Annonce

Réduire
Aucune annonce.

Norman G. Finkelstein et l'industrie de l'holocauste

Réduire
X
 
  • Filtre
  • Heure
  • Afficher
Tout nettoyer
nouveaux messages

  • Norman G. Finkelstein et l'industrie de l'holocauste

    Norman Gary Finkelstein (né le 8 décembre 1953 à New York) est un politologue américain. Études à Binghamton University à New York, puis à l’École pratique des hautes études à Paris, doctorat en science politique de l’Université de Princeton. Il a été successivement enseignant à Brooklyn College, au Hunter College, à l'Université de New York puis à Université DePaul jusqu'en septembre 2007.
    Il est connu pour son essai L'Industrie de l'Holocauste publié en 2000.


    Fils de juifs survivants du ghetto de Varsovie, il se fait connaître par ses écrits sur le conflit israélo-palestinien et par les polémiques suscitées par sa critique de ce qu'il a appelé « l'Industrie de l'Holocauste », terme par lequel il désigne les organisations et les personnalités juives (notamment le Congrès juif mondial ou Elie Wiesel) qui selon lui instrumentaliseraient la Shoah dans un but politique (soutenir la politique israélienne) ou mercantile (obtenir des réparations financières de la part de l'Allemagne et de la Suisse).
    Sa thèse de doctorat concerne une critique méticuleuse et sévère du best seller publié en 1984, From Time Immemorial, de l'auteure américaine Joan Peters. Ce livre faisait écho au mythe du « désert » dans lequel les premiers colons israéliens se seraient installés.
    Il est intervenu dans de nombreuses émissions télévisées ou radiodiffusées, dans le monde, pour débattre du conflit Israël/Palestine.
    En 2001, il est chargé d'enseignement à l'Université DePaul de Chicago.
    En 2005, il publie Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History dans lequel il critique le livre The Case for Israel du professeur de droit de Harvard, Alan Dershowitz, le qualifiant de canular universitaire. Il y dénonce des généralisations hâtives et des accusations d'antisémitisme proférées par certaines organisations juives à l'encontre des opposants à la politique de l'État d'Israël. Alan Dershowitz a menacé l'éditeur de Beyond Chutzpah de poursuites judiciaires pour diffamation. Il a également publiquement demandé à l'Université DePaul de refuser la nomination de Finkelstein comme professeur.
    Via une lettre de son président Dennis Holtschneider, le 8 juin 2007, l'Université DePaul de Chicago confirme le rejet de sa candidature comme professeur titulaire en science politique6. La commission d'attribution a réprouvé le soutien du conseil des facultés7. L'avocate Lynne Bernabei le défendra contre cette décision.
    Le 5 septembre 2007 l'université lui a interdit d'enseigner et a exigé qu'il libère son bureau8. Il démissionne en septembre 2007 après que les deux parties ont signé un accord privé. Le lendemain, l'université a indiqué qu'il était un « scientifique prolifique et un professeur exceptionnel ». Son adversaire, le professeur de droit de Harvard Alan Dershowitz, s'est dit peu impressionné et a déclaré que « dire que Finkelstein est un scientifique est un mensonge, il fait de la propagande ». Pour sa part, Finkelstein maintient qu'il s'est vu refuser le poste de professeur à cause de pressions extérieures à l'université.
    Lors d'une interview avec le journaliste George McLeod publiée le 16 septembre 2007, il compare son cas de non-nomination à celui de Juan Cole de l'Université Yale, de Joseph A. Massad, de Nadi Abu el-Haj et de Rashid Khalidi. Dans cette interview, il affirme que le lobby israélien est plus puissant que d'autres lobbies, tels ceux de Cuba ou de la Chine.
    Suite à la publication en novembre 2006 du livre Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid de l'ancien président américain Jimmy Carter, il publie « Peace, Not Apartheid », une critique détaillée et plutôt positive de ce livre (tout en relevant plusieurs erreurs historiques). Alors que le livre de Jimmy Carter devient un best-seller, de nombreuses critiques de la part de partisans de la politique israélienne s'élèvent. Finkelstein publie alors une critique des critiques du livre de Jimmy Carter.
    Il est membre du comité de parrainage du Tribunal Russell sur la Palestine dont les travaux ont commencé le 4 mars 2009.

    source : Wikipedia
    There's nothing wrong with being shallow as long as you're insightful about it.

  • #2
    CAPITALIZING THE HOLOCAUST


    In a memorable exchange some years back, Gore Vidal accused Norman Podhoretz, then-editor of the
    American Jewish Committee publication Commentary, of being un-American.1 The evidence was that
    Podhoretz attached less importance to the Civil War - "the great single tragic event that continues to
    give resonance to our Republic" - than to Jewish concerns. Yet Podhoretz was perhaps more American
    than his accuser. For by then it was the "War Against the Jews," not the "War Between the States,"
    that figured as more central to American cultural life. Most college professors can testify that
    compared to the Civil War many more undergraduates are able to place the Nazi holocaust in the right
    century and generally cite the number killed. In fact, the Nazi holocaust is just about the only
    historical reference that resonates in a university classroom today. Polls show that many more
    Americans can identify The Holocaust than Pearl Harbor or the atomic bombing of Japan.

    Until fairly recently, however, the Nazi holocaust barely figured in American life. Between the end of
    World War II and the late 1960s, only a handful of books and films touched on the subject. There was
    only one university course offering in the United States on the topic.2 When Hannah Arendt published
    Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1963, she could draw on only two scholarly studies in the English language
    -Gerald Reitlinger's The Final Solution and Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews.3
    Hilberg's masterpiece itself just managed to see the light of day. His thesis advisor at Columbia
    University, the German-Jewish social theorist Franz Neumann, strongly discouraged him from writing
    on the topic ('it's your funeral»), and no university or mainstream publisher would touch the completed
    manuscript. When it was finally published, The Destruction of the European Jews received only a
    few, mostly critical, notices.4

    Not only Americans in general but also American Jews, including Jewish intellectuals, paid the Nazi
    holocaust little heed. In an authoritative 1957 survey, sociologist Nathan Glazer reported that the Nazi
    Final Solution (as well as Israel) «had remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry.»
    In a 1961 Commentary symposium on "Jewishness and the Younger Intellectuals," only two of
    thirty-one contributors stressed its impact. Likewise, a 1961 roundtable convened by the journal
    Judaism of twenty-one observant American Jews on "My Jewish Affirmation» almost completely
    ignored the subject.5 No monuments or tributes marked the Nazi holocaust in the United States. To
    the contrary, major Jewish organizations opposed such memorialization. The question is, Why?

    The standard explanation is that Jews were traumatized by the Nazi holocaust and therefore repressed
    the memory of it. In fact, there is no evidence to support this conclusion. No doubt some survivors did
    not then or, for that matter, in later years want to speak about what had happened. Many others,
    however, very much wanted to speak and, once the occasion availed itself, wouldn't stop speaking.6
    The problem was that Americans didn't want to listen.
    There's nothing wrong with being shallow as long as you're insightful about it.

    Commentaire


    • #3
      The real reason for public silence on the Nazi extermination was the conformist policies of the
      American Jewish leadership and the political climate of postwar America. In both domestic and
      international affairs American Jewish elites7 hewed closely to official US policy. Doing so in effect
      facilitated the traditional goals of assimilation and access to power. With the inception of the Cold
      War, mainstream Jewish organizations jumped into the fray. American Jewish elites "forgot» the Nazi
      holocaust because Germany — West Germany by 1949 — became a crucial postwar American ally in
      the US confrontation with the Soviet Union. Dredging up the past served no useful purpose; in fact it
      complicated matters.

      With minor reservations (soon discarded), major American Jewish organizations quickly fell into line
      with US support for a rearmed and barely de-Nazified Germany. The American Jewish Committee
      (AJC), fearful that "any organized opposition of American Jews against the new foreign policy and
      strategic approach could isolate them in the eyes of the non-Jewish majority and endanger their
      postwar achievements on the domestic scene," was the first to preach the virtues of realignment. The
      pro-Zionist World Jewish Congress (WJC) and its American affiliate dropped opposition after signing
      compensation agreements with Germany in the early 1 950s, while the Anti-Defamation League
      (ADL) was the first major Jewish organization to send an official delegation to Germany, in 1954.
      Together these organizations collaborated with the Bonn government to contain the "anti-German
      wave" of Jewish popular sentiment.8

      The Final Solution was a taboo topic of American Jewish elites for yet another reason. Leftist Jews,
      who were opposed to the Cold War alignment with Germany against the Soviet Union, would not stop
      harping on it. Remembrance of the Nazi holocaust was tagged as a Communist cause. Strapped with
      the stereotype that conflated Jews with the Left — in fact, Jews did account for a third of the vote for
      progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace in 1948 — American Jewish elites did not shrink
      from sacrificing fellow Jews on the altar of anti-Communism. Offering their files on alleged Jewish

      subversives to government agencies, the AJC and the ADL actively collaborated in the McCarthy-era
      witch-hunt. The AJC endorsed the death penalty for the Rosenbergs, while its monthly publication,
      Commentary, editorialized that they weren't really Jews.

      Fearful of association with the political Left abroad and at home, mainstream Jewish organizations
      opposed cooperation with anti-Nazi German social-democrats as well as boycotts of German
      manufactures and public demonstrations against ex-Nazis touring the United States. On the other
      hand, prominent visiting German dissidents like Protestant pastor Martin Niemöller, who had spent
      eight years in Nazi concentration camps and was now against the anti-Communist crusade, suffered
      the obloquy of American Jewish leaders. Anxious to boost their anti-Communist credentials, Jewish
      elites even enlisted in, and financially sustained, right-wing extremist organizations like the
      All-American Conference to Combat Communism and turned a blind eye as veterans of the Nazi SS
      entered the country.9

      Ever anxious to ingratiate themselves with US ruling elites and dissociate themselves from the Jewish
      Left, organized American Jewry did invoke the Nazi holocaust in one special context: to denounce the
      USSR. "Soviet [anti-Jewish] policy opens up opportunities which must not be overlooked,» an
      internal AJC memorandum quoted by Novick gleefully noted, "to reinforce certain aspects of AJC
      domestic program." Typically, that meant bracketing the Nazi Final Solution with Russian
      anti-Semitism. "Stalin will succeed where Hitler failed," Commentary direly predicted. «He will
      finally wipe out the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe.... The parallel with the policy of Nazi
      extermination is almost complete.» Major American Jewish organizations even denounced the 1956
      Soviet invasion of Hungary as "only the first station on the way to a Russian Auschwitz.10
      There's nothing wrong with being shallow as long as you're insightful about it.

      Commentaire


      • #4
        Everything changed with the June 1967 Arab Israeli war. By virtually all accounts, it was only after
        this conflict that The Holocaust became a fixture in American Jewish life.11 The standard explanation
        of this transformation is that Israel's extreme isolation and vulnerability during the June war revived
        memories of the Nazi extermination. In fact, this analysis misrepresents both the reality of Mideast
        power relations at the time and the nature of the evolving relationship between American Jewish elites
        and Israel.

        Just as mainstream American Jewish organizations downplayed the Nazi holocaust in the years after
        World War II to conform to the US government's Cold War priorities, so their attitude to Israel kept in
        step with US policy. From early on, American Jewish elites harbored profound misgivings about a
        Jewish state. Uppermost was their fear that it would lend credence to the "dual loyalty" charge. As the
        Cold War intensified, these worries multiplied. Already before the founding of Israel, American
        Jewish leaders voiced concern that its largely Eastern European, left-wing leadership would join the
        Soviet camp. Although they eventually embraced the Zionist-led campaign for statehood, American
        Jewish organizations closely monitored and adjusted to signals from Washington. Indeed, the AJC
        supported Israel's founding mainly out of fear that a domestic backlash against Jews might ensue if the
        Jewish DPs in Europe were not quickly settled.12 Although Israel aligned with the West soon after
        the state was formed, many Israelis in and out of government retained strong affection for the Soviet
        Union; predictably, American Jewish leaders kept Israel at arm's length.

        From its founding in 1948 through the June 1967 war, Israel did not figure centrally in American
        strategic planning. As the Palestinian Jewish leadership prepared to declare statehood, President
        Truman waffled, weighing domestic considerations (the Jewish vote) against State Department alarm
        (support for a Jewish state would alienate the Arab world). To secure US interests in the Middle East,
        the Eisenhower Administration balanced support for Israel and for Arab nations, favoring, however,
        the Arabs.

        Intermittent Israeli clashes with the United States over policy issues culminated in the Suez crisis of
        1956, when Israel colluded with Britain and France to attack Egypt's nationalist leader, Gamal Abdel
        Nasser. Although Israel's lightning victory and seizure of the Sinai Peninsula drew general attention to
        its strategic potential, the United States still counted it as only one among several regional assets.
        Accordingly, President Eisenhower forced Israel's full, virtually unconditional withdrawal from the
        Sinai. During the crisis, American Jewish leaders did briefly back Israeli efforts to wrest American
        concessions, but ultimately, as Arthur Hertzberg recalls, they "preferred to counsel Israel to heed
        [Eisenhower] rather than oppose the wishes of the leader of the United States."13

        Except as an occasional object of charity, Israel practically dropped from sight in American Jewish
        life soon after the founding of the state. In fact, Israel was not important to American Jews. In his
        1957 survey, Nathan Glazer reported that Israel "had remarkably slight effects on the inner life of
        American Jewry."14 Membership in the Zionist Organization of America dropped from the hundreds
        of thousands in 1948 to the tens of thousands in the 1960s. Only 1 in 20 American Jews cared to visit
        Israel before June 1967. In his 1956 reelection, which occurred immediately after he forced Israel's
        humiliating withdrawal from the Sinai, the already considerable Jewish support for Eisenhower
        increased. In the early 1960s, Israel even faced a drubbing for the Eichmann kidnapping from sections
        of elite Jewish opinion like Joseph Proskauer, past president of the AJC, Harvard historian Oscar
        Handlin and the Jewish-owned Washington Post. the kidnapping of Eichmann," Erich Fromm opined,
        "is an act of lawlessness of exactly the type of which the Nazis themselves . . . have been guilty."15

        Across the political spectrum, American Jewish intellectuals proved especially indifferent to Israel's
        fate. Detailed studies of the left-liberal New York Jewish intellectual scene through the 1960s barely
        mention Israel.16 Just before the June war, the AJC sponsored a symposium on "Jewish Identity Here
        and Now." Only three of the thirty-one "best minds in the Jewish community" even alluded to Israel;
        two of them did so only to dismiss its relevance.17 Telling irony: just about the only two public
        Jewish intellectuals who had forged a bond with Israel before June 1967 were Hannah Arendt and
        Noam Chomsky.18

        Then came the June war. Impressed by Israel's overwhelming display of force, the United States
        moved to incorporate it as a strategic asset. (Already before the June war the United States had
        cautiously tilted toward Israel as the Egyptian and Syrian regimes charted an increasingly independent
        course in the mid-1960s.) Military and economic assistance began to pour in as Israel turned into a
        proxy for US power in the Middle East.
        There's nothing wrong with being shallow as long as you're insightful about it.

        Commentaire

        Chargement...
        X