Finkelstein talk warrants a reply

RON FRIEDMAN

The adjective most closely associated with Dr. Norman J. Finkelstein is "controversial." He knows it and everybody who goes to his lectures knows it.

Apparently, controversy is in demand in Vancouver. Five hundred tickets to his recent performance at the University of British Columbia were sold in advance. More than 800 people filled an auditorium and two neighboring lecture halls with live-streamed video. The audience was a mix of students and senior citizens. Many wore kaffiyehs.

Finkelstein, 55, is the author of five books and dozens of articles. His works include Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995), The Holocaust Industry (2000) and Beyond Chutzpah (2008).

The event was organized by Solidarity with Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), a relatively new club on campus. It is an offshoot of an organization based in Montreal. Since the group's first appearance, at the time of Binyamin Netanyahu's aborted visit to Concordia in 2002, the club has been springing up in campuses across the country. Fatemah Meghji, the local president, said that attendance at SPHR's weekly events has grown from five people a year ago to 50 this year.

The event's co-sponsor, Color Connection, is an anti-racism group on campus. Donation boxes were passed around the audience, with contributions going to Islamic Relief, an international aid organization.

Not only did Finkelstein not speak about the advertised topic – what we can learn from Ghandi in regards to the Israel and Palestine conflict – he didn't provide the audience with original content either. On Finkelstein's website is an article he wrote the day before the lecture (Jan. 21) and anybody who bothered to do the most basic research ahead of time would have saved $10-$15 and a few hours of their life. Finkelstein simply read the article, almost word for word.

In both the article and the lecture, Finkelstein argued that the reasons for Operation Cast Lead, aside from Israeli bloodlust, were the desire to regain deterrence and a fear of what he called "a peace offensive" on the part of Hamas. He claimed that

Israel had been planning a Gaza incursion for months and that all it needed was an excuse to attack. He said that, faced with an Arab peace plan and a Hamas leadership that was willing to negotiate, Israel broke the ceasefire and used Hamas' retaliation as a premise for the launch of the operation.

Finkelstein prides himself on his fastidious scholarship and meticulous attention to detail, so his selection of sources was surprising. Rather than building his agenda on facts, his article/lecture was a series of quotes and exchanges with various commentators in the Israeli and American media.

Finkelstein cites Ha'aretz columnists Gideon Levy, Reuven Pedatzur and Uri Blau, as well as reports of Gaza-based aid organizations, to support his ideas. He picks selective passages from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' website and it's his word against those of Israel Defence Forces spokesmen and the New York Times' Thomas Friedman and Ethan Bonner.

For a man with a reputation for being controversial, Finkelstein started with the least controversial claim of all – that the deaths of more than a thousand people over three weeks is tragic. Regardless of whether you believe that the war was justified or not, you can regret the losses of life.

Finkelstein moves from the blatantly obvious to the borderline sinister when he accuses Israelis of being a "Sparta-like society consumed by 'revenge and the thirst for blood,' where killing Arabs is a sure crowd-pleaser." He did not even pretend to present a fair and balanced analysis.

Finkelstein spared no words for other parties involved, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which he attacked for even raising the issue of proportionality, and the European leaders, who he derided for attempting to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza through Egypt.

The crowd erupted in applause when Finkelstein said that the Israeli press, the same press from which he quotes so extensively, is "bought and paid for from the get go." "Seriously, they give prostitutes a bad name," he quipped.

Finkelstein particularly pleased the audience when he attacked the mainstream Canadian media and the Canadian government for siding with Israel and condemning Hamas. Finkelstein referred to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff as a "carpet bagger from Harvard" and said that there is "no press so shameful as the Canadian press." He also said that support for Israel among Liberal Jews is waning. "It will be the last time that world Jewry will give Israel blanket support for its massacres and slaughters of the Arab people," he said.

The only mention of Gandhi in the whole lecture was near the end, when Finkelstein introduced the concept of satyagraha (insistence on truth). He said that the truth rests with the Palestinians and their supporters and that time would reveal "what's true and what's right." He said that their weapon was truth and that they must do their utmost to control their anger, fury and indignation and try hard to be reasonable. He said that Israel didn't want the other side to be moderate, so that it could claim it had no peace partner. But, he said, "I still believe that, despite all the money that the other side has and all the power they have and despite all their ruthlessness ... I think we can win."

Finkelstein poked a jibe at pro-Israel organizations on campus. "When Israeli generals come to campus, 20 people show up. But when those who oppose the horrific crimes being committed by what's becoming a satanic state ... there's a significantly larger turnout."

Finkelstein reminded the audience of how lucky they were to live in a "relatively free country" like Canada. Whereas in Canada the only danger of speaking out was the risk of losing your job, said Finkelstein, "In most of the world, in places where many of you come from, you speak out ... you lose a body part."

He concluded by saying that there is a time to mourn, "but after we mourn, we have to organize, organize, organize and finally put an end to that lunatic state."

Following the lecture was a question and answer period. Throughout, the audience showed far more restraint in their statements and behavior than the keynote speaker.

Last week's event was only one of many that have taken place in Vancouver and which have had a very critical attitude towards Israel. For the last several weeks, Robson Street has been the site of vocal demonstrations against the war. This week and next, at several venues, Jeff Halper is talking against Israeli house demolitions. In mid-February, Anarchists Against the Wall's Shachaf Polakow will be in town and March features the now annual anti-Israel Apartheid Week.

Israel went into the war, in part, to try and change the minds of the Palestinian people – to make them understand that terror will not be rewarded and that they must choose a different path. Whether or not that message filtered into the depressed and impoverished population of Gaza, a population that had nowhere to run when the bullets were flying, is not clear. What is clear is that Israel has inadvertently changed the minds of other people, people who see the numbers and listen to the accusations of "experts" like Finkelstein and buy into the belief that Hamas holds the mantle of truth and justice.

It is ironic that, by denouncing Israel, jihadist Hamas and its supporters have successfully aligned themselves with their ideological opposites, the supposed "peace lovers." Standing next to the intelligent and compassionate people of all faiths and nationalities – people who pity the residents of Gaza and empathize with Israel; people who truly want a nonviolent solution to be found – stand those who are calling for the end of Israel. Those who lionize shahids and glorify the virtues of murderous martyrdom chant in union with the proponents of peace and justice. The slogans of "Peace now!" and "Free Palestine!" can be heard along with "Down with the apartheid regime!" and "Israelis are Nazis!"

The news coverage that the Gaza war received invigorated the Vancouver "peace camp" – a group of loosely associated organizations representing a broad and sometimes eclectic mix of causes. From Trotskyites to anarchists, from those who call for the right of return to Palestinians to those who say that Canada should return its land to the indigenous people – all have marched against Israel.

While many of these peace groups do important and valuable work, it is regrettable that they have aligned themselves so closely with what they have been told is the Palestinian cause and that they express such vehemence towards Israel. For a group of people who claim to desire openness and resolution, they don't hesitate to use language and actions that completely close off the possibility of rational debate.

At the start of the question and answer period at UBC, Finkelstein requested that those with a dissenting opinion speak first. When the first critical question was asked, after a series of supportive statements and non sequiturs, Finkelstein praised the young man who asked about a detail concerning the Palestinian right of return. He commended him for his courage to stand up in front of such a "hostile audience." But there should never be hostility among people who believe in peace.

The words "truth" and "justice" cannot be relinquished to hate-filled or misinformed people and groups. Those who support a secure, democratic Israel living in peace with its neighbors need to participate in peace rallies, attend peace talks, ask questions and share information – they need to engage in civil discourse. Without dialogue, lies will prevail – and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

^TOP