|
Interview with Norman Finklestein
23/02/2001
Ever since Norman Finklestein's book, The Holocaust Industry, was published in July 2000, hundreds of reviews have come out - reflecting both controversial and conflicting opinions. It was quite surprising that it got quite a few reviews in the American press; however, some made no mention at all of the book.
The European press, on the other hand, has written volumes and volumes on the book - with attitudes that shift between admirations for a remarkable work of scholarship to accusations against Finklestein for inciting hatred against Jews.
Breaking the taboo imposed by the sacred relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and the strong Zionist lobby within the U.S., IslamOnline spoke with Norman Finklestein concerning the myths of the holocaust.
The Interview follows:
IslamOnline: What is your motive behind writing such a book?
Norman Finklestein: It was basically a political motive. I wanted to revolt against the existing taboos because the Holocaust industry has exploited the plight and suffering of the Jewish people in order to justify blatant human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians. I thought that there is a responsibility to reject this political misuse of the Jewish people suffering to justify and rationalize the suffering of others. That I felt important… to try to restore the scholarly record on the Nazi Holocaust which has been recklessly falsified by the Holocaust industry in its greedy pursuit of compensation money.
IOL: The basic argument of the book is that the holocaust was an ideological construct. Can you elaborate?
NF: The process of constructing the spectacle of the holocaust dates back to the late 60's. The Nazi Holocaust was being placed in an ideological framework to serve the interests of the American Jewish elite, in particular, as they sought to immunize Israel from criticism.
The ideological representation of the Holocaust was made through two dogmas: the dogma of the Holocaust's uniqueness - that is to say that the Holocaust represents a firmly unique event in history; and secondly, the dogma that the Holocaust represents a combination of gentile hatred of the Jews or [and] Christian hatred of the Jews. But these dogmas have no historical value at all. Their value lies in the fact that, if we claim that the holocaust was unique, then the victims are entitled special moral dispensation; therefore, one can claim that Israel should not be held to the normal standard of international law because - after all - their suffering was unique. Israel, therefore, should not be held to the normal standard of U.N. resolutions because the whole world is anti-Semitic, the whole world wants to kill the Jews, and therefore, it cannot trust the U.N. - a non-Jewish body - so these dogmas are used to immunize Israel.
IOL: After the whole world witnessed the Israeli atrocities committed against the innocent civilians in occupied territories, in your view, is Israel still capable of presenting itself in the image of "the victim of Arab terrorism?"
NF: To start with, what you get to see in the Arab world or even in Europe is not what we see and hear in the media in the United States. Here, the media still wails that Israel is under siege because the holocaust dogmas have told us that all the
gentiles want to kill the Jews, so whatever other images may show, it does not affect the overarching framework. Even when respected international organizations such as Amnesty International condemn Israel, their only response is, "Of course they will do that because they are anti-Semitic." They don't offer a rational explanation.
IOL: So is it then the Jewish lobby, which promotes Israelis' interests in the American administration, or the U.S. that is protecting its own interests in the region and using Israel as a tool?
NF: I think there is an element of both, but in the larger picture, I think it is the U.S. that is protecting its own interests in Israel. Israel, before June 1967, was not a topic or concern for the American Jewish elite, but when it became a strategic ally to the U.S., it became useful to the American Jewish elite, which realized that it could act as an intermediary between the U.S. administration and its strategic ally in the Middle East; thus, they can play the game of power.
IOL: But how would you define the relationship between the American Jewish elite and Israel?
NF: I would say that the loyalty this elite holds for Israel is strictly pragmatic and utilitarian. If Israel were tomorrow to sever ties with the U.S. or the U.S. decides that Israel was no more a useful ally, American Jewish elites would quickly forget Israel.
For example, they did not make a big public issue of Jonathan Pollard's release because they know fully well that if they do so, it could cause them a certain amount of difficulty in the U.S…
as crucial American elements in the American elite feel very strongly that
Pollard deserves the jail sentence.
The way the American Jewish elite operates is that they always stay very firmly within the framework of American interests. This proves the utilitarian nature of the relationship on both sides. It is not only the U.S. administration that has a utilitarian relationship with Israel, but American Jews also have a utilitarian relationship with Israel as well. I don't think they have any moral concern for Israel. So as long as Israel remains a useful asset to the U.S. interest, the American Jewish elite will protect Israel, but if it becomes a liability to American policy, then the American ruling elite - with no second thoughts - will cut off Israel.
IOL: You have argued in your book that the Holocaust has been falsified in many ways. Can you elaborate on that?
NF: The falsification of the genocide has taken place in many respects: first of all, the question of the numbers itself is not seriously in dispute among scholars since it ranges between five to six million killed by the
Nazis. However, the other side of the coin is the number of survivors. The Holocaust industry sought to extract huge compensation monies from Europe; it has been wildly inflating the number of survivors of the Nazi genocide. I argue that if we start wildly inflating the number of survivors, you end up wildly deflating the number of the victims, and so I say that the Holocaust industry has become the main Holocaust denier because they end up reducing, radically, the number of victims as they radically increase the number of survivors.
Secondly, the Holocaust industry is denying another essential aspect of the Nazi genocide when claiming that so many survived because it is, in effect, denying that Jews were systematically killed in an assembly line fashion. If so many survived, then the extermination couldn't have been so systematic.
Thirdly, by insisting that the Nazis' genocide was directed exclusively at the Jews, they are denying that the Gypsies faced roughly the same fate. This is pure racism to separate out the fate of the Jews from that of the Gypsies. The fate was the same.
IOL: Is there a possible way to break the consensus on Israel in the United States?
NF: I hardly agree that it is just on Israel that there is a consensus. On most of the major topics of American life, there is a consensus - a bottom line consensus - pretty much across the board in the media and political life. But there is a fundamental consensus that [remains] quite stable. And when someone tries to break the consensus, they [come] against quite formidable [forces].
What could break this consensus?
There are two possibilities - one from the top and one from the bottom. If the American ruling elite were to reach a consensus tomorrow that Israel is now a liability - of course, that is extremely unlikely - but given that it would, then media consensus would change very quickly, but that is unlikely in the foreseeable future.
The other possibility is the long and very hard one, which is organized from bottom up. And try to organize people in exactly the same way that Mr. Ralph Nader is doing now; that is, to mobilize the people for an altogether different agenda - not one which serves the interests of those in power, but one which serves the interests of the powerless.
This might sound like a cliché, no doubt, but what makes a cliché a cliché is that it is generally true, and there is no magic formula for trying to force a new agenda on American power. It is the same old formula - maybe techniques are different. We have the Internet now - the various forms of communication are now available which were not available before but the fundamental task is the same.
The only way you can change things is by mobilizing a counter-force which will increase the costs to those in power for the path they are trying to pursue. You have to change the calculus of costs. At this point, the U.S. can pursue its policies in the Middle East relatively cost-free, and the only way you can change that calculus is by making them pay a price. And the only way to make them pay a price is by organizing the powerless and enabling them to force their agenda, and then it becomes more costly for those in power.
Right now, there is no opposition - real opposition on the question of the Middle East and so, of course, they are going to recklessly and ruthlessly pursue the policies that suit them. If an opposition develops - though [I] am not so pessimistic about the potential - I don't think support for Israel is particularly firm among the American people - I think there is a potential that can be tapped - it never was attempted.
The Arabs never attempted to build some popular mass movement that would force a different agenda on the American society. I think it could have been done,
it just hasn't been attempted [at] this point. The talk about all the powerful Jewish lobby is in large part - in my opinion - simply an excuse for doing nothing. An excuse for the Arabs' own failure - they always say it is the Jewish lobby; they never tried to reach the American people and build up a counter consensus. I think it could have been done.
|
