    Jim Denham

    August 22, 2018 at 2:19 pm

  2. I have just watched an episode of ‘Who Do You Think You Are’ featuring Judge Robert Rinder. An entire generation of his grandfather’s family were wiped out, and his grandfather was a slave labourer producing anti-tank missiles for the Germans until at the end of the war he falsified his date of birth and wa brought out as a Jewish Orphan. (Similar to what’s happened with Middle Eastern refugees recently.). His great -grandfather on the other side of his family saw his family wiped out in a Czarist attack on the small town he lived in in what is now Latvia, due to the failure of the 1905 revolution. Papers retrieved from Friern Barnet Mental Asylum (where he ended up) described it as a pogrom, but in truth, non-Jews were also massacred as it was aimed at revolutionaries. Interestingly, his great-grandfather came to England and appears to have been well until around 1936, one can’t help but feel that there must have been a significance to that date. It made me reflect (not for the first time) upon what is unique about ‘the Holocaust’. The entire resources of the German state were organised to seize the assets and wealth of the Jews. That subsequently, it was decided to physically murder them was because they were losing the war in the East and they wanted to make sure that they achieved at least one of their war aims. Or, maybe they just needed more money and needed to shakedown the Jews harder.

    I just find it incredible that anyone, Jewish or not, cannot find that the scale of the Nazi war of attrition against the Jews staggering. Yes there have been other massacres, in Rwanda, in various locations in the Middle East, but none of them have been organised on an industrial scale with careful calculations as to how long it takes to starve a man to death, or injecting them with incurable diseases. Let us be fair and acknowledge that the Jews were not the only victims of this treatment, the Roma too suffered on purely ethnic grounds, but anyone who cannot see why the Holocaust is different must be a rogue or stupid.

    It may not be a strong argument for the existence of Israel, and it is Norman Finkelstein’s right to think so, but neither is it an argument against the existence of Israel.

    Sue R

    August 22, 2018 at 2:56 pm

  3. To be clear, “Jews have too much power” is the wording used by the study Finkelstein is citing which I guess is why he uses italics for the phrase in the Verso post. The phrase appears on pages 23, 24, 36, 38, 55, and 59 of the study. It’s one of the 7 stereotypes the study uses as a metric to measure anti-Semitism. The study’s other six stereotypes are:

    – Jews think they are better than other people
    – The interests of Jews in Britain are very different from the interests of the rest of the population
    – Jews get rich at the expense of others
    – Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes
    – The Holocaust has been exaggerated
    – The Holocaust is a myth

    Not defending Finkelstein’s disgusting shit, but we should strive for 100% accuracy in this fight. I lost respect for him over his failure to support the Syrian uprising (the few comments he’s made about Assad’s war on the Syrian people are along the lines of ‘Gulf state wahabi yadda yadda’ crap) and his latest turn here shouldn’t be too surprising — he did praise Hezbollah in the 2006 war if I’m not mistaken.

    As for Verso, they are publishing pro-Assad Max Blumenthal’s next book (complete with a title plagiarized from ISIS’s handbook) so this isn’t surprising, at least to me. The anti-Semitism fight in the Labour Party is exposing all the fake anti-racists like Chris Williamson and Verso, Finkelstein, and many others who were on the wrong side re: Syria are on the wrong side now. That’s not a coincidence.


    August 22, 2018 at 3:19 pm

    • Well he did not put in the quotes and italics did not come out on my reading, and in any case, if he’s going to use texts with this language amid a whole load of cack (that Socialist Fight like, see previous comment) tough luck.

      An Iranian/French FB friend also mentions – at length – his friendly relations with the blood stained regime of Tehran.

      Finkenstein est l’un des principaux invité V.I.P de toutes les réunions négationnistes organisées à Téhéran par le “Quenellier Iranien” Hamed Gashghavi telles que les “Conférences contre l’Hollywoodisme” ou les confs “New Horizon” ci dessous posant en grande pompe a coté de ce Gashghavi

      Andrew Coates

      August 22, 2018 at 5:20 pm

  4. Word is that Tariq Ali praised this racist rant at a meeting last night.

    ” at the meeting organised by Counterfire last night, Tariq Ali also gave a panegyric to this piece of writing without any critique.”

    He has certainly re-tweeted and boosted it: Tariq Ali Retweeted


    We await the forthcoming article by Donovan and Downing in New Left Review.

    Andrew Coates

    August 22, 2018 at 4:37 pm

  5. Our newhounds have found that this was already published on the 19th of August:

    Norman Finkelstein echoes Socialist Fight on disproportionate Jewish representation in ruling class.

    Linked to below this introduction is an extremely courageous article by Norman Finkelstein on the current Labour Party crisis about phoney allegations of anti-Semitism.

    What is most notable about this is Norman’s points about disproportionate Jewish representation among the very rich and powerful, both in Britain and the United States. Four years ago almost to the day I was being witchhunted in the Communist Platform of Left Unity for making exactly the same points, published the following month in my ‘Draft Theses on the Jews and Modern Imperialism‘, which has certainly stood a time test as it is now being echoed by the world’s most prominent and celebrated Jewish anti-Zionist.

    At Communist University 2016, after one of Norman Finkekstein’s presentations as a guest speaker, I made these very points in the discussion as a Socialist Fight supporter and was heckled and my contribution cut short: I was essentially shouted down. To his great credit, without endorsing my views overall, which he was not familiar with, Norman defended me in his summary and criticised the heckling and shouting down. He was then heckled considerably when he himself talked at some length about the role of Jewish ethnic chauvinism and ethnic lobbying in American politics. Now he echoes my essential thesis, that the power of Zionism in the US and Britain stems in large measure from the disproportionate representation of Jews in the circles of wealth and power, i.e. in the imperialist ruling classes.

    This did not prevent the CPGB and their fellow travellers from witchhunting Socialist Fight out of ‘Labour Against the Witchhunt’ in January 2018. But as the political confrontation over Zionism in the Labour Party approaches its likely denouement, the intervention of the world’s most prominent Jewish opponent of Zionist racism echoing our Marxist analysis provides a pointer to future struggles, and implicitly condemns Jack Conrad and other capitulators to Zionism, who violated their own supposed principles, of ‘partyism’ and open ideological struggle among Marxists, using smears substantially the same as those used by the likes of Margaret Hodge – including a ‘holocaust’ graphic accompanying their denunciation of myself, a communist for 40 years, in the article justifying my purge in Sept 2014. Their motive for doing so was a similar political cowardice to that of Jon Lansman, Owen Jones and other capitulators to Zionism who are trying to coerce Corbyn to capitulate in the Labour Party. History will not look kindly on them over this.


    Andrew Coates

    August 22, 2018 at 5:01 pm

  6. two of your favorite people, George Galloway interviewing Finkelstein.


    August 24, 2018 at 7:13 am

  7. Blaming the Vampire.

    On Labour and anti-semitism. Eydl Kneydl

    Finkelstein is many things: a fine and detailed empiricist historian; a polemicist; a public intellectual fearless about speaking truth to power, not least when Zionists try to clothe the Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the language of piety to the memory of the Holocaust. But none of this explains why, in the context of present debates in British politics, he feels the need to fill his articles with all sorts of opinions that sail extremely close to the wind of being themselves anti-Semitic. His latest missive contains phrases like, “given the fraught history of anti-Semitism, on the one hand, and its crude manipulation by Jewish elites, on the other, an objective, dispassionate assessment could appear beyond reach”; ”Jews have too much power in Britain”; or “Whereas being Black or Muslim closes doors, being Jewish opens them. If whites occupying seats of power discriminate in favor of other whites, and men occupying seats of power discriminate in favor of other men, it would be surprising if largely successful Jews didn’t discriminate in favor of other Jews.” And this is to say nothing of his obsession with the existence of certain ultra-rich Jews.

    In any other context I would simply say that the author of these sentences is an anti-Semite. No doubt, Finkelstein thinks of himself as a sort of Jewish Zizek. The rhetorical strategy of including these sentences functions in the same way that you can find in talks given by Zizek, who makes endless highly graphic jokes about women being raped or Western sanctimony over children dying in the Med. Then comes the first punchline: that being offended by the joke or dark comment acts as a cover for not being properly offended by a horrific reality; then the second punchline, that the victim enjoys or benefits in some way their participation in disliking the comment; and then the third more serious tragic punchline, that because of the nature of that reality combined with this pleasure in objection, all sorts of people have become so defensive that they can’t participate in those discourses that are required to confront the horrors of the past. The Zizekian gambit is a sort of shock and awe to try to blast people out of an attitude of liberal guilt. But mostly the assumption that underlies this is, ironically, that all of these jokes and comments are made in a precisely the sort of “safe space” that Zizek and co would like to decry.

    Such a performance is strategically and rhetorically unhelpful. Not only are there no such safe spaces, but Finkelstein’s attitude that confronting scared people with the worst of their horrors is in no sense a humane way to try to get them to realise that their fears might be irrational. In fact, more generally, in the world in which we live, irrationality is founded on fear rather than fear being founded on irrationality. And yes, this back and forth motion is the very arena of politics, with those most safe perpetually playing on the fears of people who are already most fearful. But people like Finkelstein have ultimately little to say about the transformations of the world into one free from fear, beyond pressing on the need for meagre social democratic programmes, which barely touch the sides of the psychological binds of late modernity, and not least the depth and range of fears held by many Jews, rational or otherwise. The two options he presents – of declaring fears irrational and ignoring them, or smashing worries out of people by reproducing what they most fear – are equally bad and insensitive.

    Crucially, what has characterised much of the feet-in-mouths of the Corbynite left in the last weeks has been a willingness to repeat certain ideas with ever diminishing precision. When, for example, Pete Willsman talked about Jewish “Trump fanatics” it was clear to us who have been following closely that this was probably a reference to ex-Chair of the Board of Deputies Jonathan Arkush celebrating Trump’s victory, but to some Jews, without precision, I can see why it got some people worried (even if I didn’t share that concern myself). If, more legitimately, Willsman had said “these are people like Arkush, rightwing Zionists, who have no interest in the ends the Labour movement hopes to achieve, and who also have an interest in maintaining control over dissident Jews by terrifying those Jews who are already terrified into submission to community leaders” then actually I think people might, in one way or another, have been more understanding. Call me hopeful. To me it is a concern when people like Finkelstein say things about the “manipulation by Jewish elites” because as much as I at least partially understand what he is up to, I can see it being used as legitimation for that kind of language and thinking in a situation with significantly less poise. It is a very dangerous game. I do not want to live in a world where words like that become currency, whether it is on the left or the right.

    And it is entirely possible that using phrases like this would aid the right. Finkelstein’s words are particularly dangerous when there is more than one type of antisemitism around. While he is correct that claims of the extent and dangerousness of antisemitism on the soft left is overblown, not least by people playing politics from the right in order to undermine Corbyn, at the same time there is a resurgent far right in the UK and Europe. In the UK the far right is yet to show any serious antisemitic character in its new populist forms. But today, in a band that stretches through Europe, from Italy, to Austria, Hungary to Czechia to Poland, far right forces are coming to power, and in each case antisemitism has been crucial to their platforms. The British far right – the Tommy Robinson brigades and the Football Lads Alliances – has plenty of links with their European counterparts, and we shouldn’t become complacent about the possibility of a swing towards antisemitism amongst their ranks. In the case of the white nationalist far right, we know that when the T-Shirts with Israel flags are removed there are swastika tattoos beneath. Meanwhile, if Corbyn is toppled by this manufactured scandal, it will be seen by many as a victory of “the Establishment” and there are many ways in which people probably rightfully fear that this would be coded or understood antisemitically, as the victory of “the Jews” over a socialist project.

    One ultimately wonders if there’s an extent to which Finkelstein has been taken in by his own joy at provocation and incendiary phrases. He writes that “Although Engels the mill-owner generously subsidized his impecunious comrade, it didn’t prevent Marx from generalizing about capitalist “vampires.”” Perhaps his propensity to antisemitic phrases really is a problem more deeply rooted in his thought. Marx, in probably the most famous metaphor in Capital, does not talk about “capitalist vampires” at all, but describes capital itself as vampiric, with dead labour (and not merely the owners of dead labour) feasting on the blood of the living. Such an equivocation is not insignificant. Marx is clear enough on the status of the critique of “capitalists”: he writes, “to prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests.” Indeed questions of “personification” (of things, interests, capital) are central to all of late Marx’s thought and writing. Personifications in Marx appear as fixations and archetypes – they are almost always employed as a literary device or semblance to be undercut. Marx, as a writer, is not only the master of the most disgusting and terrifying of realist images of industrial life and death, but also of the thin metaphor that can let itself go as fixation. He likes to toy with personifications. But to read him as a mere critic of “capitalist vampires”, or to replace his complex thinking of class as Finkelstein does with lists of rich Jews, or Jews with power and privilege, is to engage in a socialism of fools that sees the world as a racket, and some blood-sucker to blame.

    One does not have to leap far to see why those holding this particularly non-Marxist view of the world have, in the last 150 years, found themselves peculiarly susceptible to adopting antisemitic views and images, like blood-sucking vampire squids associated with financiers with Jewish names like Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, or Soros in the conspiratorial consciousness, all refracted through the deeply buried antisemitic image of the blood libel. More than this, the entire mode of “blaming the vampire”, as Finkelstein does, is to misunderstand how exploitation is an objective process. The fact that both individual capitalists, and indeed the bourgeoisie as a class, turn out to be parasitic on the labour of the proletariat, is not so straightforwardly a matter of their volition or malign intent, but of their need to accumulate and remain competitive. They are not parasitic because they are bad people (although more often than not they are that too), or Jews, or part of some cabal; and nor would the replacement of Jewish capitalists with non-Jewish capitalists ever make the world a better place for working class people. The task of Marxists ought to be to destroy the system that produces class divisions, and keeps one class subservient to another. But to suggest that this critique ends with anger and hatred of the “vampire capitalist” is to take the sting out of everything Marx wrote. With such a thought one might as well reduce the whole of Das Kapital to the single sarcastic footnote to Chapter 25 in which “Our “prolétarian” is economically none other than the wage labourer, who produces and increases capital, and is thrown out on the streets, as soon as he is superfluous for the needs of aggrandisement of “Monsieur capital,”” God damn Monsieur capital, that dirty Jew, says the now nameless Lumpen. Finkelstein hopelessly reassures us that, from the gutter, he’s sure to stay on side and won’t be marching with the new far right.

    Finkelstein will almost certainly respond that whatever you say, Zionists are going to accuse you of antisemitism. He probably isn’t wrong. Because of this, he seems to think it doesn’t ultimately matter whether one is antisemitic or not. He doesn’t care about your everyday Jew who is scared even more by antisemitic rhetoric: they are just collateral damage to the performance. Yet what he fails to see is that Zionism genuinely benefits from being able to show that its opponents are antisemites. Zionists benefit when they don’t have to answer serious criticism because they can say “well he’s just an antisemite. Look, he’s talking about manipulations by Jewish elites and Jewish power. He only supports the Palestinians because he hates Jews.” For this reason, not only for the sake of freeing Jews from oppression, but also for the sake of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and a homeland, we need to be as clean from antisemitic thinking as is possible. We need to do better than Finkelstein thinks, and indeed phrases like those he used should be red lines that the left should not be crossing.


    Andrew Coates

    August 24, 2018 at 11:23 am

  8. As a commenter mentions above, you attribute quotes from the study of antisemitic sterotypes to Finkelstein. He is citing antisemitc stereotypes; he did not write “Jews have too much power in Britain.” A few paragraphs into Finkelstein’s piece,it became clear that you didn’t actually read the esay. I haven’t finished the Finkelstein piece–I am not a huge fan of his work, I am not defending him or his piece. Your blog post, however, is so sloppy and libelous, I can’t take anything you say seriously. You need to step up your game if you are making serious criticisms that people are antisemites.

    ann lee

    August 26, 2018 at 7:41 pm

  9. […] Andrew Coates: Verso Publishes Norman Finkelstein’s diatribe that “Jews have too much power in Britain.” […]

  10. WE can tell butters your bread


    November 23, 2018 at 11:01 am

  11. And who would that be, John 😉 Pray do tell 🙂

    Lur Pak

    November 23, 2018 at 11:20 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: