By Manny Frishberg, JTNews Correspondent
Norman Finkelstein is not an easy man to listen to. He is also a hard person to pigeonhole. When he makes his arguments, challenging the orthodox Western view of the founding of the Jewish State or its status under international law, he does it with the measured tones of an academic lecturer, which is precisely what he is.
A child of Holocaust survivors, he has been labeled a Holocaust denier by those who have rejected his scholarly work, an assertion he vehemently rejects. Still, he is a strident critic of Israel and what he has labeled “the Holocaust industry,” made up of the likes of Elie Weisel and others. He claims that they wield the Holocaust as an “ideological weapon” to defend the state of Israel “as a victim state,” and to deflect criticisms of its current practices and policies, particularly in the occupied territories.
Finkelstein recently gave two talks at the University of Washington, one an afternoon presentation to a group of about 150 at the Ethnic Culture Center, and one in the evening at Kane Hall on the university campus.
The last time Finkelstein spoke at the UW, in 2002, his lecture was protested by members of the Zionist Organization of America and HuskiPAC, according to a report in UW’s student newspaper, The Daily. Security was high at the afternoon event, but no protesters were in evidence and no incidents occurred.
Finkelstein, well known as a detractor of Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians, and a critic of the use of the Holocaust to justify the creation of the Jewish State, did not question Israel’s right to exist during his talks.
He did, in fact, justify and support Israel’s existence by referring to Article 2 of the United Nations charter, which guarantees that “all member [states] shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
Critics of Israel’s territorial policy against the Palestinian population have used the tactic of questioning Israel’s legitimacy as a state in the condemnation of its actions.
He also spoke in support of a two-state solution to the current conflict, which dates at least from the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, in accordance with long-standing UN Security Council resolutions.
Finkelstein went on to use the same logic to challenge conventional wisdom about the nature and possible solutions to the conflict.
“Most of the controversy that swirls around the Israel-Palestine conflict is contrived, it’s fabricated, it’s artificial,” he said. “The purpose of this artificial, contrived controversy is to deflect attention from, and sow confusion about, this remarkably uncontroversial record.”
He took on the foundation of the final status issues of borders, the settlements, the question of Jerusalem, and that of the refugees in the ongoing peace process by referring to the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of the separation barrier being built by Israel. The court, an arm of the United Nations, issued its opinion in July, 2004.
“Before the court could render an opinion on the legality of the wall,” he said, “they had to first issue an opinion on three of the four final status issues — the allegedly controversial issues.
“If, for example, Israel’s legitimate border extended into the West Bank, then the wall being built would not raise any significant legal issue,” he said. “Obviously, any state is allowed to erect any structure within its sovereign territory. Similarly, the wall takes what the International Court of Justice calls ‘a sinuous route winding around the Israeli settlements. If the settlements are legal under international law, again, the issue of the legality of the wall would not arise.… And, the wall cuts right through East Jerusalem, and so if East Jerusalem is Israeli territory, again, the wall raises no legal problems.”
He said that the court concluded, by a 14-1 vote, (with only the U.S. representative dissenting), that in keeping with a long-standing tenet of international law, it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
“We all know that tenet because, in 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, George Bush, Sr. cited that tenet,” Finkelstein said. “These are not, as the media sometimes wants to tell us, ‘disputed territories,’ the International Court of Justice [said]. These are occupied Palestinian territories — full stop.”
By the same logic, he argued in reference to Israeli settlers on that land “that it is inadmissible for an occupying power to transfer its population to occupied territory” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
“Therefore, the High International Court of Justice, quoting the Security Council, states that the settlements constitute a clear violation of international law,” he said.
Since East Jerusalem was also occupied in the course of the 1967 war, he said the court applied the same logic and rejected Israel’s claim to the undivided city as the eternal capital of the Jewish State.
“They are very explicit on that point,” said Finkelstein. “They referred, throughout their opinion, to ‘the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip’ as occupied Palestinian territory.”
Taking a different tack on the matter of Palestinian refugees, Finkelstein asserted that since the 1980’s, Israeli historians and authors who have looked carefully at the question of how the Palestinians had left in 1947 and ‘48, had concluded that the old story of their being encouraged to leave by the surrounding Arab countries was untrue. He asserted instead that they had concluded that the expulsions had been part of a process of “ethnic cleansing.”
Finkelstein did not address the practical questions of how the peace process should move forward, given the situation on the ground, nor did he take up the issues of terrorism and attacks on Israel during his talk.
Finkelstein’s appearance was coordinated in concert with commemorations of the “Naqba,” which translates as “disaster” or “catastrophe,” and is the term used by Arab and pro-Palestinian activists to describe Israel’s independence.
At the 60th birthday of the state of Israel at Benaroya Hall on May 7, four members of Seattle Jews for a Free Palestine were expelled from Benaroya Hall after unfurling a pair of banners following the end of the performance. One of the banners had the group’s name, while the other read: “Shame on Us for Making Refugees,” according to a press release sent by the group. Federation officials confirmed that the group, which had purchased tickets, were removed without further incident.
A rally and nonviolent protest outside the hall was organized by a coalition of groups that included the Church Council of Greater Seattle, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the Arab American Community Coalition in support of the rights of Palestinians in the ongoing conflict with Israel. No incidents were reported stemming from that protest.