Benutzerrezensionen

This documentary shows the uphill struggle of an outstanding man. Norman Finkelstein is arguably the only one who is bent on resolving the Isreal-Palestine conflict. In his methodical research, he focuses on what the United Nations say, what international law says, what people and organizations in Israel and Palestine say. His conclusion is that -contrary to popular belief- the conflict is not overly complicated nor controversial: Israel, backed by the United States and European governments, simply does not adhere to international law and blocks a peaceful settlement of the agreement. Watch a two hour lecture on YouTube, and decide for yourself how strong his case is.

That is exactly the weak point of the documentary: it shows someone who swims against the current, but why this man keeps going is not well shown. You get the feeling that Finkelstein had better let it go since it is no use fighting. But had the film maker even only briefly summarized the content of Finkelsteins case, it would be clear why. And the audience would bond with him. I think that is a missed opportunity.

Of course the film makers had to stop somewhere, but the sad fact is that since the assault on Gaza, end of 2008, and the shameful treatment of the Goldstone report, international public opinion has shifted significantly and a lot has happened. Our governments are pressuring Israel to stop the settlements and to change its course. People see through the 'anti-semite' or 'self hating Jew'-argument, with which some try to divert all critique of Israel. The documentary does not touch on that, which calls for a sequel!

All in all very interesting, but investing two hours on YouTube to watch a lecture is many times more powerful and enlightening.

PS: I saw this movie at the IDFA in Amsterdam.

This is a film that is long overdue. A film about a great ordinary man. A man of courage,a man of deep honesty and integrity.A real Mensch.A person with all the human troubles,failures, successes and doubts that make a principled individual so precious. Sadly this film,though well intentioned,does not do neither Norman Finkelstein nor his cause justice.It superficially follows his career and his various speaking tours, showing the strong emotions that the Israel Palestine conflict can raise,while interviewing friends,critics and family.What emerges is never fully rounded, giving only a glimpse and never explaining to those unfamiliar with both the Israel Palestine conflict or Finkelstein what his work is about. Those familiar with Finkelsteins careers are mostly aware that nothing he says is actually controversial. The recent Goldstone report only cemented this fact.In fact what distinguishes Finkelsteins style is that he is in reality extremely moderate,rarely venturing outside the safe territory of internationally accepted and undisputed law, even refusing to consider the more and more popular One-state solution. Radical is only a description, as Finkelstein explains in the film,of someone seeking radical justice in a radically unjust world.There is nothing really radical about that.Another problem of the film are the uncommented interviews with his critics,especially Dershowitz. In a rather humorous scene Dershowitz suggests that Finkelstein probably has a deep-seated problem with his Judaism.Unlike Dershowitz of course.Gulp. Another rather strange candidate to interview is a childhood friend, who from the comfort of her Telaviv home seems perplexed why Finkelstein,as she puts it,chose Jewish lawyers as the target of his"strange hate".Poor Jewish lawyers.Needless to say, the value of her opinions are rather questionable. To come to the point, nothing short of the Nobelpeace price could do this man justice. We are all in your debt Norman.Obama you sucker, move over. Here is a real Mensch.

I agree with the previous reviewer who said that equal time spent watching a debate or discussion yields more information. However, if the film leads to viewers looking into the issues (Palestinian self determination, academic freedom, the US role in the conflict, etc...) then it serves a valuable function.

The uncomfortable thing about this type of film is that, perhaps out of certain features of the medium of film itself, it puts an individual at center stage of an event that impacts all of us, and has a kind of disempowering effect. We experience the drama through Finklestein and in a way purge ourselves of the responsibility to act in our own way. I watched the documentary, "All the Power to the People" soon after watching "American Radical" and was impressed by the difference in my reactions. I think the former succeeds in presenting the multiple dimensions of a social movement. I don't mean to compare the two films, and cannot fault "American Radical" for failing to achieve goals it did not set for itself. I do think it is noteworthy that some documentaries manage to avoid the presentation of history as being merely the result of key individuals.

What a remarkable Being.

Resolve such as this unequivocally emanates from a very deep seated sense of Humanity.

He unwaveringly challenges with a banner of Morality and Ethics in one hand and Factual Truths in the other.

Such a Noble individual, to stand against many of those within his own religious faith, knowing them to be Wrong.

This can only be true Righteousness.

Whether he is of Jewish faith or not, appears to be far less relevant to him than are his guiding Moral Values and Ethical Principles.

His profound sense of Humanity was undoubtedly nurtured early in life by his mother and what she came away with, from her own persecution under the Nazis.

Simply put, he is a true Rebel.

Much has been written about the 'Humanity of the Rebel' throughout history. Essentially, it is one who selflessly challenges Injustice, regardless.

What makes him a Radical however, is not his message, but rather that he does little to self-preserve. So tenaciously committed, is he, to the message, that he has forsaken better judgment when it comes to his own personal needs.

Unlike his mentor Chomsky who bucks the establishment from within, he does so from without, and hence, has found himself more ostracized, besieged, and assaulted. This has sadly brought him much personal sacrifice and pain, to say the least.

Otherwise as a Rebel, he clearly has no interest in personal empowerment, as evidenced by his plight. He continually and steadfastly reiterates the Truthful Facts as they stand, allowing them to speak for themselves.

He is such an extremely well-informed scholar that it has been virtually impossible for anyone to take him on based on the facts, whether in writing or in debate. He consistently attempts to remain intellectually focused and composed, not allowing anyone to derail him, nor deflect and escape his steel-trap mind.

To his credit, he has been unwavering in his onslaught against Injustice, in spite of the many risks, hardships and obstacles before him.

One can only hope, that in time, he will become more enlightened with regard to the need to effect change from within, however, even if so, it is likely too late, as he has found himself indeed a self-made pariah. Otherwise, he should continue in his noble pursuit of challenging Injustice, and hopefully without any additional peril to himself.

Unfortunately, for this Rebel, as with others in history, their goal is never fully accomplished, for Injustice will forever be part of the Human Experience.

As with all genuine rebels, he will be hailed and remembered long after he has gone.

A quick bio of Finkelstein, an outspoken Jew with bones to pick in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an overview of the troubles spawned by his controversial stances. He's a rare voice in the sense that his opinions place him at-odds with his religious homeland, decrying the lack of a Palestinian state and brow-beating the Israeli government for their part in allegedly whitewashing the conflict. It should come as no surprise that such a vocal, incendiary stance has made him all manner of powerful enemies, and his sharp, confrontational personal nature does him no further favors in that respect. Finkelstein at his best is intriguing, an engaging speaker with a fiery streak and the credentials, both personal and scholastic, to back him up against any opponent. Sadly, he also seems doomed to a fate of self-contradiction. He often employs the very same methods in his own tricky public speaking engagements that he vehemently decries in the opposition, even if this documentary does try its very best to clip and trim around such moments. It's just one side of a very complicated debate, and while he does make some convincing points that refute the official story from the United States and Israel, it can be difficult to accept his story and make a judgment without an equally eloquent counterpoint in play.

A quick bio of Finkelstein, an outspoken Jew with bones to pick in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and an overview of the troubles spawned by his controversial stances. He's a rare voice in the sense that his opinions place him at-odds with his religious homeland, decrying the lack of a Palestinian state and brow-beating the Israeli government for their part in allegedly whitewashing the conflict. It should come as no surprise that such a vocal, incendiary stance has made him all manner of powerful enemies, and his sharp, confrontational personal nature does him no further favors in that respect. Finkelstein at his best is intriguing, an engaging speaker with a fiery streak and the credentials, both personal and scholastic, to back him up against any opponent. Sadly, he also seems doomed to a fate of self-contradiction. He often employs the very same methods in his own tricky public speaking engagements that he vehemently decries in the opposition, even if this documentary does try its very best to clip and trim around such moments. It's just one side of a very complicated debate, and while he does make some convincing points that refute the official story from the United States and Israel, it can be difficult to accept his story and make a judgment without an equally eloquent counterpoint in play.

The son of Holocaust survivors and the talisman of those opposed to the policies of the state of Israel, Norman Finkelstein is a divisive figure, and both camps will probably get what they want out of this film.

To his supporters, who see in him the courage of a Jew willing to take a stand against the policies of the Israeli state, Finkelstein appears a dedicated and well-read scholar. His academic positions are not esteemed (and indeed, the more controversial his views, the faster his universities seem to want rid of him), but he can call on the likes of Noam Chomsky as supporters, the likes of Oxford University are willing to host his talks, his students adore him and his books continue to hit the top of best-seller lists.

To those suspicious of the origins of his views, the film illuminates his mother's pacifism and liberalism in the wake of surviving the Holocaust as formative on Finkelstein's worldview, whilst his opposition to the Lebanese War and time spent living in the West Bank with the Palestinians act as the catalyst to spending a lifetime exposing the 'crimes' of the Israeli state.

The problem with Finkelstein, and the reason why many see in him nothing but a 'self-hating Jew', is the manner in which he picks his fights. There are many scholars at respected institutions who are critical of Israeli policy, particularly in Europe, but they aren't releasing books called 'The Holocaust Industry' and taking their book tours to Lebanon, or publicly accusing the Harvard professor Alan Dershowtiz of fraud and plagiarism. Even Chomsky, who has never had an issue taking contrarian positions, appears to take issue with the figures Finkelstein decides to focus his efforts on.

There is surely room in the debate for a Jew who is willing to take on the Israeli state, even for one who is admittedly pro-Palestinian; in 'Budrus' we have seen the potential of Jewish citizens to shift perspectives on both sides of the wall. Yet there are surely better ways for Finkelstein to direct his energies than through arguments and acts that only exacerbate antagonisms in the region and act as diversions to the actual debate, which must be undertaken civilly.

Concluding Thought: Find it really difficult to pass judgement on Finkelstein without having personally read his books and weighed the arguments against the likes of Dershowitz'. As such, I found this enlightening, but ultimately restricted in scope.