While our knowledge and beliefs are contrived on the basis of what we are taught and what we read, it is interesting how the academia today is becoming more receptive to ideas that are challenging the dogma and idiosyncrasies surrounding our learning. Although a lot of scholars have been ex-communicated for being very outspoken, the fact that their work has been published and will be read and analyzed will suffice. A pertinent question to fit these circumstances is that is it that why do we all ultimately shy away from the truth? Moreover, are controversies really controversies, or are they labeled controversies because perhaps they are the truth?
The case of Norman Finkelstein and many others has set a precedent for all those who want to speak the truth, to be careful in their choice of works and ideas. In spite of being in a country which prides itself as being the emblem of democracy, it is disconcerting to see the degree of censorship that it endorses. Censorship is so intense in the academia as well that it has been impossible for Norman Finkelstein's book "The Holocaust Industry" to be embraced as the potential explanation of the Arab-Israel crisis. He states, very aptly, that the actions of the Israelis and the Zionists in particular is the exact replica of what the Nazis did to the Jews and he plays on the irony of the situation. What upsets most Jews is that the extent to which Norman Finkelstein has gone to badmouth the Israelis and Jews is a consequence of being a "self-hating Jew". Interestingly, what Finkelstein says to rebuke these accusations is that his father was a Jewish survivor at Alschwitz (the most brutal Nazi concentration camp) and his mother was a part of the uprising, therefore making him a Jewish sympathizer but not an Israeli one. His ethnicity and orientation therefore does not oblige him to sympathize with those who have been attempting to usurp the land and property of the Palestinians peacefully residing there. Looking at it strictly from an IR perspective, it is interesting to note how the Jewish question serves to be an anomaly in the creation of nation states. Why is it that the Jews have been able to appeal to the UN and the world in general but the Armenians have not?
Relating this to International Relations, it is important to notice how power and history are interrelated: (i) on one hand we have those powerful nations who determine the way history is written (the Colonialists) (ii) on the other hand we have those to whom history has not favored which gives them the reason and justification to be given power (Jews). However, what is still an enigma is why has the Armenian genocide that was committed by the Turks not been given as much publicity and coverage as the Jewish genocide? Can the reasons for this be attributed to geography, history, or to the strength of Zionism? Moreover, it is interesting to see how Armenian Zionism has not been given a similar platform to thrive as the Jewish Zionism.
The case of Norman Finkelstein and many others has set a precedent for all those who want to speak the truth, to be careful in their choice of works and ideas. In spite of being in a country which prides itself as being the emblem of democracy, it is disconcerting to see the degree of censorship that it endorses. Censorship is so intense in the academia as well that it has been impossible for Norman Finkelstein's book "The Holocaust Industry" to be embraced as the potential explanation of the Arab-Israel crisis. He states, very aptly, that the actions of the Israelis and the Zionists in particular is the exact replica of what the Nazis did to the Jews and he plays on the irony of the situation. What upsets most Jews is that the extent to which Norman Finkelstein has gone to badmouth the Israelis and Jews is a consequence of being a "self-hating Jew". Interestingly, what Finkelstein says to rebuke these accusations is that his father was a Jewish survivor at Alschwitz (the most brutal Nazi concentration camp) and his mother was a part of the uprising, therefore making him a Jewish sympathizer but not an Israeli one. His ethnicity and orientation therefore does not oblige him to sympathize with those who have been attempting to usurp the land and property of the Palestinians peacefully residing there. Looking at it strictly from an IR perspective, it is interesting to note how the Jewish question serves to be an anomaly in the creation of nation states. Why is it that the Jews have been able to appeal to the UN and the world in general but the Armenians have not?
Relating this to International Relations, it is important to notice how power and history are interrelated: (i) on one hand we have those powerful nations who determine the way history is written (the Colonialists) (ii) on the other hand we have those to whom history has not favored which gives them the reason and justification to be given power (Jews). However, what is still an enigma is why has the Armenian genocide that was committed by the Turks not been given as much publicity and coverage as the Jewish genocide? Can the reasons for this be attributed to geography, history, or to the strength of Zionism? Moreover, it is interesting to see how Armenian Zionism has not been given a similar platform to thrive as the Jewish Zionism.
There is always an element of truth in controversies. We as people shy away from controversy. And yet, many argue that all life is political.
ReplyDeleteI'm really glad you highlighted the case of Norman Finkelstein. He is a man who fights the good fight, regardless of the cost. He is gifted intellectually and speaks truth to power. Because of his writings and views, he has lost the ability to find gainful employment. But he continues to struggle and advocate for his version of the truth, which is something that is quite noble.
I like that you bring up the Armenian case for statehood, but this could be radically expanded to many other oppressed minorities. What about the Chechens, Kurds, Kashmiris, Palestinians, etc. etc.?
In terms of genocide, why stop with the Armenian one? Have you even heard of the first, modern genocide? I'm referring of course to the Herero and Namaqua genocide committed by Germany between 1904 and 1907 in Africa. But why even look that far back? What about what the UN has pointed as the strong likelihood that ISIS has/is trying to commit genocide against the Yazidi's in Iraq?
History is political. What we remember is political. And what we think about is political. Good post and there is a lot of info worth thinking about.