i've heard finkelstein in person twice, and as you can see here, he is quite methodical about building his argument. for this reason, it's long, but well-worth listening to. he's quite a combination of moral force and intellect.

I second Jp's recommendation. In fact I recently discovered this, and hadshared it on my FB wall, so I'm happy to see it here on Kasama. Although its a full lecture (given at Maastricht Universit), it has an interesting analysis of Gandhi, which is different than the popular conception of the pacifist.

Another point he makes at the ends regarding who people self identify and about ideologies, is great and a much needed corrective for the ICM of today: "There's room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory." By Everyone it does not mean literally everyone, but people who have different ideologies. Its from a poem that was quoted often by the late Edward Said. This view is a refreshing antidote to the dogmatic, sectarian and mechanical mode of thinking, which does not see the world as big enough for other wonderful thinkers who do not call themselves or adhere to a communist ideology, and may never do so--a view that then rejects them, as the principle contradiction because their politics don't neatly match up to what we think. We have to get past that mindset. As the quote says, no matter, they will be welcome and there is room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory.

Almost Nonviolence

If a man fights with his sword single-handed against a horde of dacoits armed to the teeth, I should say he is fighting almost non-violently. Haven’t I said to our women that, if in defence of their honour they used their nails and teeth and even a dagger, I should regard their conduct nonviolent? She does know the distinction between himsa and ahimsa. She acts spontaneously.

Supposing a mouse in fighting a cat tried to resist the cat with his sharp teeth, would you call that mouse violent? In the same way, for the Poles to stand valiantly against the German hordes vastly superior in numbers, military equipment and strength, was almost non-violence. I should not mind repeating that statement over and over again. You must give its full value to the word ‘almost’.

Mahatma Gandhi, “Discussion with B.G. Kher and others” (August 15, 1940), Collected Works, Vol 79, p. 122.

Courtesy : Radical Notes

great talk, and much to agree with, particularly with sectarianism, but what is finkelstein's line? 2 state solution, UN, human rights, etc. essentially a progressive bourgeois line. it is not a revolutionary line, and neither was Gandhi's, but it is progressive. btw Finkelstein talks about his past as a maoist, and how he now sees this as a mistake because it was violent. surely people on this site cannot agree with this!

Here is another good video, that elaborates on some of the issues he discusses above, in this Q&A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkOrc1zySmQ