This is the 2nd article citing Norman Finkelstein that I've responded to in the last week. My first response was clumsy and misjudged but this article has clarified my thinking. I do feel you are using his speech to justify something he probably wouldn't agree with.

You seem to suggest that a slogan needs to appeal to both sides of an argument rather than to parties that might not share your world view but could be pursuaded to side with you. I believe Norman's point is that you need a slogan that hits the nail on the head & doesn't jar with those who need some pursuading.

To this end you could raise the objections from the Israeli side and the historical interpretations but I don't find that convincing. To be honest I don't find Finkelstien's solution at all convincing either. If anything, the controversy helps to elevate the message and ask the right questions.

From a Palestinian perspective the Israeli state cannot be allowed to stand just as South African Apartheid wasn't viable. Furthermore, no one approaches a serious negotiation with ready written compromises. "From the river to the sea Palestinians will be free" has no edge to it and, to be honest, I'd be embarrassed to suggest it to my Palestinian friends.