To many observers, the pairing seemed bizarre: a lifelong left-wing dissident and fierce critic of Israeli policy sitting down with a media figure who has defended white nationalist talking points, questioned the historical reality of the Holocaust, and promoted claims such as the idea that France’s first lady was “born a man.” Critics on social media called it a disgrace.
But moral outrage is not the same as moral clarity. Finkelstein’s decision to meet Owens may have shocked his admirers, but it was entirely consistent with the principles that have guided his career for nearly half a century: an unflinching commitment to open argument, a refusal to obey ideological taboos, and a belief that truth is strengthened — not endangered — by confrontation.
A Life Spent Challenging Power
Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors from Warsaw, rose to prominence in the late 1990s with The Holocaust Industry, a controversial book that accused governments and institutions of exploiting Holocaust memory for political and financial ends. The book divided scholars and activists. Historian Peter Novick of the University of Chicago dismissed it as “trash,” while historian David Cesarani wrote that its serious points were “distorted by a venomous dislike” of Jewish elites.
Finkelstein’s criticism of Israel’s occupation policies, and of U.S. support for them, made him a target of organized opposition. In 2007 DePaul University denied him tenure after a public campaign led by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who accused him of academic dishonesty — an accusation Finkelstein and many of his supporters vigorously rejected.
Through all this, Finkelstein remained consistent: he has always gone wherever the argument takes him, regardless of the reputational cost.
The Paradox of Candace Owens
Candace Owens built her career by marketing outrage. Her commentary — frequently broadcast through The Daily Wire and social-media platforms — has included suggestions that nationalism is unfairly demonized, that systemic racism is exaggerated, and that Adolf Hitler’s only mistake was “going global.” These statements have drawn condemnation from historians and civil-rights groups.
The irony, of course, is that Owens herself is Black — a fact that sits awkwardly alongside her repeated defences of structures and figures associated with white supremacy. Her success depends on that contradiction: she is both the critic and the symbol of the world she defends.
That paradox made her an especially revealing interlocutor for Finkelstein, whose own career has been defined by contradictions — a Jewish scholar denounced by Zionist institutions; a left-wing critic who refuses to flatter progressive orthodoxy.
Engagement, Not Endorsement
In an age when political life is built on silos, Finkelstein’s decision to enter Owens’s space was not a lapse in judgment; it was a deliberate act of engagement. He has long argued that refusing to speak to ideological opponents only entrenches division.
Appearing on Owens’s show does not imply agreement. It demonstrates confidence that arguments grounded in fact and history can hold their own, even in hostile territory. As the child of Holocaust survivors and an academic who has spent his career studying genocide, Finkelstein represents a living rebuke to denialism and distortion. His very presence in that conversation challenges the myths Owens’s followers often absorb untested.
The Cost of Intellectual Independence
Organizations like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) have criticized Finkelstein for decades, portraying his work as biased against Israel. CAMERA describes itself as a pro-Israel media-monitoring group dedicated to correcting “inaccurate and skewed coverage.” Supporters call it a watchdog; critics see it as an advocacy organization that pressures journalists to soften coverage of Israeli state policy.
Such criticism underscores the pattern that has followed Finkelstein throughout his career: his willingness to defy the boundaries of “respectable” discourse routinely provokes institutional pushback. Yet he continues to engage — not to seek approval, but to keep the space for dissent open.
The Courage to Risk Misunderstanding
It is easy to denounce someone like Owens from afar. It is harder — and riskier — to face her in person, in front of her own audience, and insist on truth. Finkelstein’s appearance did not validate her ideas; it tested them.
Whether or not it changed any minds, it demonstrated a principle in short supply: the courage to confront falsehood directly. For Finkelstein, debate has never been a performance of virtue; it is a moral duty grounded in faith that reason and evidence still matter.
Truth Can Withstand Exposure
Norman Finkelstein’s conversation with Candace Owens will not erase his history of controversy, nor will it silence those who find his tactics abrasive. But it remains consistent with the intellectual independence that has defined his life’s work.
To mistake dialogue for surrender is to confuse moral purity with moral courage. Finkelstein’s choice to meet a conspiracist was not a collapse of integrity — it was a statement of faith that truth, if it is real, can survive even the roughest company.
In an era that rewards silence and punishes risk, that conviction deserves not condemnation, but respect.
⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.
Worth a second read.
ReplyDeleteFirst response - a well considered and a well articulated articled.