Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion; -International Court of Justice in the Hague Press Release 2004/28
Speaking engagement :The Intifada within the American, Israeli, Islamic Triangle was a debate that took place on the 8th of November 1989 at the University of Pennsylvania .
Sponsored by The International Student Council
Co-Sponsored by: Senior VP for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education, School of Communications, Middle East Studies Comittee, University Office of International Prgorams, Department of Political Science, Department of History.
The exchange featured in this “Remember When” post captures a classic confrontation between Dr. Norman Finkelstein, a sharp critic of Israeli policy, and Wolf Blitzer, then a CNN correspondent known for his frequent reports from Israel. Blitzer opens by affirming Israel’s right to exist as a secure Jewish homeland, linking its necessity to the historical trauma of the Holocaust and dismissing any questioning of this right as “racist.” He emphasizes Israel’s contemporary strength and vitality, asserting it “is not going to disappear.” While acknowledging Palestinians have “missed opportunities” and calling for compromise and mutual recognition, Blitzer frames Israel’s security concerns as paramount, highlighting the region as a “dangerous neighborhood.” His perspective reflects a long-standing narrative often presented in mainstream Western media, emphasizing Israel’s inherent right to self-determination while often downplaying or omitting the historical context of Palestinian dispossession and occupation.
Finkelstein, whose own parents were Holocaust survivors, immediately zeros in on the glaring double standard. He challenges Blitzer directly: if Israel’s existence is justified by the suffering of Jews, why aren’t the Palestinians, who were displaced to make way for Israel, afforded the same right to a secure homeland? His unflinching analysis cuts through the rhetoric of “security” by juxtaposing Israel’s immense military power (ranked fourth globally at the time) against the capacity of a potential Palestinian state. Using powerful analogies from history—the Soviet Union’s supposed fear of Luxembourg versus Afghanistan, or the U.S.’s “threat” from Grenada versus Nicaragua—Finkelstein exposes the absurdity of Israel’s claims of an existential military threat from a vastly outmatched Palestinian entity. He posits that Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is driven by reasons far removed from genuine security concerns.
This clip is more than just a heated debate; it’s a window into the core ideological struggle surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finkelstein’s critique forces a re-evaluation of narratives that often prioritize Israeli security above Palestinian human rights and self-determination. It reminds us that “security” is often a selectively applied term, used by powerful states to justify actions that would be condemned if undertaken by others. For an independent media outlet, this direct, fact-driven challenge to a mainstream journalist on a highly sensitive topic underscores the importance of questioning prevailing assumptions and demanding intellectual honesty, especially when discussing issues with such profound humanitarian and political implications. It highlights the urgent need to apply universal standards of international law and human rights equally to all parties involved.
