Norman Finkelstein on Arrest Warrants, Gaza, and the Pursuit of Justice
The transcript below is a excerpt from a full 30-minute interview which can be accessed on the Columbia Political Review Youtube channel.
On April 17, 2024, Columbia University students outraged by the genocide in Gaza pitched tents on South Lawn, calling for the university's divestment from companies tied to Israel. Former University President Minouche Shafik authorized the NYPD to intervene and dismantle the protest, arresting over 100 students and provoking an even stronger response from the student body. Over the next two weeks, Columbia experienced faculty and student walkouts, a national media firestorm, and a pattern of escalation that culminated in the occupation of Hamilton Hall.
Columbia University’s campus has since become an echo of what it once was. With the student body divided against itself, an administration that seems to perpetually peer over the shoulders of its students, and security measures that have dominated nearly every element of student life on campus, the administration’s fear of free speech has successfully undermined the basic principles of academic liberty. Columbia and the world have seen unprecedented attacks on students’ freedom to speak and, for Palestinians, the basic right to live.
In the wake of these events, continuing to learn about and advocate for Gaza and wider Palestine has become intimidating at best and career-ending at worst. Students across the political spectrum know the fear of retaliation for speaking out and even the intimidation of feeling less-than-equipped to discuss the issue. Yet it remains our moral obligation to persist in holding individuals and institutions accountable for their role in perpetuating this injustice.
To find some guidance in this pursuit of accountability, this article features Dr. Norman Finkelstein, a renowned political scientist whose scholarship has shaped the public discourse on Israel and Palestine for decades. Finkelstein has dedicated his career to evidence-based analysis and the deconstruction of propaganda, earning a reputation for his unwavering commitment to factual accuracy and critical inquiry. He is the author of groundbreaking works such as The Holocaust Industry, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.
In this interview, conducted in the days following the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, Finkelstein uses his decades of expertise to explore the significance of international court rulings, the pursuit of accountability, and their impact on the global understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
In light of the November 2024 ICC arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, how would you assess the role and significance of international law in cases where its enforcement faces resistance?
Dr. Norman Finkelstein: “Well, that's always a good question. It’s easy to become cynical and say, well, nothing is going to come of this because we all know that at the end of the day, the U.S. is going to exercise its veto power, either privately, you know, behind the scenes or publicly at the U.N., and bar any action. And there are all sorts of other resources they have. They’ve done this already—threatened that they won’t let any ICC person visit the United States if they pursue this path of prosecution.
So, I don’t think one should focus on the practical ramifications because I think they’re probably close to zero. What’s important is that all of these court victories, UN resolutions, and ICJ hearings on genocide… what they do is they create weapons… they’re weapons in the ideological struggle. That’s just a fancy way of saying they matter in the court of public opinion.
You will be able to say, for example, that the International Court of Justice, assuming it does—and I think there's a reasonable probability—decides that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Most recently, Amnesty International… ruled—not ruled, it researched and reached the conclusion that Israel is committing genocide. And then you’re able to say, let’s say you go on the program, I’ve been on several times, on Piers Morgan. And now I’ll be able to say, well, you know, this is not a war, this is a genocide. And they said, what do you mean? And Piers Morgan will say, well, it's disproportionate force. I said, no, no, no, it’s not disproportionate force. It’s genocide, that’s something very different. And if you have any argument about it, well, that’s what Amnesty International said. That’s what the International Court of Justice provisionally ruled, that it was plausibly a genocide.
So these become important weapons in trying to persuade people. Because at the end of the day, barring the fact that practical consequences are almost impossible… What you’re trying to do is two things. There was a great revolutionary, her name was Rosa Luxemburg, turn of the 20th century, one of the heroines of my youth, and she remains one to this day, and she will be one when I go to my grave. She said there are two jobs for radicals. Radicals have only two, have not only, they have two jobs. Educate and organize. Educate and organize. That’s your job if you’re a person of the left. Educate and organize. These victories, even though they are paper victories, they’re very valuable victories. They help educate […]
You have respectable organizations which have a long track record of objectivity, conscientiousness, like Amnesty, like Human Rights Watch. You have the International Court of Justice. The most distinguished legal minds in the world are assembled there. The International Criminal Court is more problematic, in my opinion, but we’ll leave that aside. And so you have very reputable bodies and individuals who are saying it’s a genocide. That persuades public opinion. That has a very big impact on public opinion when you’re able to say that.
And then the second thing is, as I said at the end of the day, it’s two things. Educate and organize. And then you want to get people to do something about it. It’s not enough to persuade them, you want them to act. So politics is about educating and organizing. And these are valuable weapons to educate. And then, you know, educate is still one step removed from actually getting people to do something…”
Why is the U.S. so steadfast in its support for Israel, even as other countries distance themselves in response to international law and shifting public opinion?
NF: “There are two basic approaches, you might say. One approach says it's the Israel lobby, and the other approach says it's U.S. foreign policy interests, that Israel serves U.S. foreign policy interests in the region. I think it's a combination of both. I think sometimes let's say we take the current genocide in Gaza.
There's no question in my mind that President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, they supported Israel because Israel is a main bastion of U.S. power in the region. It's a projection of U.S. power. And there was a feeling after October 7th that, U.S. power seemed weakened, that this ragtag army called Hamas was able to inflict.
A very serious blow to Israel's reputation. Remember, up to October 7th, the assumption was Israel had cutting-edge spy technology. Israel was this very formidable military power. And on the 7th, it seemed like, wait, hold on, maybe Israel isn't militarily invincible. Maybe there is a military option against Israel.
And that was not just a concern of Israel, it was a concern of the U.S. Because Israel's projection of invincibility serves U.S. interests in the region. It stabilizes the current configuration of power where obviously the U.S. is the dominant force. So they had a role. The U.S. had an interest in stabilizing Israeli power and obviously played a major role, enabled it. I mean, Israel couldn't have gone on one day, literally one hour without U.S. support…
Domestically, the Israel lobby also wields significant influence. For instance, at Columbia and other Ivy League universities, unprecedented crackdowns on campus activism followed pressure from billionaire donors like Bill Ackman and Robert Kraft. These individuals, along with others like Sheryl Sandberg, operate independently of the U.S. government, leveraging their wealth and influence to silence dissent and propagate pro-Israel narratives… This isn’t about U.S. foreign policy—it’s the direct result of what I’d call the Jewish supremacist billionaire class exerting their power.”
You have likened the events of October 7 to the Nat Turner slave revolt in the sense that both want to shatter the status quo, one against the illegal occupation of Gaza and the other against slavery. Given the ICC arrest warrants for Hamas leaders, what legal avenues are available to Palestinians to assert their rights to resistance and how effective are these mechanisms?
“You cannot address questions like October 7th in isolation or by referencing abstract principles of international law. You have to look at the context and the available options. Over the years, Hamas and Palestinians in Gaza have tried multiple avenues: diplomacy, international law, and nonviolent resistance. None of these have yielded justice or alleviated their suffering.
Diplomatically, Hamas expressed a willingness to engage with Israel under the framework of international law. They cooperated with UN commissions of inquiry, like the Goldstone Report, and engaged with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. These efforts led nowhere. In 2018, they tried nonviolent civil resistance during the Great March of Return. Israel responded by systematically shooting unarmed civilians, medics, journalists, and disabled individuals, often inflicting life-changing injuries. When diplomacy, legal channels, and nonviolence fail, what options are left?
Some argue that on October 7th, Hamas could have targeted only combatants. But would that have changed Israel’s response? I don’t think so. Israel is a militarized society that values combatants as much, if not more, than civilians. The retaliation would likely have been just as ferocious.
To understand this, compare the Nat Turner Rebellion in 1831. Nat Turner ordered his followers to ‘kill all white people,’ and the rebellion involved brutal violence. Despite this, Turner is remembered as a hero in the African American freedom struggle, a symbol of resistance against an oppressive system. Similarly, Hamas’s actions on October 7th may stem from desperation—a final throw of the dice after all other methods failed…
However, acts of resistance born out of desperation are rarely effective against formidable powers like Israel and the U.S. True change requires patient planning, strategic organizing, and sustained efforts. Without these, resistance efforts, however morally or emotionally justified, are doomed to fail.”
Is Israel’s goal to just seize more territory?
“No, I don’t think their primary goal is to seize more territory. Israel isn’t focused on land acquisition because annexing territory would bring complications, such as irredentist disputes with Syria or others. Instead, their objective is regional domination—ensuring no neighboring state poses a military threat. This is evident in their actions in Syria, where they’ve destroyed infrastructure and weapons to neutralize any potential challenge… but without seeking to annex land, which would only create additional headaches.”
Court rulings and human rights reports are, beyond tools for public education, written demonstrations of humanity’s collective conscience. Even if it is unlikely that the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant will be enforced, the importance of international law lies in its ideological power. The United States’s unconditional support for Israel is based on the strategic role it plays in advancing American foreign policy objectives, which are in part influenced by the Israel lobby. According to Finkelstein, Israel, which has historically prioritized capitalizing on regional instability rather than expanding its territory, is nevertheless essential to the maintenance of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.
Recent developments point to a possible change in Israel’s foreign political objectives. It is unclear whether the fall of the Assad regime in Syria will inspire a new, moderated Israeli grand strategy or a doubling down on military aggression. Since December 2024, it has taken control of areas within the UNDOF buffer zone, including Quneitra and Madinat al Salam, as well as sovereign Syrian territories like Tel Hadar. Israel’s “sphere of influence” and “zone of control” have stretched far into Syrian territory, casting doubt on the idea that it has no interest in acquiring new land. These facts call into question its long-term objectives and the possibility of readjusting its regional approach.
Though often dismissed as “complex” by scholars and laymen alike, the two clear and consistent throughlines in this conflict is the suffering of the Palestinians and a persistent lack of accountability for those inflicting it. With greater education and the steadfastness of international legal institutions, this is a reality that has, at long last, begun to shift.
Haya Ghazale (CC ‘28) is a staff correspondent at the Columbia Political Review and a freshman at Columbia College, majoring in History and Political Science. Her work focuses on Middle Eastern affairs.