Norman Finkelstein may indeed be a 'self-made pariah' of his time but this is not in vain and his resonance will likely have a positive enduring influence well beyond his time. Why isn't this obvious to everyone?People can't really find Finkelstein wrong, they just don't want him to speak. Norman here offers informed, truthful discussion and so many people rail against his desire for his clear, open dialogue. It's as though we're so mired in our hypocrisy just speaking the truth is banned. This is a terrible life situation made clear several times in the content of this well-made documentary. This man is tirelessly and unrelentingly committed to logical clarity and humaneness concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Why is that even 'radical' and not common sense?This film about Professor Finkelstein's 'radical' activism has value. Watching and hearing people trying to bring him down It is difficult not to feel extreme disappointment in our fellow man's principles and character, yet despite this I want to dig deep and find more determination for what hope humanity may have left. So there's a notably positive net result to the Professor's cause. I felt a similar mixture of despair and defiance - even faith? - once while visiting the concentration camp memorial in Dachau, Germany. 'We're terrible at our worst, yet we're all One, and must somehow continue as one' was my galvanizing thought about humanity as I wandered, dazed in that horrifying place.Norman Finkelstein has a particular gift - he immediately inspires many people to think and speak, humanely. That's far from a futile waste of anyone's time, and well worth the trouble it gets him.

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.

American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein (2009) is the story of an honest man in an inherently corrupt society.Norman Finkelstein sees the solution to the Palestinian/Israel conflict as a simple one but the issue has become one of revenge. How can the Palestinian ever forget or forgive the daily atrocities committed on mostly innocent people by Israel?The term "holocaust industry" is perfectly applicable to the methods used by Israel to frame themselves as the victims in this particular conflict. Literally millions of dollars every year is paid to firms and media outlets to shape the message, create propaganda and stifle criticism of their unmitigated barbarism on the Palestinian people.What is surprising is that the Jews having suffered so greatly under Naziism would allow themselves to be hijacked into emulating their oppressors rather than becoming an enlightened power for world peace. American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein (2009) shows clearly the irrational and dishonest behaviour of many spokespeople in support Israel. These talking heads, that included the crudely dishonest Alan Dershowitz, ignore utterly Israel's relentless crimes against humanity and paint a picture of Israel based more on a hyper-reality propagated by the corporate media rather than empirical evidence.Alan Dershowitz's blatant dishonesty and surprising ignorance does not bode well for the future of American academia. His bitterness at being so thoroughly bested and exposed as a fraud by Norman Finkelstein on the program "Democracy Now" resulted in a vile yet successful campaign to ostracise Finkelstein from the American educational system.Norman Finkelstein does only one thing, he tells the truth. The trouble with Finkelstein, is he is able to express his message eloquently and succinctly. In times where Truth is rapidly becoming unknowable due to disinformation, lies and insidious forms of corporate propaganda, Finkelstein and his message is, as he himself states, "a painful pill."

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.