Trump's backlash has everything to do with SA's ICJ case — Israel-Palestine expert Norman Finkelstein

‘No scholar has done more to shed light on Israel’s ruthless treatment of the Palestinians than Norman Finkelstein.”

These are the words of South Africa's globally esteemed professor of international law, John Dugard, who has been instrumental in presenting our government's case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Israel has been violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

As far as endorsements go, in the world of international law, it doesn't get more authoritative. 

Five years ago, in 2020, Finkelstein was named the fifth most influential political scientist in the world. He is Jewish, and the son of Holocaust survivors. 

He received his PhD from the Princeton University Politics Department in 1987. He is the author of numerous books, which have been translated into 60 foreign editions, including The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering; Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom; and, most recently, I Accuse!: Herewith A Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt That ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda Whitewashed Israel. 

Finkelstein's I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It: Politically Incorrect Thoughts on Cancel Culture and Academic Freedom was originally published in 2023 by Sublation Press.

Daily Maverick spoke to Mr Finkelstein, who is based in New York, on Monday 10 February 2025. It was a wide-ranging video interview conducted over 90 minutes. The following extract has been edited for length, clarity and direct relevance to a South African audience.      

Daily Maverick: Mr Finkelstein, Professor John Dugard has previously remarked that the apartheid conducted by Israel against Palestinians is, in some respects, more severe than the apartheid inflicted on black South Africans in the 20th century. Could you comment for our South African audience on your understanding of these harsh words?

Norman Finkelstein: Honestly, I can't comment authoritatively, because Professor Dugard has real professional expertise in both areas, namely South Africa under apartheid and the current Israeli regime in the annexed West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. He was, as I'm sure you know, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for a tour of the occupied Palestinian territories, where he acquired a real expert knowledge of the subject matter. In fact, of all the UN special reports I have read — and I read them regularly — I would rank the reports he submitted as by far the most impressive and the most detailed in their knowledge. 

So, I know the Israel-Palestine side of the equation; I'm not nearly as conversant in the South Africa side of the equation. But I do recall, for example, I think it was in 2002 during Operation Defensive Shield, the climax of which was the murderous assault on Jenin — I do remember that Bishop Tutu joined a delegation to the occupied Palestinian territories. And he commented that Israel was resorting to the use of helicopter gunships against the Palestinians in the occupied territories, whereas apartheid South Africa never launched helicopter gunships against the townships.

DM: Over the last week, South Africans have been doing their best to assimilate the rather shocking news that the Trump administration will be imposing sanctions on our country for the ANC government's so-called racist treatment of the white minority. One of the allegations, amplified by South African ex-pat Elon Musk, is that there are calls for a “white genocide” in this country and that white people, by implication, are not safe. The Trump administration has even gone so far as to offer refugee status to white Afrikaners. 

But here in South Africa, the overwhelming majority of us recognise that these are bald-faced lies; we are aware that we are being gaslit. The force behind this, we know, is a fascist-orientated, white supremacist ideology that is fast spreading across the Global North, and we are in Trump's crosshairs largely because of the case we have brought against Israel at the ICJ. From your vantage point in New York, in the context of all of this, what are you seeing that we are perhaps not seeing?

NF: Actually, I think you are seeing the essence. The essence is to try to undermine the credibility of South Africa as it pursues something really quite unprecedented, namely, this frontal confrontation with Israel and the power that stands behind Israel, the United States. And even though South Africa prevailed in the first four rounds at the International Court of Justice — in January 2024, February 2024, March 2024 and May 2024 — those are really only the preliminary stages. The real victory will come, if it comes, when the ICJ declares that Israel was guilty of genocide during the past 16 months. And the United States and Israel are obviously preparing the ground now to try to undermine South Africa's credibility, which as you know is a standard Israeli ruse. 

You will recall they tried to undermine Karim Khan, the International Criminal Court chief prosecutor, who is awful, I mean, awful. But finally, because action was being consistently taken in the ICJ, Khan had to do something at the ICC because it was so obviously a display of monumental cowardice by him. And so he finally did act. And immediately, the charges of sexual violence against one of his subordinates started to float. It was clearly Israel's department of dirty tricks. Israel, which is the master of the black arts, was trying to undermine his credibility. 

And now they'll do the same thing with South Africa. My guess is they're going to go through every South African who is at that ICJ hearing; they're going to go through every nook and cranny looking for dirt. I'm not saying that other countries don't practice the black arts, but Israel does it with a particular kind of vengeance and tenacity. 

I believe that they practiced the black arts against Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist who rescinded his support for what came to be called the Goldstone Report, which was a devastating indictment not only of Israel's conduct during Operation Cast Lead in 2008, but a devastating indictment of the whole occupation. It went pretty far in its mandate, and Israel reacted in complete outrage. 

Israel supporters like Alan Dershowitz compared Goldstone to Dr Mengele of Auschwitz, but it was obviously not sticking because Goldstone was a) a respected jurist, b) Jewish, and c) a self-avowed Zionist. So comparing him to Dr Mengele wasn't really very plausible, very credible. And he seemed to have weathered the storm. In fact, he was getting a certain amount of positive recognition in places like the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, and then abruptly, without even telling his colleagues, he rescinded his own report in an op-ed for The Washington Post. 

Ironically enough, the article was published on April Fools’ Day, and people initially thought it was a prank, but no, it was no prank. Goldstone claimed that information had become available after the report was issued, causing him to reconsider his initial findings. But that wasn't true. I mean, you can go through his claimed “new information” and show there was nothing new about it. What he was claiming was factually untrue. And so there was really only one possibility, because I don't believe he was bribed, Goldstone is not the type. If you eliminate the possibility of bribes, the only possibility was blackmail. 

So right now, the first step is to dirty South Africa's reputation by claiming it is carrying on in a discriminatory or racist way against whites. It will get progressively dirtier as the case moves through the ICJ. South Africa has just submitted its memorial, and I think Israel is scheduled to submit its response sometime in June or July. And then, you can imagine, it is just going to get dirtier. 

DM: Again, you are recognised by people like Professor Dugard as a world expert on these matters, and you are deeply versed in the details of South Africa's 84-page submission to the ICJ, including the footnotes and the overarching basis for the case in terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Could you briefly summarise the strength of our government's case? 

NF: You know, I think that's an excellent question. And look, those folks are smart. Of that, I have no doubt. The level of professionalism, the investment of time and energy, the meticulousness of their various submissions, are deeply impressive. So let me just begin with the first one that you mentioned, and then move forward. 

When South Africa submitted its application to the ICJ, they submitted a very large application. In fact, some people criticised the application, and said this shouldn't have been an application — this is the size of what they call the memorial, the actual submission for the court. The application was just to get provisional measures indicated by the court. So it's 84 pages, it has about 500 footnotes, and each footnote has multiple references. Now that in itself is already on its face quite impressive. But they did have a very smart strategy. I have to say that maybe it came naturally to them, but it certainly did not come naturally to me. 

The ICJ is the highest judicial body of the United Nations (UN), so what was the South African strategy? The strategy was to only cite UN-affiliated organisations, or the most reputable humanitarian organisations. So they cite the World Health Organisation, they cite Save the Children, they cite Unicef, they cite Oxfam, for example. Why was that very clever? Because you couldn't seriously discount the evidence without simultaneously discounting the whole United Nations system, because their whole case was built on the UN system. And no judge sitting on the highest judicial body of the UN could very well come along and credibly argue that all the UN organisations are lying, that all the UN organisations are antisemitic, that all the UN organisations are engaged in a concerted conspiracy against Israel. 

Not only was that implausible, but for the highest judicial arm of the United Nations, it was untenable — and that's why I believe there were some very surprising votes in favour of the provisional measures in January 2024. I would never have thought, for example, that Germany would vote along. I don't particularly like the German judge and I think he's an opportunist, but I have to say he felt constrained to vote along with the majority. The American, Judge Joan Donoghue, she voted along with the majority too, and so on down the line. The only dissenting vote, as you know, was the Ugandan, Julia Sebutinde.

So I think the main reason why South Africa got all those votes was because of their strategy — effectively, they were implying that a “no” vote would be tantamount to saying that all the UN organisations were lying, because there was a consensus on the horror that was unfolding in Gaza among those organisations. There really weren't any dissents. There was, I'm fast-forwarding a moment, but there was some disagreement within very narrow technical margins about whether what Gaza was experiencing by March 2024 — whether it was experiencing starvation or famine. You know, these technical terms with these very fine delineations. There was some disagreement, very minimal. But overall, there was a consensus picture on what was happening in Gaza. 

Now you might ask the question, which is a perfectly legitimate question — well, if all of that was true, then how did Julia Sebutinde issue a dissent? How could she have done that? And the way she did that was very simple. She disregarded everything, all the evidence that the South Africans presented from the UN organisations. She pretended as if it wasn't there. No, literally. Now, you can disagree with evidence, but then you have to provide a reason why you don't believe all of these UN organisations. You don't believe the UNDP? You don't believe the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Martin Griffiths? You don't believe him? You don't have to provide an explanation? Why are you dismissing these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of references to reputable organisations that have been assembled in the South African application? 

So you know what she does? She just repeats what the Israelis say. She says there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. All the food is getting through, Israel isn't doing anything wrong, and she just literally copies and pastes everything the Israelis say. Is that credible? No, that's not very credible. That's not very serious. You know, the basic principles of evidence are very straightforward. Every child knows them. There's the principle of what's called “evidence with interest” versus “evidence without interest”. If Hitler said there were no gas chambers, you don't attach very much evidentiary value to that because he has an interest in denying it. But if Hitler says, "Of course there were gas chambers" — well, you attach a lot of evidentiary value to that, because he doesn't stand to gain from that admission. 

Israel's evidence is quite obviously evidence with interest. The evidence presented by the UN system is quite obviously evidence without interest. These are just humanitarian organisations. They don't have a political or a personal stake in the evidence they're presenting. So, how could you possibly attach higher value, or I should even say forget higher value? How can you attach all value to what Israel is saying and zero value to the point of pretending the evidence wasn't even presented? It's not as if there was a controversy. It's not as if there were disagreements within the UN system. 

Everybody was saying the same thing — Israel is systematically, methodically and intentionally targeting the civilian population in Gaza. And the other thing to South Africa's credit was that each time it went before the court, it asked for additional provisional measures. That first ruling was on 26 January 2024. South Africa went before the court again in February 2024. The court said new measures weren't necessary, but South Africa was emphatic. It reiterated that Israel had to implement the original provisional measures. South Africa then went before the court again in March, and it submitted another substantial dossier of evidence that there were serious concerns about starvation in Gaza. This time, the court indicated new provisional measures. 

And then South Africa went before the ICJ once again, in May 2024, and asked for the court not to allow for the Israeli military assault on Rafah, because of the potential civilian repercussions for the entry of humanitarian aid — and the court supported that as well, but Israel in effect ignored everything. On 29 May, South Africa submitted another very large document, 121 pages, which basically demonstrated that Israel was pursuing its genocidal aims notwithstanding the various provisional measures indicated by the court. And so the South Africans submitted this document to the UN Security Council on the grounds that if the court was being ignored, the Security Council needed to act. 

That, as you know, also got nowhere, for reasons which don't require being spelled out. But South Africa was keeping up the good fight. It didn't relent. I think even I only discovered this document very belatedly. As the question that you posed earlier suggested, the closer we get to the actual litigation at the court on the genocide charges, the uglier it's going to get. And this is just the first round, you know. DM

If you wish to comment on this issue, please send an email to [email protected]