![]() ![]() Goldhagen accused her of having defamed him in her Historical Journal article, then assembled a team of lawyers in Britain to demand a retraction and an apology. But Finkelstein insisted that, whatever the reviewers said, the book had been a megapublishing event, and for one simple reason: It was useful to Zionist Jews who believe that all non-Jews are potential Jew killers and that Jews, therefore, are justified in using whatever means are necessary to defend themselves.įinkelstein’s co-author took even worse flak. After all, Goldhagen’s book wasn’t a hoax. By 1986, though, Zionist scholars having published articles that bolstered Finkelstein’s case, his version was the conventional wisdom.įinkelstein told me Goldhagen was just another Peters. But when Finkelstein showed that Peters had manipulated Ottoman demographic records to make her case, the book’s supporters attacked him as an anti-Zionist. Peters’ book was lavishly praised by American Jewish organizations, novelists, and scholars. Finkelstein’s reputation rests on his refutation of Joan Peters’$2 1984 From Time Immemorial, a book purporting to prove Palestinian Arabs had no claims on the land that is now Israel, having been drawn to it only by reports that Jews were making the desert bloom. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |