Sunday, July 22, 2007
I guess I'd call this a bad review: Answering the call of jihad
Norton, a former observer with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, states in his prologue that he seeks to provide "a more balanced and nuanced account" of Hizbullah, which he calls a "complex organization." Of course, there is little that is complex or nuanced about a group that receives an estimated $100 million a year from the radical Islamic regime in Iran to carry out violence, and has used violence as its raison d'etre dating back to the 1980s.
Indeed, Hizbullah exists to further the violent aims of Iran, to demonize and attack the US and to destroy Israel. Norton neglects to state this unequivocally and, for that reason, he should be publicly shamed...
...Norton's book tries to explain away this violence. He writes that the term "terrorist" is a "rhetorical bludgeon" used to "dehumanize radical or revolutionary groups."...
[h/t: Eric D]
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hezbollah's BU Apologist.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/13118
This was the piece I wrote for Pajamas Media in February. Since the requisite time has passed, I thought I'd repost it here. Right after I submitted it, Finkelstein made yet another shocking trip to Hizballahville. Here's my PJ piece:... Read More
I'm not particularly proud of Norton's association with my alma mater. He is in no way a legitimate scholar; a proficient scholar recognizes that creating an artificially-balanced portrayal of a person, group, event, etc. has little value in comparison to the importance of truth. I recognize that perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned in thinking that the pursuit of truth - rather than the pursuit of one's unhinged version of social or political justice - is the function of the scholar.
Most all of Norton's instructional capacities are with graduate students or advanced undergraduates. In one way, this is comforting; it means that his exposure to the masses majoring in Political Science, IR and Anthropology at Boston University avoid him. On the other hand, he's working closely with the most advanced students in the disciplines.
Will he be shamed publicly as the JPost review suggests? Absolutely not - few academics will likely care and, if so, he will be defended vigorously by colleagues and his students. We can, however, respond appropriately to his irrelevance by giving his work as much attention as it deserves.