{"id":32563,"date":"2024-03-30T12:51:57","date_gmt":"2024-03-30T19:51:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=32563"},"modified":"2024-03-30T20:55:40","modified_gmt":"2024-03-31T03:55:40","slug":"norman-finkelstein-on-israels-final-solution-in-gaza","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2024\/03\/30\/norman-finkelstein-on-israels-final-solution-in-gaza\/","title":{"rendered":"NORMAN FINKELSTEIN ON ISRAEL\u2019S \u2018FINAL SOLUTION\u2019 IN GAZA"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Screenshot<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

POSTED INTHE CHRIS HEDGES REPORT<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The renegade historian speaks with Chris Hedges at Princeton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY CHRIS HEDGES<\/a><\/strong> MARCH 28, 2024 (therealnews.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Screenshot courtesy of Aaron Raizenberg<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"YouTube<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein and Chris Hedges appeared together at Princeton University on March 21 for \u201cOn the Gaza Genocide,\u201d where they discussed the events of Oct. 7, the logic of Israel\u2019s retaliation, and the response of the Democratic Party to rising opposition to the Biden administration\u2019s support for the genocide in Gaza.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Videographer: Aaron Raizenberg<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

TRANSCRIPT<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Justice in Palestine, it is our pleasure and honor to welcome you all today to this important conversation on the ongoing Israeli genocide on Gaza with the company of our esteemed guests, Norman Finkelstein and Chris Hedges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We would like to begin by extending our thanks and gratitude to the Princeton Muslim Advocates for Social Justice, also known as MASJID, the Center for Collaborative History, and the Department of New Eastern Studies for being our co-sponsors for this event. Thank you so much for your support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we speak, more than 70% of people in Gaza are suffering from catastrophic levels of hunger. At least 25 people, including babies and children, have died of dehydration and starvation. The United Nations Secretary General has said that this is the highest number of people facing catastrophic hunger ever recorded anywhere, anytime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People have resorted to scavenging, eating grass and animal feed and drinking polluted water. Starving mothers are unable to produce enough milk to feed their babies. Miscarriages among pregnant women in Gaza have skyrocketed by 300% due to a combination of malnutrition and extreme chronic stress and fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israel has murdered over 30,000 people in Gaza since October 2023, close to 14,000 of them being children. Every single university in Gaza has been bombed and destroyed, obliterating the educational infrastructure. Only 12 of Gaza\u2019s 36 hospitals are even partially functional. More than 1,000 children have had to undergo amputations of one or both legs without anesthesia since the beginning of Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza. These numbers reflect only a fraction of the horrors that Palestinians and Gaza have had to endure due to Israel\u2019s assaults. And we now live in a world where Palestinians have been forced to live stream their pain and trauma, many of which many of us here have beared witness to from our devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As this talk will remind us, history did not begin on October 7th. As we continue to bear witness to and protest against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, it is more pressing than ever for people to learn and pay attention to the history of Palestine and of the violence that Israeli apartheid state has done unto the people and land of Palestine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We gather here today in an effort to confront the political reality underpinning some of these horrors. We gather here to reflect on the ways that we as people who live in the United States, a persistent supporter and funder of Israel\u2019s apartheid and genocide of Palestine, can pressure our government to change course. And finally, we gather here, or at least most of us, as people who will no longer stand by in silence as our government actively funds and partakes in upholding apartheid and genocide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So before getting started, I\u2019d like to introduce a little about our speakers for this event. Norman Finkelstein is the author of many books, including the Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, and Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom. He graduated from Binghamton University School for advanced studies in the social sciences and received his PhD from Princeton University\u2019s Department of Politics. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and the Paul University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continuing on, Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize winning Former Foreign Correspondent who spent two decades covering conflicts in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He was the Middle East Bureau chief for the New York Times and the papers Balkan Bureau chief during the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. He was later based in Paris where he covered Al-Qaeda for the New York Times and Europe and the Middle East. He was a vocal critic of the invasion of Iraq and left the paper after being told by the editors that he was not allowed to publicly speak out against the war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, our very own Princeton University and the University of Toronto. He has also taught for over a decade in the college degree program offered by Rutgers in the New Jersey prison system. He\u2019s also the author of 14 books, including titles such as War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, American Fascists, The Christian Right, and the War on America, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, and other New York Times bestsellers. He\u2019s currently working on a book about Gaza for Simon & Schuster with the cartoonist Joe Sacco.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, without further ado, it is my utmost pleasure to welcome Dr. Norman Finkelstein and Mr. Chris Hedges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I\u2019m a journalist, not an academic, not a great historian like Professor Finkelstein in journalism. If any of you are considering, the profession is a very superficial profession. We always say journalists know a little about a lot of things. And it is impossible, although I spent seven years covering the Middle East, to have any conception of what\u2019s happening in the Middle East, in Palestine, in Israel, unless you read history, unless you read the works of the great historians such as Dr. Finkelstein and Benny Morris and Ilan Papp\u00e9 and others. And so that context is key. One of the things that I have always found when I covered conflicts was that the aggressor seeks to destroy the context to make the reaction of the oppressed incomprehensible. If there is no context, then when you see people burst through the security barriers of their open air prison and carry out, admittedly, I think Norman and I will both concede, atrocities, you don\u2019t understand that long, slow drip of oppression, humiliation and murder that has been carried out by the Palestinians trapped in their concentration camp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Context is key. And that\u2019s why I have so much admiration for what Norman does as a scholar. He\u2019s paid the price. I always think of Julien Benda\u2019s great book, Treason of the Intellectuals, where he talks about those intellectuals who hedge and essentially distort the truth to advance their careers and get foundation grants in 10 year. Not that any of that would happen here. And Norman didn\u2019t do that. It was Joan Peters, right? Joan Peters who wrote this book that many especially Zionist scholars used. It was completely mendacious. I think she was a journalist herself. I don\u2019t even think she was an academic, but they used it to build the scaffolding of how the Palestinian people didn\u2019t have an identity, that that was an empty land. And in his doctoral work, he obliterated it. I know Noam Chomsky, we both admire immensely and Norman and Noam are close to warned him, but it was his integrity coupled with his brilliance that he refused to back off. And he took on that very powerful Zionist, those institutions from day one and he\u2019s paid a tremendous price for it. But what he\u2019s retained is his integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I think we should begin, Norman will come and speak, I think the first thing we have to do is put where we are today in historical context, and there\u2019s very few scholars who can do it as well as Norman can. Thanks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, thank you for having me here today. I attended Princeton for my graduate school. And that\u2019s already, for better or for worse, it\u2019s a half century ago. You\u2019ll just direct me and I\u2019ll get it in a moment. Would you prefer if I use my this mic and this one and just shut this off? You can\u2019t have both because of the feedback.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 3:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[inaudible 00:09:33].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, that\u2019s what I meant. But you have to shut this off because of the feedback. Let\u2019s see. Yeah, no, it\u2019s fine. Okay, thank you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Join thousands of others who rely on our journalism to navigate complex issues, uncover hidden truths, and challenge the status quo with our free newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox twice a week<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s now been a half century. I played a little game with myself to remember the buildings. I remember obviously the Graduate College Housing. Corwin Hall, is that still here? The political science department. What we called Woody Woo, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s still around. What\u2019s it now called?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audience:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audience:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPIA? What does that stand for?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audience:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

School of Public and International Affairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aha. And of course, where I spent my entire time when I was here. I know that edifice still stands, which is Firestone Library, which at the time was the single biggest unit in terms of collection of books in the entire United States. I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s still the case. Other schools like Harvard obviously had several units, but the single biggest unit was Firestone Library. So those are the memories aside from Bowen. Bowen, you can hide. We charge you with genocide because I was active in the anti-apartheid movement when I was here. So thank you for receiving me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What I want to do just by way of introductory remarks, is to give what journalists used to call, at least that\u2019s what we were told when I was in grade school, the key questions, and Chris Hedges can correct me, were always who, what, when, where, how, and why. Is that still what you\u2019re talking to [inaudible 00:11:31]?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, they are. That\u2019s fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. I remember learning it in 7th grade in library class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not going to do exactly who, what, when and where, how, and why, but I\u2019ll do something along those lines. I\u2019ll begin with what happened on October 7th. I would say that parts of it are relatively clear. Other parts of it are somewhat obscure. There hasn\u2019t yet been a full-fledged international investigation of what happened, and there have been investigatory bodies formed by the United Nations, but to date, the Israeli government hasn\u2019t cooperated with them. But what I think roughly, and I don\u2019t claim to have any special knowledge here that many of you have, because what happened on October 7th basically depends on digital evidence. I will freely confess since October 7th, I haven\u2019t watched any digital evidence from October 7th on. I occasionally look at a picture, but I have not looked at the digital evidence, not by the Israeli side, not by Al Jazeera. I haven\u2019t watched it. But from what I\u2019m told, the digital evidence isn\u2019t definitive on things like numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And also the other kind of evidence would be forensic evidence, but there\u2019s been relatively little forensic evidence on October 7th. What you could say is what most of you know, approximately 1,200 people were killed. Of those 1,200, approximately 800 or more were civilians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve asked many people whose judgment I respect because I don\u2019t feel the competence. You can say with a certain amount of confidence that a clear majority of those killed were killed by Hamas and affiliated groups. And also, there\u2019s one question which will come into play in a few moments. Apparently the militants from Gaza burst the gates of Gaza in three\u2026 It\u2019s now called Three Waves. The first wave were Hamas Commandos. The second wave were other armed groups from Gaza. And the third wave were Palestinians from Gaza who were not affiliated with any particular armed or militant organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, those are roughly the facts. And people in the audience in the course of this evening can add to those facts, amend those facts. As I say, I don\u2019t claim to be a particular expert on that particular topic. And I don\u2019t believe that the evidence is clear on that. One basic question where I think the evidence is completely murky is, what exactly was Hamas\u2019 goal? Was the goal to take combatants hostage? Was the goal to take combatants and civilians hostage? Was the goal to take combatants and civilians hostage and also to commit a large scale massacre of civilians? I don\u2019t believe the evidence is at all clear, and I think it\u2019s quite possible. We\u2019ll never know what their goals were.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, there\u2019s a totally separate question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 1:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can you turn your lapel mic back on?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I thought I had it on. Maybe I should lift it. Yeah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 1:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. For some reason\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe you want to turn up the volume?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 1:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, you should turn up the volume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that\u2019s\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 1:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ll figure that out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not able to do that. Is that better? Is that better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 1:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s fine. It\u2019s fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. Now, obviously the factual side of a question is only one side of the question. The other side is how do you morally evaluate it? And I have to say that the first day, October 7th, it seemed like it was a, so to speak, prison break, or in my opinion, concentration camp break, that there were casualties on the Israeli side. The figure that was given on the first day was about 50 to my recollection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As in any break from a concentration camp, I would of course be on the side of those who broke through. That was the first day. But by the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the numbers started to climb. It didn\u2019t reach 1,400 until about one week later. Clearly, there was some massive death that occurred, massive atrocities that occurred. And then one has to figure out how to make sense of it. Now, most people made sense of it by answering that question, not the famous one of the 1950s of, \u201cAre you now? Or have you ever been a communist?\u201d But the question was, do you condemn what Hamas did? And I have to say, and I\u2019ve freely admitted to it, I found that to be a moral quandary. Why? Because I had spent the last 15 years chronicling what had been done to the people of Gaza, the fact that they had been locked up in a concentration camp.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s not my opinion. It was the opinion of Giora Eiland who was the head of Israel\u2019s National Security Council, and who\u2019s a person, Israel is off the spectrum, and he\u2019s off the Israeli spectrum now. Mr. Eiland, he\u2019s the one who\u2019s credited with probably the most insane remarks pertaining to the situation now in Gaza. And he already said in March 2004, he described Gaza as a huge concentration camp. That was before, that was before the blockade had been imposed in its strongest form, which began in January 2006. And then the blockade, it was tightened even more in 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I had read a lot, mostly if not entirely UN reports, UNCTAD, the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and a slew of other international organizations. They were describing a situation in Gaza over a sustained period of time, which was inhuman. Most of the young men who burst the gates of Gaza on October 7th, they had been born into a concentration camp. And as of October 6th, the very high probability was that they were going to die in that concentration camp. I found it very hard to fastly condemn them. I said, condemn them because I don\u2019t have any difficulty in condemning atrocities, the targeting of civilians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll even be honest with you. I do try to stick to the international law. But let\u2019s say 400 of the combatants that were killed, if they were combatants who were just attending a music festival, I actually don\u2019t think their lives should have been lost. So I have sympathy both for the actual civilians who were killed, but the category of combatants can also, I think, obscure some realities. So if some soldier was taking his time off to attend a music festival, in my mind, and we can obviously disagree in it, I would still classify them as a civilian. That\u2019s how I see it. I recognize that\u2019s not the legal denotation, but in my own moral calculus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so I have no problem condemning the atrocities, but I did recoil at condemning the perpetrators of the atrocities. That was a moral struggle for me and those days were not easy because I couldn\u2019t find my way. Again, I\u2019ll freely admit that even though I am fairly confident of my competence in the facts of the situation, I\u2019m not very confident of my moral judgment. I take the life of the mind very seriously. And I know moral philosophy is a significant intellectual endeavor, and I wasn\u2019t confident that I was equipped mentally to pass a judgment here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My usual recourse, I\u2019m not proud of it, I\u2019m not ashamed of it, my usual recourse for the past 40 years was to defer to the judgment of Professor Chomsky because he was, in his intellectual equipment, he was steeped in Western philosophy. And not just Western philosophy and Hebrew philosophy. He had, my experience, he had exemplary moral judgment. But at that particular moment, he wasn\u2019t available to me and I felt this sudden huge burden because I recognized many people were waiting to hear what I had to say and I really wasn\u2019t sure. I knew what my gut feeling told me. As I said, I recoiled from condemning them, even as I recognized atrocities of a significant magnitude had occurred. It happened that in recent years, I had put the Israel Palestine conflict behind me, and I did start to do fairly significant reading on the African American history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I remembered, as quite a number of people here will remember, that we had our own slavery votes in the United States and that they were very ugly. I went back and I started to read about things like the Nat Turner Rebellion. And Nat Turner, he was a slave. He was a very smart guy. Everyone, white and Black, said, \u201cThis Nat Turner is a very clever fellow.\u201d And he was torn by the reality of this huge chasm that separated his potential as a human being from the reality that he would be a slave from the day he was born to the day he died, and none of his potential would ever be realized. And at some point, Mr. Turner, who was a religious fanatic of the first degree, Mr. Turner gathered around him others. They plotted a slave rebellion. They went out and the order Nat Turner gave was kill all whites. That was the order, kill all whites. And that\u2019s what they proceeded to do. They went from house to house, chopped off the heads of babies. That\u2019s literally true. They beheaded babies. They shattered skulls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was ugly. I would say in some respects, not in terms of numbers, but actions. In some respects, it was worse than October 7th. The numbers vastly differed. It was about 60 whites that were killed before they were suppressed. So now I had in my mind an analogy. The question now I turned to was, \u201cOkay, let me see how the abolitionists, the judgment they rendered on Nat Turner.\u201d And the first person I looked at was William Lloyd Garrison, the editor of the Liberator. It was kind of, if I can use the expression, it was a kind of eureka moment for me. Garrison said, \u201cNo question horrors occurred during that Turner\u2019s rebellion.\u201d Horrible things happened. But it\u2019s very noticeable when you read his postmortem. He never condemns Nat Turner. Read it yourself. It\u2019s easily available. What he does is he condemns his fellow whites. He kept saying, he begins his postmortem and ends it by saying, \u201cWe told you so. We told you so. We told you. If you treat people like that, at some point-\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 told you, \u201cIf you treat people like that, at some point you will reap what you have sown.\u201d As I said, that was a kind of epiphany for me, a eureka moment. I felt, now, I had the right framework for trying to understand what happened, which is, \u201cYou condemn what happened and don\u2019t pretend it didn\u2019t happen.\u201d On the other hand, that William Lloyd Garrison, knowing what it meant to be a slave, he didn\u2019t have it in him to condemn Nat Turner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was the same thing with me. A large part of what I\u2019ve written the last 10 and 15 years was just chronicling that horror, not just the horror of being born in there, the horror of no future, the horror of no past, the horror of no present. There were also those periodic mowings of the lawn, what Israel calls its operations. The periodic high-tech massacres: Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defense, Operation Protective Edge, the horrors of life in a concentration camp compounded by the horrors of those periodic \u201cmowings of the lawn\u201d in Gaza. And, it\u2019s not entirely incorrect. In fact, I think it\u2019s close to reality. For those who recoil at what Hamas did on October 7th, from their point of view, it was their \u201cmowing of the lawn.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You want to use that pathological, that diabolical, that utterly sick metaphor of \u201cmowing the lawn.\u201d That lawn, one half of the blades on that lawn, one half of the blades on that lawn are children. Gaza is about 50% children and about 70% refugees and the descendants of refugees from 1948. So, if you find it amusing to talk about \u201cmowing the lawn,\u201d Hamas was just as amused when it \u201cmowed the lawn\u201d on October 7th.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Israeli reaction had three components to it. The first component is straightforward. It was bloodlust, revenge. \u201cWe will revenge what happened on October 7th.\u201d I\u2019m sure everybody will recognize that\u2019s not exactly a sentiment alien to the hearts of most human beings. The revenge here, however, had a second aspect to it. It was the outrage, the fury, that these untermenschen, these subhumans, in Gaza had, on October 7th, outsmarted the Israeli ubermenschen, the Israeli supermen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Particularly in my generation, Israel had the image of\u2026 You can call it a \u201cJames Bond writ large,\u201d the commando operations. Most of you will know, I suspect, that the current Prime Minister\u2019s, Mr. Netanyahu\u2019s brother was famously killed during the commando raid on Entebbe. The whole country had projected this image of a cutting edge, James Bond, high-tech, super surveillance country. Lo and behold, on October 7th, this ragtag army of untermenschen, of subhumans, had outsmarted them, outwitted them, humiliated them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, the bloodlust revenge was compounded and exacerbated by the desire to exact revenge for the humiliation that had been visited on the Israeli high-tech James Bond society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second concern in the Israeli response was the fear of the loss of its deterrence capability. Deterrence capability or deterrence capacity, which is a crucial component of Israeli military doctrine and political doctrine, is very simple. It\u2019s a fancy term, but all it means is the Arab world\u2019s fear of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israel, for all its modern history, has felt that in order to keep the Arabs in their place, we have to have them dread the prospect of Israeli retaliation, the fear. After October 7th, I\u2019m fully willing to admit Israel did have a significant security problem on its hands. The problem was it suddenly dawned on many Arabs and Muslims that, \u201cHey, maybe Israel isn\u2019t as invincible as we thought, and maybe there is a military option against them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Up until that moment, with the single exception of the Hezbollah, which had claimed, or said openly, in the words of Sayyed Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah\u2026 After the battle of Bint Jbiel in 2006, he said, \u201cIsrael is a spider\u2019s web. You just blow on it.\u201d Oh, excuse me. \u201cYou just blow on it, and it will disappear.\u201d But, that was definitely not the predominant view in the Arab-Muslim world. The world view was Hezbollah was militarily, invincible. Suddenly, on October 7th, as I said, it began to dawn on the Arab-Muslim world, the popular level, the popular level, \u201cMaybe, it isn\u2019t all that strong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I could just give a brief anecdote. A little more than a week ago, I was on a debate with Israel\u2019s Senior Historian, Benny Morris. I mentioned this fact about Israel\u2019s deterrence capacity having collapsed on October 7th, and the Arab world now thinking, \u201cMaybe, we can militarily defeat him.\u201d I was very struck by his response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He laughed. I thought a kind of nervous laugh, but that\u2019s my opinion. He said, \u201cWell, we have nuclear bombs.\u201d What struck me about that answer was he didn\u2019t gloat about the army. He didn\u2019t say, \u201cWe have the IDF. We have the Air Force.\u201d He didn\u2019t. He immediately reached for the nuclear bombs because it had apparently seemed to have sunk into him that, \u201cThe IDF isn\u2019t as powerful as we thought.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the insane reaction by Israel after October 7th, it was also an effort to restore its deterrence capacity, to transmit to the Arab world the message, \u201cIf you mess with us, we\u2019ll turn your country into Gaza.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is the bloodlust, the deterrence capability or capacity. The third component, in my opinion, is the most important one. I don\u2019t want to trivialize the first two. That is, everybody knows the cliche that, \u201cEvery crisis is an opportunity.\u201d The Israelis realized on October 7th, as Mao Zedong used to say, \u201cHow to turn a bad thing into a good thing.\u201d They were going to use what happened on October 7th to finally, once and for all, put an end to the Gaza problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For those of you who know the history, the people in Gaza have always refused, in quite militant ways, to acquiesce in their fate, the fate of being born, living and dying in a concentration camp. Now, because of October 7th, Israel envisaged, and you\u2019ll excuse the obvious analogy, \u201cIt was time for the final solution to the Gaza question.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, what was the solution? I would say the solution fell on the spectrum. At one end of the spectrum was to ethnically cleanse Gaza. That seemed to be their goal the first week or so, when they thought they could sweep the entire population into the Egyptian Sinai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those plans were foiled by the Egyptian President who said, \u201cWe are not going to solve your Gaza problem. It\u2019s not going to be at our expense.\u201d That\u2019s one point on the spectrum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The middle point of the spectrum was to make Gaza uninhabitable, as Giora Eiland put it at one point, the former head of the National Security Council. Not now, but he\u2019s still prominent. He\u2019s an advisor to the Defense Minister, Gallant. He said, \u201cWe will give the people of Gaza two choices. Choice one, stay and starve. Choice two, to leave,\u201d to make Gaza uninhabitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third point on the spectrum is to just carry out a genocide without any elaboration and without any subtlety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would say it\u2019s still an open question, how it will end. It\u2019s possible that enough pressure will be exerted on President Sisi to open the Rafah gate and expel the population. It\u2019s possible that we will be entering a period, judging by all international UN and humanitarian organizations, in which a large part of the population will starve to death. That\u2019s a significant possibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t know better than anyone here. For those of you who have studied these matters, and have attempted to, the way the international organizations classify hunger, starvation, famine, it\u2019s a complex formula. I can never commit it to memory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s certain is, as Human Rights Watch put it about two months ago, and as all UN officials without exception are putting it now, \u201cStarvation is being used as a weapon.\u201d It\u2019s a calculated, premeditated attempt to starve the people of Gaza.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you read the New York Times yesterday, they had a long article trying to persuade readers that the problem in Gaza is a technical one, how to deliver the goods. The roads are old. The inspections can be protracted. It\u2019s not a technical question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you look at the statements by the EU Foreign Policy Chief Mr. Borrell, if you look at the statements by Mr. Lazzarini, the head of the UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, if you look at the statements even by Gutierrez, the Secretary General of the UN, it\u2019s a calculated policy. This is not a technical challenge. It\u2019s a political policy by the state of Israel to, as Human Rights Watch put it, and then the Foreign Policy Chief, Borrell, put it, \u201cIt\u2019s a calculated weapon using starvation as a method and mode of warfare.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll look at one last question, and then I\u2019ll proceed to talk with Chris. The question is, How do we assess, at this point in time, the significance of what happened October 7th? I remember my good friend, Muin Rabani, he said to me, \u201cIt\u2019s a game changer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was very hesitant to agree to that because I had seen many massacres come and go. I had chronicled them. I was, at least at the beginning, inclined to, \u201cAnother bloodletting and then we move on.\u201d I was wrong. I have no problem saying that. I would say the following things changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Number one, I think we are at an end, at least provisionally, to any diplomacy to resolve the conflict. The talk about two states, at this point, is completely ridiculous. There is no diplomatic solution on the horizon. On the one hand, Israel is determined it\u2019s going to exact a military victory. It\u2019s not going to retreat from that goal. If they manage to achieve a military victory, then they will almost certainly and expeditiously move on to extract another military victory from the Hezbollah. So on their side, it\u2019s quite clear, though it\u2019s true to say how you define a military victory has gray areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other side, the Party of God, the Hezbollah, has made absolutely clear, \u201cWe will not accept a military defeat for Hamas. That will not happen.\u201d And as anybody here understands, those two goals are zero-sum. They are irreconcilable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s also true to say that after the horrors of the past five months, a realization has set in in a large part of the Muslim world, \u201cIt cannot live with that state. It\u2019s impossible.\u201d That state has got to go. It\u2019s a lunatic state. For that reason, as well, it doesn\u2019t seem that a political solution is possible in the short term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other change is, I think, for the first time in my lifetime, Israel is now facing a legitimation crisis. Up until this moment, the state of Israel itself was not called into question within the broad mainstream. What was called into question was the occupation. I would say, now, the state of Israel itself has been called into question, its legitimacy. I\u2019ll just suggest two pieces of evidence for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Piece of evidence number one, it\u2019s very striking that the country in the world that decided to take up the cause of Gaza was South Africa. South Africa has always been the model pointed to by critics of Israel as the preferable ideal, one state for the people. It\u2019s hard not to notice that the country which represents the one state ideal is now the chief representative of the Palestinian cause at the International Court of Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second indication, to me, I was very struck and surprised by Senator Schumer\u2019s speech last week. Senator Schumer has always been a fanatical supporter of the state of Israel. In fact, in 2010, he already was advocating what Israel decided to do. He said, \u201cWe should economically strangle Gaza.\u201d As you\u2019ll all remember, or some of you will remember, Senator Schumer and New Jersey Senator, Menendez, were the two main Democrats who opposed the deal with Iran. He was effectively a spokesperson for the state of Israel in our country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The speech was very interesting, just on three points. Point number one, he was very careful to allocate equal responsibility on both sides. He said Hamas had to go and the Palestinian authority had to go, at least under Abbas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then he said, \u201cNetanyahu has to go and the far right has to go.\u201d He made it exactly even, his allocation of responsibility. Coming from Schumer, unthinkable, unthinkable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, it was very interesting how he addressed criticism of Israel. He said, \u201cIt\u2019s not fair to call Israel a settler state,\u201d or nowadays, the jargon is settler colonial state. He said, \u201cIt\u2019s not fair because we have these longings from 3,000 years ago.\u201d I won\u2019t go into that. But, he didn\u2019t dismiss the claim as being anti-Semitic, as being lunatic. He felt the need to rationally refute the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, the second point was he had to address the question of one state. It was very interesting. Far from calling one state anti-Semitic, he said, \u201cI understand that many idealistic young people believe in the idea of one state and everyone living together.\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t agree,\u201d he said, \u201cbut I understand it.\u201d That was a signal, in my view, that Senator Schumer realized that a large part of his Democratic Party constituency regards that as a legitimate goal and that he can\u2019t dismiss it as anti-Semitic without dismissing a significant part of the Democratic Party base. So, that was a indirect realization that Israel is now facing, as a Jewish state\u2026 Israel is a Jewish state, not just the occupation. Israel as a Jewish state is facing a real legitimation crisis. Okay. Thank you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alli, you\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I want to ask about the difference. I watched the debate with Benny. I thought the first two hours were really fascinating. Benny Morris being a very reputable Israeli historian. So much of the argument came down to intent over the founders of the state of Israel. But, I want to ask about the difference between liberal Zionism embodied in figures like Teddy Kollek and Shimon Peres, maybe even Rabin and others, this religious Zionism now, Ben-Gvir, and how you see that in terms of changing Israel, and that kind of process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Certainly, when I was in Israel, you had significant aspects of the Labor Party. You had a peace movement. It\u2019s a very different country. I wonder if you could talk about that transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I happen to think that\u2019s an excellent question, and it\u2019s a very tough question. Right now, Israeli society has no left. It doesn\u2019t have a center. It has a right, a far right, and an ultra-right. That\u2019s the whole of the Israeli spectrum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, for those of you who are doubtful of that characterization, I\u2019ll give you just one piece of evidence. Then, you judge it on your own. If you look at the most recent opinion polls, 90% of Israelis believe that Israel is using enough, or not enough, force in Gaza at the moment. Fully 40% believe that Israel is using insufficient force in Gaza. Now, I find that irreconcilable with any notion of even a center in Israel, let alone a left.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, some people make, in my opinion, the extenuating argument, the alibi, that the Israeli media are biased and that\u2019s why the people, they don\u2019t know what\u2019s happening. Many respectable people say that, but I find that most implausible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israelis have probably the highest per capita rate of usage of the web, social media, and things like that. They know what\u2019s going on. Even if their newspapers are lying, even if their television is lying, they\u2019re on the web. If I can read-<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\u2019re on the web. If I can read The London Times, if I can read The Economist, they can read The New York Times and they can read 10,000 other outlets, which are telling more or less\u2026 Okay, I\u2019ll leave out The New York Times, are telling more or less what\u2019s happening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But, Chris, it raises a tough question because it\u2019s true. Only the oldest people in this room will remember Israel was a left-wing cause for the longest time. I know that sounds strange to you. The head of Israel at the beginning was a party called the Mapai. It belonged to the Socialist International. The leading opposition party was the Mapam and the Mapam were totally slavish ideologically to the Soviet Union. Israel, its founding was supported by the Soviet Union, and that was true pretty much until 1977 when what was called the Likud came to power under Menachem Begin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem with this left-right demarcation is the ethnic cleansing of 1948. It occurred under the left, the Mapam, the left in Israel. They were the executors of the ethnic cleansing. Or take another example. Up until Gaza, up until Gaza, the worst bloodletting were not those periodic mowings of the lawn in Gaza, up until I meant the present. The worst bloodletting, and I was just talking about with Chris beforehand, was in 1982 in Lebanon. In 1982 in Lebanon, the estimates are between 15 and 20,000. That\u2019s not a trivial number. 15 and 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese were killed. And the head of the government was Begin and Sharon, Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin. But the Labor Party supported it. I even remember back then when a major Marxist academic named Shlomo Avineri, some of you may remember, he\u2019s probably around a hundred years old now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shlomo Avineri, he was supposed to appear at the Democrats\u2026 What was it called back then? It wasn\u2019t called DSA, maybe it was called the DSA back then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At their convention, and he was kicked out because he was supporting the Lebanon war. So horrible things happened under the labor governments, though it\u2019s also true to say that they weren\u2019t nearly as ideologically brazen as the current governments, but everybody knows, overwhelmingly, who built the settlements. It was labor. Whenever there was a switch between labor and Likud, labor, every time it came into power, it built more settlements than Likud. So one place where I will acknowledge a difference is, and this is one of the reasons why I said, and I don\u2019t say gleefully, I don\u2019t believe a diplomatic settlement is possible now. I\u2019m not saying that with any kind of glee, I\u2019m just trying to be factual. When you were in the era of Ehud Barak and then Ehud Olmert, that is the era of 2000 and then 2007, 8, in that era, what the Palestinians and the Israelis were arguing over, they were arguing over percentages. Which is to say, Israel wants to keep 80% of the settlers in the West Bank. Olmert wants to keep 87% of the settlers in the West Bank.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Palestinians make an offer to keep 60% of the settlers in the West Bank. It was arguments over details and percentages. It\u2019s true they were still far apart, but there was, so to speak, a common goal. We\u2019re at the point where the current government in Israel won\u2019t even give a broom closet to the Palestinians. We\u2019re nowhere even near where things once were. So the idea when they say we\u2019re going to make two states\u2026 Two states out of what? You\u2019re going to give them 10 feet of land, four acres of land? What are you talking about? So at that level, I would have to say, yes, there has been a change between what was under labor and what\u2019s currently under the current government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I want to ask about the United States is clearly complicit in sustaining the genocide. I think 67 or 68% of the weapons stockpiles come from the US and the obsequiousness of both parties towards Israel\u2019s demands. I\u2019m just going to quote Ariel Sharon and then have you comment. He told Shimon Peres, \u201cEvery time we do something, you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear. Don\u2019t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There has been a question for many people. Why is Biden acquitting himself in the fashion that he is? And for that matter, Blinken, Jake Sullivan and the rest. I would say there are two elements. One element is there is a strategic interest by the United States to seeing that Israel\u2019s deterrence capacity is restored after October 7th, and our administration does see Iran as a crucial regional power that has to be put in its place. And there is the fear in the US administration, from the vantage point of its own interests, there is the fear that a victory for Hamas will embolden what\u2019s called the resistance front. So that is I think a distinct and separate US interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, not however, I would say, and in addition. And here, I\u2019ll freely admit to going into speculative terrain and some people may be offended by it. It\u2019s my honest opinion and we can argue over facts. We\u2019re obviously in an election cycle, and as everybody knows, if you open up, say the front page of The New York Times today, the first thing they\u2019re always calculating is which party is getting more campaign contributions. And today, The Times Breathe a big sigh of relief, Joe Biden is getting ahead now of Trump. I\u2019m not sure of just the current month or totals. I didn\u2019t read the full article. There is a Jewish billionaire class, and since October 7th, it\u2019s gone mad. That\u2019s not an exaggeration. It is impossible to find an example in American history of not one, but two Ivy League college presidents who were toppled in real-time in-your-face coups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The president of Harvard University was ousted from office because she was insufficiently repressive, suppressive of a speech and assembly on her campus. That\u2019s completely unprecedented. It was the grossest, most egregious, the most flagrant violation of academic freedom in our country\u2019s history. There\u2019s nothing that even compares to it. I have studied that history, I\u2019ve written on that history. There was, at the turn of the century, the robber barons, when I say the turn of the century, I mean from the 19th or the 20th century, the robber barons got very upset because there was a lot of labor insurgency and there were just a handful of professors, really, you can count them in the fingers of your hand, who, in their university posts, were expressing some support for the labor insurgencies and the robber barons were ruthless in trying to get them expelled from the university. And that was the beginnings of the whole battle for academic freedom of our country was the formation of the AAUP, the American Association of University Presidents. John Dewey and several others played a very important role. But this was simply breathtaking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They, no holds barred, not behind closed doors, they toppled two Ivy League college presidents. They are that ruthless and they have that much power. Remember, they\u2019re giving a hundred million dollars at a shot. That\u2019s an extraordinary amount of money. If there\u2019s anybody in this room from my generation, we, as kids, used to watch this program. It was a weekly program. It was called The Millionaire, and it was about this philanthropist who would, each week, it was a weekly, he would give a million dollars to some do-gooder. And we would sit in front of our TV sets and oh my God, a million dollars. It was unbelievable. It was like going to Jupiter and back. And okay, I account for inflation and I know I\u2019m old. Okay, a slice of pizza, my day was 15 cents, now, it\u2019s $3. I get that. But a hundred million dollars is a lot of money. Or $50 million in the case of the donor to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And for Biden, that\u2019s a concern. If he says something too critical of Israel, they\u2019ll just give the money to Trump because Trump, they know he\u2019s an ace in the hole. He\u2019s going to do for us whatever we want on Israel. So I do think that that is a significant factor in Biden\u2019s calculation. And what they did was they tried to do a kind of good cop, bad cop. Biden sticks by Netanyahu. Chuck Schumer is cautiously critical of Israel, in general, and Netanyahu, in particular, because each of them had a designated role in the division of labor. Biden needs to keep the billionaire class. Schumer has to appease that restive base in the Democratic party, which is not happy with what\u2019s going on. So that\u2019s how I try to understand what Biden is doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s talk about Gaza itself. I was in Sarajevo during the war. That was three to 400 shells a day, that resulted in about four to five dead a day and two dozen wounded a day. I juxtapose that with Gaza where it\u2019s hundreds of wounded and dead a day. I think there\u2019s a pretty strong case to be made that the numbers released by the health ministry and Gaza are a severe undercount given what are presumably tens of thousands of missing. And also, the bombing itself. Gaza is only five miles wide, 20 miles long is of such intensity that it\u2019s, from my own experience, hard to believe it\u2019s 30,000. But I want to talk about the reaction, with the exception of Yemen and the Houthis, there is really no resistance. And your parents were both survived the Holocaust and your mother was in Auschwitz, right? Was that correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Your father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My mother was in Majdanek.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Majdanek. And so in some ways it does replicate the Holocaust in the sense that the rest of the world does nothing. We are watching this slaughter being live-streamed, and other than rhetorically, and it\u2019s worse because of course you have the rhetoric, but then you have the arms shipments, now largely through Cyprus being helicoptered in, the UK, and there are some countries, Canada just announced that they\u2019ll cease sending weapons. I think the Netherlands have stopped, Norway, but nevertheless it\u2019s being sustained. But I want you to, because that\u2019s also that period of history well, to draw comparisons in terms of what we\u2019re seeing and the reaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would say there are many factors in trying to make an analogy. The fact of the matter is that Hitler couldn\u2019t have done what he did without a war. He couldn\u2019t have possibly carried out the final solution had he not had the cover of a war. And the fact that it was being executed, at least in theory, it was being executed, so to speak, behind closed doors. Now, if you were in the German army, if you were in the Wehrmacht, you were on the front and 50% of the Jews were killed on the front. They weren\u2019t killed in the concentration camps. They were just lined up and shot down. So that\u2019s, in my opinion, a very thin alibi that you didn\u2019t know what was going on, but at least you can call it an alibi. You can grasp something. Here, there\u2019s no alibi. It\u2019s being done right out in the open. There\u2019s nowhere to hide in this current round.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And a significant number of UN officials are saying it out loud. It took them quite a while to say it, but now, they\u2019re saying it out loud. This is a genocide, mass starvation is. If that\u2019s a cell phone, I carry my Star Trek laser, phaser, phaser. And I set it not on stun, but I set it on kill, which is what I tell my students. [foreign language 01:11:42]. So in that respect, it\u2019s actually worse now because it\u2019s been just out in the open. And we have the facts, we have the figures. We don\u2019t have just the Hamas Ministry of Health. There\u2019ve been three very systematic, stringent, exhaustive studies done. And they said the Hamas Ministry of Health numbers are right. It\u2019s not a speculative fact. Now-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I just want to say that what they record is only out of the morgues and hospitals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So that\u2019s-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, but I\u2019m saying to the extent that we use the Hamas numbers, they\u2019ve been confirmed by three independent, stringent studies. Now, when I was in a debate with Benny Morris and I mentioned the figure of 30,000, he said, \u201cOh, we could have killed 500,000 if we wanted to.\u201d And I said, \u201cThat\u2019s not really true because there\u2019s a gap that separates the wish from the deed. It\u2019s called politics and the international community. It exists and it puts constraints.\u201d We all wish there were much more significant, those constraints. But I said, \u201cConsidering what you\u2019ve accomplished, when you look at the numbers, more children killed in Gaza since October than every single war zone in the world added together times four. That\u2019s not a small achievement. More journalists killed than in all of World War II. That\u2019s not a small achievement. More medics killed than any other conflict zone in the world in any year\u2019s time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The density of the bombing, unparalleled in the 21st century, the intensity of the bombing, it exceeds the bombing of Dresden. So even though you haven\u2019t gotten your 500,000, I would say you\u2019re doing pretty well. As genocides go, you\u2019re doing a pretty good job.\u201d Now, some people want to say, well, ICJ said only a plausible case of genocide. And they try to claim it\u2019s a low standard plausibility. I would say to any person in the room, if I were to say to you, there\u2019s a plausible case that you murdered your neighbor, you would take that claim pretty seriously. You wouldn\u2019t dismiss it and said, well, what do you mean by plausible? No, it\u2019s just such a stupid argument. Plausible means credible. That\u2019s a pretty serious charge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does plausible mean? Let\u2019s say there\u2019s a regional athletic competition and you win the competition to go on to be on the Olympic team and you win the competition. Now, it\u2019s true, it doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019ve won yet a gold, silver, or bronze medal. That\u2019s true. And it doesn\u2019t yet even mean you made the team. But if you qualified in the regional to be on the team, that\u2019s a pretty impressive achievement. So if you qualified for having committed the genocide, plausible case of genocide, I would say that\u2019s a pretty impressive achievement. So when you try to poo poo it, yes, it\u2019s true. The Minister of Antiquities, he wanted to nuke Gaza and that was not permissible, but that\u2019s not because they don\u2019t want to. It\u2019s the limits imposed by the international political system. What we know is, they have gone as far as they want to go before they\u2019re stopped because we know exactly what they wanted to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s one of those rare cases of truth in advertising. Defense Minister Golan said, \u201cWe will not allow any food, fuel, water, electricity into Gaza.\u201d Well, it doesn\u2019t require rocket science to understand what\u2019s the consequence of that. Now, you\u2019re going to say, but they\u2019re letting it in. But go back and remember, they let it in when Biden said, you have to let something in. And at this moment in time, they\u2019re not letting it in. Starvation is being used as a weapon. So all things said, I would say they\u2019re doing a very good job if their goal is genocide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, they cut the humanitarian aid shipments last month by 44%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, between the ICJ opinion, International Court of Justice opinion, one of the two provisional requirements imposed on Israel was to allow more humanitarian aid to get in. In fact, it was reduced by half between February and March. And I forgot, I want to just say one last part. I talked to the bleak part of the present picture. There are some extraordinarily inspiring things. Number one, the incredible courage, tenacity, conscientiousness of the young people who have been coming out day in and day out in support of the people of Gaza. It\u2019s absolutely breathtaking. I figure at some point, it\u2019ll get boring, people will move on, and the young people keep coming out and coming out and coming out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I went to a demonstration about two weeks ago. It was at NYU, New York University, in Washington Square Park. It was pouring rain, and I see you two. Look, I didn\u2019t see anybody over 25 there. But there were umbrellas, so it was a little, I don\u2019t know. I was like grandma in munchkin land. It was, and it was a Saturday. It was pouring rain. We started at 12, we ended at 5:30. And you know what? We then went, or large number of us, descended into the subway. It ended at New York Public Library at 42nd Street. And on one side of the train platform, and on the other side, they were still shouting, still all the energy level. And I remember, I was with somebody and he said to me, \u201cAnd you know, they have no stake in this.\u201d They gain no gain. There\u2019s no gain. The expression, of course, you know it of your generation, friends with benefits. This was solidarity without benefits. It was really a deeply inspiring thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A second data point is South Africa. When people were talking about invoking the Genocide Convention, I said, \u201cOh, forget it. What are you talking about?\u201d What state is going to come to defense of Gaza in the face of the United States?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They come to defense of Gaza in the face of the United States. That\u2019s ridiculous. And the South African performance has just been breathtaking. I don\u2019t know how many of you have read the application they submitted, the original application. It was 84 pages with literally hundreds of footnotes. It was so exhaustively and impressively documented. They must have had a very large team of people produce that document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And they continue, I don\u2019t know how many of you follow, literally every three weeks, they\u2019re back at the ICJ demanding that the ICJ do more, and they have all the footnoted documents. Israel just released its response two days ago, and Israel was bristling now at South Africa, \u201cYou\u2019re getting out of hand.\u201d They should be worried about being nuked also, I\u2019m afraid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the third thing, which was totally\u2026 I always freely admit to when I\u2019m wrong because I like to be wrong for a good cause. When people ask, \u201cHow do you think it\u2019s going to go on the International Court of Justice?\u201d I said, \u201cMaybe, maybe you could squeak by an 8-to-7 vote. That\u2019s the most,\u201d and I didn\u2019t believe it. I thought it would be 6-4 and the rest against. And lo and behold, the vote turned out to be 15-to-2. The US was the president of the court, Donoghue, and she voted with the majority. How do you explain that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a song in the 1960s, a famous song, \u201cThere\u2019s Something happening Here.\u201d And when 15 judges in the ICJ vote to say, \u201cIsrael is plausibly guilty of genocide,\u201d and the American judge, the president goes along with that, that\u2019s pretty impressive as an indicator of things. And I\u2019ll freely say, if there were a Nobel laureate, if there were a Nobel Prize, Peace Prize to be given out now, first and foremost, I would give it to the doctors in Gaza. So many of them from abroad volunteered to go there. A death zone. That\u2019s very impressive. Could I have done that? I would feel the moral pressure, but I think the fear would get the better of me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, I would give it to the South Africa delegation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And third, I would give it to the Houthis. Oh. I\u2019m not saying that as a throwback to my days as a Maoist. I\u2019m saying that as a human being. Remember, in the 1990s, there was this whole doctrine, which was propagated by liberals, like the Samantha Powers type. It was called Responsibility to Protect, RtoP. But what are the Houthis doing? The idea was you have a responsibility to protect people who are being threatened with genocide. Isn\u2019t that what the Houthis are doing, protecting? They are fulfilling their responsibility to protect. The Genocide Convention says every signatory has a responsibility to prevent genocide. That\u2019s what the Houthis are doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So now you might ask why they\u2019re doing it. You could speculate, but I think there\u2019s one very good reason why they\u2019re doing it. You know why? Because what\u2019s happening to Gaza happened to them. Between 2015 and 2018 because of the Saudi US-backed blockade, about 80,000 Yemenis starved to death. They understand starvation. So they would be the third, in my opinion, recipients of that prize.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we\u2019re going to open the questions. Keep them short. Don\u2019t give speeches, please.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah. So turns out that we\u2019ll probably have to exit this building in about 20 minutes because campus security wants us out here by then. So what we\u2019re going to do is raise your hand. Yeah, raise your hand if you want to ask a question. I\u2019ll come over and get to you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Excuse me, young man. I\u2019d like to call on him first. This fellow in the back, if you don\u2019t mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, okay. Gotcha. Also, after I ask this question, the second floor will get their own question, and third floor will get their own question. And I think that\u2019ll be pretty much it for tonight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 6:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. \u201cI totally support the Houthis as a Jew.\u201d You said that, Norm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah, totally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 6:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Houthi flag says, \u201cGod is the greatest, death to America, death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews, victory to Islam.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, I\u2019m aware of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 6:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How do you reconcile this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have no problem reconciling it for this very simple reason, and you\u2019ll allow me\u2026 You can disagree. I have no problem with that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From my first conscious moments in my own life, my parents loathed the Germans. They didn\u2019t loathe the Nazis. They loathed, they hated the Germans. In fact, I vividly recall, my father once recommended me a book on the Nazi Holocaust. And I asked him, \u201cWhat makes this book special?\u201d And he said to me, \u201cI liked it, that the author didn\u2019t talk about Nazis. He talked about Germans.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, my parents were very decent human beings, the apple did not fall far from the tree, but I could understand that sentiment. The only Jews the Houthis have known are the Israelis. It\u2019s a regrettable fact that they don\u2019t know, have never experienced any other kinds of Jews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I remember I once asked my mother, just out of curiosity, \u201cDid you ever meet, did you ever come into contact with a German who was decent?\u201d And she said to me, she thought hard, and she said, \u201cI remember one German soldier. He had a kind of guilty look on his face.\u201d That was all she could remember. One. So it doesn\u2019t surprise me that she loathed all Germans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do I wish the Houthis were more discriminating in their slogans? Of course, I wish it, but do I understand where it comes from? Yes. And will that slogan of theirs color my appreciation of the fact that alone among the world\u2019s peoples, they are resorting to armed force to stop the genocide in Gaza? I have to ask myself the question, how would my parents have felt if this ragtag army happened to be situated on the point in the world\u2019s map where they could inflect the outcome of the Final Solution? And these people, this ragtag people hailing back to the Middle Ages, they were investing all of their physical resources and moral energy to stopping the extermination. How would my parents react? Would they ask, \u201cWhat are their political slogans?\u201d I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s my honest reaction. I\u2019m not trying to be rhetorical with you. You asked me a concrete question. That\u2019s how I reasoned it through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And we should be clear that that blockade, that blockade that the Houthis have imposed is circumvented by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, which has created a land corridor to supply Israel with its vacuum cleaners and consumer goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next question?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 6:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just one more sentence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, please do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 6:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In your characteristically slow and pointed speech pattern, Am Yisrael Chai.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t understand the relationship of those two statements, but okay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 6:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because you\u2019re not going at me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 5:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Free Gaza!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 12:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Free Gaza! Woo-hoo!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I want to speak honestly to you. If it does go somewhere, and I do believe a problem is lurking though, if it does go somewhere, it\u2019s of your own making. You\u2019ve gone too far. They said already a book I wrote in 2008, the title was taken by something written by Gideon Levy referring to Operation Cast Lead. And the title was, This Time We\u2019ve Gone Too Far, and Cast Lead is now a pale, pale, pale comparison to what\u2019s happened to the people of Gaza. And I don\u2019t say it with glee, I\u2019m just saying if you do go somewhere, it\u2019s of your own making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, and there are Israeli moral philosophers like Yeshiyahu Leibowitz who warned Israel precisely of the self-destructive path that it was on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So do we have any more questions? Oh, go ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 4:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only one question, that\u2019s his.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So just raise your hand and they\u2019ll bring the mic to you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 7:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oh. Thank you for that response. I was wondering if you can talk to the fact that that response has to be, in order for it to be powerful and legit, it has to come from a Jewish standpoint. And I wanted to ask you, what could be possible for those who do not have that experience to respond back to the Houthis and supporting the Houthis? So what kind of response do you imagine could be possible from another standpoint that does not fall into that kind of deadlock of, \u201cHow come you\u2019re supporting the Houthis?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think it\u2019s simply a fact of life that certain persons have certain kinds of, I won\u2019t call it immunities, but they have certain kinds of what you might call rhetorical privileges, which others don\u2019t have. And I want to be judged by the facts. And if you disagree with me, you\u2019re free to disagree with me. And I would hope that beyond disagreeing with me, you will make an argument and not just a slogan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I also recognize that I do have\u2026 I can\u2019t say my life has been exemplary of immunities. On the other hand, I recognize that I am able to, in public, at any rate, make arguments that the two young women sitting in the front row now are not able to make and who are more easily dismissed. And I don\u2019t think you can get around that. It\u2019s just, so to speak, the nature of things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You\u2019re choosing? I think we need the-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need the mic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oh, I see. He has the mic back there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yeah. So go ahead. Oh, there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 8:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So I\u2019m filled with emotions. I\u2019m from Gaza, I\u2019m from Khan Yunis. 45 people from my family have been killed. On Friday morning, 6:00 AM, after the morning prayer, my nephew, 17 years old, was killed in a tent that is in the safe area that was designated by Israel after they were driven out of their town. And other people were injured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So just going back to the Houthis, I don\u2019t understand why, whoever is asking a question about the Houthis, they\u2019re not outraged about what Israel has done and is doing. If they were outraged about that, they wouldn\u2019t even see the Houthis as a problem because the main problem in the Middle East right now is Israel and what it\u2019s doing. Israel is the one who\u2019s killing, Israel is the one who\u2019s bombing, Israel is the one who\u2019s doing everything that is against civilization, destroying hospitals, schools, universities, houses, villages, cutting trees, doing everything unimaginable. And we\u2019re still asking about what the Houthis are doing?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are the Houthis are doing? What are they? They\u2019re just stopping some ships from passing through the sea and the ships are going to support the genocide? How big of a problem is that compared to what Israel is doing? Thank you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. So I\u2019ll go middle here and then left side next, if that\u2019s okay with all of you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. Not yet? Sure, sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 9:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could you talk about the ICJ and why that decision had so little impact in the grand scheme of things?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why that decision had so little impact? I can\u2019t really agree with that because legal opinions and legal decisions, unless you have force behind them, they\u2019re basically weapons in a political or ideological struggle. And that was a very powerful weapon that the ICJ handed to the solidarity movement with the people of Gaza. The fact that I said earlier Israel was facing a legitimation crisis, the fact that Israel now has pinned on it the scarlet letter of genocide has radically or potentially will radically reshape opinions of Israel. They\u2019re going to have to carry that with them, that they were plausibly accused of a genocide. And that\u2019s, for us, it legitimates, or let me just put to you in reverse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many people were worried if the ICJ had voted in reverse, namely there is no plausible case of genocide, that would\u2019ve been a political disaster. Israel would\u2019ve won 99% of the propaganda war or the war for a public relations war. So that fear was not only dispelled, but now you have a very potent weapon in the quiver of those struggling for justice, that the highest judicial body in the world, the president at the time of which was an American, had said, \u201cWell, we looked at the evidence, there\u2019s a plausible case for genocide here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s an existential issue, as Norman laid out in his book, The Holocaust Industry, because they, Israel, has weaponized the Holocaust, weaponized the genocide that was carried out against Jews. And this ruling potentially removes-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 that protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I just want to quickly highlight that it\u2019s not just genocide, but within the United States, there are five laws that every day the State Department is violating as it approves ships and cargo planes full of weapons: the Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of assistance to a government which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights; the Arms Export Control Act, which says countries that receive US military aid can only use weapons for legitimate self-defense and internal security; the US War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including the willful torture, killing, or inhuman treatment; the Leahy Law, which prohibits the US government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights; and the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was enacted to implement US obligations under the Genocide Convention, and Israel would push for that, and provides for criminal penalties for individuals who commit or incite others to commit genocide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what is happening is a grotesque violation of not only international law, but domestic law. And I think that this refusal\u2026 I know in the debate, Benny Morris was saying, \u201cWell, the laws don\u2019t matter, laws don\u2019t matter,\u201d well, laws do matter because if we don\u2019t have any kind of legal mechanism by which we can restrain these forces, then we create a kind of Hobbesian world. And I think that is\u2026 I\u2019m very, as some of you know, very close to Julian Assange and just came back from the hearing in London, and one of the things that terrifies me, having sat through those hearings in London, is the way the British legal system and the American legal system is ignoring its own laws, and this sets a kind of precedence that is very, very dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So yeah, the law does matter, and I found that an interesting kind of exchange between you and Benny because he was essentially saying it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, Professor Morris says, \u201cThe laws don\u2019t matter,\u201d or, \u201claw doesn\u2019t matter\u201d when it all depends on whose ax is being ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So on October 7th, if you really truly believe that international law is an irrelevance, if you believe that, then Hamas did nothing wrong on October 7th because the wrongness of its deed springs from the fact that international humanitarian law, IHL as it\u2019s called, distinguishes between civilians and combatants. It\u2019s what\u2019s called the most fundamental principle of IHL, international humanitarian law, the fundamental principle is the principle of distinction. You have to distinguish civilians and combatants, civilian sites and military sites. \u201cBut if you don\u2019t believe in the law,\u201d as I said to Benny Morris, Professor Morris, \u201cthen don\u2019t complain about what happened on October 7th.\u201d You can\u2019t have it both ways. The law only becomes operative when you are the victim, but becomes inoperative when you are the perpetrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 10:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oh, thank you. I think it was in February 15th or something like that, Jared Kushner, Trump\u2019s son-in-law, he said something along the lines that, \u201cThe waterfront properties in Gaza are going to be very valuable,\u201d and he also recommended to get people out of there and clean it. Do you think that that will give us an idea of a potential, what are potential second-term policies for Trump are going to be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, Jared Kushner is an example of why we have to get rid of affirmative action for rich people. He\u2019s a terrifying imbecile and he went to Harvard because of his father, who\u2019s a sick crook, got him into\u2026 I think the only good thing Chris Christie ever did was lock up his father. It was, beyond all else, it was just so stupid. To be-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m so, so sorry, but we are at time right now and we\u2019re going to have to close out. I don\u2019t want to interrupt you. I really hate doing this, but we have to. I\u2019m sorry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norman Finkelstein:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The campus security-<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 2:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I hope you enjoyed it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaker 11:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most, and we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity Forever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.TAGGED:<\/strong>gaza<\/a>, israel<\/a>, palestine<\/a>, video<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHRIS HEDGES<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize\u2013winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for 15 years for The New York Times<\/em>, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News<\/em>, The Christian Science Monitor<\/em>, and NPR. He is the host of show The Chris Hedges Report<\/em>.More by Chris Hedges<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

POSTED INTHE CHRIS HEDGES REPORT The renegade historian speaks with Chris Hedges at Princeton. BY CHRIS HEDGES MARCH 28, 2024 (therealnews.org) Screenshot courtesy of Aaron Raizenberg Norman Finkelstein and Chris Hedges appeared together at Princeton University on March 21 for \u201cOn the Gaza Genocide,\u201d where they discussed the events of Oct…. Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32563"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32563"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32563\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32571,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32563\/revisions\/32571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}