Finkelstein: “One can reasonably say, without the qualification of plausible, that Israel has been committing a genocide in Gaza.”  

Norman Finkelstein, a leading scholar on Israel and Palestine, gave a special guest lecture at the University of Connecticut Student Union Theater on Thursday evening. The event was hosted by UConn Students for Justice in Palestine, UConn Muslim Student Association, UConn UNCHAIN, the CT Palestine Alliance and the NE CT Gaza Peace Group. 

Finkelstein spoke for just under an hour before taking questions from the audience. He began his lecture by investigating popular tactics within major media outlets and Western governments to erase the history of struggles against imperial colonialism as said colonialism unfolds. 

“One can reasonably argue that Russia shouldn’t have launched an attack,” said Finkelstein. “But I don’t think it can be reasonably argued that there was a sequence of gross provocations that climaxed in the Russian attack. Or whether the sequence of events that climaxed on Oct. 7 justified what happened Oct. 7. In either case it’s simply completely dishonest, intellectually and politically dishonest, to efface, to wipe out the whole history proceeding Oct. 7 or Feb. 22.” 

Following these remarks, Finkelstein continued with his investigation of Western media tactics by deconstructing the choices made in characterizing the conflict in Gaza as a war. 

“The purpose of the war is to inflict a military defeat on the other side,” said Finkelstein. “You want to disable your enemy’s army. That’s a war. A genocide is very different. You’re not trying to inflict a military defeat on your enemy, you are trying to destroy a civilian population. It’s not as if killing civilians is collateral damages. It’s not as if killing civilians is an additional tactic — the terror assault — to achieve a military victory. So, it is very critical which description is being attached in any particular situation.” 

Finkelstein went further, arguing that this decision in characterization was a conscious one made across political interests. 

He argued, “It was an individual and collective decision made that we are going to characterize what has been unfolding as a war. That characterizing, from the Israeli point of view, is winning 99% of the propaganda war. Mainstream media persisted to this day in describing what is happening in Gaza as a war, even as the supreme judicial body in the world, the ICJ, reached the tentative conclusion that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza. The entire, so-called civilized world, consciously, willfully, adopted that description of what’s happening in Gaza.” 

He dissected whether it could be argued that the conflict in Gaza is a war, centering his point on what he called “two uncontroversial facts.” 

“On average between Oct. 8 and today, less than one Israeli soldier has been killed in Gaza each day,” began Finkelstein. “Then you have to ask yourself the question: if less than one Israeli soldier has been killed each day, does that, to your mind, sound like a war?” 

Finkelstein introduced the second “uncontroversial fact” by preluding that it was a fact the audience knew all along “through omission.” 

“Is there anyone in this room that can name one battle that occurred in Gaza?” asked Finkelstein. “One major engagement in which significant Israeli casualties resulted. There are no battles in Gaza. It’s not a fault or a disgrace to Hamas or the resistance in Gaza. There is no possibility for a battle.” 

He continued, examining Israeli tactics to determine whether they matched that of a state at war. 

“Israel didn’t launch its ground invasion until three weeks after Oct. 7,” said Finkelstein. “Because they were proceeding to pulverize everything in sight before the ground troops entered. It was not possible for there to be a military resistance because everything in front of the Israeli troops as they advanced into Gaza, had been reduced to dust.” 

He concluded the first portion of his lecture, summarizing and restating the main thesis of his first argument. 

“In the face of those two uncontroversial facts—less than one Israeli soldier killed each day, no major battles—it doesn’t seem plausible that what was happening in Gaza was a war,” said Finkelstein. 

Finkelstein began the latter half of his lecture examining the South African government, which brought forward charges of genocide to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel, looking analytically at the tactics that were used and appealing to a general sense of logos. 

“When they were trying to document this genocide in Gaza they used the World Health Organization, The United Nations Development Program, UNICEF, UNESCO, CARE, Save the Children USAID, those were their references,” he said. “In order to dispute or deny the contention of South Africa—that Israel was plausibly committing genocide—you’d have to say that all those organizations were lying. And is that plausible? Is it plausible the UNICEF, Save the Children, the World Health Organization and 100 other UN humanitarian organizations, they’re all lying. That they’re all collaborating, colluding in an antisemitic, Holocaust-denying conspiracy. Is that believable?”   

Finkelstein continued, examining the Israeli defense against the charges brought forward by South Africa. 

“What did Israel present in their defense? With a couple of exceptions, they were just citing statements by the Israeli government or Israeli institutions,” he said. “Now you have to use your judgement. There is an expression in law. It’s called evidence against interest. If Hitler said there were gas chambers—that would be against his interest to make that admission, and so it is a standard in law to attach more evidence value to statements that are not in their interest.” 

Finkelstein applied the concept of evidence against interest to the Israeli defense. 

“The only evidence they [Israel] was able to cite, with very marginal exceptions was evidence with interest,” he said. “The Israeli government had an interest in denying that it was using starvation as a weapon of war. Israel had an interest in denying it was targeting journalists. Israel had an interest in denying it was targeting medics. Israel had an interest in denying that hospitals were being targeted. But what interest did the World Health Organization have that Israel was targeting medics, Israel was targeting hospitals? It should, I think, be obvious they have no interest, those organizations.” 

Finkelstein then transitioned to arguments defending this characterization of the conflict in Gaza. 

“The categorizing of what is happening in Gaza as a war is, based on the factual information, is clearly false—there has been no war to speak of in Gaza. It is a calculated, premeditated disinformation designed to enable Israel’s victory in the propaganda war,” he said. “To describe what is happening in Gaza as a genocide is not an act of propaganda. It is a factual question. Whether it is or isn’t. Whether it does or doesn’t constitute as a genocide.”  

Finkelstein brought his lecture back to the present moment, recounting recent developments in the ICJ case against Israel. 

“The South Africans have now submitted their second major document for the actual proceedings,” he said. “And it runs 750 pages with 4,000 pages of supplementary documentation. One of the dreads I am filled with in this point in my life—there are two: my imminent mortality and having to read that document when it’s released.” 

He then shifted his arguments to the conditions in Gaza and the sheer extent of destruction. 

“There are 50 million tons of rubble in Gaza,” said Finkelstein. “The estimate is if you allow in 100 trucks a day to remove the rubble—and I don’t believe there’s a snowballs chance in hell that Israel will allow 100 trucks in a day—but if you did, it would take a minimum of 15 years just to clear out the rubble. We’re not talking about reconstruction; we’re just talking about clearing out the rubble, which is mixed in with all these unexploded ordinances and toxic substances.” 

Finkelstein continued, listing estimates of the damage done in Gaza. 

“The estimate is, 92% of the homes in Gaza have been destroyed or seriously damaged. Two-thirds of the infrastructure have been destroyed,” he said. 

Finkelstein began to elaborate on reconstruction and, specifically, lessons that must be remembered by the global community. 

“We have to always be careful about imposing our political agendas and dreams on other people. They are the ones that have to face the consequences of the horror that was afflicted upon them. And we have to be very careful to allow them to make the choice of how they, not us, wish to go forward,” he said. 

Finkelstein furthered his point, recounting events in Egypt. 

“The Egyptian government has handed over responsibility for trucks entering Gaza, to an individual who demands a $20,000 bribe on each truck that goes in,” he said. “Is that a really an option for the people of Gaza, that Egypt be responsible for its reconstruction? I’ll let you decide that one for yourself. But I don’t think much of the money is going to end up in the hands of the people of Gaza if they [Egypt] are designated the state responsible for its reconstruction.” 

Finkelstein closed his lecture by addressing the repression of student voices across the nation, before taking questions from the audience. 

“What happened in the spring was the most brazen, outrageous assault on academic freedom, in our country’s history,” he said. “In those couple of months, the president of Harvard University was ousted from office, the president of University of Pennsylvania was ousted from office, a couple of months later the president of Columbia University was ousted from office. Three Ivy League presidents were ousted from office over the attempt or the claim that those three presidents have been insufficiently repressive of the right of freedom of speech.”  

Finkelstein continued, elaborating on the chill of fear that has taken students and faculty alike. 

“You go to many campuses across the country, not just students, professors are terrified because they are terrified to speak about not just what is happening in Gaza, but even using a certain terminology can jeopardize your attendance at the university, can put you in a situation of maybe being deported from the country,” he said. “Professors have lost their rights of tenure, which really never happens.” 

Finkelstein articulated the unprecedented nature of the moment, recalling the landmark Supreme Court decision in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. 

“In the 1980s, there was a group of the Nazi Party which wanted to march through a community of Holocaust survivors in a place called Skokie, Ill. So that’s pretty traumatic,” he recalled, “And the case went to the courts, and the courts said under the Constitution, they have the right, and that was a landmark decision for our country. And now students chanting ‘From the River to the Sea’ were suddenly forbidden to say it because some Jewish students felt unwelcome, uncomfortable and unsafe. That was an unusual standard: unwelcome, uncomfortable, unsafe. You can imagine the Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Ill. felt unwelcome, uncomfortable and unsafe, but the other courts ruled that the Nazi party had the right.”   

Finkelstein then took questions from the audience before closing the event, punctuating the lecture by saying, “I would like to remind people that a very basic right was stolen in the spring of 2024. And guess what? We are taking it back.”