Norman Finkelstein was an Intense Disappointment on the Piers Morgan Show

by Scott Creighton

Let's start with the definition of terrorism.

new definition:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

The old version (2001) stated that the use of violence or THREAT of violence against a civilian population in the pursuit of political, social or economic change. We had to change that definition because many pointed out... that is the definition of our foreign policy.

 Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.

Would anyone characterize the situation between Israel and Palestine as 'peacetime' when as of Oct 6th 2023 over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and under 30 Israelis had been killed by Hamas and other resistance fighters?

The 1500 Hamas and other resistance fighters who entered Israel directly targeted IDF posts, the ones used to monitor the separation barrier between Gaza and Israel. Of the 1,200 people reportedly killed on Oct 7th (first reported as 1,800 then as 1,400) well over 2/3 of them were IDF soldiers with some armed Israeli militia members killed as well. Since reports are clear, Israeli eye-witnesses stating the IDF were killing civilians as well, it reasonable and logical to conclude...

Hamas did NOT conduct a war against non-combatants.

 

What happened on Oct 7th 2023 was NOT an act of terrorism any more than the John Brown assault on Harper Ferry, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the Battle of Little Big Horn.

If we start to assume that oppressed and occupied people NEVER have a right to rise up in resistance to their occupiers, then we have become a nation of collaborators and sycophants to power. And for a country founded on resistance to tyranny, that is a shameful and cowardly betrayal of our national legacy.

Now let's get to the interview between Piers Morgan and Norman Finkelstein which took place last night. By the way, under the split screen image of Piers and Norman, the text read 'critics have called Finkelstein 'poison' and 'a self hating Jew'  Hows that for a tone setter?

Piers Morgan: I've asked a lot of people this question.. 1. would you characterize (Oct 7th) as a terror attack and 2. would you condemn Hamas for what they did?

Norman Finkelstein: ... as far as the evidence shows now, atrocities occurred on Oct 7th. the magnitude of the atrocities and the types of atrocities (for example were children beheaded, were women raped) that remains as far as I can tell from the evidence an open question (?). However, that atrocities occurred, my answer is yes.

If we are allowed to admit the beheaded babies story was a LIE. 

If we are allowed to admit the mass raping of women was a LIE. 

If we are allowed to admit the original number of 1,800 people killed now down to 1,200 and the VAST majority of them were IDF and militia fighters and NOT CIVILIANS... 

What 'atrocities' was Mr. Finkelstein basing his answer on, if even he admits the ones peddled by the IDF and MSM may not have happened?

And what definition of terrorism is limited to the word 'atrocities'? The use of mustard gas was an atrocity but not terrorism. Scalping soldiers by Native American braves was an atrocity but not terrorism. The mass arrest and forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during WWII was an atrocity but not terrorism.

Norman Finkelstein: Atrocities seems to me denotes a terror attack, that's what atrocities are... as a matter of law it seems unquestionable the people who perpetrated these atrocities would be prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.

So to would John Brown, the leaders of the Warsaw Uprising and Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Two Moons... but would those prosecutions be legitimate? And are any of those previously mentioned leaders prosecuted now in the court of public opinion? How does history remember them?

Norman Finkelstein: However I think there would be some mercy shown because those who carried out the atrocities were concentration camp inmates... on a moral level is my basic precept is... there but for the grace of God go I. I cannot condemn those in a position were I in I cannot be sure what I would do.

Then he goes on to seemingly make excuses for what he appears to consider abhorrent behavior i.e. atrocities. He talks about the fighters having no past, no present and no future. This is MORE THAN slightly dismissive and even INSULTING if you ask me... since there are schools, doctors, politicians, nurses, husbands, wives, mothers, writers, musicians, actors, welders, architects and dreamers in Gaza.

And no past? These fighters are fighting for the honor of those who came before them as much as they are fighting for the futures of their children. No past? 

It seems Mr. Finkelstein has been away from Gaza for far too long.

Norman then gives Piers a running list of Israeli attacks on Gaza starting with Cast Lead (08-09) and refers to these attacks as Israel's efforts at 'mowing the lawn' to which Piers allows him to list them all without interruption or apparent push-back.

All of this is well and good but it's a mute point by now. Piers and the establishment got what they wanted, a well known Palestinian activist and scholar to say that Hamas is a terror organization that should be condemned and more importantly removed from power.

And that is the whole point of the interview.

When we regime changed Libya and Iraq and attempted to do so with Syria, puppets like Piers would bring anti-war activists on and always ask them first and foremost to acknowledge their core premise that the associated ruler of those nations were 'evil dictators killing their own people' and they would often get what they wanted from whomever was being interviewed.

That was the point. Even those opposed to the wars had to accept the validity of the NEED FOR REGIME CHANGE... which is what Piers got Norman to do on his show. From that flows an assumed moral authority to continue whatever regime change agenda was at play at the time. 

Regime change in Gaza has been a priority for the Likudniks in Israel since even before they were elected to office. The IDF killed one of their founders before the election, used 2.9 million dollars to influence the election in favor of their PA backed party and afterward set out to use death squads in Gaza to kill Hamas members... all because Hamas was not willing to be ruled by Israel like the PA is.

Ergo regime change in Gaza is the priority... and Norman played right into their hand on that aspect of the interview.

While on the other hand, Hamas did not intend to attack civilians on Oct 7th 2023. According to their spokesperson (who unlike the IDF spokesperson, has not lied to us yet) orders were given to keep civilian casualties to a minimum and if the real numbers from Oct 7th are now accurate, it appears they were somewhat successful in that effort.

For the record, the IDF is currently bombing civilian infrastructure and targeting civilian population centers in an effort to terrorize the people of Gaza in order to drive them off their land so that Israel can take it, hold it and repopulate it with Israeli civilians.

Therefore by definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization, not Hamas. And that is an undeniable fact.

Mr. Finkelstein's performance on the Piers Morgan show was deeply disappointing on many levels.