Monday 23rd February saw prominent American-Jewish political scientist Norman Finkelstein, author of the highly controversial ‘The Holocaust Industry’, speak at King’s College London. The talk was well attended and received. Despite being entitled ‘The Misuse of anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History’, Finkelstein announced his decision to discuss the recent events in Gaza. Given Finkelstein’s background as a vocal critic of Israel and the Zionist project, this was hardly a surprising departure.

Finkelstein went on to assess the motives for Israeli intervention. Unquestionably the claim of simple retaliation to Hamas rocket fire was unfounded. It was Israel who initially breached the ceasefire agreement. The elections too were a secondary factor. Finkelstein draws out the two factors he considered predominant in motivating the Israeli massacre of Gaza.

Firstly, the restoration of deterrence capacity: essentially capacity to inspire fear amongst its enemies in the Middle East. This was struck a clear blow by embarrassment in the 2006 Lebanon war, and the American rebuttal of a desired attack on Iran in early-mid 2008. The disproportionate violence of the recent events exemplifies how Israeli military strategy was designed to fulfil this political objective. Even the unsuccessful 2006 Lebanon campaign saw the specific targeting of civilians and infrastructure, despite no evidence that Hezbollah had indeed embedded itself in the Lebanese population.

Secondly, Finkelstein proposed that the Palestinian opposition had become too willing to settle the conflict: the “moderate” Hamas desiring a settlement on the 1967 border. It is misfounded to see such demands for a deal as rooted in moderacy. In a situation of such disproportionate force, and international leverage it is hardly surprising many Palestinians would settle for all that seems conceivably achievable in our current climate. However, for communists this two-state “solution” cannot be viewed as such. Whilst Finkelstein’s justification for its application is its overwhelming majority support amongst the “Den of Thieves”, he fails to address what a two-state Israel/Palestine would look like if achieved. Instead it is treated as a magic leveller.

The traditional one-state vs. two-state debate, unquestioningly adopted by the left, itself must be assessed. Within the framework of Israel/Palestine alone neither provide a “solution”, tending toward either a reversal of the current poles of oppression, or the establishment of an independent Palestine, impoverished in relation to its Israeli neighbour. Palestine’s history as a colonial creation also makes it more difficult to disentangle the current conflict from the broader region. In this context a pan-Arab movement provides the hope for an end to the Israeli persecution in Palestine. Not the pan-Arab movement Finkelstein puts his hope in when he declares the result of the Arab League vote as 22 – 0 in favour of an independent Palestine. The inadequacy of the current Arab regimes to develop any degree of solidarity with the struggling people of Palestine has been patently exemplified by the recent events. We must not look to fellow states, or international law to help aid a solution. Both are tied up in the global system of capital, which benefits from Israel’s position in the Middle East, and will therefore be, at best, inconsistent and fleeting allies of the Palestinian people. Instead the focus must be on bringing about change from below. Only in a mass, working-class movement united behind a project of socialism, can a solution be found.

But what of the politics of movements attempting to galvanise from the sympathy expressed to the recent attacks on Gaza? For Finkelstein emphasis is put on keeping it simple and broad, the movement must base itself in the concept of justice, not issues of wealth redistribution, or other more contentious points, he said at one point. Aims to keep the movement broad and based on such abstractions as justice inevitably tends toward disarming and taming political impact. It appears for Finkelstein that if such issues of “truth” are held onto pro-Israeli opinion can be convinced of its ills. However, the clear dichotomy of class interest must continually be reasserted. It is not a question of lobbying figures of the bourgeois establishment to support the call for an independent Palestine. Even if a majority of such figures could be won to such a case, the likely product would be a weak Palestine at the gates of a still dominant Israel able to continue its role as an imperialist partner in the region. Whatever slight advances this may mean for Palestinians it is no solution. For that we must look beyond capitalism and to a movement of the working-classes from below, not a prescriptive remedy from the international law courts, or national bourgeoisie. The former being merely a product of collusion on the part of the latter anyway.

Whilst Finkelstein’s analysis offered some interesting insight, his reliance on international law as a motor for change exemplifies his inability to offer any constructive ideas on solutions to the conflict. Whilst the question is posed in a context of two-states vs. one-state this will continue. Instead the wider region must be assessed: the potential for a solution is only in pan-Arab socialism.

John Sidwell, CS London

Here is a video of Dr. Norman Finkelstein speaking at the University of Alberta on January 22, 2009. His talk dealt with Israel’s responsibility in the situation in Gaza and the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Co-sponsored by the Palestine Solidarity Network, Canada Palestine Cultural Organization, Alberta Federation of Labour, U of A Muslim Students’ Association, Canadian Arab News, and U of A Department of Political Science: