From Despair to Catastrophe: Professor Finkelstein's Analysis of the Gaza Crisis

From Despair to Catastrophe: Professor Finkelstein's Analysis of the Gaza Crisis

In a special episode of the UNAPOLOGETIC podcast, exactly two years after October 7th, Professor Norman Finkelstein shed light on various dimensions of the Gaza crisis. This in-depth interview, analyzed comprehensively here, offers a fearless and incisive perspective that illuminates the dark and unspoken aspects of the conflict. Finkelstein's view, rooted in decades of research and meticulous observation, presents a narrative of a nation's profound despair, the failed strategies of resistance, and the complex complicity of global powers and media in what he unequivocally calls "genocide." This article, drawing upon the key points raised by Finkelstein in this interview, undertakes a comprehensive re-examination of this crisis.

Hamas's Desperation and the Genesis of the October 7th Catastrophe: An Act of Desperation

Finkelstein dismisses the prevailing narrative that Hamas's October 7th attack was a "grand strategy." From his perspective, this incident was the culmination of profound despair and years of political deadlock that pushed Hamas to this act. He points out that Hamas had previously explored all possible avenues to achieve the rights of the Palestinian people: from diplomatic efforts and a willingness for a "modus vivendi" (a way of coexisting) with Israel to implicitly accepting a two-state solution and proposing long-term ceasefires. However, all these efforts met with the wall of Israeli indifference and unwillingness to engage in any "negotiated settlement"; Israel was solely interested in the "abject surrender" of the Palestinians.

Furthermore, Finkelstein highlights Hamas's attempts to utilize international law. Despite skepticism towards international bodies and even reports like the Goldstone Report (issued after "Operation Cast Lead" in 2008-2009 and subsequently retracted by Goldstone himself), Hamas still cooperated with these bodies, hoping to secure a modicum of justice for the people of Gaza. Yet, these hopes also turned into despair.

The peak of this despair can be seen in the "Great March of Return"; a non-violent civil resistance movement that began with festivities, music, and dance, but was met with brutal Israeli violence. Israeli snipers deliberately targeted children, medics, journalists, and disabled individuals, a harrowing account of the ruthless suppression of peaceful resistance. Finkelstein unequivocally states: "Hamas had no options but to languish and die in a concentration camp (Gaza)." This statement encapsulates the deep despair that ultimately led to the October 7th operation; an act he describes as "rolling the dice" that resulted in a "disaster."

The Forgetting of Gaza and Netanyahu's "Godsend": An Opportunity for "Cleansing"

Finkelstein emphasizes that prior to October 7th, 2023, Gaza had virtually vanished from global memory. The only discussion in international circles concerned Saudi Arabia joining the "Abraham Accords," with no attention paid to the suffering of the people of Gaza. In this context of oblivion, October 7th, from Netanyahu's and his allies' perspective, was not a crisis but a "godsend" and a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to "once and for all solve the Gaza question and perhaps the entire Palestinian question."

Netanyahu, with deep conviction, hopes to be recorded in history as the "liberator of the entire land of Israel." In his view, "people will forget the genocides and expulsions." This belief forms the backbone of Israel's current strategy: the conviction that with time, atrocities will be forgotten, and expansionist goals will be achieved. Finkelstein, using examples from U.S. history and the role of presidents in the genocide of Native Americans, illustrates how the name "town destroyer" (George Washington's nickname among the Iroquois) has faded from memory, and history remembers only victories. This is what Netanyahu relies on: the goal is the "ethnic cleansing" of Gaza and its annexation to "Greater Israel," and nothing should impede this objective.

"Genocide," Not "War": Dismantling Israeli Propaganda

One of Finkelstein's most emphatic and challenging views is his denial of the "war" characterization for what is happening in Gaza and his insistence on using the term "genocide." He accuses anyone who describes the events in Gaza as the "Israel-Hamas war" of "complicity in Israeli propaganda." Finkelstein, with strong arguments, makes the following claims:

* Imbalance of Power: Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in less than a week than the U.S. dropped in Afghanistan in a year. Gaza, a tiny and densely populated area, has no chance of waging "war" against such an immense military power.

* Disproportionate Casualties: The ratio of Palestinian casualties to Israeli soldiers (e.g., 12,000 Palestinians versus 50 Israeli soldiers in a specific period) clearly indicates "extermination" rather than "war." Finkelstein asks, "Does a ratio of 1 to 240 sound like a war or an extermination?"

* Targeting Civilians: In "war," the military objective is to defeat the enemy's army, even if it entails civilian casualties. However, in Gaza, the primary goal is the destruction of the civilian population. The deliberate targeting of children, medics, hospitals, journalists, and aid workers demonstrates that this is a "genocide," not a "war." Ninety percent of Hamas militants killed also did not die in "battles"; in fact, Finkelstein asks, "Can a single person name a single battle in Gaza?"

* The Concept of "Disproportionality": He meticulously explains that the concept of "disproportionality" in the laws of war means targeting a legitimate military objective with excessive civilian casualties. However, Israel is not even targeting legitimate military objectives; rather, it is targeting the civilian population. This renders the discussion of "proportionality" completely irrelevant.

He commends the South African delegation to the International Court of Justice for being the first official body to adopt this approach, declaring it a "genocide," not a "war."

Complicity of Powers and Media: Accomplices in the Catastrophe

Finkelstein unequivocally accuses international leaders and institutions of "complicity" in Israel's crimes. Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan, by continuously supplying weapons and political support to Israel, have played a central role in this complicity. He states: "Israel couldn't have done anything for five hours without the U.S. supplying weapons." This support has blocked any effective action by the UN Security Council.

The media is not exempt from this accusation. Finkelstein believes that media outlets describing the events in Gaza as the "Israel-Hamas war" have, in effect, become tools of "Israeli propaganda." He points to the coverage by the "New York Times" and "Piers Morgan," who initially emphasized "Israel's right to self-defense" and then, with the escalating destruction, shifted their rhetoric to "Israel's disproportionate response." However, Finkelstein considers this shift insufficient, as it still relies on the framework of "war," whereas what is happening in Gaza is "genocide."

The Durability of Public Opinion Shift and the Future Outlook

Despite all this darkness, Finkelstein acknowledges that October 7th has brought about radical changes in global public opinion in favor of the Palestinian cause. He cites examples from New York City where pro-Palestinian candidates now have a greater chance of winning. However, he remains skeptical about the durability of these changes. Referring to historical events such as Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the First Intifada, he reminds us that although there were strong international reactions at the time, these reactions were not sustained and eventually faded. Netanyahu also relies on this forgetfulness, believing that in a few years, all these events will be forgotten, and his goals will be achieved.

The Israeli Society's View: "Vermin" and "Glee" in Destruction

One of the most unsettling aspects of Finkelstein's analysis is his perspective on Israeli society. He claims that "for almost all Jewish Israelis (with a few exceptions), the people of Gaza are 'vermin' and 'human refuse'." He goes beyond Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, implicating the entire Israeli society in this approach, stating: "They are not only ready to exterminate Palestinians, but they are 'gleeful' at the prospect of exterminating them." He likens this behavior to children using magnifying glasses to burn ants and deriving "glee" from watching them crumble and burn. This horrific description reveals the depth of hatred and dehumanization that, according to Finkelstein, exists within Israeli society towards Palestinians.

Conclusion: A Look at an Ambiguous Future

Professor Finkelstein's analysis presents a dark and brutal picture of the situation in Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With courage and precision, he uncovers truths that many global powers and media seek to hide or distort. From Hamas's profound despair and its role in the October 7th events to Israel's genocidal aims and the complicity of global powers, all are encompassed in Finkelstein's narrative. Ultimately, Finkelstein predicts an ambiguous future. Despite positive shifts in global public opinion, he warns that history has shown that forgetfulness is a powerful force, and Netanyahu relies on this very forgetfulness. The crucial question remains: Will the world this time allow the "ethnic cleansing" of Gaza and the genocide of its people to be forgotten, or will this tragedy mark a turning point in contemporary history?