The Collapse of the International Legal Order: An Analysis of Norman Finkelstein’s Perspectives on Gaza

The Collapse of the International Legal Order: An Analysis of Norman Finkelstein’s Perspectives on Gaza

According to Norman Finkelstein, the November 2025 UN Security Council vote on the United States’ "peace plan" for Gaza did not merely fail to end the war; it marked a definitive turning point in the total collapse of the United Nations' legal and moral legitimacy. He characterizes this resolution as a "declaration of war against Gaza" and the "de facto abrogation of seventy years of international law."

1. The Security Council Resolution: A Dark Day for the UN

Finkelstein emphasizes that the Security Council resolution was issued devoid of any legal context or reference to decades of UN documentation. For the first time:

* There is no mention of the Israeli occupation;

Gaza is depicted not as occupied territory, but as res nullius* (nobody’s land);

* The entire legal record of the UN, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and prior resolutions have effectively been "consigned to the dustbin."

In his view, the resolution operates on a "blank slate," as if the occupation, the right to self-determination, and a population living under decades of military rule never existed.

2. Gaza as Donald Trump’s Private Estate

For Finkelstein, the most perilous aspect of the resolution is the transfer of Gaza’s administration to an entity dubbed the "Peace Board." This body:

* Lacks any defined structure, composition, or accountability mechanism;

* Is uniquely distinguished by the fact that Donald Trump serves as its head;

* Is not accountable to any international institution, merely "requested" to submit a report every six months.

Finkelstein likens this arrangement to the Berlin Conference’s granting of the Congo to Leopold II: a territory effectively becoming the private property of an individual, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe.

3. Disarming Hamas: A Pretext for Perpetual Occupation

The resolution sets the disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for any Israeli withdrawal or the reconstruction of Gaza. However, Finkelstein argues:

* Israel serves as the sole arbiter of whether Hamas has been "disarmed";

* Consequently, there is no genuine commitment to withdrawal;

* "Hamas" is merely a pretext to sustain a project whose goal from the outset was to make Gaza uninhabitable.

He asserts that since October 8, Israel’s objective was never solely Hamas, but rather the ethnic cleansing of Gaza—even if the chosen instrument is genocide.

4. Genocide as a National Project

One of Finkelstein’s most provocative and blunt claims is that what has unfolded in Gaza:

* Is not merely the decision of a single government or Prime Minister;

* Is a national project supported by a vast majority of Israeli society.

He points to polls showing that an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis believed the military used either "enough" or "insufficient" force, with a significant portion of society maintaining that "there are no innocents in Gaza." In Finkelstein's view, this reality invalidates any moral claim for the unilateral disarmament of Palestinians.

5. Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction: Hollow Promises

The resolution delegates the responsibility for humanitarian aid and reconstruction to the "Peace Board." Finkelstein emphasizes:

* Israel will permit no more than the bare minimum for survival;

* Reconstruction is physically impossible without the entry of cement, steel, fuel, and water;

* The banning of UNRWA and the expulsion of dozens of international NGOs have paralyzed any meaningful relief efforts.

He believes the "weaponization of hunger" will persist until the Gaza question is resolved on Israel's terms.

6. The International Stabilization Force: Consolidating the Occupation

The so-called "International Stabilization Force" is intended to operate in coordination with Israel and Egypt. Finkelstein sardonically notes that these forces are masters of "repression," not peace.

He poses a critical question: If the October 7 massacre is the justification for disarming Gaza, then why, after a far more extensive slaughter of Palestinian civilians, should Israel not be disarmed? The answer, he suggests, lies in the resolution’s calculated silence.

7. The Right to Resist and the Revocation of Self-Determination

Finkelstein reminds us that under the consensus of international law:

* Peoples living under occupation are not deprived of the right to armed resistance;

* An occupying power has no right to use force to maintain the permanent suppression of an occupied population.

Nevertheless, the new resolution rescinds even the promise of a Palestinian state, conditioning it on "unspecified reforms" within the Palestinian Authority and, ultimately, Israeli consent. In his words, even if the Palestinians accepted every condition, there remains no guarantee for the exercise of their right to self-determination.

Conclusion: Hope Without Illusions

Finkelstein views the prospects for Gaza as grim, yet he rejects defeatism. He underscores that:

* Conditions could deteriorate further;

* The struggle for freedom of speech—much like in the Abolitionist movement—is the key to victory;

* True power resides in organization, persistence, and "having a backbone."

He believes that if the space for free discourse is preserved, moral and legal legitimacy will eventually shift in favor of the Palestinians, because the opposing side "has nothing left to defend."