This is the full transcript of the interview presented in an abridged form in The Republic's hard copy.

Meet Norman G Finkelstein

Norman G Finkelstein is a professor of political science at DePaul university in Chicago. A Jew whose parents survived Nazi concentration camps, he is well known as a critic of Israel and the commodification of Jewish suffering during World War II which he called "the Holocaust industry" in the book of the same name (re-released in a new edition by Verso Books in 2003). His website is www.normanfinkelstein.com. He will be speaking on "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" on Saturday, May 15 at the Vancouver Public Library. The lecture will also be broadcast on Coop Radio 102.7 FM on May 22 at 9:00am.

Interviewed by Chris LaVigne <clavigne@republic-news.org>

Republic: You're coming to Vancouver to give a talk on anti-Semitism and there's been a lot of talk in Canada especially and the rest of the world about a supposed rise in anti-Semitism. Do you feel this accusation is accurate?

Finkelstein: No, I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever of a rise in anti-Semitism. I think it's a completely fabricated claim by organizations which are trying to deflect criticism of Israeli policy in the occupied territories. The evidence, rather to the contrary judging by the most reliable surveys, for example the Pew survey, showed that in fact not only has there not been any rise in anti-Semitism, but as compared to eleven years ago where they did a comparable survey, anti-Semitism has decreased.

R: Do you feel [talk of anti-Semitism's rise] is a concerted effort to deflect criticism of Israel.

F: Yeah, I think not only is there a concerted effort, but it's a recurrent effort. Every ten or fifteen years there are campaigns whipped up claiming there is a new anti-Semitism. Go back to 1974, the Anti-Defamation League put out a book entitled Some of My Best Friends. Arnold Forster was the head of the ADL and Benjamin Epstein, they put out a book entitled The New Anti-Semitism. Same thing happened in 1982. This is simply a revival of an old production.

R: How large a role do you feel racism towards Arabs plays in Western involvement in the Middle East?

F: Oh, I don't think fundamentally. I mean, when you have to justify crimes against any people, all sorts of racist stereotypes are invoked, but fundamentally I don't think it's about racism. Fundamentally, it's about trying to control the world's resources, many of which are located--crucial ones--are located in the Middle East. I don't think it has much to do with racism.

R: Much of your work has involved comparing the Israeli conquest and occupation of Palestine to other historical atrocities, notably the Nazi Holocaust and European colonization of North America. In your opinion, why are Jews and North Americans so resistant to seeing those comparisons being made?

F: Well, I think the obvious reason why they won't see--the one with the Nazi Holocaust is a somewhat separate issue--but the one with North America, where the analogy is pretty strong, the reason they don't want to see it is because there's really relatively little question any longer about the rights and the wrongs of the conquest of North America and to make the analogy simply doesn't make us look very good.

R: In British Columbia recently, our provincial government held a referendum where the people of British Columbia were to vote on what kind of rights the First Nations here were going to have and how the government should approach the treaties. It was pretty roundly criticised as being a racist referendum and pretty widely, people did not participate. But those people who did voted overwhelmingly against First Nations having any kind of special rights. How do you feel that North Americans can involve themselves in the Israeli-Palestinian issue when they're having such problems still confronting their own past?

F: It's a truism that it's much easier to apply moral standards to others than to apply them to yourself. I mean, that's a truism. I think the first responsibility is for people to try to apply correct moral standards to themselves. In this case, there's many reasons why we should be involved in that process: a) we're financing the occupation, and b) if you're Jewish, your ethnic identity is being used and exploited to justify that occupation. So, in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it does seem to me to be a case of trying to apply moral standards to yourself and therefore it's completely appropriate not to-- in the case of Canada, there'd be an element of hypocrisy if you don't want to apply to native, indigenous populations elementary moral standards that you expect Israel to apply to Palestinians. You know, that doesn't strike me as being unfair criticism either.

R: When was your last visit to Palestine?

F: You know, I don't even remember. At my age, time goes by very quickly. I think it was about a year ago, but I can't even remember.

R: What were your impressions while you were there?

F: My impressions are always the same really. It goes from bad to worse.

R: What's your assessment of George [W] Bush's and John Kerry's endorsements of Sharon's new plan to isolate Gaza and cement the settlements in the West Bank?

F: If Sharon were to say the Palestinians should be transferred to the moon, Kerry and Bush would endorse it. It's hopeless to look for a change from them.

R: What's your opinion on the erection of the so-called security wall in Palestine.

F: I don't think it's a complicated moral issue. I don't think it's a complicated legal issue. If Canada wants to keep out terrorists coming from the United States, you're not allowed to build a wall through Michigan. If you want to keep terrorists coming from the United States, for example, if you want to keep the Bush administration from entering Canada, you build a wall along the Canadian border--along Michigan, along Utah. In the case of the occupied territories, they're talking about fifty percent. That would be the equivalent of building a wall around California to Chicago.

R: Does the security wall remind you of any historical comparisons?

F: You know, walls are walls. Ghettoes are ghettoes. That's a fair statement, I think. You know, you can make all sorts of analogies. The one that seems to me most pertinent in this case is the Bantustans in South Africa. That's the closest analogy of what Israel's trying to do.

R: You've constantly criticised the Zionist tendencies to eliminate negative events from their history that reflects poorly on them. Do you see a danger of the Palestinian movement doing the same?

F: Palestinians haven't even begun to write any history. I mean, everything that we rely on in terms of our knowledge of the topic comes either from Israelis or from Americans--there are some American-Palestinians. Palestinians haven't even begun that passage so I don't really think we should start concerning ourselves with that danger. The problem now is that there's an Israeli interpretation of events over the past hundred years that in the mainstream culture is overwhelming dominant and overwhelmingly false.

R: You've been very critical of two recent bestselling books: Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Israel and Michael Oren's Six Days of War. For those of our readers who may be unfamiliar with your criticisms, could you state briefly what they are?

F: Well, in the case of Alan Dershowitz, you're not even dealing with a book. You're dealing with some sort of concoction--a concoction which takes the form of a book, but there isn't a single true word in that book from the title of the author to the last period. It's a sheer fraud. I've been going through it fairly closely--actually as you're calling I have my own text on the screen. I haven't been able to find a single sentence in that book that's true. Everything in that book is a flat-out lie and he's a flat-out hoaxer. I don't think he wrote the book and I very much doubt that until I debated him he had even read the book. He's a sheer fraud and a charlatan. Those are strong words. I'll be producing a text, probably as long as his own book, documenting that every single sentence in that book is a sheer lie--including, as I said, I think the author.

In the case of Oren's book, it's a pretty conventional form of scholarly propaganda. It's got its footnotes. It's got its sources. But the picture it renders has very little to do with what actually happened. I wouldn't call it a fraud. I'd just call it pretty conventional propaganda.

R: You titled one of your books Image and Reality in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Do you feel that historical scholarship such as that book contains is a means of uncovering the reality of what has happened?

F: When you say "that book," which book?

R: Image and Reality

F: You know, I do my best to just--not scrutinize, too fancy a word--simply go through a text and see what's the basis of the claims that are being made and most of these popular texts, which seem to reach the mainstream media, when you apply the most elementary scholarly standards, you discover that the book is trash.

R: What advice do you give to people who aren't necessarily academics but who, you know, do come into contact with books like Oren's? How can they approach a book like that?

F: Well, there are two things. First of all, you can say with a reasonable amount of certainty, if it receives excellent reviews in the mainstream press and media you can be almost certain that it's sheer propaganda. And number two, there's a nice Latin expression which Karl Marx used to like to quote: "De Ominibus Dubitandum"--"Doubt Everything." Always good to go in with, maybe not cynicism, but skepticism.

R: Do believe it's possible for historical scholarship to be impartial and objective?

F: You know, I don't know, impartial? You can get the facts and then you can judge for yourself. The important thing is to get the facts and, you know, judge for yourself. Impartial? I don't know. It's a very strange concept, impartiality. People expect it in topics which--in some areas but not others. I've never heard anyone say, "Let's be impartial about the Nazi Holocaust." I've never heard anyone talk like that. I've never about being impartial about Nazism, you know. When it comes to topics like that, the very notion of impartiality is considered a moral outrage. What do you mean to be impartial about Nazism? The Nazi Holocaust? And in other areas, where it's your axe that's being ground and suddenly we call for this impartiality. Nothing's consistent on these things and that's the problem.

R: Do you feel that impartiality is another cover used?

F: Sometimes, it depends on the topic. Once you try to adhere to the strictest standards of factual evidence and reason, beyond that I don't see any point in being impartial when one side is crushing another. You'd have to be some sort of moral idiot to be impartial. The point is to accurately describe what's happening.

R: As an academic, do you also consider yourself an activist?

F: I'm an activist first.

R: Do you think there's any gap that you perceive between what you might call, say, "street"-level activism and academia?

F: I think there should be efforts made to bridge that gap, definitely. The best activists have been those who are also shrewd, intellectually shrewd. It's not easy, I know that. But God only knows it's hard to be out there on the frontlines trying to struggle for justice and how could someone exhausted from that be able to still read books. You should make an effort and then, you know, you do your best with division of labour. Those who are sitting in their offices and working are nonetheless committed to the bigger struggle. Those who are out there in the frontline should try to exploit those in the offices and their work.

R: With all of the censorship and hostility that you've experienced in the academic world with Princeton and Hunter University, what do you think when conservatives argue that universities have been taken over by left-wing radicals?

F: There's some element of truth to that. I'm not so blind. There are problems with what's called political correctness. There are problems with what's called multiculturalism. I think it differs--it's very hard to make general statements on this subject. In some cases, it depends on the department you're in. Some departments tend to be more politically correct and given to cutting-edge fluff than others. Economic departments tend to be very conservative. And then it depends on the level of the university. The top-tier universities can be politically correct in questions like AIDS, but politically very incorrect in their economic departments. Even within a discipline, you can be very politically correct about women's history, as most of the top universities are, and still be absolutely atrocious on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I am not so ideologically-driven that I'm going to dispute that the claims that conservatives make. I think there's some truth to it. Again, depending on the university. It depends on the university, it depends on the department, it depends on the discipline or, I should say, the subdivision. It's hard to make broad generalizations. But I do think there are aspects of the university life where it is a problem. Just like there are aspects of university life where the hardcore conservatism is a problem. They're both problems.

R: In light of what you and others have said about Dershowitz' book, how do you interpret the response of Harvard.

F: Circling the wagons. It's always very difficult for institutions like that to admit a fraud because it brings up the question of how many other frauds do they have. And I think Harvard has a lot of skeletons in its closet. I don't like to play this game of, you know, this populist game of denouncing Harvard. Everyone loves to denounce Harvard like they like to denounce the New York Times if you're on the left and so forth. But my impression is a lot of what they turn out is sheer crap. What can I say? This is not the first Harvard professor I dealt with. I dealt with, at some length, Daniel Goldhagen and his book was sheer nonsense. There's a lot of nonsense coming out of there. And they circle the wagons. I can understand that because I don't think Dershowitz is altogether an aberration there. There's an awful lot of garbage at Harvard. I'm sure there are also good things there. I have no doubt about that. But to believe that there's a uniformly sublime standard there--no, I'm sorry. I've just seen too much. I mean, there's too much sheer shamelessness coming out of that institution. I mean, there's absolutely no quality control.

R: I noticed that you've been teaching a course on "Utopia and its critics" during the spring. How would you define a utopia? What does that mean for you?

F: I have my own definition: everybody has a fair chance at life's happiness. It doesn't mean you're going to be happy, you know. You make mistakes. And you have to assume responsibility for your errors and not try to throw them on somebody else's shoulders. And then, maybe life is not--maybe we're not destined to be happy. Everybody should have a fair chance and succeed or fail at it. That's how I see it.

R: In light of Zionism's attempt at utopia, do you believe one person's utopia must involve another person's misery?

F: I'm not sure if Zionists were aiming to--well, maybe they were--trying to create a utopia. Look, Hitler thought he was building a utopia, too. People have all these strange ideas about building utopias. I honestly don't believe these are complicated moral questions. You don't build utopias on other people's graves. I mean, that to me seems fairly obvious.

R: Indeed. In that light, do you believe that Americans believe they are living in a utopia right now?

F: I don't know what Americans believe. You know what, I have more connection to people in urban areas in Canada or for that matter, urban areas in European countries than I have with most Americans in the south or the west, which is like a completely alien country to me. So, that being the case, I don't want to generalize about Americans. I know New York and I think a tiny bit of sense out of Chicago, with the emphasis on tiny. Beyond that, I'm reluctant to make broad generalizations. America is a very diverse place. There are areas which, as I say, I'm completely estranged from.

R: Do you think Americans might be encouraged to believe that they're living in a utopia?

F: Look, if Americans can be convinced that the President of the United States is even barely literate, they can be convinced of anything. You know, the fact that any American, any American isn't embarrassed by the fact that there's an imbecile in the White House is already a problem. So, now to start probing the depths of the problem about Americans living in a utopia. I mean, we have some very basic problems because there's a complete imbecile in the White House. You never know, maybe it would be worse if he was smart--if he had a clue of an idea in his head. The people behind him aren't stupid. You know, I suspect he doesn't make any decisions. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He can barely spell his name. Over two syllables would really throw him off.

R: As you say there are some smart people behind him, depending on how you define smart...

F: Yeah, reasonably intelligent. They know what they're doing. They may not be doing it well, but they have a coherent idea of what they want to do. They may not be doing it well.

R: They have a plan and they've said they have a plan and the mainstream press doesn't report on that plan.

F: I think people pretty much know what their plan is. Look, there's the plan that they proclaim which everybody with an ounce of sense knows is completely laughable. You know, this plan to bring democracy to the Arab world--you can see how much they want to bring democracy: the only media--not only in the Arab world but the entire world--the only media trying to accurately report what's going on in Iraq is Al Jazeera and that's the one media that Secretary of State Powell and the other hoodlums are desperately trying to close down. Well, I don't think it's very complicated to figure out whether they're trying to bring democracy to the Arab world. What do they want to do, bring them Fox News? There's a real democratic--there's a real model of democracy, you know. So, their formal claims are so contemptibly stupid that anyone can take it seriously. But, you know, their real aim is to control Iraq, control the Middle East, control the oil. That's their goal. Whether they can succeed, they don't seem to be doing it very competently as far as I can tell.

R: How do you interpret pictures coming out of Iraq of US troops torturing Iraqi prisoners?

F: They learned well from the Israelis. They're doing everything Israeli-style. Except they have much more power. You know, it's a function of power. In the case of the siege of Jenin, [Israelis] killed about 60 people. In the case of the siege of Falluja, [the US] killed 600. That's the difference in power. But the basic tactics are the same. Everything they got from the Israelis, down to even targeting the ambulances. It's all Israeli-style. But multiplied because of the power difference.

R: At one point near the end of The Rise and Fall of Palestine, you quote your Palestinian friend Samira pessimistically telling you that she "wanted to see the whole world destroyed. Including us."--meaning the Palestinians. What keeps you fighting for a struggle that can seem so hopeless?

F: I don't face one-thousandth, one-ten-thousandth part of what they everyday face. I can get to work in the morning. It takes me 20 minutes. For any of them to travel from one village in Palestine to another takes three hours. You know, at that level of frustration I would probably blow myself up along with some people. You know, to compare it is a scandal.

R: Palestinians know what it's like because they live there. What right do we have to impose our values and our "democracy?"

F: We're not trying to impose democracy so that's not even an issue. The issue is for the United States to stop interfering and stop causing so much murder and mayhem in the world. That's the issue. There's no question that it's all a completely fabricated issue of "what right do we have to impose democracy?" You know, just imposing democracy in the first place to anybody who would just look what's staring them straight in the eyes--you know, when Bush or Powell last week went to Qatar to demand that they close down Al Jazeera. That's imposing democracy? Come on. This is silly. You know, this is worthy of Harvard.

R: In Canada, the newspapers have been going on about how Canada needs to rebuild our ties to the United States for not supporting the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism as much as Americans might have wanted us to. What advice do you have for Canadians in light of this recent talk about the Canadian need to ally ourselves more closely to the United States?

F: Canada's a nice country. Stay away from the United States. That's my advice.

****