On Tuesday 18 August, HCA hosted a debate between Professor Norman Finkelstein and Judge Dennis Davis on the misuse of anti-semitism and the expoitation of Jewish suffering.

Noam Chomsky once said that he especially tried to sound boring so that the people who listened to his arguments would be swayed by the facts, not fancy oratory or rhetorical skills. Clearly, Professor Norman Finkelstein, of De Paul University in the United States, took the comment to heart. Professor Finkelstein debated the honourable Judge Dennis Davis at UCT’s Kramer Lecture Theatre on Tuesday the 18^th of August on the topic ‘The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering’. Professor Finkelstein opened the debate by arguing that before the June 1967 war, the Jewish Holocaust received scant attention from academics and the broader public. He said that it was only after the Six Days War that there was a greater intellectual and emotional investment in this tragic phenomenon. Finkelstein maintains that the Holocaust and the issue of Jewish suffering generally have been fashioned into a weapon used to silence those who are critical of Israeli foreign and domestic policies. He further argued that there is no rise of ‘new anti-Semitism’ in Western Europe; rather the scope of the criteria used to identify anti-Semitism has been broadened to such an extent that one cannot condemn Israeli action without being branded an anti-Semite. Professor Finkelstein also found fault with the unique categorisation of the Jewish Holocaust amongst other historical events. Professor Finkelstein cited several sources for claims, namely the eminent Jewish historian Raul Hilberg.

Finkelstein erred on one point- he claimed that nothing can be learnt from the Holocaust in the way that it is currently being taught (my emphasis). As surely he knows, blanket statements should be used cautiously. Whether he actually believes this assertion is doubtful, but over-generalization like this could compel some to discredit his otherwise excellent scholarship.

Judge Dennis Davis spoke second. After admitting that he disliked debates and ‘would rather have been at home watching the English Premier League’, Davis did not seem to counter Finkelstein’s argument in any clear way. He and Professor Finkelstein were mismatched. Finkelstein has written and researched extensively on the topic under discussion; whereas it seemed as if Davis’s only qualification regarding the Holocaust Industry was to receive several items of ‘hate mail’ from the Jewish community for his courageous opposition to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in December last year. It was also not altogether clear whether Davis had substantive material differences to Finkelstein’s general thesis. But Davis did feel as if he had to distance himself from Finkelstein’s ‘radical’ stance, so he digressed and spoke of more general topics. He focussed on the tendency (assumingly amongst a minority- this is certainly not applicable to the mainstream) towards ‘making Israel the enemy’, i.e. focussing solely on its crimes while neglecting the far greater atrocities that occur in other regions of the world. He cited Darfur and Burma as such places. He repeatedly called for a degree of ‘moral equivalence’ and not ‘moral prejudice’ when discussing Israel.

Finkelstein responded to Davis’s assertion by saying that there is little opposition amongst rational people that rape and murder in Darfur is wrong- no one sane believes that such crimes are legitimate. But this is not true in the case of Israel. Many ‘enlightened’, well-educated people believe that Israeli policy in the occupied territories is just, broadly speaking, and thus morally unproblematic. And many of these same people can exert considerable influence on Israel to change its policies. Therefore, it is of even greater importance to debate these issues and draw attention to them. Finkelstein thinks that it is hypocritical for those who assert liberal, progressive values to support a state that flagrantly contravenes international law and is responsible for gross human rights abuses.

Davis also mentioned that Israel is a bastion of democracy in a sea of oppressive governments. He spoke of Israel’s free press and how we should commend Israel’s commitment to self-reflection and the maintenance of a critical stance. He cited Israel’s leading newspaper Ha’aretz as an example. Finkelstein responded by saying that we need to be careful about glorifying Israeli democracy and fairness and freedom of its press. This is because if Israeli newspapers report veraciously on the issue of the occupied territories then Israelis can have no excuse for supporting horrendous crimes there. As Finkelstein said, at least in totalitarian states the population has the excuse that they did not know. Davis replied by accusing Finkelstein of arguing speciously and using underhanded debating tactics. I was not aware that logical implication is a dirty trick. I can only assume that this was also news to Professor Finkelstein.

At one point during the questions and answers section, Judge Davis accused Finkelstein of not taking facts into account. That he made such a statement was absurd. What catapulted the debate deep into the land of Orwell was that Judge Davis was applauded. Perhaps by facts he did not mean ‘events that actually took place’, or ‘events that can be corroborated with sufficient evidence’. Perhaps by facts he meant constant appeals to ‘international responsibility’ and ‘peace’ and a ‘better world’. In that case, there is no doubt as to whose content was more fact-filled.

Appealing to the facts is exactly what Professor Finkelstein wants people to do. He asked simply that supporters of Israel read the reports emanating from mainstream organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the United Nations; and then decide for themselves if what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is just. As mentioned previously, Judge Davis has been vocal in his support for a cessation in the crimes that Israel commits in the occupied territories and has strongly denounced the recent bombardment of Gaza. (Which, quite frankly, is a footnote to the tome that is Palestinian suffering). Finkelstein has also said that it is difficult being a Jew and trying to support the state of Israel (reversing the common assertion that, being a Jew, it is difficult not to support the state of Israel) because the facts lead us to compare Israel to ‘states that should remain nameless’. I agree entirely.

For more information about HCA and how to get involved email historyandcurrentaffairs@gmail.com