You may have come across claims that Gaza is the most densely populated place in the world. I've been seeing it for years and sending in corrections, but it doesn't stop the claim, which is too tempting to make if your goal is to propagandize.
A New York Times story “Gaza is tiny, crowded and hard to escape” (Oct. 10, 2023, on their running blog on the war) qualified it a little, calling the Gaza Strip is "one of the most densely populated areas of the world." In fact, the population (2022) is 2,375,259 in 365 km2 for a density of 6,507/km2. About 20 cities in the NYC area alone are more densely populated. Gaza is about as densely populated as Cambridge, MA, which is not generally considered an overcrowded dystopia. I'm no longer seeing the claim made since early in the war, probably because too many people pointed out that it's nowhere near true. The Times stealth-edited the reference I pointed to.
Gaza may be "densely populated" as an abstract matter, making civilian casualties inevitable in a war. Still, many cities in Israel are much more densely populated (Bnei Brak is 30,000/km2), cities at which Hamas has been indiscriminately firing rockets for many years.
I also suggest going to Google Maps and looking at Gaza. There's no Street View, but there are many photographs posted before the war and a lot of it is nice. Check out the waterfront in particular. Here's a cool pic shot from a barrier island: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tgUsqMoHj8VBM3WPA
Thanks for doing this work to push back against the Finkelstein and Cameron narrative, Coleman! One commentator said it was a strange concentration camp with beaches and shopping malls. And enormous financial and messaging/propaganda support from the international community via the UN, particularly the UNRWA, the organization that has ensured Gazans are kept in refugee status since 1948 (the world’s only permanent refugees).
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees) should be better known. Thanks for pointing this out. So many UN agencies are bad, but this is one of the worst. The ~700,000 Palestinian refugees from 1948 and their descendants have increased in number something like five fold while still residing in the camps administered by UNRWA . Meanwhile the same number of 1948 Jewish refugees from Arab countries have all been absorbed by Israel, in addition to Holocaust survivors from Europe. Israel continues to take in Jews from around the world, including the rescue of 80,000+ Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel).
Good info! I learned a lot about the corruptness of the UN generally and the UNRWA particularly in Noa Tishby’s very readable (sometimes annoyingly folksy) 2021 book, “Israel”. Lots of good, timely, info in there about Israel and the history of the Jews and Arabs in that region.
Thank you for truth finding. So much misinformation comes out of Gaza it’s hard to know where to begin. There are many more videos like the MEMRI ones. And, whatever is wrong in Gaza can be blamed on Hamas. From the beginning (2005), they destroyed greenhouses that were thriving businesses and laid siege to the population. They have stolen so much aide meant for the civilians that their 3 leaders (living in Qatar) are billionaires. For the Palestinians sake, Hamas needs to go. There should be an international coalition but there won’t for no other reason but antisemitism.
Netanyahu collaborated with and supported Hamas. He wanted Hamas to be a counter force against the Palestinian Authority. He wanted to divide Palestinian people to prevent a Palestinian state.
Bibi’s most recent coalition government is definitely a mistake and his recent strategies as they pertain to Hamas have certainly backfired. The reason for those policies are definitely more nuanced than the TOI article would imply.
They may have backfired, but they definitely aren't unintended.
I think that Netanyahu has a messiah complex. He is intent on restoring Eretz Israel. To do this he must reduce the Palestinian population to a tiny minority. The preferred method is ethnic cleansing.
There are two evils in the Holy Land. One is of course Hamas. The other is Netanyahu, the Likud party, and it's Coalition partners.
Netanyahu is a politician whose time is now over. He has done good and bad but your supposition that he is intent on restoring Eretz Israel is not supported by fact. His choices to contain terrorism, including the recent placation of Hamas, is what backfired.
I think that Likud's reason for existence is to restore Eretz Israel. Look at their original covenant. They wanted to control all of Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu later lessened and agreed to abide by existing agreements, whatever that meant. In his platform, he kept with control of all water and borders in that area. That is pretty much the same thing.
You and I will never agree as you appear to equate a legitimate political party (Likud) with a violent Islamic fundamentalist terror organization (Hamas). In your comment below you even attempt to justify the resistance, which would presumably include 10/7. Long before Netanyahu, shortly after Likud's formation, the Likud Begin run government signed the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Through Oslo and many other attempts brokered by the US, the Israelis have attempted a 2 state solution only to be thwarted by lack of willingness by the Palestinians. Only the years change, never the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel's right to exist - not in 1938, 1947, 1948, 1967, 1973, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2 intifadas, withdrawal from Gaza, and even Obama.
You quote Finkelstein detailing high unemployment, an unstable power supply, inadequate food and water and travel denials, so why not address those issues? They would all seem to be quite relevant to creating resentment and anger, especially in young men who see no future. Why use sparse outdated data on a health topic he doesn't address?
Clearly "open air prison" and "concentration camp" should not be interchangeable terms. A prisoner has lost his freedom, is confined, and is dependent on his guards for all the necessities of life. He may grow old in prison, if he is not executed, but that is not a good life. The description properly applies to Gaza. Whether calling it a concentration camp is correct I don't know, but because Finkelstein had parents who both survived concentration camps I give him some latitude to say so in the heat of his outrage. But "open air prison", yes it is.
The alleged Al-Jazeera segment from 2017 was produced by Memri TV which according to Wikipedia was founded by " Israeli ex-intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser". Also "Critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that, in spite of describing itself as being "independent" and "non-partisan" in nature".
I find it interesting that Mr. Hughes a person that seems skeptical of proxies, is so willing to create one here. (E.g being black is a poor proxy for disadvantage.)
He is trying to convince us that the single metric of life expectancy is a good proxy for living in a hell hole. I would say that expected longevity may be necessary for hell-hole free living, but it’s definitely not sufficient.
I would further say that the degree to which people are deprived of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are good proxies for the degree to which they are living in a hell hole.
Using my proxies for Gazans: Life - OK; Liberty - totally deprived; Pursuit of Happiness- severely restricted.
Of course conditions in Gaza aren't nearly as nice and prosperous as those in Israel. Thank Iran, Hamas, and recalcitrant Arab anti-Zionism for that. Many Arab states want to lay down their grievances, normalize relations, and open up trade. Some have done so or are (were?) attempting to. They want Israel as a military and security partner against Iran, whose continuing Jihadist efforts make everyone worse off.
Finkelstein had excellent academic credentials. He fell victim to the notorious Alan Dershowitz and others who coerced the DePaul administration to veto a recommendation for tenure approved by his department and university committees. He then was also blackballed for another job.
"Amid considerable public debate, Dershowitz campaigned to block Finkelstein's tenure bid at DePaul University.[26][56] His campaign began in 2004 when he sent DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider a manuscript, "Literary McCarthyism," arguing that the university should fire Finkelstein. He also contacted DePaul political science department chair Patrick Callahan"
Also:
" In a 2014 interview, Matthew Abraham, author of Out of Bounds: Academic Freedom and the Question of Palestine, called Finkelstein's tenure case "one of the most significant academic freedom cases in the last fifty years" and said it demonstrated "the substantial pressure outside parties can place on a mid-tier religious institution when the perspectives advanced by a controversial scholar threaten dominant interests"
As is so often the case, Coleman actually does the work to find the intellectually honest answer to a obvious question that the corporate media ignores ecause the answer is inconsistent with their preferred narrative. Great job Coleman!
Continuing on one of Mr. Seltzer's themes, the land area of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, combined, is 133 sq. mi., slightly smaller than Gaza at 141 sq. mi. According to the 2020 census, 5.8 million people lived in these three boroughs, compared to 2.2 million people in Gaza.
These figures for land mass and population mean that the population density of the three boroughs is 2.8 times more dense than Gaza. So much for "most densely populated place in the world".
As I see it, the residents of Gaza suffer for many reasons:
1. Egypt doesn't want them, nor does Jordan. Not only would a large influx of Gaza refugees lead to internal unrest but also to establishment of bases for more missile launches into Israel, with subsequent retaliation. And a reduction of Palestinians from Israel and Israeli-held territory would be to Israel's advantage, something Egypt and Jordan would likely oppose. So the Gaza residents are stuck in place.
2. Aid sent to Gaza is filtered through Hamas, who spends a sizeable portion on building 300 miles of tunnels up to 100 feet deep (Hamas's figures), on militants/soldiers/terrorists, and on missiles and other weapons.
3. Similar to the Mexican cartels, the relatively small number of Hamas members (20 to 30 thousand) manages to control a 100-times larger population, mainly through violence and control of resources such as food and fuel.
4. The last election in Gaza occurred in 2006. "Voting" Hamas "out" appears an impossibility. An uprising of the Palestinian population against their government has near-zero chance of success.
Given the fundamental, founding principle of both Gaza and West Bank residents, that Israel (and all Jews) must be eliminated, a peace/armistice agreement is also unlikely. It appears that Israel's plan to eliminate Hamas--with the hope that "someday" the Gaza residents would have a truly moderate government that uses its resources for the benefit of the population--is the least-bad solution.
I like Coleman and most of his work, but now he has descended into sophistry with his proxy for a "hell hole" as life expectancy.
(I am going to substitute Likud for Israel because Likud is the current Israeli government and does not represent all of Israel. I do not want to slander Israel itself.)
In previous discussions on the Hamas-Likud issue, he gave Likud the edge on morality. His reasoning was to look what each would do if they were unconstrained.
We know what Hamas would do, an abominable massacre.
Coleman went on to say that Likud has not done likewise eventhough they had the power to do so. His base assumption was that likud was not constrained , yet they did not massacre. But the fact is that likud has been constrained. The US used to effectively constrained them so this assertion is nonsense.
With Biden's naîve bear-hug diplomacy, Likud decided that they had a green light to do as they wish in Gaza (and the West Bank.) What they want is to ethnically clean both Gaza and the West Bank.
Biden made the same mistake that coleman still seems to be making. Likud is not moral. Given the opportunity they will out-evil Hamas.
(Evil calculation: Evil = Immortality times Power. Hamas may have more evil intent than Likud, but they lack the power to fully implement it. Likud has plenty of evil intent AND the power to implement it.)
The facts do not support that Likud and Netanyahu have "evil intent". Just like the far right or far left in the USA, the far right in Israel is not representative of Israel and the few members of Knesset that may fit that description are no more representative of the country than Marjorie Taylor Greene or AOC is of the US.
That's why I singled out Likud. Likud is the evil, not Israel per se.
But I disagree on the intent issue. Netanyahu has fought the Two-State solution at every turn. I think that he had even vowed that it will never happen while he is in power. That implies certain things regarding how to keep control of millions of oppressed people e while stealing their land, and arresting them for modest resistance (e.g. rock throwing.)
People under military occupation have a right to resist. The occupier does not have the right to suppress them. The occupier does not have the right to continue to occupy them.
Absolutely not, many of Hamas' tactics in the recent atrocity are totally unacceptable and should be punished in a legal process.
The attack on IDF military facilities was acceptable and the killing and capture of soldiers was also in accord with a defensive war.
Likud's attack on Gaza is not a defensive war. The attackers (groups other than Hamas entered Israel) have been driven out of Israel. The defense is over.
Coleman, did you read Finkelstein's book on Gaza? Your essay makes it seem so. I own the hard copy. It does not have 500 pages, as you imply. In my copy (there is only one edition) the conclusion ends on page 365. Even with the index it ends on page 419. I cannot find the quote you used supposedly from page 40. The subject on page 40 is lying by Israel. None of the one star raters on the Gaza book in Amazon have verified purchases, so there seems to be a pattern of slamming the book without reading it. If you want to be better informed, you would do well to read completely Jimmy Carter's book Peace not Apartheid for background and have Mehdi Hasan on your podcast for current events. Do better and stop with the hunches.
Thank you for the link. I followed it to several more links and, to sum up, based on those, I will take care to listen critically to what Mehdi says. Nevertheless, because he does have some valid and valuable and rarely expressed viewpoints, I will continue to listen to him.
You started your original post by suggesting that Coleman didn’t read Norman Finkelstein’s book based on the idea that the page numbers he cited don’t align with the pages in the edition you own. I have been following Coleman for some time now and have seen no evidence that he practices intellectual dishonesty or lacks moral clarity. Maybe some day that will change, and I will change my opinion, but that hasn’t been the case so far. I have seen frequent occasions where Mehdi Hasan is both intellectually dishonest and lacks moral clarity on so many issues, so it is hard to take anything he says seriously. He may he expressing views you agree with but that doesn’t mean he arrived at his positions honestly. As for Norman Finkelstein, he frequently traffics in half truths when it comes to the State of Israel. He doesn’t believe Israel as a state has the right to exist so if you come at it from that perspective it is hard to credit his views on this topic. Coleman had the Israeli historian, Benny Morris on his podcast months ago outlining the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and it can’t be said that Mr. Morris isn’t a harsh critic of the Israeli government and their actions related to the settlements. He refused to serve in the IDF and went to jail because of his views related to the settlements and the treatment of Palestinians. If you haven’t seen that podcast I urge you to watch it. Morris has debunked many of the myths that the Pro Hamas crowd is currently voicing. Finkelstein has been a frequent guest on Glenn Loury’s podcast so I am familiar with his work and while he is certainly a more serious intellectual than Hasan, I find many of his views on this matter lack moral clarity. But we can agree to disagree…
Thank you for your civil response. I understand your impulse to defend Coleman, whom I too respect. He has been quite penetrating in his analysis of race relations in the US. On the current topic, though, he seems to be less prepared while wanting to project competence. We all share that fault at times don't we? He says "I have been consuming lots of Norman Finkelstein content lately, including his book on Gaza". Naturally I expected a well informed precisely centered response to the book's main themes. So when I found discrepancies about something so basic and easy as page numbering (numbers shout precision!) I asked myself how rigorous his process was. When next he ignored the substance of the book and all the main themes Finkelstein presents in lectures and interviews and instead offered a work around of his own design, he lost my confidence. Although disappointed in Coleman on this topic, I will continue to listen to him. I want to listen to many others too, not because they are always right, but because they are not always wrong either, and there is value to be found. So I appreciate your tone and agree that we disagree.
I hope that you're prominent enough to draw some sincere high profile push-back on your assertion here, as it really does cut the heart of the current narrative about Gaza. The fantasy would be for Norman to engage with you somehow, as I also find him to be a similarly sincere and earnest intellectual, albeit one with a completely different take. Coleman and Norm are kind of the two poles of this debate for me, and I am oddly unable to dismiss either of them. Thanks as usual for bringing such decisive and insightful commentary to any discussion you take on Coleman. You're a hero.
Having a debate with Norm on this topic would be a pretty bold undertaking, (to put it mildly) but I think if Coleman invited another guest who had differing views and somewhat equivalent scholarship to Norm, (and maybe Coleman could serve as an opinionated moderator?), it could lead to some really interesting places. Maybe Glenn Loury and Norm could come on together?
I am just challenging Mr. Hughes. He always says that people "on the other side" refuse to debate him. Presumably, I suppose, out of fear that he (coleman) would wipe the floor with them.
I like to hear debates between intelligent people that are well versed in controversial topics. I think coleman would take this challenge.
A debate isn't a truth-finding exercise, it's a persuasion exercise. If you're going to suggest something like this it would have to be a series of essays or letters responding in depth to various points that the interlocutors raise.
I'm increasingly skeptical of pretty much anyone from academia that talks to the media. This may seem random but it's connected - I've read a few books written between 1950 and 1970 by historians who seem bewildered and frustrated by other academics who either completely distort the context of or invent out of whole cloth sources for their claims.
The first one was The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War, which dissects a number of popular histories of the origin of the cold war that are completely slanted towards the Soviet view.
The second is Europe's Inner Demons, where the author picks apart the evidence for the existence of an actual witch-cult in Europe (as claimed by Margaret Murray and a litany of followers), and shows how misreadings (at best) or total confabulation and extremely selective reading of texts (at worst) make up the basis of their arguments.
I think the institutions that are supposed to mediate primary sources into information for the public at large are broken, and you have to go straight to the primary sources (as you've done in this essay) for anything approximating the truth.
Coleman, there's a response from Norman Finkelstein on Marc Lamont Hill's channel, in case you didn't know. Norm pretended that he could barely remember Michael Moynihan's name and that he didn't know who you were.
I love Norm, but I can appreciate reasons why Colemam would not want to have him on his show. Norman is scholarly and brilliant and has a gift for reaching non-experts on complicated topics, but he is also a serial monologueist, seemingly incapable of making a brief point, or letting other people talk. You kind of just have to let him talk, and I could see not wanting that.
You may have come across claims that Gaza is the most densely populated place in the world. I've been seeing it for years and sending in corrections, but it doesn't stop the claim, which is too tempting to make if your goal is to propagandize.
A New York Times story “Gaza is tiny, crowded and hard to escape” (Oct. 10, 2023, on their running blog on the war) qualified it a little, calling the Gaza Strip is "one of the most densely populated areas of the world." In fact, the population (2022) is 2,375,259 in 365 km2 for a density of 6,507/km2. About 20 cities in the NYC area alone are more densely populated. Gaza is about as densely populated as Cambridge, MA, which is not generally considered an overcrowded dystopia. I'm no longer seeing the claim made since early in the war, probably because too many people pointed out that it's nowhere near true. The Times stealth-edited the reference I pointed to.
Gaza may be "densely populated" as an abstract matter, making civilian casualties inevitable in a war. Still, many cities in Israel are much more densely populated (Bnei Brak is 30,000/km2), cities at which Hamas has been indiscriminately firing rockets for many years.
I also suggest going to Google Maps and looking at Gaza. There's no Street View, but there are many photographs posted before the war and a lot of it is nice. Check out the waterfront in particular. Here's a cool pic shot from a barrier island: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tgUsqMoHj8VBM3WPA
Do your density figures include Gaza's vast underground region?
Alas, no. And the underground is also not in Google Street View
Too bad. Would have made it much easier for the IDF to navigate.
If only the hostages were on Street View in the tunnels…
And, FWIW, the 4 most densely populated cities in the world are in the Philippines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
Thanks for doing this work to push back against the Finkelstein and Cameron narrative, Coleman! One commentator said it was a strange concentration camp with beaches and shopping malls. And enormous financial and messaging/propaganda support from the international community via the UN, particularly the UNRWA, the organization that has ensured Gazans are kept in refugee status since 1948 (the world’s only permanent refugees).
Defund the UNRWA is a cause to promote!
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees) should be better known. Thanks for pointing this out. So many UN agencies are bad, but this is one of the worst. The ~700,000 Palestinian refugees from 1948 and their descendants have increased in number something like five fold while still residing in the camps administered by UNRWA . Meanwhile the same number of 1948 Jewish refugees from Arab countries have all been absorbed by Israel, in addition to Holocaust survivors from Europe. Israel continues to take in Jews from around the world, including the rescue of 80,000+ Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel).
Good info! I learned a lot about the corruptness of the UN generally and the UNRWA particularly in Noa Tishby’s very readable (sometimes annoyingly folksy) 2021 book, “Israel”. Lots of good, timely, info in there about Israel and the history of the Jews and Arabs in that region.
Thank you for truth finding. So much misinformation comes out of Gaza it’s hard to know where to begin. There are many more videos like the MEMRI ones. And, whatever is wrong in Gaza can be blamed on Hamas. From the beginning (2005), they destroyed greenhouses that were thriving businesses and laid siege to the population. They have stolen so much aide meant for the civilians that their 3 leaders (living in Qatar) are billionaires. For the Palestinians sake, Hamas needs to go. There should be an international coalition but there won’t for no other reason but antisemitism.
Netanyahu collaborated with and supported Hamas. He wanted Hamas to be a counter force against the Palestinian Authority. He wanted to divide Palestinian people to prevent a Palestinian state.
See this Times of Israel story: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Bibi’s most recent coalition government is definitely a mistake and his recent strategies as they pertain to Hamas have certainly backfired. The reason for those policies are definitely more nuanced than the TOI article would imply.
They may have backfired, but they definitely aren't unintended.
I think that Netanyahu has a messiah complex. He is intent on restoring Eretz Israel. To do this he must reduce the Palestinian population to a tiny minority. The preferred method is ethnic cleansing.
There are two evils in the Holy Land. One is of course Hamas. The other is Netanyahu, the Likud party, and it's Coalition partners.
Netanyahu is a politician whose time is now over. He has done good and bad but your supposition that he is intent on restoring Eretz Israel is not supported by fact. His choices to contain terrorism, including the recent placation of Hamas, is what backfired.
I think that Likud's reason for existence is to restore Eretz Israel. Look at their original covenant. They wanted to control all of Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu later lessened and agreed to abide by existing agreements, whatever that meant. In his platform, he kept with control of all water and borders in that area. That is pretty much the same thing.
You and I will never agree as you appear to equate a legitimate political party (Likud) with a violent Islamic fundamentalist terror organization (Hamas). In your comment below you even attempt to justify the resistance, which would presumably include 10/7. Long before Netanyahu, shortly after Likud's formation, the Likud Begin run government signed the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Through Oslo and many other attempts brokered by the US, the Israelis have attempted a 2 state solution only to be thwarted by lack of willingness by the Palestinians. Only the years change, never the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel's right to exist - not in 1938, 1947, 1948, 1967, 1973, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2 intifadas, withdrawal from Gaza, and even Obama.
You quote Finkelstein detailing high unemployment, an unstable power supply, inadequate food and water and travel denials, so why not address those issues? They would all seem to be quite relevant to creating resentment and anger, especially in young men who see no future. Why use sparse outdated data on a health topic he doesn't address?
Clearly "open air prison" and "concentration camp" should not be interchangeable terms. A prisoner has lost his freedom, is confined, and is dependent on his guards for all the necessities of life. He may grow old in prison, if he is not executed, but that is not a good life. The description properly applies to Gaza. Whether calling it a concentration camp is correct I don't know, but because Finkelstein had parents who both survived concentration camps I give him some latitude to say so in the heat of his outrage. But "open air prison", yes it is.
The alleged Al-Jazeera segment from 2017 was produced by Memri TV which according to Wikipedia was founded by " Israeli ex-intelligence officer Yigal Carmon and Israeli-American political scientist Meyrav Wurmser". Also "Critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that, in spite of describing itself as being "independent" and "non-partisan" in nature".
I find it interesting that Mr. Hughes a person that seems skeptical of proxies, is so willing to create one here. (E.g being black is a poor proxy for disadvantage.)
He is trying to convince us that the single metric of life expectancy is a good proxy for living in a hell hole. I would say that expected longevity may be necessary for hell-hole free living, but it’s definitely not sufficient.
I would further say that the degree to which people are deprived of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are good proxies for the degree to which they are living in a hell hole.
Using my proxies for Gazans: Life - OK; Liberty - totally deprived; Pursuit of Happiness- severely restricted.
If hell holes exist, Gaza is a prime candidate.
Of course conditions in Gaza aren't nearly as nice and prosperous as those in Israel. Thank Iran, Hamas, and recalcitrant Arab anti-Zionism for that. Many Arab states want to lay down their grievances, normalize relations, and open up trade. Some have done so or are (were?) attempting to. They want Israel as a military and security partner against Iran, whose continuing Jihadist efforts make everyone worse off.
No wonder why Finkelstein lost his job! Gives me some renewed hope in Academia that they would have fired him.
Finkelstein had excellent academic credentials. He fell victim to the notorious Alan Dershowitz and others who coerced the DePaul administration to veto a recommendation for tenure approved by his department and university committees. He then was also blackballed for another job.
This smells like anti-Jew conspiracy propaganda
You're confusing me. Which Jew, Finkelstein or Dershowitz?
Read up in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein#Tenure_rejection_and_resignation:
In part it says:
"Amid considerable public debate, Dershowitz campaigned to block Finkelstein's tenure bid at DePaul University.[26][56] His campaign began in 2004 when he sent DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider a manuscript, "Literary McCarthyism," arguing that the university should fire Finkelstein. He also contacted DePaul political science department chair Patrick Callahan"
Also:
" In a 2014 interview, Matthew Abraham, author of Out of Bounds: Academic Freedom and the Question of Palestine, called Finkelstein's tenure case "one of the most significant academic freedom cases in the last fifty years" and said it demonstrated "the substantial pressure outside parties can place on a mid-tier religious institution when the perspectives advanced by a controversial scholar threaten dominant interests"
As is so often the case, Coleman actually does the work to find the intellectually honest answer to a obvious question that the corporate media ignores ecause the answer is inconsistent with their preferred narrative. Great job Coleman!
Continuing on one of Mr. Seltzer's themes, the land area of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, combined, is 133 sq. mi., slightly smaller than Gaza at 141 sq. mi. According to the 2020 census, 5.8 million people lived in these three boroughs, compared to 2.2 million people in Gaza.
These figures for land mass and population mean that the population density of the three boroughs is 2.8 times more dense than Gaza. So much for "most densely populated place in the world".
As I see it, the residents of Gaza suffer for many reasons:
1. Egypt doesn't want them, nor does Jordan. Not only would a large influx of Gaza refugees lead to internal unrest but also to establishment of bases for more missile launches into Israel, with subsequent retaliation. And a reduction of Palestinians from Israel and Israeli-held territory would be to Israel's advantage, something Egypt and Jordan would likely oppose. So the Gaza residents are stuck in place.
2. Aid sent to Gaza is filtered through Hamas, who spends a sizeable portion on building 300 miles of tunnels up to 100 feet deep (Hamas's figures), on militants/soldiers/terrorists, and on missiles and other weapons.
3. Similar to the Mexican cartels, the relatively small number of Hamas members (20 to 30 thousand) manages to control a 100-times larger population, mainly through violence and control of resources such as food and fuel.
4. The last election in Gaza occurred in 2006. "Voting" Hamas "out" appears an impossibility. An uprising of the Palestinian population against their government has near-zero chance of success.
Given the fundamental, founding principle of both Gaza and West Bank residents, that Israel (and all Jews) must be eliminated, a peace/armistice agreement is also unlikely. It appears that Israel's plan to eliminate Hamas--with the hope that "someday" the Gaza residents would have a truly moderate government that uses its resources for the benefit of the population--is the least-bad solution.
I like Coleman and most of his work, but now he has descended into sophistry with his proxy for a "hell hole" as life expectancy.
(I am going to substitute Likud for Israel because Likud is the current Israeli government and does not represent all of Israel. I do not want to slander Israel itself.)
In previous discussions on the Hamas-Likud issue, he gave Likud the edge on morality. His reasoning was to look what each would do if they were unconstrained.
We know what Hamas would do, an abominable massacre.
Coleman went on to say that Likud has not done likewise eventhough they had the power to do so. His base assumption was that likud was not constrained , yet they did not massacre. But the fact is that likud has been constrained. The US used to effectively constrained them so this assertion is nonsense.
With Biden's naîve bear-hug diplomacy, Likud decided that they had a green light to do as they wish in Gaza (and the West Bank.) What they want is to ethnically clean both Gaza and the West Bank.
Biden made the same mistake that coleman still seems to be making. Likud is not moral. Given the opportunity they will out-evil Hamas.
(Evil calculation: Evil = Immortality times Power. Hamas may have more evil intent than Likud, but they lack the power to fully implement it. Likud has plenty of evil intent AND the power to implement it.)
The facts do not support that Likud and Netanyahu have "evil intent". Just like the far right or far left in the USA, the far right in Israel is not representative of Israel and the few members of Knesset that may fit that description are no more representative of the country than Marjorie Taylor Greene or AOC is of the US.
That's why I singled out Likud. Likud is the evil, not Israel per se.
But I disagree on the intent issue. Netanyahu has fought the Two-State solution at every turn. I think that he had even vowed that it will never happen while he is in power. That implies certain things regarding how to keep control of millions of oppressed people e while stealing their land, and arresting them for modest resistance (e.g. rock throwing.)
People under military occupation have a right to resist. The occupier does not have the right to suppress them. The occupier does not have the right to continue to occupy them.
See my response above. Resistance by any means, eh?
Absolutely not, many of Hamas' tactics in the recent atrocity are totally unacceptable and should be punished in a legal process.
The attack on IDF military facilities was acceptable and the killing and capture of soldiers was also in accord with a defensive war.
Likud's attack on Gaza is not a defensive war. The attackers (groups other than Hamas entered Israel) have been driven out of Israel. The defense is over.
The stupid spell checker replaced immorality with immortality, and we are unable to edit our posts!
Coleman, did you read Finkelstein's book on Gaza? Your essay makes it seem so. I own the hard copy. It does not have 500 pages, as you imply. In my copy (there is only one edition) the conclusion ends on page 365. Even with the index it ends on page 419. I cannot find the quote you used supposedly from page 40. The subject on page 40 is lying by Israel. None of the one star raters on the Gaza book in Amazon have verified purchases, so there seems to be a pattern of slamming the book without reading it. If you want to be better informed, you would do well to read completely Jimmy Carter's book Peace not Apartheid for background and have Mehdi Hasan on your podcast for current events. Do better and stop with the hunches.
I wouldn’t listen to anything Mehdi Hasan has to say as he is a known liar and plagiarist. Lee Fang’s take down of him is brilliant: https://www.leefang.com/p/mehdi-hasan-plagiarized-pro-spanking
Thank you for the link. I followed it to several more links and, to sum up, based on those, I will take care to listen critically to what Mehdi says. Nevertheless, because he does have some valid and valuable and rarely expressed viewpoints, I will continue to listen to him.
You started your original post by suggesting that Coleman didn’t read Norman Finkelstein’s book based on the idea that the page numbers he cited don’t align with the pages in the edition you own. I have been following Coleman for some time now and have seen no evidence that he practices intellectual dishonesty or lacks moral clarity. Maybe some day that will change, and I will change my opinion, but that hasn’t been the case so far. I have seen frequent occasions where Mehdi Hasan is both intellectually dishonest and lacks moral clarity on so many issues, so it is hard to take anything he says seriously. He may he expressing views you agree with but that doesn’t mean he arrived at his positions honestly. As for Norman Finkelstein, he frequently traffics in half truths when it comes to the State of Israel. He doesn’t believe Israel as a state has the right to exist so if you come at it from that perspective it is hard to credit his views on this topic. Coleman had the Israeli historian, Benny Morris on his podcast months ago outlining the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and it can’t be said that Mr. Morris isn’t a harsh critic of the Israeli government and their actions related to the settlements. He refused to serve in the IDF and went to jail because of his views related to the settlements and the treatment of Palestinians. If you haven’t seen that podcast I urge you to watch it. Morris has debunked many of the myths that the Pro Hamas crowd is currently voicing. Finkelstein has been a frequent guest on Glenn Loury’s podcast so I am familiar with his work and while he is certainly a more serious intellectual than Hasan, I find many of his views on this matter lack moral clarity. But we can agree to disagree…
Thank you for your civil response. I understand your impulse to defend Coleman, whom I too respect. He has been quite penetrating in his analysis of race relations in the US. On the current topic, though, he seems to be less prepared while wanting to project competence. We all share that fault at times don't we? He says "I have been consuming lots of Norman Finkelstein content lately, including his book on Gaza". Naturally I expected a well informed precisely centered response to the book's main themes. So when I found discrepancies about something so basic and easy as page numbering (numbers shout precision!) I asked myself how rigorous his process was. When next he ignored the substance of the book and all the main themes Finkelstein presents in lectures and interviews and instead offered a work around of his own design, he lost my confidence. Although disappointed in Coleman on this topic, I will continue to listen to him. I want to listen to many others too, not because they are always right, but because they are not always wrong either, and there is value to be found. So I appreciate your tone and agree that we disagree.
I hope that you're prominent enough to draw some sincere high profile push-back on your assertion here, as it really does cut the heart of the current narrative about Gaza. The fantasy would be for Norman to engage with you somehow, as I also find him to be a similarly sincere and earnest intellectual, albeit one with a completely different take. Coleman and Norm are kind of the two poles of this debate for me, and I am oddly unable to dismiss either of them. Thanks as usual for bringing such decisive and insightful commentary to any discussion you take on Coleman. You're a hero.
Coleman always says that he is seeking debate opponents with opposite views. I suspect that Finkelstein would be willing to debate.
How about it Coleman, challenge Finkelstein to a debate.
Having a debate with Norm on this topic would be a pretty bold undertaking, (to put it mildly) but I think if Coleman invited another guest who had differing views and somewhat equivalent scholarship to Norm, (and maybe Coleman could serve as an opinionated moderator?), it could lead to some really interesting places. Maybe Glenn Loury and Norm could come on together?
I am just challenging Mr. Hughes. He always says that people "on the other side" refuse to debate him. Presumably, I suppose, out of fear that he (coleman) would wipe the floor with them.
I like to hear debates between intelligent people that are well versed in controversial topics. I think coleman would take this challenge.
Coleman, you say that you seek out debate opponents with views that opposes yours. This is your chance.
Challenge Finkelstein to a debate.
A debate isn't a truth-finding exercise, it's a persuasion exercise. If you're going to suggest something like this it would have to be a series of essays or letters responding in depth to various points that the interlocutors raise.
I am persuaded only by truth. So among the thinking-class, truth-finding and persuasion are the same thing
I'm increasingly skeptical of pretty much anyone from academia that talks to the media. This may seem random but it's connected - I've read a few books written between 1950 and 1970 by historians who seem bewildered and frustrated by other academics who either completely distort the context of or invent out of whole cloth sources for their claims.
The first one was The New Left and the Origins of the Cold War, which dissects a number of popular histories of the origin of the cold war that are completely slanted towards the Soviet view.
The second is Europe's Inner Demons, where the author picks apart the evidence for the existence of an actual witch-cult in Europe (as claimed by Margaret Murray and a litany of followers), and shows how misreadings (at best) or total confabulation and extremely selective reading of texts (at worst) make up the basis of their arguments.
I think the institutions that are supposed to mediate primary sources into information for the public at large are broken, and you have to go straight to the primary sources (as you've done in this essay) for anything approximating the truth.
Coleman, there's a response from Norman Finkelstein on Marc Lamont Hill's channel, in case you didn't know. Norm pretended that he could barely remember Michael Moynihan's name and that he didn't know who you were.
I love Norm, but I can appreciate reasons why Colemam would not want to have him on his show. Norman is scholarly and brilliant and has a gift for reaching non-experts on complicated topics, but he is also a serial monologueist, seemingly incapable of making a brief point, or letting other people talk. You kind of just have to let him talk, and I could see not wanting that.
I think that coleman is also scholarly and brilliant. That's why I would like to see them go toe-to-toe.
As for Birmingham being loquacious, lust allow the podcast go longer