Website policy

We provide links to articles we think will be of interest to our supporters. We are sympathetic to much of the content of what we post, but not to everything. The fact that something has been linked to here does not necessarily mean that we endorse the views expressed in it.


BSST is the leading charity focusing on small-scale grass roots cross community, anti poverty and humanitarian projects in Israel/Palestine

JfJfP comments


06 May: Tair Kaminer starts her fifth spell in gaol. Send messages of support via Reuven Kaminer

04 May: Against the resort to denigration of Israel’s critics


23 Dec: JfJfP policy statement on BDS

14 Nov: Letter to the Guardian about the Board of Deputies

11 Nov: UK ban on visiting Palestinian mental health workers

20 Oct: letter in the Guardian

13 Sep: Rosh Hashanah greetings

21 Aug: JfJfP on Jeremy Corbyn

29 July: Letter to Evening Standard about its shoddy reporting

24 April: Letter to FIFA about Israeli football

15 April: Letter re Ed Miliband and Israel

11 Jan: Letter to the Guardian in response to Jonathan Freedland on Charlie Hebdo


15 Dec: Chanukah: Celebrating the miracle of holy oil not military power

1 Dec: Executive statement on bill to make Israel the nation state of the Jewish people

25 Nov: Submission to All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism

7 Sept: JfJfP Executive statement on Antisemitism

3 Aug: Urgent disclaimer

19 June Statement on the three kidnapped teenagers

25 April: Exec statement on Yarmouk

28 Mar: EJJP letter in support of Dutch pension fund PGGM's decision to divest from Israeli banks

24 Jan: Support for Riba resolution

16 Jan: EJJP lobbies EU in support of the EU Commission Guidelines, Aug 2013–Jan 2014


29 November: JfJfP, with many others, signs a "UK must protest at Bedouin expulsion" letter

November: Press release, letter to the Times and advert in the Independent on the Prawer Plan

September: Briefing note and leaflet on the Prawer Plan

September: JfJfP/EJJP on the EU guidelines with regard to Israel

14th June: JfJfP joins other organisations in protest to BBC

2nd June: A light unto nations? - a leaflet for distribution at the "Closer to Israel" rally in London

24 Jan: Letter re the 1923 San Remo convention

18 Jan: In Support of Bab al-Shams

17 Jan: Letter to Camden New Journal about Veolia

11 Jan: JfJfP supports public letter to President Obama

Comments in 2012 and 2011



Rights and wrongs of supporting Palestinians

For more background see  Fall-out with Finkelstein on Palestinian political strategy and  Why Finkelstein is wrong: rights for Catholics did not destroy N. Ireland

Norman Finkelstein on BDS, Palestinian rights, and the ‘destruction of Israel’

IOA Editor

As regular readers already know, the IOA does not advocate a specific solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (e.g., one-state vs. two-state) or endorses a particular group or viewpoint. From its inception, the IOA‘s focal point has been a steadfast opposition to the Israeli Occupation and support for an equitable solution for all Palestinians – a people’s basic right to self-determination.

Norman Finkelstein’s recent interview with Frank Barat caused quite a commotion among Palestinian-rights activists and their supporters. And rightly so.

One of the reactions to Finkelstein, by Ali Abunimah, was re-published on the IOA: Firstly, because Abunimah breaks away from the one-state advocacy, if only as a theoretical exercise, and counters Finkelstein’s points from Finkelstein’s own two-state approach. At the very least, this makes for an interesting case. More importantly, I think, it was Finkelstein’s own words which required a response.

Norman Finkelstein has made enormous contributions to the struggle against the 1967 Israeli occupation, and for Palestinian rights. Unfortunately, this most recent interview is not one of them. Arguing in favor of a pragmatic, ‘real-world’ approach, which focuses on making a meaningful impact on mainstream public opinion, is indeed crucial. The same holds for dealing with potential political allies in an inclusive manner. Attacking one’s would-be partners in struggle and describing them as a ‘cult’ is the opposite of inclusiveness.

Both BDS and the reliance on international law are essential tools in the struggle for Palestinian rights — tools, not goals. This writer did not hesitate criticizing specific BDS actions as ineffective (and received quite a reaction in return). It is crucial that all of us are able to evaluate the merits, assess the effectiveness, or criticize BDS actions. And there should be plenty of room for tactical disagreements on the merits of specific actions. But throwing [out] the baby with the bathwater is wrong and counterproductive, no matter how angry or impatient one is.

BDS is, and will remain, an essential strategic tool in the struggle for Palestinian rights. The best confirmation of this assessment can be found in Israel, and in its considerable legal investment in the war against BDS. If carried out wisely, BDS has a tremendous potential to very effectively pressure Israel.

Finkelstein’s treatment of Palestinian rights reflects the limitations of relying exclusively on international law in the defense of and struggle for Palestinian rights. Rather than forcing 100 years of history and a national liberation struggle into a legal brief, Finkelstein will do well to reconsider the implications of his focus on the “destruction of Israel” — a regional nuclear superpower — presumably by BDS activists, rather than focusing on 1948 Palestinian refugee rights and those of Palestinian citizens of Israel. As he must know, most Palestinians do not compartmentalize their national history as he appears to be doing.

As an alternative to Finkelstein’s geopolitical surgery, which removes the 1967 occupation from its historical context, consider Rashid Khalidi’s holistic discussion of a possible resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the occupation of 1967, the conquests of 1948 and Palestinian refugee rights, and the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel — components which, rightly, he views as inseparable. Khalidi very openly refers to the two-state solution as a ‘way-station’ towards a comprehensive solution — all this in an interview with an Israeli newspaper.

Rather than the “destruction of Israel,” it is the restoration of rights and the righting of violent historical wrongs we should be focusing on as the basis for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an end to the Occupation. This is both just and valid, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into an international legal brief.

Norman Finkelstein is welcome to add to the discussion on these pages.

Print Friendly

Comments are closed.