Controversial historian Norman Finkelstein argued in front of a packed and boisterous Cubberly Auditorium crowd last night the disputed assertion that Israel uses the Holocaust as a shield against criticism. The event, co-sponsored by Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel (SCAI), the Coalition for Justice in the Middle East (CJME) and the ASSU Speakers Bureau, was the subject of criticism throughout the week and during the talk itself for “polarizing” campus debate on the Israel-Palestine question.

Finkelstein spoke before an audience consisting mostly of community members, but with scattered students and even a camerawoman from the San Jose community group Justice for Palestinians, who was filming the talk for a later broadcast on Arab TV 15.

The audience was largely sympathetic to Finkelstein’s position, bursting into frequent applause and laughter and giving a standing ovation at the conclusion of the speech. A small but vocal minority, however, expressed dissent, and Finkelstein engaged in several shouting exchanges with audience members.

The embattled DePaul University political science professor addressed the Israel-Palestinian conflict and potential solutions as well as Israel’s human rights record. All of these topics, he alleged, were “not controversial,” based on his research into World Court decisions, human rights organizations and UN General Assembly votes.

“In the highest judicial body in the world, there is no dissent, no debate, no dispute,” he said, regarding what he termed the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

“The core of my remarks today bears the question of why there is a controversy surrounding something which, if you look at historical record, contemporary record, and the record of past, present and future conflict, is not very controversial at all,” Finkelstein said.

“Most of the controversy that swirls around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contrived, fabricated, concocted,” he added. “The purpose of this artificial controversy is to divert attention from documentary record and sew confusion about what record actually shows.”

This statement met with derisive laughter from a member of the audience.

Finkelstein went on to allege that Israelis have utilized the Holocaust in their efforts to “mystify” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to prevent critics from passing judgment on it or comparing it to what he deemed analogous situations.

“It’s not perfect, but you could make a reasonable analogy between the fate of Native Americans in North America and the fate of Palestinians in the Zionist conquest of Palestine,” he said. “The problem is that Israel comes out on the wrong side of the analogy, so we don’t compare it.”

During the question-and-answer session, audience dissatisfaction was particularly voluble. Several audience members were upset with being forced to write their questions on notecards instead of engaging in an open forum.

Finkelstein himself disagreed with this method of audience participation.

“Had I been asked, I would have done it that way,” Finkelstein replied. “But I had to respect the wish of the organizers. I have faith that the professor will not make this a rigged session.”

SCAI members ostensibly attempted to limit audience outbursts by passing out notecards and signaling that they should write their questions down. Many audience members left before the two-and-a-half-hour event was over, either directly after the speech or during the Q&A — some visibly dissatisfied or upset. One woman loudly compared Finkelstein to a “wind-up toy” as she moved into the aisle.

Though criticism during the speech came from community members, some students also expressed displeasure afterward, arguing that Finkelstein’s inflammatory rhetoric detracted from constructive campus dialogue.

“I think no informed Jew would claim that Israel shields itself from criticism,” said sophomore Andrew Ehrich, vice president of the Jewish Student Association. “It’s unfortunate that they [SCAI] use polarizing speakers like this who make rational discussion difficult. Finkelstein oversimplifies in a way that doesn’t encourage debate or help solve problems.”

“I think the selectiveness of the facts he used was very academically irresponsible,” agreed senior Jeremy Newman.

But others said they enjoyed the controversial speaker’s presentation.

“I loved it,” said sophomore Jessica Cornwell. “On a purely factual level, it was very compelling, especially from a human rights perspective. I thought it was very enlightening and balanced.”