Why Normal Finkelstein's Book Still Raises the Israeli and US States' Hackles
Norman Finkelstein.
On June 14, the day after Israel launched murderous – and completely unprovoked – airstrikes on Iran, the New York Times ran an editorial with this headline: 'Anti-Semitism is an Urgent Problem. Too many People are making Excuses.' Typically, the NYT handles its messaging somewhat more adroitly, making a great show of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. But this was one of those occasions when you couldn't help showing your hand. After all, a 'besieged', 'existentially threatened' Israel couldn't be left to its own, poor devices – and the NYT knew it had to rally to Israel's defence. Hence the invocation of the escalating danger of anti-Semitism at the precise moment when the Jewish state of Israel was about to plunge West Asia into an all-out war. Recall how, when Hitler's Sixth Army was stopped in its tracks near what was then Stalingrad, the Fuehrer cried out against the 'Bolshevik invaders'? The great NYT was only taking a page out of the venerable Nazi playbook here.
It was the same playbook that the newspaper had turned to when it nonchalantly ran its first notice (August 6, 2000) on the Norman Finkelstein monograph entitled The Holocaust Industry. 'There is…something indecent about it,' the purported review said, 'something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid.' Elsewhere, it talks passionately about 'the warping of intelligence' and the 'perversion of moral indignation' that supposedly saturates the book's pages, and upbraids its 'shrill hyperbole' and 'indifference to historical facts'. But, incredibly, nowhere does this reviewer identify the aspects of Finkelstein's presentation that he finds flawed, indeed reprehensible, let alone refute them.
It looks as though the book under review was so trashy that it merited no real review. The question is moot: why then did the NYT commission the review in the first place? The answer is not far to seek. The NYT could not fail to review – in effect, excoriate – the book precisely because Finkelstein so determinedly lifts the veil on the ideological and financial skulduggery rife in (what the book calls) the 'Holocaust industry', an enterprise of which the great American liberal media (NYT included) are spirited cheerleaders. Probably beneficiaries, too.
But the Holocaust industry found its votaries elsewhere as well, notably among English liberals. Thus The Guardian 's notice of July 14, 2000 rages about the book reading 'like a rant, with splenetic attacks on individuals, many of them (Holocaust) survivors, and vast generalisations about the whole of world Jewry'. Nowhere does the reviewer, Jonathan Freedland, point to even one of the 'vast generalisations', much less the 'rants', he claims the book is crawling with. For good measure, he titles his essay 'An Enemy of the People', and goes on to close it with this staggering malediction: "Finkelstein sees the Jews as either villains or victims – and that. I fear, takes him closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it."
Extraordinary, isn't it, how Finkelstein, both of whose parents were survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and Auschwitz (and most other members of whose extended family were liquidated by the Nazis), so effortlessly transmutes, in the hands of the 'liberal' commentator, into a Nazi, 'an enemy of the (Jewish) people'? And how the reviewer doesn't even condescend to tell the reader how Finkelstein earned the Nazi moniker?
So what is it about the book that gets the NYT 's goat, and The Guardian 's? A look at Finkelstein's central thesis, best presented in his own words, excerpted here from his Introduction to The Holocaust Industry, provides the answer:
"…..' The Holocaust'is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests. Indeed, the Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim' state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable dividends accrue from this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified. Those enjoying this immunity, I might add, have not escaped the moral corruptions that attend it… (Emphasis added)"
For a book that was published in the US in the year 2000, such a theme was as counter-intuitive as it was incendiary. Indeed, for many prominent Jewish organisations in the US (like the Jewish Defence League) and elsewhere, and their backers in the US and Israel, it was maddeningly provocative. Only a Holocaust denier, mainstream American political (and even much of academic) opinion affirmed, could peddle such an obnoxious lie. Even before this book, Finkelstein had already been identified by the US's powerful Israel lobby as a 'self-hating Jew': his books Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict; The Rise and Fall of Palestine:A Personal Account of the Intifada Years; and, perhaps most importantly, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth had so irked many major Jewish groups that he was often spoken of in the most degrading terms – 'Stinky Finky' and 'a sick puppy' being among the more imaginative ones.
Finkelstein has a PhD in political science from Princeton and his work has been praised for its brilliance and intellectual rigour by such stalwarts as Raul Hilberg, Noam Chomsky, Avi Shlaim and Sara Roy. He has held faculty positions at Rutgers University, Brooklyn College, Hunter College, New York University and DePaul University – but no institution agreed to give him a tenured position, no doubt because of his political convictions, which he never made a secret of, and his unrelenting criticism of Israel's hostility to Palestinians and a potential Palestinian state. Raul Hilberg, the doyen of Holocaust studies, was a Republican whose worldview differed vastly from Finkelstein's, but this didn't stop Hilberg from paying this moving tribute to the much younger radical scholar: "Finkelstein's place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed – albeit, it so seems, at great cost."
The Holocaust Industry grew out of Finkelstein's review, for the London Review of Books, of Peter Novick's important 1999 book The Holocaust in American Life which, among other things, examined how the Holocaust began to powerfully exercise the American imagination from the late 1960s onwards though it had had little traction in the US until then. Finkelstein broadly agrees with and elaborates on Novick's assessment, but points to its limitations as well: unlike Novick, he believes that the Holocaust came to acquire primacy in the American cultural discourse not through a fortuitous set of circumstances but because it was a political project that the American elite found handy for furthering its 'political and class interests'. The Holocaust Industry builds Finkelstein's case assiduously, working relentlessly through contemporary and recent historical records, even cultural minutiae, to make that case iron-clad. To a polemical book like this, a reader can react in only two radically different ways: by agreeing with it in large measure, or (when there's a preconceived bias against the subject) by denouncing it wholesale. Western liberal media couldn't but have bristled at the point Finkelstein was making here.
The 224-page book (2003 edition) comprises three chapters and two separate postscripts to the book's two editions. Chapter 1 – 'Capitalising the Holocaust' – traces the path taken by the champions of 'The Holocaust' narrative to try and transfigure the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews into an utterly unique, wholly-incomprehensible, near-mystical phenomenon which not only cannot but also mustn't be compared with anything that came before it or can ever come after. It then shows how this mystique helps sanctify the existence of the Israeli state and legitimises Israel's every action – however sordid or base – against Palestinians and Israel's critics. The chapter also demonstrates how, in its anxiety to fully assimilate itself, the Jewish community in the US studiously kept its distance from Israel for as long as the US government was lukewarm to the Jewish state, but embraced Israel wholeheartedly once it became clear that Israel was emerging as a valuable strategic asset for the US in West Asia.
Chapter 1 also addresses the puzzle of why the Nazi holocaust engaged so little popular attention in the US in the immediate post-Second World War years. Cold War priorities overrode every other American concern then, pushing de-Nazification to the backburner, coopting prominent ex-Nazis to the Cold War enterprise, and making sure (West) Germany felt welcome in the 'common cause' against the Soviet Union. The Eichmann trial of 1961 brought the Nazi holocaust to the ordinary American, and Israel had necessarily to foreground the 'Holocaust experience' so that Eichmann's abduction from Argentina wouldn't attract adverse scrutiny. The Six-Day War of 1967 alerted the US to Israel's strengths and its potential as a regional asset, while the Yom Kippur War of 1973 both demonstrated the limits to that potential and warranted a full-throated invocation of the danger of a repeat Holocaust by highlighting the (supposed) threats to Israel's very existence. From then on, as the US and Israel steadily came ever closer to each other, the Holocaust came to be front and centre of the Jewish sensibility both in Israel and the US. And, for the American elite, the Holocaust became both a byword for the ultimate evil and a handy whip with which to scourge all criticism of the state of Israel.
Chapter 2 – Hoaxers, Hucksters, and History – examines how the memory of the Jewish suffering in the Nazi holocaust and its purported uniqueness drive a cringe-worthy crop of 'literary' and pseudo-scholarly output that is egregiously false and perfidious. Finkelstein cites three books in particular. One is Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners, which perversely argues that all of German society had always been so viscerally anti-Semitic that the Jewish genocide had only been waiting to happen. The other two works – Jerzy Kosinski's The Painted Bird and Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments – masqueraded as camp survivor memoirs until both of them were exposed as elaborate hoaxes with no connection to real events. Both these frauds, however, earned glowing praise from American Jewish organisations, prominent Jewish intellectuals, as well as mainstream liberal media, and were touted as 'classic Holocaust literature'. Both books became best-sellers, and also won awards.
Indeed,even after Kosinski's hoax had been called, the NYT stoutly defended him, alleging that he had been the victim of a Communist plot, no less. As for the Wilkomirski book, no less a man than Israel Gutman, director of Israel's Yad Vashem, argued with a straight face that 'it's not so important' whether the book was a fake, because, clearly, Wilkomirski was 'someone who lives the story very deeply in his soul. The pain is authentic…' This, despite the fact that Wilkomirski turned out to be not even Jewish!
Chapter 3 – 'The Double Shakedown' – provides a detailed account of what Finkelstein suggests was nothing short of a massive financial scam. The perpetrators were a group of combative US-based Jewish organisations led by the World Jewish Congress, aided and abetted by the Clinton administration and the US federal judiciary. The victims were a host of Swiss banks who were accused – unfairly, in large measure, as proved later – of concealing, and indeed expropriating, deposits made into Swiss banks by European Jews during the Hitler years. The Volcker Commission, headed by a former chair of the US Federal Reserve and comprising representatives of the Jewish groups and the Swiss banks, painstakingly worked for three years, and identified dormant Jewish deposit accounts holding some 36 million Swiss Francs (or $55 million) in 1999. But, much before the commission submitted its report, class-action lawsuits were filed in a US federal court against the banks, alleging serious sharp practices and opacity.
Dutifully, the Clinton administration mounted humongous diplomatic and economic pressure on the Swiss government, obliging the banks to agree to an out-of-court settlement of $1.2 billion. And this was a double swindle because most of the settlement monies never reached the survivors, but were diverted to law firms, consultants, politicians, Holocaust organisations and industry elites. Finkelstein calls it 'an outright extortion racket'' and quotes Raul Hilberg's assessment that the Holocaust industry conjured up 'phenomenal numbers' of survivors and then 'blackmailed' the Swiss banks into submission. In much the same manner, German banks were also ripped off, and again 'only the tiniest fraction' of the proceeds were paid out to survivors, in what Finkelstein dubs 'Monte Carlo casino'-worthy shenanigans. Curiously, the World Jewish Congress never joined issue with the US government on such reparations, though Finkelsten adduces significant evidence that US banks were big beneficiaries of Jewish wealth during the Nazi holocaust.
How does the 'Holocaust industry' minister to the political and class interests of the American Jewish elites? Finkelstein persuasively argues that this is achieved by branding all serious opposition to their neo-conservatism as essentially disrespectful to the Holocaust, and hence anti-Semitic. With the American Jewry having moved decidedly to the right of US politics, this extreme sensitivity (real or pretended) to the Holocaust's memory at times helps deflect even genuine criticism of US state policy by characterising such criticism as potentially anti-Semitic.
Anjan Basu can be reached at basuanjan52@gmail.com.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
"I can't teach genocide in this environment," says Columbia University scholar as campus free speech crisis deepens
Columbia University (File Photo) After nearly five decades in the classroom, Marianne Hirsch, daughter of Holocaust survivors and a renowned genocide scholar at Columbia University, is questioning whether she can continue teaching. The catalyst? Columbia's recent adoption of a controversial definition of antisemitism, one that critics say could criminalize nuanced discussion of Israel and its history. 'A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,' Hirsch told The Associated Press. 'I just don't see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.' Her fear is not theoretical. The policy, endorsed as part of a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration, could subject her to disciplinary action simply for assigning Hannah Arendt's seminal work Eichmann in Jerusalem, which critiques Israel's handling of post-Holocaust justice. The definition that changed everything At the heart of the controversy lies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. First drafted as a guide to monitor anti-Jewish bias in Europe, it has since been adopted, often under political pressure, as a disciplinary yardstick in American universities. It includes examples such as questioning Israel's legitimacy or comparing its policies to Nazism. Columbia, like Harvard and Yale, has moved to adopt the definition in full, not just for 'training and education' but for punitive use in adjudicating faculty and student conduct. Critics fear this transformation from guideline to legal cudgel will chill classroom discussions and compromise academic independence. 'We learn by making analogies,' Hirsch said as reported by Associated Press. 'Now the university is saying that's off-limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?' A spokesperson for Columbia declined to respond to questions regarding the policy's implications for academic freedom. From framework to weapon Kenneth Stern, the original architect of the IHRA definition, never intended for it to police thought. 'People who believe they're combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,' he said as reported by the Associated Press. 'But when used in this context, it's really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.' Stern, now director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, warned Columbia's leadership about this very possibility in a private meeting last year. At the time, the university appeared receptive. But things shifted dramatically after the Trump administration threatened to withhold $400 million in federal funds over concerns about antisemitism on campus. Shortly thereafter, Columbia folded. What had been a conversation turned into a mandate. In March, the university signaled it would adopt IHRA for training purposes. By July, the definition had become central to its disciplinary protocol. Stern called the shift 'appalling' and warned it would lead to increased legal challenges and further suppression of pro-Palestinian speech. 'You're going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what's in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,' he said to Associated Press. 'That will undoubtedly harm the university.' An academic culture of surveillance The repercussions are already being felt. Columbia's disciplinary board has faced backlash for investigating students who expressed support for Palestinian rights, often following complaints filed by pro-Israel advocacy organizations. Now, faculty fear they will be next. As part of its agreement with the federal government, Columbia will also subject its Middle East studies department to new oversight, revise protest policies, and coordinate antisemitism trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Earlier this week, nearly 80 students were expelled or suspended for participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, defended the university's actions. 'There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,' he said to Associated Press. 'To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.' A scholar's last stand Hirsch remains undeterred in her commitment to teaching the aftershocks of genocide. But she believes that telling the full truth, including the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, is becoming a punishable act in Columbia. She refers to Israel's campaign in Gaza as 'ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide,' citing over 58,000 deaths, the majority of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. 'With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Colombia,' she said as reported by Associated Press. 'If that's the case, I'll continue my work outside the university's gates.' The future of free thought on campus As universities nationwide wrestle with how to balance anti-hate protections and academic liberty, Columbia's decision has emerged as a pivotal test case. Is the classroom still a space for dissenting ideas, or has it become a battleground where federal funding dictates intellectual boundaries? For Hirsch and many of her peers, the answer will determine not just how they teach, but whether they can teach at all. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'The curtain falls': Ex-Congressman bids farewell to 'messy life' before imprisonment; former NY rep convicted of fraud and identity theft
Former US Congressman George Santos (File photo) Former US Congressman George Santos shared a dramatic goodbye message Thursday evening, shortly before beginning his federal imprisonment for fraud and identity theft charges. "Well, darlings… The curtain falls, the spotlight dims, and the rhinestones are packed," Santos wrote on X. "From the halls of Congress to the chaos of cable news what a ride it's been! Was it messy? Always. Glamorous? Occasionally. Honest? I tried… most days. To my supporters: You made this wild political cabaret worth it. To my critics: Thanks for the free press," he added. "I may be leaving the stage (for now), but trust me legends never truly exit," Santos further said. — MrSantosNY (@MrSantosNY) The ex-New York representative must report to federal custody Friday to commence an 87-month sentence, exceeding seven years, following his 2024 guilty plea to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. In April, US District Judge Joanna Seybert imposed the maximum sentence on Santos. He must also pay approximately $374,000 in restitution and surrender over $205,000 in fraudulent gains. His admission of guilt followed an extensive investigation into campaign finance violations, stolen donor identities and fraudulent Covid-era unemployment claims. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Luxury 2–4 BHKs in Pune's Iconic Green Township Shapoorji Golfland Vanaha Enquire Now Undo "This prosecution speaks to the truth that my office is committed to aggressively rooting out public corruption," said US Attorney John J. Durham, who described the sentence as "judgment day" for Santos and justice for his victims. Nassau County District Attorney Anne T. Donnelly noted Santos "traded in his integrity for designer clothes and a luxury lifestyle." Prosecutors claim Santos and his campaign treasurer, Nancy Marks, manipulated donor reports to secure national Republican party funding. They created false contributions from Santos' family and incorrectly reported a $500,000 loan from Santos, despite him having less than $8,000 in his accounts. He additionally stole donors' credit card details, including "victims he knew were elderly persons suffering from cognitive impairment or decline" and made unauthorised purchases for campaign and personal use, according to the DOJ. Santos also utilised a fraudulent political fundraising organisation to obtain tens of thousands of dollars, spending it on "designer clothing." During the pandemic, Santos wrongfully claimed over $24,000 in unemployment benefits whilst employed at an investment firm. He also submitted inaccurate congressional financial disclosures to the House. Santos won election in 2022 after securing New York's 3rd District for the GOP. His credentials were proven false. He fabricated academic qualifications, Wall Street employment and family connections to the Holocaust and 9/11. Following a damning ethics report, he was removed from Congress in December 2023, becoming only the sixth member ever expelled from the People's House. After his sentencing, Santos has maintained a public presence, offering video messages on Cameo and remaining active on social media. Without a pardon, Santos will likely remain imprisoned until at least early 2032. Reports quoted by Fox News claim he has sought clemency from President Donald Trump.


New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
How does this deal address antisemitism? The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia. But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example. When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism. The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit. The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct. Is this a new issue? There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal. The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life. While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.