1:47
|
Dr Norman Finkelstein - Israel and Palestine - Past Present Future - Pt11 - 28Oct2010 - Toronto - English
Dr. Norman Finkelstein speaks on the present situation in Gaza, the attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla, the current stage of the peace process, and the prospect of another regional war.
This event...
Dr. Norman Finkelstein speaks on the present situation in Gaza, the attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla, the current stage of the peace process, and the prospect of another regional war.
This event was organized by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME).
More...
Description:
Dr. Norman Finkelstein speaks on the present situation in Gaza, the attack on the Gaza Aid Flotilla, the current stage of the peace process, and the prospect of another regional war.
This event was organized by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME).
52:23
|
the biggest secret -Norman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations-English
Norman Dodd was interviewed in 1982 by G. Edward Griffin regarding the time he spent as the head researcher for the Reece Committee.
This is a truly eye opening look into what the tax exempt...
Norman Dodd was interviewed in 1982 by G. Edward Griffin regarding the time he spent as the head researcher for the Reece Committee.
This is a truly eye opening look into what the tax exempt foundations are doing in the United States - their attempt to merge the Soviet System of Government with the USA.
More...
Description:
Norman Dodd was interviewed in 1982 by G. Edward Griffin regarding the time he spent as the head researcher for the Reece Committee.
This is a truly eye opening look into what the tax exempt foundations are doing in the United States - their attempt to merge the Soviet System of Government with the USA.
5:23
|
The Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein - English
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving...
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). … After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." … The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]” [Italicized in the original]
See the full text: “Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza.” Norman Finkelstein. Jan 19, 2009. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542
More...
Description:
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.1 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). … After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." … The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]” [Italicized in the original]
See the full text: “Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza.” Norman Finkelstein. Jan 19, 2009. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542
5:33
|
The Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein - English
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving...
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). … After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." … The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]” [Italicized in the original]
See the full text: “Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza.” Norman Finkelstein. Jan 19, 2009. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542
More...
Description:
Truth about the 1967 Arab-Israel War - P.2 - Norman Finkelstein. Delivered on April 7, 2009. On the circumstances surrounding the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Norman Finkelstein writes:
“Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank). … After Israel threatened and laid plans to attack Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared the Straits of Tiran closed to Israeli shipping, but Israel made almost no use of the Straits (apart from the passage of oil, of which Israel then had ample stocks) and, anyhow, Nasser did not in practice enforce the blockade, vessels passing freely through the Straits within days of his announcement. In addition, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that the Egyptians did not intend to attack Israel and that, in the improbable case that they did, alone or in concert with other Arab countries, Israel would -- in President Lyndon Johnson's words -- "whip the hell out of them." … The predicament for Israel was rather the growing perception in the Arab world, spurred by Nasser's radical nationalism and climaxing in his defiant gestures in May 1967, that it would no longer have to follow Israeli orders. Thus, Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon admonished those in the Israeli cabinet hesitant to launch a first-strike that Israel was losing its "deterrence capability...our main weapon -- the fear of us."[8] Israel unleashed the June 1967 war "to restore the credibility of Israeli deterrence" (Israeli strategic analyst Zeev Maoz).[9]” [Italicized in the original]
See the full text: “Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Offensive”: Behind the Bloodbath in Gaza.” Norman Finkelstein. Jan 19, 2009. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=2542
Israel-Palestine Conflict - QA P1 - Norman Finkelstein - English
In the clip at 4:45min Finkelstein-s quote from Sayyed Nasrallah seems a bit exaggerated. Nasrallah has not said that it-s only American war. I think Finkelstein is trying to emphasize that America...
In the clip at 4:45min Finkelstein-s quote from Sayyed Nasrallah seems a bit exaggerated. Nasrallah has not said that it-s only American war. I think Finkelstein is trying to emphasize that America is as involved in this conflict as is Israel. Both are pursuing their interests which happen to converge. Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by Solidarity for Palestine Human Rights -SPHR- and Colour Connected. -- Bear in mind that Norman Finkelstein supports a two-state solution. ON THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION SEE gazaawareness.blogspot.com
More...
Description:
In the clip at 4:45min Finkelstein-s quote from Sayyed Nasrallah seems a bit exaggerated. Nasrallah has not said that it-s only American war. I think Finkelstein is trying to emphasize that America is as involved in this conflict as is Israel. Both are pursuing their interests which happen to converge. Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by Solidarity for Palestine Human Rights -SPHR- and Colour Connected. -- Bear in mind that Norman Finkelstein supports a two-state solution. ON THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION SEE gazaawareness.blogspot.com
Israel-Palestine Conflict - QA P2 - Norman Finkelstein - English
Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict.- Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by...
Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict.- Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by Solidarity for Palestine Human Rights -SPHR- and Colour Connected. -- Please bear in mind that Norman Finkelstein supports a two-state solution - ON THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION SEE gazaawareness.blogspot.com --
More...
Description:
Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict.- Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by Solidarity for Palestine Human Rights -SPHR- and Colour Connected. -- Please bear in mind that Norman Finkelstein supports a two-state solution - ON THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION SEE gazaawareness.blogspot.com --
Israel-Palestine Conflict - QA P3 - Norman Finkelstein - English
Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict.- Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by...
Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict.- Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by Solidarity for Palestine Human Rights -SPHR- and Colour Connected. -- Bear in mind that Norman Finkelstein supports a two-state solution - ON THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION SEE gazaawareness.blogspot.com
More...
Description:
Topic- Resolving the Israel-Palestine Conflict.- Dr. Norman Finkelstein spoke on Jan. 21 2009 at the University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada. The event was sponsored by Solidarity for Palestine Human Rights -SPHR- and Colour Connected. -- Bear in mind that Norman Finkelstein supports a two-state solution - ON THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION SEE gazaawareness.blogspot.com
Wolf Blitzer is a Zionist - English
Norman Finkelstein silences Wolf Blitzer at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania
Norman Finkelstein silences Wolf Blitzer at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania
Finkelstein in Seattle - QA session - 08May08 - English
Question Answer part of the lecture delivered by Norman G Finkelstein. The topic of the lecture was Israel and Palestine Roots of Conflict Prospects for Peace. Location University of Washington
Question Answer part of the lecture delivered by Norman G Finkelstein. The topic of the lecture was Israel and Palestine Roots of Conflict Prospects for Peace. Location University of Washington
5:38
|
Al-Quds Conference 08 -Norman Finkelstein speech- MI USA- English
Al-Quds Conference 2008 - Norman Finkelstein speech - English. I don't necessarily agree with everything Professor said but I respect the scholarly opinion of everyone. It was a good session overall.
Al-Quds Conference 2008 - Norman Finkelstein speech - English. I don't necessarily agree with everything Professor said but I respect the scholarly opinion of everyone. It was a good session overall.
30:50
|
Al-Quds Conference 08 -QA Session Norman Finkelstein- MI USA - English
Al-Quds Conference 08 -QA Session Norman Finkelstein- MI USA - English. I don't necessarily agree with everything Professor said but I respect the scholarly opinion of everyone. It was a good...
Al-Quds Conference 08 -QA Session Norman Finkelstein- MI USA - English. I don't necessarily agree with everything Professor said but I respect the scholarly opinion of everyone. It was a good session overall.
More...
Description:
Al-Quds Conference 08 -QA Session Norman Finkelstein- MI USA - English. I don't necessarily agree with everything Professor said but I respect the scholarly opinion of everyone. It was a good session overall.
7:32
|
9:10
|
25:47
|
***GOOD*** CrossTalk on Holocaust - Murder Revenues - 27Jan2010 - English
Peter Lavelle asks his guests what the legacy of the Holocaust is today. Is its memory being abused? Does Israel use Holocaust as a blackmail weapon? Norman Finkelstein and Israel W. Charny discuss...
Peter Lavelle asks his guests what the legacy of the Holocaust is today. Is its memory being abused? Does Israel use Holocaust as a blackmail weapon? Norman Finkelstein and Israel W. Charny discuss the issue in a heated debate.
More...
Description:
Peter Lavelle asks his guests what the legacy of the Holocaust is today. Is its memory being abused? Does Israel use Holocaust as a blackmail weapon? Norman Finkelstein and Israel W. Charny discuss the issue in a heated debate.
17:28
|
[MUST WATCH] Norman Finkelstein Responds to Clinton, Netanyahu AIPAC Comments - 23Mar10 - English
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told attendees at the AIPAC conference on Monday that the US commitment to Israel is �rock-solid,� but Clinton did criticize Israel for continuing...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told attendees at the AIPAC conference on Monday that the US commitment to Israel is �rock-solid,� but Clinton did criticize Israel for continuing to build settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. In a defiant speech hours after Clinton�s address, Netanyahu rejected US criticism and vowed to continue building settlements.
More...
Description:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told attendees at the AIPAC conference on Monday that the US commitment to Israel is �rock-solid,� but Clinton did criticize Israel for continuing to build settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. In a defiant speech hours after Clinton�s address, Netanyahu rejected US criticism and vowed to continue building settlements.
22:25
|
4:18
|
This Time We Went Too Far - English
A NEW BOOK FROM NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN.
For the Palestinians who live in the narrow coastal strip of Gaza, the December 2008 Israeli invasion was a nightmare of unimaginable proportions: in the...
A NEW BOOK FROM NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN.
For the Palestinians who live in the narrow coastal strip of Gaza, the December 2008 Israeli invasion was a nightmare of unimaginable proportions: in the 22-day-long action 1,400 Gazans were killed, several hundred on the first day alone. More than 6,000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged. The cost of the destruction and disruption of economic life, in one of the world’s poorest areas, is estimated at more than $3 billion.
More...
Description:
A NEW BOOK FROM NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN.
For the Palestinians who live in the narrow coastal strip of Gaza, the December 2008 Israeli invasion was a nightmare of unimaginable proportions: in the 22-day-long action 1,400 Gazans were killed, several hundred on the first day alone. More than 6,000 homes were destroyed or badly damaged. The cost of the destruction and disruption of economic life, in one of the world’s poorest areas, is estimated at more than $3 billion.
1:57
|
German activist gives his account of the attack on Flotilla, Norman Paech - 02 June 2010 - English
German pro-Palestinian activist Norman Paech has said he only saw wooden sticks being brandished as Israeli commandos abseiled on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
Eyewitness accounts from ships...
German pro-Palestinian activist Norman Paech has said he only saw wooden sticks being brandished as Israeli commandos abseiled on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
Eyewitness accounts from ships raided by Israeli commandos have cast doubt on Israel's version of events that led to the deaths of at least 10 people.
Israel says its soldiers were attacked with "knives, clubs and other weapons" More..and opened fire in self defence.
Update:
"European Campaign to End Siege on Gaza", announced that it already obtain the funding of the first three ships of the new fleet which will go to the Gaza Strip, which will be named "fleet of Freedom 2", related to the name of the First Fleet, who was exposed to piracy and a bloody massacre by Israel against the peace activists on board.
More...
Description:
German pro-Palestinian activist Norman Paech has said he only saw wooden sticks being brandished as Israeli commandos abseiled on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
Eyewitness accounts from ships raided by Israeli commandos have cast doubt on Israel's version of events that led to the deaths of at least 10 people.
Israel says its soldiers were attacked with "knives, clubs and other weapons" More..and opened fire in self defence.
Update:
"European Campaign to End Siege on Gaza", announced that it already obtain the funding of the first three ships of the new fleet which will go to the Gaza Strip, which will be named "fleet of Freedom 2", related to the name of the First Fleet, who was exposed to piracy and a bloody massacre by Israel against the peace activists on board.
5:24
|
Norman Finkelstein speaks on the Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla - English
Contributed by Abuzari. Since its pre-emptive war of 1967, Israel had maintained an aura of "invincibility" and "legitimacy". The first got bitterly crushed in the Summer of...
Contributed by Abuzari. Since its pre-emptive war of 1967, Israel had maintained an aura of "invincibility" and "legitimacy". The first got bitterly crushed in the Summer of 2006 and later in the 2008-9 aggression on Gaza (where Israel failed to neutralize the resistance). As for legitimacy, for Israel it matters most of all in the US. Israel however paid a high price for its inhumane massacres in Lebanon and Gaza because it failed to achieve a clear and tangible victory in these military campaigns (the "birth pangs" of Condi Rice did not yield the desired outcomes which could have been used as justification for Israeli atrocities.) Especially during the Gaza massacre, Israel's image was severely damaged by graphic images and information that got disseminated over internet and through hundreds of protest gatherings in North America and Europe. Israel still had a tighter control on information flow in the corporate media. Due to all of these developments, the entity of Israel is in a deep crisis right now, struggling to survive with whatever means it can, and it may resort to unrealistic steps, including another military warfare. However, what's becoming clearer with every passing day is that it probably won't take too long before this racist entity is finally dismantled like the Apartheid South Africa. See http://gazaawareness.blogspot.com/
More...
Description:
Contributed by Abuzari. Since its pre-emptive war of 1967, Israel had maintained an aura of "invincibility" and "legitimacy". The first got bitterly crushed in the Summer of 2006 and later in the 2008-9 aggression on Gaza (where Israel failed to neutralize the resistance). As for legitimacy, for Israel it matters most of all in the US. Israel however paid a high price for its inhumane massacres in Lebanon and Gaza because it failed to achieve a clear and tangible victory in these military campaigns (the "birth pangs" of Condi Rice did not yield the desired outcomes which could have been used as justification for Israeli atrocities.) Especially during the Gaza massacre, Israel's image was severely damaged by graphic images and information that got disseminated over internet and through hundreds of protest gatherings in North America and Europe. Israel still had a tighter control on information flow in the corporate media. Due to all of these developments, the entity of Israel is in a deep crisis right now, struggling to survive with whatever means it can, and it may resort to unrealistic steps, including another military warfare. However, what's becoming clearer with every passing day is that it probably won't take too long before this racist entity is finally dismantled like the Apartheid South Africa. See http://gazaawareness.blogspot.com/
57:22
|
4:01
|
2:47
|
5:14
|
On Gandhi and Non-Violence - Norman Finkelstein - English
University of Alberta on January 22 2009. Chanting "peace, peace, non-violence, non-violence" is sometimes used to de-legitimize armed resistance as irrational and unjustifiably violent....
University of Alberta on January 22 2009. Chanting "peace, peace, non-violence, non-violence" is sometimes used to de-legitimize armed resistance as irrational and unjustifiably violent. It takes attention away from the whole history of Israeli atrocities by focusing too much on - and even blaming at times - the victims for responding with violence in defense. Same goes for the case of Lebanon. The "peace, peace" slogans at times neglect the fact that the international community has failed to deliver any positive results in the last sixty years.
I think the resistance in Palestine as well as Lebanon would also prefer non-violence over violence. The difference really is on the question of 'efficacy' of violent vs. non-violent tactics. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was largely non-violent. Even scholars of non-violent movements acknowledge that fact.
The distinction between principle and tactic is important here. We would be arguing on a very different level if some peace activist believes in non-violence as a principle - that militant resistance is always wrong. (Even Gandhi made exceptions to that principle!)
But if it is a matter of tactic with non-violence as the preferred method, then the implication is that if legit resistance-s choose militant tactics in Palestine or Lebanon, their actions should not be looked down upon by peace activists. Also since it is a matter of tactic (not principle), tomorrow the resistance-s may very well decide to become non-violent, if they feel that time has changed and the international community is more responsive to non-violent tactics and can actually do something to address their grievances.
More...
Description:
University of Alberta on January 22 2009. Chanting "peace, peace, non-violence, non-violence" is sometimes used to de-legitimize armed resistance as irrational and unjustifiably violent. It takes attention away from the whole history of Israeli atrocities by focusing too much on - and even blaming at times - the victims for responding with violence in defense. Same goes for the case of Lebanon. The "peace, peace" slogans at times neglect the fact that the international community has failed to deliver any positive results in the last sixty years.
I think the resistance in Palestine as well as Lebanon would also prefer non-violence over violence. The difference really is on the question of 'efficacy' of violent vs. non-violent tactics. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was largely non-violent. Even scholars of non-violent movements acknowledge that fact.
The distinction between principle and tactic is important here. We would be arguing on a very different level if some peace activist believes in non-violence as a principle - that militant resistance is always wrong. (Even Gandhi made exceptions to that principle!)
But if it is a matter of tactic with non-violence as the preferred method, then the implication is that if legit resistance-s choose militant tactics in Palestine or Lebanon, their actions should not be looked down upon by peace activists. Also since it is a matter of tactic (not principle), tomorrow the resistance-s may very well decide to become non-violent, if they feel that time has changed and the international community is more responsive to non-violent tactics and can actually do something to address their grievances.
6:04
|