#418 – Israel-Palestine Debate: Finkelstein, Destiny, M. Rabbani & Benny Morris

37:13But I feel like when you have this type of reading of history, it feels like the goal is to moralize everything first and then to pick and choose facts that kind of support the statements of your initial moral statement afterwards. Whenever people are talking about 48 or the establishment of the Arab state, I never hear about the fact that a civil war started in 47. It was largely instigated because of the Arab rejectionism of the 47 -partition plan. I never hear about the fact that the majority of the land that was acquired happened by purchases from Jewish organizations of Palestinian Arabs of the Ottoman Empire before the mandatory period in 1920 even started.

37:52Funnily enough, King Abdullah of Jordan was quoted as saying the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in weeping about it. I never hear about the multiple times that Arabs rejected partition, rejected living with Jews, rejected any sort of state that would have even had any sort of Jewish exclusivity. It's funny because it was brought up before that the partition plan was unfair and that's why the Arabs rejected it as though they rejected it because it was unfair, because of the amount of land that Jews were given and not just due to the fact that Jews were given and landed all as though a 30 % partition or a 25 % partition would have been accepted when I don't think that was the reality of the circumstances.

38:32I feel like most of the other stuff has been said, but I noticed that whenever people talk about 48 or the year is preceding 48, I think the worst thing that happens is there's a cherry picking of the facts where basically all of the blame is ascribed to this built in idea of Zionism because of a handful of quotes or because of an ideology we can say that transfer or population expulsion or basically the mandate of all of these Arabs being kicked off the land was always going to happen when I think there's a refusal sometimes as well to acknowledge that regardless of the ideas of some of the Zionist leaders, there is a political social and military reality on the ground that they're forced to contend with.

39:07And unfortunately, the Arabs, because of their inability to engage in diplomacy and only to use tools of war to try to negotiate everything going on in mandatory Palestine, basically always gave the Jews a reason or an excuse to fight and acquire land through that way, because of their refusal to negotiate on anything else, whether it was the partition plan in 47, whether it was the Lucane Peace Conference afterwards, where Israel even offered to annex Gaza in 51 where they offered to take in 100 ,000 refugees. every single deal is just rejected out of hand because the Arabs don't want a Jewish state anywhere in this region of the world.

39:40I would like to engage Professor Morris if you don't mind I'm not with the first name it's just not my way of relating. You can just call me Morris you don't need to profess. Okay. It's a real problem here and it's been a problem I've had over many years of reading your work apart perhaps from a grandchild I suspect Secondly, it knows your work better than I do. I've read it many times, not once, not twice, at least three times, everything you've written. And the problem is, it's a kind of quick silver. You're very hard to grasp a point and hold you to it. So we're gonna try here to see whether we can hold you to a point and then you argue with me to point.

40:31I have no problem with that. Your name, please. Stephen Bonnell. Okay. Mr. Bonnell referred to cherry picking and handful of quotes. Now, it's true that when you wrote your first book on the Palestinian refugee question, you only had a few lines on this issue of transfer. Four pages. Yeah. In the first book. In the first book. Four pages. Maybe for, you know, I'm not going to quarrel. My memory is not clear. We're talking about 40 years ago. I read it. I read it. But then I read other things about you. OK. And you were taken to task if my memory is correct. Now, you haven't adequately documented the claims of transfer.

41:20Let me allow me to finish. And I thought that was a reasonable challenge because it was an unusual claim from mainstream dream is really historian to say, as you did not first book, that from the very beginning, transfer, figured prominently in Zionist thinking. That was an unusual, if you read the Needah Shapiro, Shapiro, you read Shaptah, I teved, that was an unusual acknowledgement for you. And then I found it very impressive that in that revised version of your first book, you devoted 25 pages to copiously documenting the salience of transfer in Zionist thinking. And in In fact, you used a very provocative and resonant phrase.

42:24You said that transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in designism. We're not talking about circumstantial factors. a war, a rib hostility, you said it's inevitable and inbuilt in designism. Now, as I said, so we won't be accused of cherry picking, those were 25 very densely argued pages. And then in an interview, and I could site several quotes without choose one. You said, removing a population was needed. Let's look at the words, without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established. Now, you're the one again. I was very surprised when I read your book. Here I'm referring to righteous victims.

43:41I was very surprised when I came to that page 37 where you wrote that territorial displacement and dispossession was the chief motor of Arab resistance desionism, territorial displacement and dispossession, where the chief motor of Arab resistance desionism. So you then went on to say, because the Arab population rationally feared territorial displacement and dispossession, it of course opposed Zionism. That says normal as Native Americans opposing the Euro -American manifest destiny in the history of our own country because they understood it would be at their expense. It was inbuilt and inevitable.

44:45And so now for you to come along and say that it all happened just because of the war. That otherwise, design is made all these plans for a happy minority to live there. That simply does not gel. It does not cohere. It is not reconcilable with what you yourself have written. It was inevitable and inbuilt. Now, in other situations you've said, that's true, but I think it was a greater good to establish a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. That's another kind of argument. That was Theodore Roosevelt's argument in our own country. He said, we don't want a whole of North America to remain a squalid refuge for these We go arms and TPs, we have to get rid of them and make this a great country.

45:47But he didn't deny that it was inbuilt and inevitable. I think you've made your point. First I'll take up something that Muin said. He said that the Nakba was inevitable. As of you. And predictable. No, no, no, I never said that. It was inevitable and predictable only because the Arabs assaulted the Jewish community and state in 1947 -48. Had there been no assault, they probably wouldn't have been a refugee problem. There's no reason for a refugee problem to have occurred, expulsions to have occurred, a dispossession, massive dispossession to occur. These occurred as a result of war. Now, Norma said that I said that transfer was inbuilt into Zionism in one way or another.

46:36And this is certainly true. In order to buy land, they had the Jews bought tracks of land on which some Arabs sometimes lived, sometimes they bought tracks of land on which there weren't Arab villages, but sometimes they bought land on which there were Arabs. And according to Ottoman law and the British, at least in the initial years of the British mandate. The law said that the people who bought the land could do what they liked with the people who didn't own the land, who were basically squatting on the land, which is the Arab tenant farmers, which is we're talking about a very small number actually, of Arabs who were displaced as a result of land purchases in the Ottoman period or the mandate period.

47:17But there was dispossession in one way. They didn't possess the land, they didn't own it, but they were removed from the land and this did happen in Zionism. And there's a if you like in inevitability in Zionist ideology of buying tracks of land and starting to work it yourself and settle it with your own people and so on. That made sense. But what we're really talking about is what happened in 4748 and in 4748 the Arabs started a war and actually people pay for their mistakes and the Palestinians have never actually agreed to pay for mistakes. They make mistakes, they attack, they suffer as a result, and we see something similar going on today in God and the Gaza Strip.

48:00They do something terrible, they kill 1200 Jews, they abduct 250 women and children and babies and old people and whatever. And then they start screaming, please save us from what we did because the Jews are counter -attacking. And this is what happened then, and this is what's happening now. So there's something fairly similar in the situation here. Expulsion, and this is important, Norman, you should pay attention to this. You didn't raise that. Expulsion transfer whenever policy of the Zionist movement before 47, it doesn't exist in Zionist platforms of the various political parties, of the Zionist organization, of the Israeli state, of the Jewish agency.

48:42Nobody would have actually made it into policy because it was always a large minority. If the work people wanted it, always a large minority of Jewish politicians and leaders would have said no, this is a moral, we cannot start a state on the basis of an expulsion. So it was never adopted and actually was never adopted as policy, even in 48, even though Bengurian wanted as few Arabs in the course of the war, staying in the Jewish state after they attacked it, he didn't want this loyal citizens staying there because they wouldn't have been loyal citizens. But this made sense in the war itself. But the movement itself and its political parties never accepted it.

49:22It's true that in 1937, when the British as part of the proposal by the Peel Commission to divide the country into two states, one Arab one Jewish, which the Arabs, of course, rejected, a Peel also recommended that the Arabs most of the Arabs in the Jewish state to be should be transferred because otherwise if they stayed and were disloyal to the emerging Jewish state, this would cause endless disturbances, warfare, killing, and so on. So, Bengurian and Leitzmann latched on to this proposal by the most famous democracy in the world, the British democracy, when they proposed the idea of transfer, side by side with the idea of partition because it made sense and they said well if the British say so we should also Advocated but they never actually tried to pass it as Zionist policy and they fairly quickly stopped even talking about transfer after 1938.

50:21So just to clarify you're saying is that 47 was an offensive war not a defensive war by the Arabs by the Arabs and you're also saying that there was never a top -down policy of expulsion. Yes, just to clarify the point. If I understood you correctly, you're making the claim that transfer expulsion and so on was in fact a very localized phenomenon, resulting from individual land purchases. And that if I understand you correctly, you're also making the claim that the idea that a Jewish state requires a removal or overwhelming reduction of the non -Jewish population was... If the Arabs are attacking you, yes.

51:20But let's say prior to 1947, it would be your claim that the idea that a significant reduction or wholesale removal of their population was not part of Zionist thinking. Well, I think there's two problems with that. I think what you're saying about localized disputes is correct. But I also think that there is a whole literature that demonstrates that transfer was envisioned by Zidas leaders on a much broader scale than simply individual land purchases. In other words, it went way beyond we need to remove these tenants so that we can form this land. And the idea was we can't have a state where all these Arabs remain, and we have to get rid of them.

52:17And the second, I think, impediment to that view is that long before the UN General Assembly convened to address a question of Palestine, Palestinian and Arab and other leaders as well, had been warning, at infinitum, that the purpose of the Zionist movement is not just to establish Jewish state but to establish an exclusivist Jewish state and that transfer forced displacement was fundamental to that project. And just responding to, sorry, was it that the But Bonnele or Donnell, yeah. Would it be? Yeah. You made the point that the problem here is that people don't recognize that the first and last result for the Arabs is always war.

53:15I think there's a problem with that. I think you might do well to recall the 1936 general strike conducted by Palestinians at the beginning of the revolt, which at the time was the longest recorded general strike in history. You may want to consult the book published last year by Laurie Allen, a history of false hope, which discusses in great detail the consistent engagement by Palestinians, their leaders, their elites, their diplomats, and so on, with all these international committees. If we look at today, the Palestinians are once again going to the International Court of Justice. They're consistently trying to persuade the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to do his job.

54:11They have launched widespread boycott campaigns. So of course, the Palestinians have engaged in military resistance. But I think the suggestion that this has always been their first and last resort and that they have somehow spurned civic action, spurn diplomacy, I think really has no basis in reality. I'll respond to that in a question for Norm to take into account, I think, when he answers Bennett, because I am curious, obviously, I have fresh her eyes on this and I'm a new comrade to this arena versus the three of you guys for sure. A claim that gets brought up a lot has to do with the inevitability of transfer in Zionism or the idea that as soon as the Jews envisioned to state in Palestine.

54:55They knew that it would involve some mass transfer of population, perhaps a mass expulsion. I'm sure we'll talk about planned dialogue or planned de -it at some point. The issue that I run into is, while you can find quotes from leaders, while you can find maybe desires expressed in diaries, I feel like it's hard to truly ever know if there would have been mass transfer in the face of Arab peace because I feel like every time there was a huge deal on the table that would have had a sizable Jewish and Arab population living together, the Arabs would reject it out of hand. So for instance, when we say that transfer was inevitable, when we say that Zionists would have never accepted sizable Arab population, how do you explain the acceptance of the 47 -partition plan that would have had a huge Arab population living in the Jewish state?

55:40Is your contention that after the acceptance of that, after the establishment of that state that Jews would have slowly started to expel all of these Arab citizens from their country? or how do you explain that in Lusana a couple years later that Israel was willing to formally annex the Gaza Strip and make 200 ,000 people those citizens, but I'm just curious how do we get this idea of Zionism always means mass transfer when there were times at least early on in the history of Israel and a little bit before it where Israel would have accepted a state That would have had a massive Arab population in it.

56:14Is your yeah, is your idea that they would have just slowly expelled them afterwards or? Is that question too? You or Norm? But to either one, I'm just curious with the incorporation of the answer, yeah. There's some misunderstandings here. So let's try to clarify that. Number one, it was the old historians who would point to the fact, and Professor Morris' terminology, the old historians, what he called not real historians, he called them chroniclers, not real historians, it was the old Israeli historians. who denied the centrality of transfer in Zionist thinking. It was then Professor Morris who contrary to Israel's historian establishment who said now you remind me its four pages but it came at the end of the book it was no no it's at the beginning of the book.

57:10Transfer. Yes. The answer is dealt with in four Yeah, okay, okay, my first book on the map. Yeah, okay, it's a fourth of my memory, but the point still stands it was Professor Morris Who introduced this idea and what you might call a big way? Yeah, but I didn't say okay Central to the science I'm allowing experiment Allow you to allow you sing central. Okay. I never said it was central. Okay, it was there. Okay, I did it's by the way It's okay to respond back and forth. This is great. And also just a quick question if I may You're using quotes from from Benny from Professor Morris. It's also okay to say those quotes do not reflect the whole context of the So like if we go back if you know to quotes we've said in the past and you both Here have written the three you have written on this topic a lot is we should be careful and just admit like well Yeah, well that's just what you real quick just to be clear that the contention is that that Norm is quoting apart and saying that this was the entire reason for this, whereas Benny is saying it's a part of that.

58:11I'm not quoting apart. I'm quoting 25 pages where Professor Morris was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. Now, you say it never became part of the official Zionist platform. It never became part of the policy. Fine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, it's not policy. We're also asked, well, this is true. Why did that happen? Why did that happen? It's because it's a very simple fact, which everybody understands. Ideology doesn't operate in a vacuum. There are real world practical problems. You can't just take an ideology and superimpose it on a political reality and turn it into a fact.

59:10It was the British mandate. There was significant Arab resistance to Zionism and that resistance was based on the fact, as you said, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. So you could very well expect the Zionist movement to come out in neon lights and announce, hey, we're going to be expelling you the first chance we get. That's not realistic. No, no. Let me respond. Look, you said it a number of times that the Arabs from fairly early on in the conflict from the 1890s or the early 1900s said the Jews intend to expel us. This doesn't mean that it's true. It means that some Arabs said this, maybe believing it was true, maybe using it as a political instrument to gain support to mobilize Arabs against the Zionist experiment, but the fact is, transfer did not occur before 1947.

1:00:17And Arabs later said, and since then, have said that the Jews want to build a third temple on the temple mount, as if that's what really the mainstream of Zionism has always wanted and always strived for. But this is nonsense. It's something that Hussein used to use as a way to mobilize masses for the cause using religion as the way to get them to join him. The fact that Arabs said that their design is wanted, this possessors doesn't mean it's true, it just means that there's some Arabs thought that maybe said it sincerely and maybe incisually. Professor Morris later became a self -fulfilling prophecy.

1:01:01Professor Morris attacked the Jews. Professor Morris, I read through your stuff even yesterday I was looking through You should read out the things, you're wasting your time. No, no, actually no. I do read other things, but I don't consider the waste of time to read you, not at all. You say that this wasn't inherent in Zionism. Now would you agree that David Bungorin was a Zionist? A major Zionist. Right. Would you agree that my invite was a Zionist? Yeah, okay. I believe they were. I believe they took their ideology seriously. It was the first generation. Just like with the Bolsheviks, the first generation was committed to an idea.

1:01:50By the 1930s, it was just pure railpolitik. The ideology went out the window. The first generation, I have no doubt about their convictions. Okay, there were Zionists. Transurf was inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism. They're keep repeating the same thing. Because I have, as I said, then, Mr. Morris, I have a problem reconciling what you're saying. It either was incidental or it was deeply entrenched. Here I read, it's deeply entrenched, two very resonant words in evidentable and inbuilt. Deeply entrenched, I never wrote it. Well, I'm not sure. It's something you just invented. Invertebral and inbuilt.

1:02:39The idea, let me see something. The idea of transfer was there. Israel, Zangvill, a British Zionist talked about it early on in the century. Even Herzl in some way talked about transfer in population. You're 25 pages everybody talk. Well, that's it. We keep bringing up this line in the 25 page and the four pages You know, we're lucky to have been in front of us right now But only to go to the quotes like we can legitimately ask how central is expulsion to Zionism in its early version of Zionism and what whatever Zionism is today and how much power influence the Zionism and ideology have in Israel and like influence the philosophy the ideology of Zionism have on Israel today.

1:03:35The Zionist movement up to 1948 Zionist ideology was central to the whole Zionist experience, the whole enterprise up to 1948 and I think Zionist ideology was also important in the first decades of Israel's existence. Slowly the hold of Zionism, like Bolshevism held the Soviet Union, gradually faded. A lot of Israelis today think in terms of individual success and then the capitalism and all sorts of things which are nothing to do with Zionism. But Zionism was very important. But what I'm saying is that the idea of transfer wasn't the core of Zionism. The idea of Zionism was to save the Jews who had been vastly persecuted in Eastern Europe and incidentally in the Arab world, the Muslim world, four centuries, and eventually ending up with the Holocaust.

1:04:34The idea of Zionism was to save the Jewish people by establishing a state or reestablishing a Jewish state on the ancient Jewish homeland, which is something the Arabs today even deny that there were Jews in Palestine or the land of Israel a 2000 years ago, Arifat famously said what temple was there on the temple mount maybe it was in Nablus which of course is nonsense but they had a strong connection for thousands of years to the land to which they wanted to return and return there. They found that on the land lived hundreds of thousands of Arabs and the question was how to accommodate the vision of a Jewish state in Palestine alongside the existence of these Arab masses living on, were indigenous, in fact, to the land by that stage.

1:05:21And the idea of partition, because they couldn't live together, because the Arabs didn't want to live together with the Jews, and I think the Jews also didn't want to live together in one state with Arabs in general. The idea of partition was the thing which the Zionists accepted. Okay, we can only get a small part of Palestine, the Arabs will get in 37. Most of Palestine in 1947 the ratios were changed, but we can live side by side with each other in a partitioned Palestine. And this was the essence of it. The idea of transfer was there, but it was never adopted as policy. But in 1947 -48, the Arabs attacked, trying to destroy, essentially, the Jewish design, the Santa Pryce, and the emergent Jewish state.

1:06:08and the reaction was a transfer in some way, not as policy, but this is what happened on the battlefield, and this is also what Benguri and at some point began to want as well. Well, you know, one of the first books on this issue I read when I was still in high school, because my late father had it, was a diaries of Theodore Herzl. And I think, you know, theodore Hurtzell, of course, was the founder of the contemporary Zionist movement. And I think if you read that, it's very clear. For Hurtzell, the model upon which Zionist movement would proceed, his model was Cecil Rhodes. His, I think, you know, Rhodes from what I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, has quite a prominent and Herzl's diaries.

1:07:04I think Herzl was also corresponding with him and seeking his support. Cecil Rhodes, of course, was the British colonialist, after whom the former Minority regime in Rhodesia was named. And Herzl also says explicitly in his diaries that it is essential to remove the existing population from Palestine. Can I respond to this? In a moment, please, as we shall have to spirit the penniless population across the borders and procure employment for the most where, or some, and Israel's angle, who you mentioned, a land without a people for a people without a land. They knew damn well it wasn't a people, a land without a people.

1:07:53I'll continue, but I'll, but please go ahead. Just to this, there is one small diary entry in Herzl's vast... Five volumes. Yeah, five volumes. There's one paragraph which actually mentions the idea of transfer. There are people who think that Herzl was actually pointing to South America when he was talking about that. The Jews were going to move to Argentina and then they would try and buy out or buy off or spirit the penniless natives to make way for Jewish settlement. Maybe he wasn't even talking about the Arabs in that particular passage. That's the argument of some people. Maybe he was, but the point is it has only a one hundredth of a one percent of the diary which is devoted to this subject.

1:08:40It's not a central idea in Herzl's thinking. What Herzl wanted, and this is what's important, not Rhodes. I don't think he was the model. So Herzl wanted to create a liberal democratic western state in Palestine for the Jews. That's the idea. Not some imperial enterprise serving some imperial master, which is what Rhodes was about. But to have a Jewish state which was modeled on the Western democracies in Palestine. And this, incidentally, was more or less what Weitzmann and Binguirin wanted. today, Bingoorium was more of a socialist, white sman was more of a liberal, a westerner, but they wanted to establish a social democratic or liberal state in Palestine.

1:09:26And they both envisioned through most of the years of their activity that there would be an Arab minority in that Jewish state. It's true that Bingoorium strived to have as small as possible an Arab minority in the Jewish state because he knew that if you want a Jewish majority state, that would be necessary. But it's not something which they were willing to translate into actual policy. Just a quick pause to to mention that for people who are not familiar, either Herzl We're talking about over a century ago and everything we've been talking about has been mostly 1948 and before. Yes, just one clarification on Herzl's diaries.

1:10:03I mean the other thing that I recall from those diaries is he was He was very preoccupied with in fact getting great power patronage seeing Palestine sign the Jewish state in Palsam, I think his words, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. In other words, very much seeing his project as a proxy for Western imperialism in the Middle East. Not proxy. He wanted to establish a Jewish state which would be independent. To get that, he hoped that he would be able to garner support from major imperial power. including the Ottoman Sultan, he tried to cultivate. I just want to respond to point you made earlier, which was that people expressed their rejection of the partition resolution on the grounds that it gave the majority of Palestine to the Jewish community, which formed only a third.

1:11:01Whereas in fact, if I understood you correctly, you're saying the Palestinians and the Arabs would have rejected any partition resolution. Yeah, I think a couple of things that one, they would have rejected any two. A lot of that land given was in the negab. It was pretty terrible land at the time. And then three, the land that would have been partitioned to Jews, I think would have been, I think I saw it was like 500 ,000 error. It would have been 500 ,000 Jews, 400 ,000 Arabs. I think like 80 ,000 Bedouin would have been there. So the state would have been a better place. Well, I think he raised a valid point because I think the Palestinians did reject the partition of their homeland in principle.

1:11:39And I think the fact that the United Nations General Assembly then awarded the majority of their homeland to the Zionist movement only added insult to injury. I mean, one doesn't have to sympathize with the Palestinians to recognize that they have now been a stateless people for 75 years, can you name any country yours, for example, or yours that would be prepared to give 55%, 25%, 10 % of your country to the Palestinians? Of course not. And so the issue was not the existence of Jews in Palestine. They had been there for centuries. And of course they had ties to Palestine, and particularly to Jerusalem and other places, going back centuries, if not millennia.

1:12:38But the idea of establishing an exclusively Jewish state at the expense of those who were already living there, I think it was right to reject that. And I don't think we can look back now, 75 years later, and say, well, you should have accepted losing 55 % of your homeland because you ended up losing 78 % of it in the addition, the remaining 22 % was occupied in 1967. That's not how things work. And I can imagine, I can imagine, in American, rejecting giving 10 % of the United States to the Palestinians, and if that rejection leads to war and you lose half your country, I doubt that 50 years from now you're going to say, well, maybe I should have accepted that.

1:13:29Sure. So I like this answer more than what I usually feel like I'm hearing when it comes to the Palestinian rejection of the 47th petition plan, because sometimes I feel like a weird switch happens to where the Arabs in the area are actually presented as entirely pragmatic who are simply doing a calculation and saying, well, we're losing 55 % of our land, Jews are only, maybe one third of the people here, and we've got 45, and nah, the math doesn't work basically. But it wasn't a math problem. I think, like you said. It was a matter of principle. It was an ideology problem. No, it was a matter of principle.

1:14:00Yeah, ideologically driven. That they, as a people, have a right to, or entitled to this land, that they've never actually had an independent state on, that they've never had, even a guarantee of an independent state on, that they've never actually ruled it over. That's the last point is actually not correct because for all its injustice, the mandate system recognized Palestine as a class A mandate which provisionally recognized the independence of that territory. Of what would emerge from that territory, but not the Palestinian? Of that territory was provisionally recognized. But not, but the territory itself was, but not of the Palestinian people to have a right or a guarantee to a government that would emerge.

1:14:40was a British mandate of Palestine, not the British mandate of Israel. The word exclusive, which you keep using is nonsense. The state which Ben -Gurian envisioned would be a Jewish majority state, as they accepted the 1947 partition resolution, as Stephen said, that included 400 ,000 plus Arabs in a state which would have 500 ,000 Jews. So the idea of exclusivity wasn't anywhere in the air at all among the Zionist leaders. In 4748 they wanted a Jewish majority state, but we're willing to accept a state which had 40 % Arabs. That's one point. The second thing is the Palestinians may have regarded the land of Palestine as their homeland, but so did the Jews.

1:15:23It was the homeland of the Jews as well. The problem was the Arabs were unable and remain to this day, unable to recognize that for the Jews that is their homeland as well. And the problem then is how do you share this homeland either with one Binational state or separate this partitioned into two states the problem is that the Arabs have always rejected Both of these ideas the homeland belongs to the Jews as Jews feel as much as it does I Then for the Arabs I would say for the Jews it's Jewish people. I would also homeland real quick I just want for both of you guys because I haven't heard these questions I really want these questions to be I'm just so curious how to make sense of them It was correctly brought up that I believe that Ben Gurion had, I think Shlomo Benami describes it as an obsession with getting validation or support from Western states.

1:16:10Great Britain and then a couple decades later it becomes. I explained the Suez war. Yeah, exactly. Correct. That was one of the major motivators, the idea to work with Britain and France on a military operation. In real -stuge. But then the question again, I go back to, if that is true, if Ben Gurion, if the early Israel saw themselves as a Western fashion nation. How could we possibly imagine that they would have engaged in the transfer of some 400 ,000 Arabs after accepting the partition plan, would that not have completely and totally destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of the entire Western world?

1:16:41Would it not have been how not? Well, first of all, I think that that design is leadership's acceptance of the partition resolution. And I think you may have written about this, that they accepted it because it provided international endorsement of the legitimacy of the principle of Jewish statehood and they didn't accept the borders. And in fact later expanded the border. Second of all, the borders, the borders, the borders, the borders, the war. They accepted the UN Partition resolution borders and all. You can say that some of the designers deep in their hearts had the idea that maybe at some point, including their most to get more, including their most senior leaders who said so and I think we've quoted them saying so.

1:17:30logically accepted what the United Nations, the world community, had said this is what you're going to get. And second of all, I mean, removing dark people, darker people, it's it's intrinsic. It's intrinsic. It's intrinsic to Western history. So the idea that Americans or Brits or the French would have an issue with, I mean, you've French had been doing it in Algeria for decades. Americans have been doing it in North America for centuries. So how would Israel forcibly displacing Palestinians somehow besmirch Israel in the eyes of the West? In the 1944 resolution of the labor party, and at the time, even Bertrand Russell was a member of the labor party.

1:18:18It endorsed transfer of Arabs out of Palestine as Moines pointed out that was a deeply entrenched idea in Western thinking that there was nothing it doesn't in any way contradict or violate or breach any moral values to displace the Palestinian population. Now, I do believe there's a legitimate question. Had it been the case, as you said, Professor Morris, that the Zionists wanted to create a happy state with a Jewish majority, but a large Jewish minority. And if by virtue of immigration, like in our own country, In our own country, given the current trajectories, non -whites will become the majority population in the United States quite soon.

1:19:12And according to democratic principles, we have to accept that. So if that were the case, I would say maybe there is an argument that had there been mass Jewish immigration changed the demographic balance in Palestine, and therefore Jews became the majority. It can make an argument in the abstract that the indigenous Arab population should have been accepting of that, just as whites in the United States, quote unquote, whites, have to be accepting of the fact that the demographic majority is shifting to non -whites in our own country. But that's not what Zionism was about. I did write my doctoral dissertation on Zionism, and I don't want to get now bogged down and abstract ideas.

1:20:03But as I suspect, you know, most theorists of nationalism say there are two kinds of nationalism. One is a nationalism based on citizenship. You become a citizen, you're integral to the country. That's sometimes called putical nationalism. And then there's another kind of nationalism. And that says the state should not belong to its citizens. It should belong to an ethnic group. Each ethnic group should have its own state. It's usually called the German romantic idea of nationalism. Zionism is squarely in the German romantic idea that was the whole point of Zionism. We don't want to be bundists and be one more ethnic minority in Russia.

1:21:00We don't want to become citizens and just become a Jewish people in England or France. we want our own state. Like the Arab's, like the French state. No wait, before we get to the Arabs, let's stick to the Jews for a moment or the Zionists. We want our own state. And in that concept of wanting your own state, the minority at best lives on sufferings and at worst gets expelled. That's the logic of the German romantic Zionist idea of a state. That's why there's Zionists. Now I personally have shied away from using the word Zionism ever since I finished my doctoral dissertation because as I said, I don't believe it's the operative ideology today.

1:22:12It's like talking about Bolshevism and referring to Khrushchev. I doubt Khrushchev could have spelled Bolshevik. But for the period we're talking about, they were Zionists, They were committed to their exclusive state with a minority living on sufferance or at worst expelled. That was their ideology and I really feel there's a problem with your happy vision of these Western Democrats like Weitzmann and they wanted to live peacefully with their Arabs. Vitesman described the expulsion in 1948 as quote, the miraculous clearing of the land. That doesn't sound like somebody shedding too many tears at the loss of the indigenous population.

1:23:11You're the one that suffered. The unsufferance I don't agree with, I think that's wrong. The Jewish state came into being in 1948. It had a population which was 20 % Arab when it came into being after Arab refugees, many of them had become refugees, but 20 % remained in the country. 20 % of Israel's population at inception in 1949 was Arab. 80 % went missing. No, no, no. I will talk about what remained in Palestine, Israel after it was created. The 20 % who lived in Israel received citizenship and all the rights of Israelis, Israelis, except of course the right to serve an army, which they didn't want to.

1:23:52And they have Supreme Court justices, they have Knesset members. They enjoy basically, basically, so 9 .64 periods. Sure, they lived under a revolution. No, no, no, no, no, wait a minute. At the beginning, at the beginning, it's not fantasy. At the beginning, they received citizenship, could vote in elections for their own people, and they were put into parliament. But in the first years, the Jewish majority suspected that maybe the Arabs would be disloyal because they had just tried to destroy the Jewish state. Then they dropped the military government and they became fully equal citizens. So if the whole idea was they must have a state without Arabs, this didn't happen in 49 and it didn't happen in some sort of state.

1:24:38Why did you say Professor Morris? Yes, and why did you say without a population expulsion a Jewish state would not have been a Stabberg because the you're missing the first section of that paragraph which was they were being Assorted by the Arabs and as a result a Jewish state could not have come into being unless there had also been an Expulsion of the population which was trying to kill Norma I'm officially forbidding you referencing that again I think all our second way We responded to it. So the main point you're making, we have to take a minute as word is like there was a war and that's the reason why he made that statement.

1:25:21I think just one last point on this, I remember reading your book when it first came out and and and reading you know one incident after the other and one example after the other and then getting to the conclusion where you said the Nakaba was a product of war, not design, I think we are exact. And I remember reacting almost in shock to that, that I felt you had mobilized overwhelming evidence that it was a product of design, not war. And I think our discussion today very much reflects, let's say, the dissonance between the evidence and the conclusion, you don't feel that the research that you have conducted and published demonstrates that it was, in fact, inherent and inbuilt and inevitable.

1:26:18And I think the point that norm and eye are making is that your own historical research, together with that of others, indisputably demonstrates that it does. I think that's a fundamental disagreement we're having here. Can I wait, can I actually respond to that? Because this is actually, I think this is emblematic of the entire conversation. I watched a lot of norms, interviews, and conversations and preparation for this. And I hear normal say this all over and over and over again. I only deal in facts. I don't deal in hypotheticals. I only deal in facts. I only deal in facts. And that seems to be the case, except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you're trying to push.

1:26:54The idea that Jews would have out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion is just betrayed by the acceptance of the 47th partition. I don't think you understand politics. Did I just say that there is a chasm that separates your ideology from the limits and constraints imposed by politics and reality? Now, Professor Morris, I suspect would agree that the Zionist movement from fairly early on was committed to the idea of a Jewish state. I am aware of only one major study probably written 40 years ago, the binational idea in mandatory Palestine by a woman I forgot her name now.

1:27:46You remember her. I'm trying to. Yeah, okay, would you know the book? Yeah, she is the only one who tried to persuasively argue that the Zionist movement was actually not formally actually committed to the binational idea. But most historians of the subject agree that the Zionist movement was committed to the idea of a Jewish state, having written my doctoral dissertation on the topic. I was confirmed in that idea because Professor Chomsky, who was my closest friend for about 40 years was very committed to the idea that by nationalism was the dominant trend in Zionism, I could not agree with, I couldn't go with him there.

1:28:36But Professor Morris, you are aware that until the built more resolution in 1942, the Zionist movement never declared it was for a Jewish state. Why? Because it was politically impossible at the moment until 1942. There is your ideology, there are your convictions, there are your operative plans, and there is also separately what you say in public. Designed this movement couldn't say in public, we're expelding all the Arabs. They can't say that. And they couldn't even say we support a Jewish state until 1942, you're conflating two things. The designers wanted a Jewish state. Correct. That didn't mean that.

1:29:26That didn't mean that. That's not the same thing. That didn't mean that. That's not the same thing. They wanted a Jewish state with a Jewish majority, but they were willing, as it turned out, both in 37 and in 40, 47, and subsequently, to have an Arab minority, a large, a large Arab minority. If we were serving, there was a trans -furn. They were willing to have a large Arab minority in the country. And they ended up with a large Arab minority in the country 20 % of the population in 49 % was out of it. They ended up for about five minutes before they were expelled. They agreed to wait until 47 % and then they were gone by March 19, 49 % What happened in between the rejection of the British and the plan and the expulsion of the Arabs?

1:30:07The Arabs launched the war. Well yeah, well I mean like it's not it wasn't random. Like there's a potential that even there was totally agree with that. Yeah, but it was by design. You can say that you can say that but in this case the facts betray you there was no Arabic acceptance of anything that would have allowed for a Jewish state to exist Of course, no one and number two I think that it's entirely possible given how things happen after war that this exact same conflict could have played out and an Expulsion would have happened without any ideology at play that there was a people that disagreed on who had Territorial rights to a land there was a massive war afterwards and then a bunch of their friends invaded after to to reinforce the idea that the Jewish people in this case couldn't have a state, there could have been a transfer regardless.

1:30:47Anything could have been, that's not what history is about. History is about Palestinian rejection, isn't it, any peace deal? As I said over and over again. As I said, when the war was thrown into the court of the United Nations, they were faced with a practical problem. And I for one, I'm not going to try to adjudicate the rights and wrongs from the beginning. I do not believe that if territorial displacement and dispossession was inherent in the Zionist project, I do not believe it can be a legitimate political enterprise. Now you might say that's speaking from 2022 or 2020. We have to recognize that from nearly the beginning for perfectly obvious reasons, having nothing to do with anti -Semitism, anti -Westernism, anti -Europeanism, but because no people that I am aware of, with voluntarily seed its country.

1:32:06You can perfectly understand Native American resistance to Euro -Colonialism. You can perfectly well understand it without any anti -Europeanism, anti -Witism, anti -Christianism. They didn't want to seed their country to invaders. I think you're completely understand humanimizing the anti -Semitic Element in our in Arab and all your books you minimize no no no Hussein was an anti -Semite the leader of the Palestinian National Movement in the 30s and 40s was an anti -Semite This was one of the things which drove him and also drove him and to work in Berlin for Hitler for four years with a Nazi giving Nazi propaganda to the Arab world, calling on the Arabs to murder the Jews.

1:32:57That's what he did in World War II. That's the leader of the Palestinian Arab National Movement. And he wasn't alone. He wasn't alone. He wasn't alone. What is it that you read your book, Righteous Victims? You can read it and read it and read it and read it. As I have, you will find barely a word about the Arabs being motivated by anti -Semitism. It exists. It exists. I didn't say it doesn't exist. I agree that it exists. Hey, I don't know a single non -Jew who doesn't harbor anti -Semitic sentiment. We're talking about Arabs now. Yeah, but I don't know anybody that's just part of the human condition.

1:33:37Anti -Semitism. Anti -Semitism. Yes, I'm saying it was important. And among the Arabs. So Professor Mars, here's my problem. I didn't say that in your righteous victims. even when you talked about the first interfered and you talked about the second interfered and you talked about how there was a lot of influence by Hamas the Islamic movement you even stated that there is a lot of anti - semitism in those movements but then you went on to say but of course at bottom it was about the occupation. It wasn't about and I've read it. Yeah, you'll be moving from different ages across the ages. Not your whole book.

1:34:21Your whole book began in 1967, the one you're talking about. I looked and looked and looked for evidence of this anti -Semitism as being a chief motor of Arab resistance to Zionism. I didn't see it. You like it? Did he make that claim? I don't remember the word chief. Yeah, I was the element. I was very binary. You wanted the element. I'm binary. Yes, binary. Everybody, don't give me this postmodernism binary. You're the one. The black thinking internal black thinking. You're the one that said, it's a lazy motor. Do you have your book here? You're talking about black and 37. You're talking black and white concepts.

1:34:56You're talking in black and white concepts when history is much greater. Lots of things happen because of lots of reasons, not one or the other. And you don't seem to see that. Can I ask you a question? Because it's for them to talk to. It's a very quick question. What do you think the ideal solution was on the Arab side from 47. What would they have preferred? And what would have happened if this was? And then the second one, what would have happened if Jews would have lost the war in 48? What do you think would have happened to the Israeli population? Well, I think the Palestinians and the Arabs were explicit that they wanted a unitary, I think, federal state.

1:35:33And they made their submissions to Unscop. They made their appeals at the UN General Assembly. What do you mean by unitarian federal? I don't get that. They wanted an Arab state. They wanted Palestine to be an Arab state. Yes, yes. It's simply, but that's what a unitary federal, they wanted Palestine as an Arab and exclusively Arab state. No, it wasn't an exclusively Arab state. I think we have to distinguish between Palestinian and Arab opposition to a Jewish state in Palestine on the one hand, and Palestinian and Arab attitudes to Jewish existence in Palestine. There's a fundamental difference.

1:36:14Well, for say the leader of the movement said that all the Jews would come since 1917, and that's the majority of the Jews in Palestine in 1947 shouldn't be there. Well, they shouldn't be citizens and they shouldn't be there. He did say that. Yes, he did say that. I'm not saying that. He did say that. He did say that. He did say that. He did say that. But also you guys, you guys, I will agree with you guys. I want to speak to you guys here later because you used the words earlier that it was supremacy and exclusivity that the Zionist system helped us. Well, I want to answer your question. As you may, Hussein, he did say that.

1:36:46And I'm sure there was a very substantial body of Palestinian Arab public opinion that endorsed that. But by the same token, I think, a unitary Arab state, as you call it, or a Palestinian in the Union state could have been established with arrangements, with guarantees to ensure the security and rights of both communities. How that would work in detail had been discussed and proposed but never resolved. And again, I think Jewish fears about what would have happened. A second Holocaust, that was the Jewish fear. A second Holocaust. That may well have been the Jewish fear wasn't unfounded Jewish fear.

1:37:37It wasn't founded of course it wasn't found What about like in 48 and 56 you really think you really think that the Palestinians had they won the war We're going to import ovens and crematorium I don't know what are you not that but there were no grams across in almost every single Arab state where there were Jews living after After 48 after 56 after 67 there were always programs there were always flights from Jews from those countries to Israel I don't think it would be. I wouldn't say there were always pogroms in every Arab stay. I think there was flight of Arab Jews for multiple reasons. In some cases for precisely the reasons you say, if you look at the Jewish community in Algeria, for example, their flight had virtually nothing to do with the Arab -Israeli conflict.

1:38:24The issue of Algerian Jews was that the French gave them citizenship during their colonial rule of Algeria and they increasingly became identified with French rule and when Algeria became independent and all the French ended up leaving out of fear or out of disappointment or out of whatever, the Jews were identified as French rather than Algeria. This is a bit of a red hearing. The work programs in the Arab countries in Bahrain even where there's almost no Jews, there was a I've grown up in 1947. There was a program in Aleppo in 1947. I'm not denying any of that history. Killings of Jews in Iraq and Egypt in 1948, 49.

1:39:09I'm not saying anything. So the Arabs, the Jews basically fled the Arab states, not for multiple reasons. They fled because they felt that the governments there and the societies amid which they had lived for hundreds of years no longer wanted them. Look, without getting into the details, I think we can both agree that ultimately a clear majority of Arab Jews who believe that after having lived in these countries for centuries, for centuries, for centuries, if not millennia, came to the unfortunate conclusion that their situation had become untenable. Yes. I also think that we can both agree that this had never been an issue prior to Zionism and the emergence of the state of Israel.

1:39:58Look, I'm not. The Groms didn't begin with Zionism in the Arab world. The issue is the point I raised, which is whether these communities had ever come to a collective conclusion that their position had become untenable in this part of the world. No, they were Arab Jews. Well, because on Tannable meant there was no alternative, but with the creation of Israel, there was an alternative, right? A place where they could go would not be discriminated against or live as second -class citizens or be subject to Arab majority states. I also think it's interesting that like when you analyze the flight of Jewish people, and I've seen this, it wasn't just, I agree with you, it wasn't just a mass expulsion from all the Arab states.

1:40:36There were definitely push factors. There were also pull factors. Now, I don't know how you guys feel about the knock -butt, but when the analysis of the knock -butt comes in, again, it's back to that, well, that was actually just a top -down expulsion. You know, the retreat of wealthy Arab people in the 30s didn't matter. Any of the messaging from the surrounding Arab states didn't matter. It was just an expulsion from Jewish people or people running from their lives from Jewish massacres. Again, it's like that. I feel like that's a lot of critical analysis of that. I think the term Jewish here, because it wasn't the Jews of England or the Soviet Jews.

1:41:09Well, I said Jewish is prior to 48. I think it's really the issue of my desk. I think we should, I think it's useful to say, refer to Zionists before 1948, in Israel's after 48. We don't need to implicate Jews all sort of. Well, sure, but the Jewish people that were being attacked in Arab states weren't Zionists. They were just Jews living there. Just comment on that. I was rereading Shlomo bin Amiz last book. And he does, at the end, discuss at some length, the whole issue of the refugee question bearing on the so -called peace process. and on the question of 48 and the Arab emigration, if you allow me let me just quote him, Israel is particularly fond of the awkwardly false symmetry she makes between the Palestinian refugee crisis and the forced immigration of 600 ,000 Jews from Arab countries following the creation of the state of Israel as if it were quote an unplanned exchange of populations, unquote.

1:42:12And then Mr. Ben Amit, for those of you who are listening, he was Israel's former foreign minister, and he's an influential historian in his own right. He says, in fact, on voice from the Mossad and the Jewish Agency worked underground in Arab countries and Iran to encourage Jews to go to Israel. More importantly, for many Jews in Arab states, the very possibility of emigrating to Israel was the combination of millennial aspirations. It represented the consummation of a dream to take part in Israel's resurgence as a nation. So this idea that they were all expelled after 1948, that's one area Professor Morris.

1:43:08I defer to expertise. That's one of my credos in life. I don't know the Israeli literature, but as it's been translated in English, there is very little solid scholarship on what happened in 1948 in the Arab countries and which caused the Jews to leave. Arab Jews, right? But, uh, she almost meant I mean, that was the literature, he knows the scholarship. He was a historian. Yeah, from a long time ago. Right. So he knows this from Iraq. And he was written on this issue. And they wrote the Jews in the Arab lands were not pro -Zionist. They were in Zionist at all. Certainly, Irish -Lionist family was anti -Zionist.

1:43:48And Irish -Lion, when he was interviewed by Merrin Rappaport on this question, he said, you simply cannot say that the Iraqi Jews were expelled. It's just not true. And he was speaking as an Iraqi Jew who left with his father, family, in 1948. They were pushed out. They weren't expelled. Well, that's probably the right phrase. I think it's more complex than that. I think it was, sorry, interrupt. No, you're not interrupting me because I don't know. I only know what's been translated into English and the English literature on the subject is very small and not scholarly. Now there may be a Hebrew literature, I don't know.

1:44:29But I was surprised that even Shalom of Den Ami, a stalwart of his state, fair enough, on this particular point, he called it false symmetry. No, no, Stephen is right. There was a pull and a push mechanism in the departure of the Jews from the Arab lands post 48 But there was also a lot of push Love that's that's indisputable. There was put and on the point of agreement Let and this one brief light of agreement. Let us wrap up with this topic of history and move on to modern day, but before that I'm wondering if we can just Just say a couple of last words on this topic, do you? Yeah, I think that when you look at the behaviors of both parties in the time period around 48 or especially 48 and earlier, there's this assumption that there was this huge built -in mechanism of Zionism and that it was going to be inevitable from the inception of the first Zionist thought, I guess, that appeared in Herzl's mind that there would be a mass violent population transfer of arapalestinians out of what would become the Israeli state.

1:45:36I understand that there are some quotes that we can find that maybe seem to possibly support an idea that looks close to that, but I think when you actually consult the record of what happened, when you look at the populations, the massive populations that Israel was willing to accept, within what would become their state borders, their nation borders, I just don't think that the historical record agrees with the idea that Zionists would have just never been okay, living alongside Herapelestinians. But when you look at the other side, Arabs would out of hand reject literally any deal that apportioned any amount of that land for any state relating to Jewish people or the Israeli people.

1:46:14And they get what's said even on the other end of the table that Herapelestinians would have never accepted the Arabs would have never accepted any Jewish state whatsoever. So it's interesting that on the ideology part where it's claimed that Zionists are people of exclusion and supremacy and expulsion, we We can find that in diary entries, but we can find that expressed very real terms on the Arab side, I think in all of their behavior around 48 and earlier, where the goal was the destruction of the Israeli state. It would have been the dispossession of many Jewish people. It probably would have been the expulsion of a lot of them back to Europe.

1:46:44And I think that very clearly plays out in the difference between the actions of the Arabs versus some diary entries of some Jewish leaders. Benny? Well, one thing which stood out and I think Moin made this point is that the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but then the world community forced the Arabs to pay the price for the Holocaust. That's the traditional Arab argument. This is slightly distorting the reality. The Arabs in the 1930s, they're utmost to prevent Jewish immigration from Europe and reaching Palestine, which was the only safe haven available because America, Britain, France, nobody wanted Jews anywhere, and they were being persecuted in central Europe and eventually would be massacred in large numbers.

1:47:28So the Arab effort to pressure the British to prevent Jews reaching Palestine's safe shores contributed indirectly to the slaughter of many Jews in Europe because they couldn't get anywhere and they couldn't get the Palestine because the Arabs were busy attacking Jews in Palestine and attacking the British to make sure they didn't allow Jews to reach the safe haven. That's important. The second thing is of course there's no point in belittling the fact that the Arab Palestinian Arab national movements leader Hussein worked for the Nazis in the 1940s. He got a salary from the German foreign ministry.

1:48:07He raised troops among Muslims in Bosnia for the SS and he broadcast to the Arab world calling for the murder of the Jews in the Middle East. This is what I'm not saying he was the instigator of the Holocaust, but he helped the Germans along in doing what they were doing and supported them in doing that. So this can't be removed from the fact that the Arabs, as you say, paid a price for the Holocaust, but they also participated in various ways in helping it happen. I'll make two points. The first is you mentioned Hajjimin al -Hoseini and his collaboration with the Nazis. Entirely legitimate point to raise.

1:49:03But I think one can also say definitively had Hajjimin al -Hoseini never existed. the Holocaust would have played out precisely as it did. As far as Palestinian opposition to Jewish immigration to Palestine during the 1930s is concerned, it was of a different character than, for example, British and American rejection of Jewish immigration. They just didn't want Jews on their soil. Objectively, it helped the Germans kill the Jews. In the Palestinian case, their opposition to Jewish immigration was to prevent the transformation of their homeland into a Jewish state that would dispossess them. And I think that's an important distinction to make.

1:49:51The other point I wanted to make is we've spent the past several hours talking about Zionism, transfer and so on. But I think there's a more fundamental aspect to this, which is that Zionism, I think, would have emerged and disappeared as yet one more utopian political project. Had it not been for the British, what the preeminent Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi, has termed the British shield, because I think without the British sponsorship, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. The British sponsored Zionism for a very simple reason, which is that during World War I, the Ottoman armies attempted to march on the Suez Canal.

1:50:44Suez Canal was the jugular vein of the British Empire, you know, between Europe and India. And the British came to the conclusion that they needed to secure the Suez Canal from any threat. And as the British have done so often in so many places, how do you deal with this well? You know, you bring in a foreign minority, implant them amongst a hostile population, and establish a protectorate over them. I don't think a Jewish state in Palestine had been part of British intentions. In the Balfour Declaration, very specifically speaks about a Jewish national home and Palestine, in other words, a British protectorate.

1:51:31Things ended up taking a different course. And I think the most important development was World War II, and I think this had maybe less to do with the Holocaust, and more to do with the effective bankruptcy of the United Kingdom during that war. And it's inability to sustain its global empire, it ended up giving up India and giving up Palestine. And it's in that context, I think, that we need to see the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine. And again, a Jewish state means a state in which the Jewish community enjoys not only a demographic But an uncontestable demographic majority, an uncontestable territorial hegemony, and an uncontestable political supremacy.

1:52:32And that is also why, after 1948, the nascent Israeli state confiscated, I believe, up to 90 % of lands that had been previously owned by Palestinians who became citizens. of Israel, it is why the new Israeli state imposed a military government on its population of Palestinian citizens between 1948 and 1966. It is why the Israeli state effectively reduced the Palestinians living within the Israeli state as citizens of the Israeli state to second class citizens on the one hand promoting Jewish nationalism and Jewish nationalist parties. On the other hand, doing everything within its power to suppress and eliminate Palestinian or Arab nationalist movements.

1:53:31And that's why today there's a consensus among all major human rights organizations that Israel is in apartheid state. What the Israeli human rights organization, Bethellum describes a regime of Jewish supremacy between the river and the sea. You're really tempting, or it's fostering you at the side on the last few sentences. We'll talk about the claims of apartheid and so on. It's a fascinating discussion. We need to have it. Norm. Under question of the responsibility of the Palestinian Arabs for the Nazi Holocaust, direct or indirect, I'd consider that an absurd claim. As Gromiko said, and I quoted him, the entire Western world turned its back on the Jews to somehow focus on the Palestinian strikes me as completely ridiculous.

1:54:28Number two, as Mawin said, is a perfectly understandable reason why Palestinian Arabs wouldn't on Jews because in their minds and not irrational, these Jews intend to create a Jewish state which would quite likely have resulted in their expulsion. I'm a very generous person. I've actually taken in a homeless person for two and a half years. But if I knew in advance that that homeless person was going to try to turn me out of my apartment, I would think 10 ,000 times before I took him in. Okay. As far as the actual complicity of the Palestinian Arabs, if you look at Raoul Hilberg's three volume classic work, the destruction of the European jury, he has in those thousand plus pages one sentence, one sentence on the role of the Mufti of Jerusalem.

1:55:35And that I think is probably an overstatement, but we'll leave it aside. The only two points I would make aside from the Holocaust point is number one, I do think the transfer discussion is useful because it indicates that there was a rational reason behind the Arab resistance to Jewish or Zionist immigration to Palestine, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. And number two, there are two issues. One is the history, and the second is being responsible for your words. Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they're advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to three times whenever I'm on.

1:56:26One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say. And it is discomforting, disorienting, where you have a person who's produced a voluminous corpus rich in insight and rich in archival sources, who scenes to disown each and every word that you pluck from that corpus by claiming that it's either out of context or it's cherry picking words count and I agree with Lex. Everybody has the right to rescind what they've said in the past. But what you cannot claim is that you didn't say what you said. I'll stick to the history, not the current propaganda. 1917, the British, the designers moving began way before the British supported the Zionist movement for decades.

1:57:37In 1917, the British jumped in and issued the Balfour Declaration supporting the emergence of a Jewish national home in Palestine, which most people understood to mean eventual Jewish statehood in Palestine. Most people understood that in Britain and among the Zionists and among the Arabs. But the British declared the Balfour Declaration or issued the Balfour Declaration not only because of imperial self -interest. and this is what you're basically saying. They had the imperial interests, a buffer state, which would protect the Suez Canal from the east. The British also were motivated by idealism, and this incidentally is how Balfour described the reasoning behind issuing the declaration.

1:58:20And he said, the Western world, Western Christendom, owes the Jews a great debt, both for giving the world and the West, if you like, value, social values as embodied in the Bible, social justice, and all sorts of other things. And the Christian world owes the Jews because it persecuted them for 2000 years. This debt we're now beginning to repay with the 1917 Declaration -favoring Zionism. But it's also worth remembering that the Jews weren't proxies or attached to the British Imperial Endeavour. They were happy to receive British support in 1917 and then subsequently when the British rule Palestine for 20 or 30 years, but they weren't part of the British imperial design or mission.

1:59:14They wanted a state for themselves, the Jews, happy to have the British support them, happy to date to have the Americans support Israel. But it's not because we're studious or extensions of American imperial interests. The British incidentally, always described in narratives of propaganda as consistent supporters of Zionism, they weren't. The first British rulers in Palestine 1917, 1920, or before Herbits Samuel came in 1920. The British ruled there for three years previously and most of the leaders, the British generals and so on who were in Palestine, were anti -Zionist. and subsequently in the 20s and 30s, the British occasionally curbed Zionist immigration to Palestine.

1:59:59In the 1939, switched horses and supported the Arab National Movement and not Zionism. They turned anti -Zionist and basically said, you Arabs will rule Palestine within the next 10 years. This is what we're giving you by limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. But the Arabs didn't actually understand what they were being given on the silver platter, Husaini again. and he said, no, no, we can't accept the British white paper of May 1939, which had given the Arabs everything they wanted, basically, self -determination in an Arab -majority state. So what I'm saying is the British at some point did support the Zionist enterprise, but that other points were less consistent in the support.

2:00:41And in 1939, until 1948, when they didn't vote even for partition for Jewish statehood in Palestine in the UN resolution, they didn't support Zionism during the last decade of the mandate. It's worth remembering that. I'd like to respond to that. I've been speaking of propaganda. I find it simply impossible to accept that Balfour, who as British Prime Minister in 1905 was a chief sponsor of the Aliens Act, which was specifically - He changed his mind. which was specifically designed to keep persecuted Eastern European Jews out of the streets of the UK and who was denounced as an anti -Semite by the entire British Jewish establishment.

2:01:30A decade later all of a sudden, people change their minds, but when the changing of the mind just coincidentally happens to coincide with the British imperial interest. I think perhaps the transformation is a little more superficial than he's being given credit for. It was clearly a British imperial venture and if there had been no threat to the Suez Canal during World War I, regardless of what Balfour would have thought about the Jews and their contribution to history and their persecution and so on, there would have been no bell for it. And I asked real quick, there's a question on that. Why did the British ever cap immigration then from Jews to that area at all?

2:02:21Well, we're talking now about 20, 30 years ago. Sure, but I'm saying that if it was, no, whole goal was just to be an imperialist project. Like there were terrorist attacks from Jewish firms. Yes, but you're talking, I'll answer you. Yeah, in the 40s, yeah. And we're talking now about 1917, and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the British had a Jewish state in mind. That's why they used the term Jewish National Home. I think what they wanted was a British protectorate, loyal to and dependent upon the British. I think an outstanding review of British policy towards these issues during the mandate has been done by Martin Bunton of the University of Victoria and he basically makes the argument that once the British realized the mess they were in, certainly by the late 20s, early 30s, they recognized the mess they were in, the irreconcilable differences, and basically pursued a policy of just muddling on.

2:03:27And muddling on in the context of British rule in Palestine whose overall purpose was to serve for the development of Zionist institutions, the issue of the economy and so on, meant even if the British were not self -consciously doing this, preparing the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the Jewish state. I don't know if that answers your question. Except they did turn anti -signus 1939. Yes, of course. And maintain that anti -signus. No, no, before they were being shot off. But maintain that anti -signus posture until 1948. OK. And if I may, just also one point, you mentioned Hajjiminal Hosseini during the entirely legitimate.

2:04:16But what I would also point out is that you had a Zionist organization, the Leahy. 300 people. 300 people. One of whom happened to become an Israeli Prime Minister and Israeli foreign minister a speaker of Israeli parliament. Maybe you should give his name. Yichak Shamir proposing an alliance with Nazi Germany in 1941. Shamir? Shamir? No, the Leahy proposed. Some people in the Leahy proposed. Of which Shamir was a prominent leader. He read Hearing also. No, no. Well, if he's a red -haired... Has he been... The lack of a reason is I'm in the wrong way. I'm sorry. The lack of an unimportant organization in the Yishuv, 300 people versus 30 ,000 belonged to the Haganah.

2:05:02So it was not a very important organization. It's true before the Holocaust actually began, they wanted allies against the British, where they could find them. We're talking 1941 here. 1941, but 1941. 1941 from what I recall. 1940, they approached the German emissary in Istanbul. Yes, and if I may, proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany on what the lay he described as on the basis of shared ideological Well, they said they did They did The list is a file you know the state but you know the file you know what the statement said on the basis of a shared ideology. Why do you say no? You think that the let's like the let's say when that's that you're saying they said no are you saying that forget statements you like to quote things but were they were they not see words and that were the lechian Nazis that's what I'm asking.

2:06:01What did he say? what did he say? The basis of the pack was there agreement on ideology. There wasn't any pack they suggested. I said what's the agreement and what did the agreement say? They wanted arms against the British. What did he breathe? Well, that's what has Yameen Rakhwasady wanted also. That's what no no, but they didn't know. They didn't know. They left people didn't work in Berlin, helping the Nazi regime. What the IRA wanted also. No, but this is what Hachamina, who say he did, you know that he was an anti -Semite, you've probably read some of his works. Yeah, it wasn't just anti -British and he was also anti -Semite.

2:06:34And they had a common ground with Hitler. I think we can agree. Every anti -Semite is a Hitler, right? I think we could - He literally worked with the Nazis to recruit people. He wasn't just a guy posting her. He wasn't absolutely revolting, disgusting, human being. There's some happening here. If you think - You're saying that who said he was an influence, you're saying the move for people. I don't even understand of all the crimes you want to describe to the Palestinian people, trying to blame them directly, indirectly, indirectly or indirectly three times removed for the Nazi Holocaust is completely lunatic.

2:07:14Well, the way there's not a he's blaming them for Holocaust. He's saying that from the perspective. Oh, I know he's saying that from the perspective of Jews in the region Palestinians would have been part of the reason that is it's not red. But he said I've read him. You've read and understand him. He's here. Believe me. I'm a lot more literate than you Mr. Barrelli. I'm going to believe the guy that wrote the stuff. Wickey P .D. has said that's great. I read Even me, Marley. You call yourself an Israeli historian. I just want to respond. I just want to respond. I'm just saying that there were two tricks.

2:07:45That's fine. There were two tricks that are being played here that I think is interesting. One is you guys claim that the Leahy was trying to forge an alliance with Nazi Germany because of a shared ideology. That's what they said. Yeah, but hold on. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's about what you said. You brought that up to imply that Zionism must be inexplicably linked to, no, I'm sorry. No, you're putting words in my mouth. Okay, wait, well then what was the purpose of saying that the lehi claim that they the lehi who were These are not people that were reviled by many in Israel Not many by everybody practically They were called so reviled The feminist movement called them terrorists Yes, yes, and the hunger of the share in Al -Humman The mirror called himself a terrorist They were so irrelevant that their leader ended up being kicked upstairs to the leader of the Israeli parliament That's his very powerful, to the Israeli To the Israeli foreign minister And Began was also, yes.

2:08:35You want to characterize him as he relevant as well. Go ahead. No, characterism is relevant. Irrelevant based on what happens decades later, the timeline matters. Well, the question is what is the point of saying that the lehi tried to forge in a line? Why is, why is, why is, why is, is bringing up the Moofty of Jerusalem and trying to blame the Holocaust? No, no, no, no. The moofy was the leader of the Palestine -Arab national movement. And he had a ball of suyach. He was three. And he had as much to do with the Nazi holocaust as I did. No, he recruited people for the SS. How can you get away from that?

2:09:08No, he recruited people for the SS. He recruited soldiers in the Balkans, mostly Kosovars, which was disgusting. I have no doubt about that. But he had, he got one set of Jews out. I do not know how to say that. Can I say, get a brown murder? I do not know. Receive letters from Hussein during the Holocaust. during the Holocaust don't let the Jews out. Don't let the Jews out. I'm not saying he was a major architect of the Holocaust. But if we're agreed, if we're agreed that Haseyani, the Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and actively sought their sponsorship, why is it irrelevant?

2:09:52And probably wanted the destruction of European Jewry. He probably wanted a lot of things. Okay. Okay. If that's relevant, why is it irrelevant that a prime minister of Israel? Not prime minister, 1941. He wasn't prime minister of Israel. He was a leader of a very small terrorist group. So do you consider it as terrorist by the means of Zionist? Do you consider it irrelevant that many years ago, Mahmoud Abbas, wrote a doctoral thesis, which is basically tantamount. It showed something about Mahmoud Abbas. Okay, but I don't, but it didn't bring it up. You're the one who's bringing it up. But you don't consider that literally the Holocaust.

2:10:28That's what you're saying the president president of the Palestinian National Authority The little the Holocaust and it didn't happens or only a few Jews died. I think that's a fair characterization of I didn't bring it up. I brought it up. Yeah, okay, because my question is then why is Shamir's antecedency relevant? He was a terrorist leader of a very small marginal group Who would be called him in a whole city was the head of the movement at the time also the the point of bringing it There's no point of bringing up who say any stuff wasn't to say that he was a great further of the Holocaust.

2:11:00It's that he might have been a great further in the prevention of Jews fleeing to go to Palestine to escape the Holocaust. Yes, but the point that was the point. And I explained why I think that's not an entirely accurate characterization. And then I wanted to make another point. If it's legitimate to bring up his role during World War II, why is it illegitimate to bring up a man who would become Israel's Speaker of Parliament for many ministers. Yes. Why is it? And also, and was also responsible for the murder of the United Nations's first international envoy, Bernadati, Fokie Bernadati. Why is all that irrelevant?

2:11:45I don't think anybody would understand. I think that the reason why he was brought up was because Jewish people at the in this time period would have viewed it as there's a prevention of Jews leaving Europe because of the Palestinians pressuring the British to put a curb at 75 ,000 immigration limit. Yes, but it's not about like, it's not about them furthering the Holocaust or being an architect, major minor play in the Holocaust. Well, we use a major play in that region. So if you want to bring up, like, more or less was specific, made the specific claim that the Palestinians played an indirect role in the Holocaust.

2:12:16The indirect role would have been the prevention of people escaping from. Yes. And my response to that is, first of all, I disagree with that characterization, but second of all, they can disagree with that. They prevented, they forced the British to prevent immigration of Jews from reaching safe shores in Palestine. Again, they did. And they knew that the British were being persecuted in Europe. Was Palestine the only spot of land on earth? Yes, basically that was the problem. The Jews couldn't immigrate there. What about your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration?

2:12:50By the late 19th or the United States. They were happy to take in Jews and Americans. And why are Palestinians who were not Europeans who had zero role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this? Why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely cold? They were hoping to cause the only safe haven for Jews. Oh really the United States wasn't a say of potential state safe haven the only one was Palestine The United States had no room No, I'm the only person that had for Jews. It did have room, but it didn't So that wasn't the only safe haven This is what suddenly you'd be focusing your America should be blamed for not letting Jews in during the 30s But nobody blames them for the Holocaust well Indirectly.

2:13:37No, I've never heard it said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was indirectly responsible for the Holocaust. I never heard that. Now maybe it's in the Israeli literature because the Israelis have gone mad. Yes, your prime minister said the whole idea of the gas chambers came from the Muthi of Jerusalem. That's nonsense. We all know that nonsense, but we also know that. That's not an young sentence. Netanyahu says so many things which are an event to be the prolonged. And the longest serving Prime Minister for the real. No, you're not responsible for them, but it is relevant that he's a longest serving Prime Minister of Israel.

2:14:15Unfortunately, and that is really public. And he gets selected, not despite saying such things, but because he says that. His voters don't care about Khajiminal Kusene or Hitler. They know nothing about his base. No, nothing about anything. And he could say what he likes and they'll say, yes, so they don't care if he says these things. You may well be right, but anyway, not to be the dead horse, but I don't I still don't understand. I'll just conclude by saying I don't understand why the Mufdi of Jerusalem is relevant. He is relevant. But the head of the national Palestinian, because Shamir wasn't the head of the national movement.

2:14:55You represented a hundred or two hundred or three hundred gunmen who are considered terrorists by the Zionist movement at the time. the fact that 30 years lady becomes prime minister, that's the crux of history. And his, and his, his, his, Kha 'achami no Khuseni was the head of the Palestine Arab nation movement at the time. Anyway, I, what can you do? I think we're speaking past each other. We're not, we're talking facts. Let's move to the modern day and we'll return to history maybe 67 and other important moments, but let's look to today in the recent months. October 7th. Let me ask sort of a pointed question.

2:15:29was October 7th attacked by Hamas on Israel, Genocide, was an act of ethnic cleansing. Just so we lay out the moral calculus that we are in case, I don't maybe you was sure. The problem with the October 7th is this. The Hamas fighters who invaded southern Israel were sent ordered to murder, rape, and do all the nasty things that they did. And they killed some 1200 Israelis that day and abducted them, as we know, something like 250 civilians, mostly civilians, also some soldiers, took them back to Gaza, dungeons in Gaza. But they were motivated, not just by the words of their current leader in the Gaza Strip, but by their ideology, which is embedded in their charter from 888, if I remember correctly.

2:16:29And that charter is genocidal. It says that the Jews must be eradicated basically from the land of Israel, from Palestine. The Jews are described there as sons of apes and pigs. The Jews are a base people, killers of prophets, and they should not exist in Palestine. It doesn't say that they necessarily should be murdered all around the world, the Hamas Charter. But certainly the Jews should be eliminated from Palestine. And this is the driving ideology, a behind the massacre of the Jews on October 7th, which brought down on the Gaza Strip. And I think with the intention by the Hamas of the Israeli counteroffensive, because they knew that that counteroffensive would result in many Palestinian dead because the Hamas fighters and their weaponry and so on were embedded in the population in Gaza.

2:17:22And they hoped to benefit from this in the eyes of world public opinion as Israel chased these Hamas people and their ammunition dumps and so on and killed lots of Palestinian civilians in the process. All of this was understood by a Sinwar by the head of the Hamas and he strived for that. But initially, he wanted to kill as many Jews as he could in the border areas around the Gaza Strip. All respond directly to the points you made, and then I'll leave it to Norm to bring in the historical context. That Hamas Charter is from the 1980s. 1988, so it's from the 80s. I think your characterization of that charter as anti -Semitic is indisputable.

2:18:12I think your characterization of that charter is genocidal, is off the mark. It's important. And more importantly, that charter has been superseded by a new charter. In fact, has been... Well, There is there is a there is no new charter there is a Explanation a state to the 188 2018

2:18:38Supposedly clarifying things which are in the charter and but it doesn't actually step back from what the charter says eliminate Israel eliminate the Jews from the land of is and and 2018 the Hamas Charter if we look at the current version of the charter Whether whether whether you're calling it a charter It makes those things called the charters were issued in 1988 by Yassin himself. Anyway, it makes a clear distinction between Jews and Zionists in 2018. Now you can choose to dismiss it, believe it, it's sincere, it's insincere, whatever. It's insincere is the probably the right word. Secondly, I'm really unfamiliar with fighters who consult these kinds of documents before they go on.

2:19:24in the kindergarten they're told kill the Jews. They practice with, they make believe guns and uniforms with their five years old in the kindergarten of the Hamas. At the instruction of the Commissioner General of Unruh, right? I didn't say that. I said the Hamas has kindergarten and summer camps in which they trained to kill Jews, children, second, secondly, you keep saying Jews to which I would respond. They use the word Jews. To which I would respond that Hamas does not have a record of deliberately targeting Jews who are not Israelis. And in fact, it also doesn't have a record of deliberately targeting either Jews or Israelis outside Israel and Palestine.

2:20:07So, you know, all this talk of... Unlike the Qizbalah, which has taught it... Well, we're talking about... We're talking about... We're talking about... We're talking about October 7th and Hamas. If you'd also like to speak about Hezbollah, let's get to that separately. if you don't mind. So again, genocidal, well, if that term is going to be discussed, my first response would be, let's talk about potentially genocidal actions against Israelis rather than against Jews for the reasons that I just mentioned. And again, I find this constant conflation of Jews, Israel's inism to be bit disturbing.

2:20:52Secondly, I think there are quite a few indications in the factual record that raised serious questions about the accusations of the genocidal intent and genocidal practice of what happened on October 7th. In my final point would be, I don't think I should take your word for it. I don't think you should take my word for it. I think what we need here is a proper, independent, international investigation. And the reason we need that, of genocide during this conflict, whether I, Palestinians on October 7th, or Israel thereafter, the reason that we need such an investigation is because Hamas is, there won't be any hearings on what Hamas did on October 7th, the International Court of Justice, because the international convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide deals only with states and not with movements.

2:21:56I think the International Criminal Court, and specifically its current prosecutor, getting Han Laks, any and all credibility, and been an absolute failure at his job. He's been sitting on his backside for years on this file. And I think I would point out that Hamas has called for independent investigations of all these allegations. Israel has categorically rejected any international investigation, of course fully supported by the United States. And I think what is required is to have credible investigations of these things. Because I don't think you're going to convince me. I don't think I'm going to convince you.

2:22:39And this is two people sitting across the table for me to other things. You don't even have to investigate. You know how many citizens, civilians died in the October 7th assault. Yes, but that's not. You know that there are lots of allegations of rape. I don't know how persuaded you are of those. they did find bodies without heads. There were no defense of them. There were some beheadings apparently. The Israelis didn't even claim that in the document they submitted before the ICJ, go read what your government submitted. It never mentioned beheadings. For as far as I know, I read it. People will be headed, but they...

2:23:15We could bring it up right now. You also denied that there were rapes there. I didn't deny. I said I've not seen convincing evidence that confirms it. I've said that from day one and I'll say today four and a half months later. You know that they killed eight or 900 civilians. Absolutely. That seems to me indisputable. Oh, okay. Well, I'm just going to ask you something. I've said that from day one. Well, to be clear, you haven't. You did a debate. I don't remember the talk show, but you seem to imply that there was a lot of crossfire and then it might have been the idea of that. I said that there is no question because the names were published in Harret's.

2:23:50There was no question that roughly of the 1200 people killed 800 of them were civilians. I see it. 850 fine. So, I never said that but then I said, no, we don't know exactly how they were killed, but 800 civilians killed, 850, no question there. And I also said on repeat occasions, there cannot be any doubt. In my opinion, as of now, with the available evidence that Hamas was responsible for significant atrocities and I made sure to include the plural. There's a lot of tricky language being employed here. Do you think of the anterity 50? There's nothing tricky. It's called attaching value to words and not talking like a motor mouth.

2:24:32Okay. I am very careful about qualifying because that's what language is about. That's great. Then let me just ask a clarifying question. Do you firmly believe that the majority of the 850 civilians were killed by Hamas? My view is even if it were half, 400 is a huge number by any reckoning. Wait, you didn't do it. I said, even if, wait, wait, wait, wait. Because, because Professor Morris, I don't know. I agree with Moin Robani. I'm not sure if he concedes the 400. I'll say, because I have 400. right I said they Well, because if I know a couple of individuals look at this I don't I don't know you're saying Professor why you believe this particular thing you clearly don't you clearly don't believe this thing you know one I said not people died that's not controversial wait hold on hold on oh that's not controversial Mr.

2:25:35Benele I attach value to words you said that when I when I was so much, Mr. Pranel, please slow down the speech and attempt to listen. When I was explicitly asked by Pierce Morgan, I said there can be no question that Hamas committed atrocities. I've heard this on October 7th. If you want me to pin down a number, I can't do that. And ask you a number. You can listen to what you ask. No, my question is, I'll ask you a very Sorry, if you'll be cooking it's a very easy question. My question is do you think the majority of the people that were killed on October 7th, the civilians were killed by Hamas?

2:26:16Or are we subscribing to the idea that the IDF killed hundreds or 500? No, but let me explain why that's a difficult question to answer. The total number of civilians killed was 800, 850. We know that Hamas is responsible probably for the majority of those killings. We also know that there were killings by a slamming she had. We also know. No, we're with bunching together. There's a lot of jamas. What is the question? What specific means? No, but he means the reader. I'm speaking an opposition to the conspiracy theory that people like, do you prefer Norma or Professor Frankl Steiner? What do you, I don't know how do you appropriate this?

2:26:58Well, it's not a conspiracy. The conspiracy theory is the idea that the idea of killed the majority of them. It's not a conspiracy theory. And there's also a theory that, as Norm pointed out on the show that he was on, that he thought that it was very strange, that given how reputable Israeli services are when it comes to sending ambulances, retrieving bodies, he thought it was very strange that that number was continually being adjusted. And do you know why you say that in combination with, well, I'm not sure how many were getting out of the house. Do you know why the number went down? The number went down because the Israeli authorities were in were in possession of 200 corpses that were burned to a crisp that they assumed were Israeli Israelis who had been killed on October 7th.

2:27:42They later determined that these were in fact Palestinian fighters. Now how does a Palestinian fighter get burned to a crisp? No, you're mixing two things. Some of the bodies they didn't weren't able to identify and eventually they disir... ruled that some of them were actually Arab marauders rather than Israeli victims. Some, a few of them also of the Jews were burnt to a crisp and it took them time to work yourself and they came out initially with a slightly higher figure, 1400 dead and eventually reduced it to tell some of the reason... And the reason is... Yes, and the reason is that a proportion of Israeli civilians killed on October 7th, I don't believe it was a majority.

2:28:20We don't know how many. Some were killed in crossfire. Some were killed by Israeli shell fire, helicopter fire, and so on. And the majority were killed by Palestinians. And of that majority, we don't know, I mean, again, I understood your question is referring specifically to Hamas, which is why I tried to answer it that way. But if you meant generically Palestinians, yes, if you mean specifically Hamas, we don't have a clear breakdown of how I mean specifically Hamas. But I just think when you use the word sum, that's doing a lot of heavy lifting. Oh, you sum. That's fine, but sum can mean anywhere from 1 % to 49%.

2:29:02But we don't know. So the numbers here in the details are interesting and important almost from a legal perspective, but if we zoom out the moral perspective, of our Palestinians from Gaza justified and violent resistance. Well, Palestinians have the right to resistance. Palestinian, that right includes the right to armed resistance. At the same time, armed resistance is subject to the laws of war. And there are very clear regulations that separate legitimate acts of armed resistance from active armed resistance that are not legitimate. And the attacks of October 7th, where did they land for you?

2:29:45There has been almost exclusive focus on the attacks on civilian population centers and the killings of civilians on October 7th. What is much, much less discussed to the point of amnesia is that there were very extensive attacks on Israeli military and intelligence facilities on October 7th. I would make a very clear distinction between those two. And secondly, I'm not sure that I would characterize the efforts by Palestinians on October 7th to seize Israeli territory and Israeli population centers as in and of themselves illegitimate. You mean attacking Israeli civilians? No, no, no, that's not what I said.

2:30:44You're not saying what you said. I think what you had on October 7th was an effort by Hamas to seize Israeli territory in population. And kill civilians. That's not what I said. What I said is I think I would not describe the effort to seize Israeli territory as in and of itself illegitimate, as a separate issue from the killing of Israeli civilians where in those cases where they had been deliberately targeted. That's very clearly illegitimate. All families were slaughtered in Kibbutz. But I'm making a lot of money. Many of them left wingers accidentally who helped Palestinians go to hospitals in Israel and so on.

2:31:24again, you can drove Palestinian cancer patients to hospitals and I'm making a distinction here. But you don't seem to be very condemnatory of what the Hamas did. Well, I don't do selective condemnation. I'm not talking about selective condemnation of this specific. Well, you know what? You know what it is. I would, I would, for example, condemn Israeli assaults on civilians, deliberate assaults on civilians. Yes. I would condemn them, but you're not doing that with the Hamas. You know what the issue is. I've been speaking in public now, I would say since the late 1980s and interviews and so on.

2:31:58I have never on one occasion ever been asked to condemn any Israeli act. When I've been in group discussions, those supporting the Israeli action or perspective, I have never encountered an example where these individuals are asked to condemn what Israel is doing. the demand and obligation of condemnation is exclusively applied. And my personal experience over decades is exclusively applied to Palestinians. And those are the controllers condemn day and night on every television channel on every. And it has been telling you about a personal experience lasting decades. You said quote. Uh -oh. Oh no.

2:32:45I'm trying to probably just said I should say anything at any point. You should say Professor Morris. Yes. You just said I would condemn and I tell Israel deliberately attacks civilians. Yes. Okay. The problem Professor Morris is over and over again. you claim in the face of overwhelming evidence that they didn't attack civilians. That's not true, I've said it only as a text. Professor Maul. In India, Israel attacks against the people. And I know that in Catholic, custom -based religions. And now let's, let's see, you're just a community. Okay. Selecting, okay. Yeah, yeah. If I were you, you're a church.

2:33:34Let's fast forward when you were in the doke. What did you say about the 1982 Lebanon war? What did I say? You don't remember? Okay. Allow me. Wow. Okay. So it happens that I was not at all by any I had no interest in the Israel Palestine conflict as a young man until the 1992 Lebanon war. Yeah. I lost the passage. I'll find it. Okay, really good. Well, he's searching for that. Yeah, come on, me. You bring up something that's really important that a lot of people don't draw distinction between in that there is just causes for war and there is just ways to act within a war. And these two things principally do have a distinction from one another.

2:34:19However, while I appreciate the recognition of the distinction, the idea that the cause for war that Hamas was engaged in, I don't believe if we look at their actions in war or the statements that they've made, it doesn't seem like it had to do with territorial acquisition. No, no, no. The point, the point I was making was what was Hamas trying to achieve militarily on October 7th. And I was pointing out that the focus has been very much on Hamas attacks on civilians and atrocities and so on. And I'm not saying those things should be ignored. What I'm extensive attacks on military and intelligence facilities.

2:35:07And as far as the, let's say, the other aspects are concerned, because I think either you or Lex asked me about the legitimacy of these attacks. I said, I'm unclear whether efforts by Hamas to seize Israeli population centers in and of themselves are illegitimate as opposed to actions that either deliberately targeted Israeli civilians or actions that should reasonably have been expected to result in the killings of Israeli civilians. Those strike me as by definition illegitimate and I want to be very clear about that. I have where I have a legitimate means you condemn them illegitimate means they are not legitimate I have a problem condemning your side.

2:36:00No, not condemning my side I have a problem with selective outrage and I've a problem with selective condemnation and as I I explained to you a few minutes ago in in my decades of Appearing in public and being interviewed I have never seen I've never been asked to condemn an Israeli action. I've never been asked for a moral judgment on an Israeli action. I'm exclusive request for condemnation has to do with what policy needs to do more and just as importantly, I'm sure if you watch BBC or CNN, one is the last time an Israeli spokesperson has been asked to condemn an Israeli act. I've never seen it.

2:36:43I don't think we condemn the Arab side either though, right? I don't think there's any kind of nation. No, but now that we're talking about Israeli victims, all of the sudden morality is I think the reason why it comes up is because there's no shortage of international condemnation for Israel as normal Point out a million times that there are 50 billion you in resolutions. You've got amnesty international You've got multiple bodies that you and you've got now the case for the ICJ So there's no question of if there's condemnation for it. Sorry if I can interrupt you in 1948 the entire world stood behind the establishment of a Jewish state and the entire world.

2:37:14No, except the Arab states and the Muslim states. Well, not the entire world. Okay, but I think you know what I mean by that. The Western democracies, after you say that. Well, and then also, what's my quick question? My quick question was, you said that you believe that there's a very short one. You're not just, you think that there's an argument to be made that the people in Gaza, that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are ever participated, had a just cause for war. Maybe they didn't do it in the correct way, but they maybe had a just cause for war. Do you think there's a maybe there at the palace? Do you think they absolutely had a discourse for it?

2:37:41Do you think that Israel has just caused for operations towards a vion? No, of course not. OK. All right. You can tell your question. OK. First of all, on this issue of double standards, which is the one that Erks or irritates, Mouin, you said that you are not a person of double standards unlike people like Mouin. you hold high a single standard and you condemn deliberate Israeli attacks on civilians. When they appear, yes. And I would say that's true for the period up till 1967 and I think it's accurate, you are your account of the first interfather. There it seems to me you were in conformity with most mainstream accounts and the case of the first Intifada.

2:38:39You also used surprisingly, he used Arab human rights sources like Al -Hak which I think the ween worked for during the first Intifada. That's true. But then something very strange happens. So let's illustrate it. Wait, does something strange which happened? Is Arabs or Jews or something? Okay, wait. It was offers. That could happen. By accepting the Oslo agreements. Yeah. I would like to go ahead. Okay, I'm going to have a campaign. Okay, I'm going to have a campaign. If we have time, I know the record very well. I'd be very happy to go through it with you. But let's get to those double standards.

2:39:16So, this is what you have to say about Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. You said Israel was reluctant to harm civilians, sought to avoid casualties on both sides, and took care not to harm Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. You then went on to acknowledge the massive use of IDF firepower against civilians during the siege of Beirut, which traumatized Israeli society, Marx quickly answers the caveat that Israel quote, tried to pinpoint military targets, but inevitably many civilians were hit. That's your description of the Lebanon War. As I say, that's when I first got involved from the conflict.

2:40:16I am a voracious reader. I read everything on the Lebanon War. I would say there's not a single account of the Lebanon War in which the estimates are between 15 and 20 ,000 Palestinian Lebanese were killed overwhelmingly civilians, the biggest bloodletting until the the current Gaza genocide, a biggest bloodletting. I would say, I can't think of a single mainstream account that remotely approximates what you just said. So leaving aside, I can name the books, voluminous huge volumes. I'll just take one example. Now you will remember, because I think you served in Lebanon in 80 to am I correct on that?

2:41:07Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So you remember that Dove Yarmia kept the war diary. So with your permission, allow me to describe what he wrote during his diary. So he writes, the war machine of the IDF is galloping and trampling over the concrete territory, demonstrating a total insensitivity to the faith of the Arabs who are found in its path. A P .L .O. run hospital, suffered a direct hit. Thousands of refugees are returning to the city. When they arrive at their homes, many of which have been destroyed or damaged, you hear their cries of pain and their howls over the deaths of their loved ones. The air is permeated with the smell of corpses, destruction and the way that I continue.

2:42:05What have you made? What are you making, actually? Does that sound like you were the description of the Lebanon War? Forget my description. The point you're making, we can't just forget that. Let me just finish my sentence. The point you're making, which you somehow forget, is that there are Israelis who strongly criticize their own side and describe how Israelis are doing things which they regard as a moral. You don't find that on the Arab side. I'm talking about you, Mr. Marris. I'm not talking about deaf, don't give me out. I'm talking about you, the historian. How did you depict the Lebanon war?

2:42:41Because I believe that Israeli military tried to avoid committing a civilian castle. So deaf, as in deaf, I think they all, in Gaza now, by Robert Fisk and Pity the nation. Right, Fisk is the enemy. And all that I know, I know. I know. As always, right. So that's why that's why you can say with such confidence that you don't commit you don't condemn Deliberate Israeli attacks. That's the one I do because there weren't any no, I didn't say that weren't you? Yeah, you didn't you agreed that I have condemned Israeli. Yes, there are civilians. I never quarrel with facts Your your description of the 1982 war is so shocking it makes my inner's rife.

2:43:26And then you're the description of the second into father. You're the description of defensive shield. They are, they are worse. They are worse than the polygenic. When Arabs suicide, that's like the stonest. With destroying Jews and masses and buses and in restaurants. That's the second in Defada. Do you remember that? Suicide bombers in Jerusalem's buses and restaurants. I am completely aware of that. But you but if you forgot the numbers, I don't forget it was three to one The number you killed mostly armed I know that's that's what you say in your book But that's not what amnesty international said that's not what human rights I don't remember what they said I do No, that's not what I don't know what is it.

2:44:13There's a right. I'm I figure is a right Listen, listen in the second and the third some four thousand At Palestinian terrorists most of them your armed people and That's a town. Please No, almost all of them. No, Professor Marris Fantasy, but I'm not gonna argue with here. Here's a simple challenge You said not to look at the camera. So scared as the people. I'll make the open challenge. You are going to have them. No, Professor Marris open challenge words are in print. I vote 50 pages analyzing all of your work. I quote some will say cherry pick but I think accurately quote you. Here's a simple challenge.

2:44:59Answer me in print. Answer what I wrote and show where I'm making things up. Answer me in print. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that's no problem. You're a busy man. You're an important in historian, you don't have to know everything that's in print, especially by modest publishers. But now you know. And so here's the public challenge. You answer and show where I cherry picked, where I misrepresent it. Send me the article. And then we can have a civil scholarly discussion. I'm sure we will agree, even if we don't have to agree. It's for the reader to decide looking at both sides where this truth stands.

2:45:45No, man. And if I may ask, it's good to discuss ideas that are in the air now as opposed to citing literature that was written in the past as much as possible because listeners were not familiar with the literature. So like whatever was written, just express it, condense the key idea and then we can debate the ideas of this. There are two aspects. There's a public debate, but there's also within words. Yes, I'm just telling you that you as an academic historian put a lot of value in the written word, and I think it is valuable. But in this context, just for the educational purpose, the educational purpose is why would people commit what I have to acknowledge because I am faithful to the facts massive atrocities on October 7th why did that happen?

2:46:45And I think that's the problem. The past is erased and we suddenly went from 1948 to October 7th 2023 and there is a problem there. So first of all, you have complete freedom to backtrack and we'll go there with you Obviously, we can't cover every single year every single event, but there's probably critical moments in time Can I respond to something relating to that dilemma where I looked at the book that he got this from what the quote was from It sounds cool to say it, but war is tragic and civilians die There is no war that this has not happened in in the history of all of humankind The statement that Israel might take care not to target civilians is not incompatible with a diary entry from someone who said they saw civilians getting killed.

2:47:31I think that sometimes we do a lot of weird games when we talk about international humanitarian law or laws that govern conflict, but we say things like civilians dying as a war crime or civilian homes or hospitals getting destroyed as necessarily a war crime or as necessarily somebody intentionally targeting civilians without making distinctions between military targets or civilian ones. I think that when we analyze different attacks, or when we talk about the conduct of a military, I think it's important to understand, like, prospectively, from the unit of analysis of the actual military committing the acts, what's happening and what are the decisions being made, rather than just saying retrospectively, oh, well, a lot of civilians died, not very many military people died, comparatively speaking, so it must have been war crimes, especially when you've got another side, all fast words of Hamas, that intentionally attempts to induce those same civilian numbers because Hamas is guilty of any war crime that you would potentially accuse and this is according to the Amnesty International, people that normal loves to cite.

2:48:27Hamas is guilty of all of these same war crimes of them failing to take care of the civilian population of them, essentially utilizing human shields to try to fire rockets free from attack. Essentially, yes. Essentially. Essentially, yes. In terms of how international law defines it, not how Amnesty International defines it, but Amnesty International describes times of human shielding, but they don't actually apply the correct international legal standard. I know absolutely. No, but I absolutely have. You have it. I think, but I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, believe it or not, nor am I the entire Geneva Convertures is all on Wikipedia.

2:48:59It's a wonderful one. But I'm just saying that on the homostite, if there's an attempt to induce this type of military activity, attempt to induce civilian harm, that it's not just enough to say, well, here's a diary entry where a guy talks about how traffic is a disaster. I think the problem with your statement is that, But if you go back and listen to it, the first part of it is war as hell. Civilians die. It's a fact of life. And you state that in a very factual matter. Then when you start talking about Hamas, all of a sudden you've discovered morality and you've discovered condemnation and you've discovered intent and you are unfortunately far from alone in this.

2:49:39I'll give you, you know who for me is a perfect example. Wait a minute, hold on, we don't need examples. So I wait the false equivalency of the two sides is astounding when Hamas kills civilians and a surprise attack on October 7th This isn't because they are attempting to target military targets and they happened to stumble into a giant festival of people that well They did they did but they did but yeah, but they did but when they stumbled into it That wasn't an issue of trying to figure out a military target or not They weren't failing a distinction. There wasn't a proportionality assessment on it was just to kill civilians even the MNSD International in 2008 and in 2014 and even today we'll continue to say that I don't think it's like the type of tax.

2:50:16I don't think anyone who will deny that Hamas has targeted civilian. Sure. You gave the example of - But there's a difference because - A suicide bombings during the Second and Default. I mean, facts are facts. Sure. And I'm saying that the Hamas targeting of civilians is different than the incidental loss of life that occurs when Israel does - How genocide is the intentional mass murder? genocide is a entirely separate claim. Yeah, but the idea that Israel is not in the business of intentionally targeting civilians. I know that's what we're supposed to believe, but the historical record stands very clearly.

2:50:54I don't believe it does. You've written about that. When you say historical, do you mean like in the 40s to the 60s or do you mean like over the past like that? From the 30s of the last century to the 20s of this century. I just like to make you know you the way the way you Characterized it. I think the best example of that I've come across during this specific conflict is is John Kirby The White House spokesman. I've I've named him tears tossed around for a very good reason When he's talking about Palestinian civilian deaths War as hell You know it's a fact of life get used to it when he was confronted with with Israeli civilian, that's on October 7th, he literally broke down in tears.

2:51:36But he understood that one is deliberate and one isn't. He understood that. No, that's what he tried to make us know. No, no, he was speaking facts. The Hamas guys who attacked the Kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the Kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians, and they killed family after family house after house. The Israeli attacks on Hamas installations. No, better. And find them better. No, you don't know is really Thank God, you know, you don't know They believe that they are killing Hamas nicks. They're given search of Jeff gives an effort and if the Hamas hiding behind civilian civilian time they target every time They target the kid.

2:52:20I'm sure they believe it's Hamas when they kid Yeah, when they yeah when they kill the four kids and the on the They believe yeah, I know they Even though they were the mini tips on you know, even though they were The mini tips angle you don't see the side. They saw it. They don't see the side. That's that's even so. Oh, I know he went. He's quote, he's quote, he's like, you've lied about this. Yeah. Like, instance of the past, those kids weren't just on the beach as his opposite article. So those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas conflict. They have already They literally literally you can relate.

2:52:48You can do it. With all due respect, with all due respect, you're such a fantastic moron. It's terrifying. That war was filled with journalists. There were tens scores of journalists. That was an old fisherman's shack. What are you talking about? It's so painful. It's so painful to listen to this idiocy. And to be clear on the other side, your implying that strike was okayed on the Israeli side where they said we're just in a set four of countless cities for today for no reason. You believe that you believe that right You will tell a journalist do you think that they will never answer the question I will answer the question I will even answer and it was a wrong because I was a strong It was approved all the other people were going to kill children Okay, you want me to answer or do you want your motor mouth to go?

2:53:45Okay answer in 2018 There was the great march of return in Gaza. By all reckoning of human rights organizations and journalists who were there, it was overwhelmingly non -violent. It was like by the Hamas. Whoever organized it was Satan. Let's start with that. Yeah, Hamas. I agree. Let's go for the big one. The big McGillah. It's Satan. Okay. overwhelmingly organized, overwhelmingly nonviolent. Recymbal at the beginning, the first in the first into Faga, they represent the first, yeah, okay, not bombs, but they make holes in this fence, obviously. Let's continue. Yeah. So, but I'm not sure Israel behaved morally in that way.

2:54:35Okay, okay, okay, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, I'm willing to grant, please, please, allow me, allow me to, you don't have to proceed with this, allow me, allow me to finish. I don't know anything about this, I'd like to do it. Okay, so as you know, along the Gaza perimeter, there was Israel's best trained snipers. Correct. I don't know best trained, there was snipers. It was fine. Okay, all right. You guys, hey, laugh, it's hilarious. The story's so funny. You're lying about it very much for a third time. I have aspects of violence to it. Okay, okay. Okay, okay. Okay, okay. But you only select whether you and says that you like it.

2:55:14The problem, Mr. Morelle, is you don't know the English language. I can read it from the UN website itself. I started the great march of the table. Please stop what you did. The vast majority of protestant acted in a peaceful manner. The most protested dozens have approached the fence. I mean, the damages of Bernie Sanders throwing stones and Molotov cocktails for its Israeli forces, applying incendiary kites and balloons into Israeli territory. The latter is also an extensive damage to agricultural land. and nature reserves inside Israel and rest the lives of Israeli civilians. Some insist shooting at them, going on explosive, also over fast.

2:55:47Talk fast. I'm just trying to think that you're cold. I'm just reading from the US. Yeah, but you see, I know you like the guy time. You got the month wrong. You got the month wrong. We're talking about the beginning in March 30th. You just described that March as mostly people. Okay, allow me to finish. So there were the snipers, okay? Now you find it so far fetched. Israelis purposely deliberately targeting civilians that's such a far -fetched idea, an overwhelmingly non -violent march. What did the international investigation was a campaign, which I don't call. Whatever you wanna call. What did you and investigation find?

2:56:31Well, he just read it. I read the report. I don't read things off of those machines. I read the report, what did it find? Brace yourself. You thought it was so funny, the idea of IDF targeting civilians, it found, go look this up on your mission. I already know what you're gonna say. You're gonna say it found it only one or two of them were just like children. Targeted journalists, targeted medics, and here's the funniest one of all. It's so hilarious. They targeted disabled people who were 300 meters away from the fence and just standing by Trisha. If it's true. Just quick pause. I think everything was fascinating.

2:57:25I listen to except the mention of hilarious. Nobody finds any of this hilarious. And if any of us are laughing, It's not at the suffering of civilians or suffering of anyone. It's at the obvious joyful camaraderie in the room. So I'm enjoying it and also the joy of learning. So thank you. Can we talk about the targeting civilian thing a little bit? I think there's like an important underlying, not necessarily that. I think it's important to understand. Yeah, I think it's important to understand. There's like three different things here that we need to think about. So one is a policy of killing civilians.

2:57:54So I would ask the other side, I'm going to ask all three because I know there won't be a short answer. Do you think there is a policy top down from the idea of to target civilians? That's one thing. A second thing is, he says yes. When I entered, yeah, I showed him. That's fine. But then the second thing is, or there's two distinctions I want to draw between, I think Benny would say this, I would say this. I'm sure undoubtedly there have been cases where IDF soldiers for no good reason have targeted and killed Palestinians that they should not have done. That would be prosecutable as war crimes as defined by the run -statch and I see.

2:58:25And some have been prosecuted. Yeah. And I'm absolutely sure that we would all agree for soldiers that that happens. But I think that it's important that when we talk about military strikes, when we talk about things especially involving bombings or drone attacks, these are things that are signed off by multiple different layers of command by multiple people involved in an operation, including intelligence gathering, including weapon earring, and they also have typically lawyers involved when you make the claim that an idea of soldiers shot a Palestinian those three people the three hostages the camera with white flags is something horrible happened i think that's a fair statement to make and i think a lot of criticism is deserved but when you make the statement that four children were killed by a strike the claim that you're making yet the claim that you're making the claim that you're making is that multiple levels of the idea of signed off i never i have no idea what i think you don't understand the process then let me educate you i can tell you i do understand the process i'm telling you You're gonna find a way to write that IDS?

2:59:22No, it's basically the IDS. Anybody who's talking about... I was talking about... Can you tell me what you're not like? You're talking about IDF people who work in the military. What's your knowledge of the IDS? Audience can look this up. Do you think that bombing and strikes are decided by one person in the field? Do you think one person is a volunteer? Can I respond to every question I draw? Can you tell me the pilot doesn't do it? Yes, strike is as a whole. Higher apparatuses that are designed to figure out how to strike and who to strike. So when you say that four children are targeted, you're saying that a whole apparatus is trying to...

2:59:50You mean there are four Palestinians? You're my argument there. They're the ridiculous arguments. Oh, really? That it's impossible at the command level. It's impossible at the command level. But you said that they couldn't have done it at the bottom if it weren't also. You don't understand the strength of the claim that you're making. You're saying that from a shutdown level, the lawyers, the lawyers, the administrators, all of the people who are behind all of that. They're not telling what I'm telling. They're telling more Palestinians. It's children. It's true. I don't spend my nights on wiki pedia.

3:00:19I read books, I admit that as a signal. I know books are a waste of time. With all due regard, there I can read. I completely respect the fact. And I'll say it on the air as much as I find totally disgusting what's come of your politics. A lot of the books are excellent. And I'll even tell you because I'm not afraid of saying it. Whenever I have to check on the basic fact, the equivalent of going to the Britannica, I go to your books. I know you got a lot of the facts, right? Benny Moore's book, some of the listeners. I would never say books are a waste of time, and it's regrettable to you that you got strapped with a partner who thinks at all the wisdom.

3:01:10All the wisdom. I didn't say the relation of time. I'd like to respond to what you were saying. I think the question that we're trying to answer, I think... I think you don't understand Israel, you know? Let me finish this. Really understand Israel. Now it works. I think we're all agreed that Palestinians have deliberately targeted civilians. Whether we're talking about Hamas and Islamic she had today or previously... I prefer the word murdered and raped rather than targeted. Target is too soft. Oh, you said that. For what the Hamas did. I'm okay. I'm not I'm not talking about I'm talking about this now.

3:01:47Yeah, but I'm I'm trying to answer his question. Yeah Historically there is substantial evidence that Palestinians have targeted civilians whether whether it's been incidental or systematic as a different discussion I don't want to get into that now for some reason there seems to be a huge debate about whether any Israeli has ever sunk so low as to target a civilian. No, we've agreed, both. We've just agreed. I've just said that this has happened here. And I think we've agreed on that. Okay, I think what we're saying is it's not policy, which is what you guys are applying, that they kill civilians deliberately.

3:02:28If I understand you correctly, you're basically making the claim that none of these attacks could have happened without going through an entire chain of command. First strike cells that are involved and like drawn attacks are plain attacks or yes my understanding of the Israeli military and you could perhaps you've served in it you would know better it's actually fairly chaotic organization no that's not true especially not the air force extremely extremely organized the air force works in a very organized fashion as he says with lawyers chain of command and ultimately the pilot drops the bomb where he's always a drop it I bet the veg was at 200 200 strikes on like 60 seconds I think the opening of protective edge like the yeah the coordination between about two thousand day For I think yeah, just 2014, but I'm just saying that the coordination in the military is pretty well My understanding of the Israeli military is very old is that it's quite chaotic and this also a lot of Testimonies from Israel, but be that as it may.

3:03:28Okay. I'm prepared to accept both of your contentions that it's a highly organized and disciplined force Air Force, under any scenario, is going to be more organized than the other branches. And you're saying such a strike would have been inconceivable. Well, I'm not necessarily saying anything, and I'm just saying that that would have required a lot. Okay, you're basically - Yes. I don't think good evidence has been presented to say that that's - Your basic claim is that we would be fair to assume that such a strike could have only been carried out with multiple levels of authorization and signing off.

3:04:04Okay, let's accept that for the sake of argument. We have now seen incident after incident after incident after incident where entire families are vaporized in single strikes. Who is in the family members? Who lives in the house? Family members? No, no, no. Family members. We have seen incident after... Do you know that Hamasniks weren't in that house? Do you know that there are ammunition dumps where I have to prove a negative? You are saying that the deliberately talking well family, you know if Israel wanted to kill civilians in in Gaza They could have killed 500 ,000 by now with a number of And they're and they're and the fact that they only killed a certain small number 30 ,000 is a small number Small number in particular 30 ,000 small number in proportion over four months probably is an indication Only, that's the target that Hamas targets in these places.

3:05:03So I've given you know, 2000 children is only, and if that's the case, why is that used to be? You said only, only. Though Professor Mars, here's a question for you. If we take every combat zone in the world for the past three years, every combat zone in the world. In the Vietnam, the American skill. I said, I'm not talking about the American skill. I was in the anti -war movement. So don't strap me in the middle of you. Fine, fine. And 30 million Russians were killed. So in Jordan, World War II, everything else is irrelevant. OK. Here's a question. Professor Mara, here's a question. It's very perplexing.

3:05:47If you take every combat zone in the world for the past three years, and you multiply the number of children killed by four, every combat zone in the world, you get gossips. Okay. So when you say, first to prove, I'm going to shut up. I'm not telling you. No, I'm not lying. I'm lying. I'm lying. Even if we take the numbers, what does that mean? Okay. Okay. Which may not be true. They could invent anything. anything because you don't think that they are a mandatious or a man. I know Mendesius. Believe me. You like Mendesius as in Mendes real. He's ministry of fire in the fairs. Okay. So here's the thing.

3:06:34You say they could have killed 500 ,000, but they only killed only. That's your words. I'm not only killed. You are the founder. You believe that they did. So briefly. Here civilians. They could have killed many, many more. The fact is that the president of the Marles target civilians. for Professor Morris. For his, for his, I don't understand this really society. You went on the truth. I don't want to, I don't want to get inside their heads. That's the problem. 90 % of the good, a good, a good story. 90 % of the good story tries to get into the heads. There's a limit, there's a limit. There's a limit.

3:07:1090 % of the good story in that. 90 % of Israelis think that Israel's using enough or two force in Gaza, I don't want to get inside that head. 40 % think that Israel is using insufficient force in Gaza. I don't want to get inside that head. I don't want to get inside the head of people who think they're using insufficient force against the population, against the population, half of which is children. I don't want to get inside that head. But here's the point because your partner wants to know the point. You don't understand political constraints. One of your ministers said that's dropping the atomic bomb on God.

3:07:55He really meant that. Well, no, no, no, it was said in the sort of a very questionable way. He didn't say they should drop a set it the day I'm not supporting. He's an idiot. This minister, this He's not other than Israel's chief historian, the famed, justifiably famed Ben -Imaris thinks we should be dropping nuclear weapons on Iran. Iran has for years, it's leaders for years, have said we should destroy Israel. You agree with that. They've said we should destroy Israel. Israel must be destroyed. Have you, is that correct? This is what the Iranian leaders have been saying since home. I would say Iranian leaders have said mixed message Okay, okay, but some of them have said including Hi, many you don't know There evidence if you don't know that it is this is a very funny

3:08:58Who the extended the who these are trying to stop the genocide in God's

3:09:05and shit. I know our select police support in national law. When I agree with you. Okay. And then when it doesn't, you decide to throw international law to the city. If you like, if you like it, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, stop. Please, no, I'm just for me. Please just give you a second. You said that there's no genocide going on in Gaza. Let me ask that clear question. The same question I asked on the Hamas attacks. Is there from from a legal philosophical moral perspective, is there genocide going on in Gaza today? Is there a genocide going on in Gaza? Well, in several years, we will have a definitive response to that question.

3:09:43What has happened thus far is that on the 29th of December, the Republic of South Africa, instituted proceedings against Israel pursuant to the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. South Africa basically accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in the Gaza Strip. On the 26th of January, the court issued its initial ruling. The court at this stage is not making a determination on whether Israel has or has not committed genocide. So just as it has not found Israel guilty, it certainly also hasn't found Israel innocent. What the court had to do at this stage was take one of two decisions.

3:10:41either South Africa's case was the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit and dismiss it and close the proceedings or it had to determine that South Africa presented a plausible case that Israel was violating its obligations under the genocide convention and that it would on that basis hold a full hearing. Now a lot of people have looked at the court's ruling of the 26th of January and focused on the fact that the court did not order a cease -fire. I actually wasn't expecting it to order a cease -fire and I wasn't surprised that it didn't because in the other cases that the court has considered most prominently Lausanne and meanne mar it also didn't order a ceasefire and South Africa in requesting a ceasefire also didn't ask the court to render an opinion on the legitimacy or lack thereof of Israel's military operation.

3:11:51From my perspective the key issue on the 26th of January was whether the court would simply dismiss the case or decide to proceed with it. And it decided to proceed and it decided to and I think that's enormously I think that's enormously genocide you already said the committed genocide I If I can just allow me Along that work that's correct now I don't run away the norm and you did say is Well, the end of the story is you specifically asked whether I think Israel is committing genocide I explained formally there is no finding and as you said we won't know for a number of years And I think there's legitimate questions to be raised I mean in the Bosnian case which I think all four of us would agree was clearly a case of genocide the court determined Yes, and in the Bosnian case the court determined that of all the evidence placed before them only the Srebrenica qualified as genocide and all the other atrocities committed did not qualify as genocide.

3:12:59International law is a developing organism. I don't know how the court is going to respond in this case, so I wouldn't take it as a foregone conclusion how the court is going to respond. But Norman has determined already. I have two, because you're asking my personal opinion as well. So as a matter of law, I want state very clearly it has not been determined and won't be determined for several years. Based on my observations and the evidence before me I would say it's indisputable that Israel is engaged in a genocidal assault against the Palestinian people who are the Gaza Strip. Pilo line. Yeah, with the program, the Pilo is long past.

3:13:46What, what, what, what's the final sort of? As, as, as you were saying, genocide is, is, is not a body count. Genocide consists of two elements. The destruction of a people in whole or in part. So in other words, you can commit genocide by killing 30 ,000 people. It doesn't have, well, Five probably is below the threshold. Yes, but I think 30 ,000 crosses a threshold and not reaching 500 ,000 is probably relevant. And the second element is there has to be an intent. In other words, and you believe there's an intent. Yes, I think if there is any other plausible reason for why all these people are being murdered, it's not genocide.

3:14:32And as far as intent is concerned.

3:14:38What about hiding Well, let's get the intent part out of the way first. South Africa's... Forget South Africa, they're not the politics. I'd like to finish. They're going to be a pro -chamassist. A government that's got nothing to do with any pro -satan. I think they're pro -Satan as well last time. No, they're pro -chamass. You know, for some reason, you don't have a problem with people being pro -Israeli at the time of this. But if they support Palestinians right to life or self -determination, they get demonized and delegitimized as pro -chamassists. What an organization which murdered 1200 people deliberately.

3:15:10That's my But supporting a state that is murdered 30 ,000 but they haven't because these are 30 ,000 Okay, are basically human. Well, just to get back used by the Hamas and which the Hamas one is not wanted killed. Okay, if I could Kill all right. If I come us wanted these sure if I could just you don't think they wanted them killed No, I don't buy them with shelters. They build tunnels for their fighters. Okay, if I get back shelter for their own civilian. You asked me about intent. Okay, you asked me about intent. And the reason that I bought in the South African application is because it is actually exceptionally detailed on intent by quoting numerous.

3:15:49Well, including the prime minister, the defense minister, the chief of staff. say genocide. No, he said a mother. He said, I'll use the word of money to ace the Hamas are a really. According to ancient. If I may, he's according to ace of casher, the philosopher of the idea. Yeah, he said that Netanyahu was a valid genocide. So he's an idiot. So the point is an idiot, but he is a past it. So the reason I raised the South African application is twofold. Hamas or no Hamas. It's exceptionally detailed on the question of intent. And secondly, when the international court of justice issues are ruling, individual justices have the right to give their own opinion.

3:16:39And I found the German one to be the most interesting on this specific question, because he was basically saying that he didn't think South Africa presented a persuasive case. But he said their section on intent was so overpowering that he felt he was left with no choice but to vote with the majority. So I think that answers the intent part of your question. So for the ICJ case that South Africa's brought, I think there's a couple things I need to be mentioned. One is, and I saw you two talk at length about this, the plausibility standard is incredibly low. The only thing we're looking for is a basic presentation of facts that make it conceivable, possible, that - plausible.

3:17:24plausible, which legally, this is obviously below criminal conviction, below - yes, of course. yeah, below - think of it as an indictment. sure, possibly, maybe even a lower level than even an indictment. so plausibility is an incredibly low standard. number one, number two, if you actually go through and you read the complaint that South Africa filed. I would say that if you go through the quotes and you even follow through to the source of the quotes, the misrepresentation that South Africa does and their case about all of these horrendous quotes, in my opinion, borders on criminal. 16 ICJ judges disagree.

3:18:02That's fine as 16 ICJ judges disagree, but I'm going to give... You know, they could be, but... Even the American judge, She must have been awful incompetent if she was unable to see the misrepresentations that Mr. Baneu based on his wiki pitiatory entry was able to find. So this is based on the official ICJ report that was released. I read the entire. I read. Okay. That's great. Go through and actually identify any of the sources. Actually, actually, embrace yourself for this and the wean could confirm it. Yaneef Kogan and Israeli and Jamie Stern -Winer, half Israeli, they checked every single quote in the Hebrew original and Yaneef Kogan loved the guy.

3:18:52He has terrifying powers of concentration. He checked every single quote. Is that correct, Muin? And Jamie checked every single quote in the English in the context and where there were any contextual questions they told us. I think they found one. Yeah, I think they found one. So I do not believe that those 15 judges was 15 to 2. 16 to 2 I think. They're 15 to the court plus 2. So it's 17. So it's 15 to 2. I don't think those 15 judges were incompetent and I certainly don't believe the president of the court and American would allow herself to be duped. Well, let's let me read. You might recall.

3:19:49Let me read. Mr. Let me read. Let me read. Let me read. Sure. So this was taken from the South African complaint. There's tons of these. But so here's one. In the complaint for the ICJ, they said, that on the 12th of October, 2023, President Isaac Herzog made clear that Israel was not distinguishing between militants and civilians in Gaza, stating in a press conference to foreign media in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, over one million of whom are children, quote, quote. It's an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians, not aware, not involved.

3:20:26I saw that. It's absolutely not true and we will fight until we break their backbone and the quote. If you actually go to the news article that they even state, they even link it in their complaint, the full context for the quote was quote, it is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime, which took over Gaza in a coup d 'etat, but we are at war. We are defending our homes. We are protecting our homes. That's the truth.

3:20:57And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we break their backbone. He acknowledged that many gozans had nothing to do with Hamas, but was adamant that others did. Quote, I agree. There are many innocent Palestinians who don't agree with this. But you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen and you want to shoot it at me. Am I allowed to defend myself? We have to defend ourselves. We have the right to do so. This is not the same as saying there's no distinction between militants and civilians in Gaza. His statement here is actually fully compliant with international law to the letter, because if you are storing military supplies in civilian areas, these things become military targets, and you're allowed to do proportionality assessments afterwards.

3:21:34So this is supposed to be one of many quotes that they've shown that it's supposed to demonstrate genocidal intent, but it is very easily explained by military intent, or by a conflict between two parties. I saw that press conference. Wait, let me just say something. All of this talk is a bit irrelevant because it sounds, it may sound to the listeners that the court in the Hague has ruled that Israel is committing genocide. No, I think it hasn't. No. It's just going in the next few years to look at the old stuff. There has been no determination at all. No determination at all. And as Steven says, some of the quotes are not exactly accurate quotes or taken out of conversation.

3:22:13Okay. Okay. It is correct as Mouin put it that only several years before the court makes a determination. And my guess is it will determine there was no genocide. That's my guess. Yes, not just my guess. I can't predict. I got it all wrong actually as Mouin woke a test. I got all wrong the first time. I never thought the American judge would vote again with vote in favor of plausibility. So you admit that you're wrong. Yeah, of course. I think I tell Moean twice a day. I was wrong about this and I was wrong about that I'm not wrong about the facts. I try not to be but my speculations. It can be wrong Okay, leaving that aside First of all as Moean pointed out there's a difference between the legal decision by the ruling and an independent judgment Now South Africa is not filing a frivolous case That was 84 pages It was single even 84 pages can be space.

3:23:15It was single hour and a half. It was not in the mass of case. It was single space and had literally hundreds of footnotes. It can still be with. With. It's possible. Of course it could be. It could be. Yeah, I read the report to tell you the truth. I followed very closely. Everything that's been happening to October 7th. I was mesmerized. I couldn't believe the comprehensiveness of that particular report. Number two, there are two quite respected judges, excuse me, there were two quite respected experts of international law sitting on the South African panel, John Dougard and Vaughan Lowe. Vaughan Lowe, as you might know, he argued the war case in 2004 before the international court of justice.

3:24:01Now, they were not, they were alleging genocide, which in their view means the evidence in their minds, we're not yet at the court, the evidence in their minds compels the conclusion that genocide is being committed. I am willing, because I happen to know Mr. Dugart personally and I have corresponded with Vaughan Lowe, I've heard their claim, I've read the report, I would say they make a very strong case, but Let's agree plausible. Now, here's a question. If somebody qualifies for an Olympic team, let's say a regional person qualifies for an Olympic team, it doesn't mean they're gonna be on the Olympic team.

3:24:51It doesn't mean they're gonna win a gold medal, a silver medal, or a bronze medal. They can swim, that's what you're saying. No, I would say that's a very high bar. They can swim. They can swim. They can swim well enough to have a realistic prospect running a metal. So they even make it to plausible. That is not true. That is not what phospholine is. It is absolutely not good. Mr. Perrelli, please don't teach me about the English language. So the declaration of Dutch point, I said, more to be honest, the same concept as qualifying. The court is not asked at this present phase of the proceedings to determine whether South Africa's allegations of genocide are well -founded.

3:25:34They're not even well -founded. The court is, you said that plausible as a high standard is absolutely not. It is a misrepresentation of the strength of the case against Israel, just like the majority of the quotes they have in this case are. And also you said it was an extremely well -founded case. They spend like one fourth of all of the quotations. some even pulled from the Goldstone report that try to actually deal with the intent part, which is by the way, I think you guys, I don't know if you use the phrase, the Dolos Specialos, that the intentional part of genocide, I think it's called Dolos Specialos.

3:26:05It's the most important part of genocide, which is proving the highly special intent to commit genocide. It's possible that Israel cuts mensurayum. No, the mensurayum, yes, I understand the state of mind, but in for genocide there is it's called Dullespeciala, is it's a highly special intent? Did you read the case? It is a highly special intent. I'm gonna ask you again. Yes. Please stop displaying your imbicility. Okay, I'm sorry. Do not you think the death ratio of the judges in the city? Don't put on public display that you're a moron. At least have the self possession to shut up. Did I read the case?

3:26:40I'm not putting my misdemeanor on your Commission. I'm putting yours in books. No, no, no, no, no, no. I read the case around four times. I read all of the majority opinion, the declarations, I read, I wrote Baroque's declaration. Then why are you following it saying it's plausible to me? Because I said, even reaching the benchmark of plausibility is a very high standard in the world. It's the equivalent of a regional player qualifying for an Olympics. It's still two steps removed. You may not be on the team and you may not get a medal but to get qualified which in this context is the equivalent of plausible.

3:27:29You must be doing something pretty horrible. As it happens, as it happened, as it happened, as it was, as it was, as it was, as it took the court to a rule. Remember what I just told you. The court, I know expect to be even around when the court reaches its final decision. Why? They'll take a long, long time. Two years, three years. No, I don't think they'll take two or three years. I mean, the Bosnia, which was admittedly a special type of case because they were accusing Serbia of sponsoring the Bosnian Serbs. That took I think 17 years from 90 years. I assume they'll take two or three years.

3:28:05But the point you're making, so this is a legal thing. Yeah. horrible must be happening the even the cheese horrible it's a war yeah But I think they weren't rendering a ruling on the war they were rendering a ruling on the genocide and I think I think I think they suggest it was possible they also They're a global that is real is committing a lot of their migration as well Yeah, but I think the problem with with your characterization is you're saying in so many words the South Africans Basically only have to show up in court with a coherent statement That is correct. In today's atmosphere, they need it to do a lot more.

3:28:41They need it to persuade. The American judge. The American judge. The days have been swayed. Judges go according to what the majority want to hear. But they need it to persuade the court that it was worth investing several years of their time in hearing this case to us. They're well paid whether they take this case or not. I mean, you know, they have a they have a full docket whether they accept or reject this case And I think I don't think we should remember what I just said they won't rule the was genocide Remember what I said also I recommend people actually read the case and follow through a lot of the quotes that they just don't show The Israeli Minister of Finance on the 8th of October 2023 this is taken from the ICJ.

3:29:25This is from South Africa submission Bizarre little smoker I can't read this stated there you go Okay, at a meeting of the Israeli cabinet that, quote, we need to deal a blow that hasn't been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza and quote, but again, if you click through and you read the source, their own linked source, it says, as per the own source, quote, the powerful finance minister, settler leader, uh, Bessel L. Smotrick, I can't run a sense. Demanded at the cabinet meeting late Saturday that the army, quote, hit Hamas brutally and not take the matter of the captives in a significant consideration and quote, quote, in war as in war, you have to be brutal and quote, he was quoted as saying, quote, But we need to deal a blow that hasn't been seen in 50 years and take down Gaza and quote, you can't strip the quotation of Hamas, a entity that you're with.

3:30:06And then there's genocidal attack. That's not how that's a little genocide. So when you create a, when the Ukrainians say, we got a Russia, that's not genocide. No. When Ukraine says we need to defeat Russia, is that genocidal? They mean filling all russians. Professor Marv's here is another one. When the defense, yet ridiculous, yes, ridiculous. uh the American judge he also doesn't determine policy the American judge the American judge red you are holding the American judge to you know well she was the president you know so authority wanted to clear them and we won't deal with the actual facts of the matter ever okay the American judge read several of the quotes look at the American okay supreme court today they may support okay shows you okay we're the the statement by the defense minister said we are going to prevent any food, water, fuel, or electricity from entering the do that.

3:31:09He wanted to make it. He wanted to make it. He wanted to do that. Okay. No, I'm wondering. What he said, I'm asking you isn't Israeli government. What we're talking about statements now, intent. How would you interpret that? After 1200 of your citizens are murdered the way they were, I would expect extreme statements by lots of politicians, by lots of politicians. But you don't accept extreme Palestinian. Wait, but you don't accept. What he said isn't Israeli politics. They let in order, they let in gas. I'm sure. They don't accept, but you don't accept extreme Palestinian statements. After they lost their entire country, not just 1200 people.

3:31:41That's a good point. No, no, it's a good point. And on that, on that moment, brief moment of agreement, let's just take a quick pause. Need a smoke break, you know, water break. about them. I don't know what it means. What is take down, guys? We went to war with Iraq and we wanted to destroy Iraq. That was a genocide of statement. There's a reason why genocide is such an importantly guarded concept. And it's not to condemn every nation that goes to war. It's super narrow. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. to do for international law. You could try learning it sometime.

3:32:19It would help you. Start out a lot of the civilian deaths. Unfortunately, 15 judges. You could keep citing the judges. You should actually try reading the actual statements. This is tiring. I have you. You've invited us to a tiring session. Yeah. There you go. How are you guys doing? Okay, okay. There are major things to discuss here. Not just what some court is doing in the judge in two years' time. Yes, okay. So what you just said is my whole one of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this particular conflict is because there are really important things to discuss but they will never be discussed.

3:32:52We're not gonna talk about like like area A, B and C or what a transference of territory. Instead, we're gonna talk about apartheid. We're not gonna talk about, you know, the differences in how do you conduct war in an urban environment where people are just gonna talk about genocide. We're not gonna talk about what's a good solution to the health. We're just gonna say ethnic cleansing. I'm not saying that's possible to talk about the next two hours to talk about solutions. About solutions, I have no idea what to say. I don't see any solutions on, you know, if you want the repository to end this discussion, which is what you said at the beginning, I can't contribute to this because I'm pessimistic.

3:33:25I don't see anywhere any way forward here. But the solution is easy. The reason why the solution is hard is because the histories and the myths are completely there's a different factual record. Right. One of the things would be good to talk about solutions with the future is going back in all the times it has failed. So every time. But even at that, we're probably not going to agree. He's going to say, you can write that I can predict the whole line. He's going to say from 93 to 99, he's going to say, Israel didn't adhere to the Oslo courts ever. Settlement expansion continued. Rays happened into the West Bank that there was never a legitimate that Netanyahu came in and violated the Y memorandum, the transfer and so forth.

3:34:01He's going to say, all of this and he's not going to bring up any of the policy inside. And then for Camp David, he's going to say that yeah that era fat was trying that the maps and the territorial exchange wasn't good enough that they were asking Palestinians to make all the concessions that Israel would have made. Yeah. I'll lay it all up. You do it for quickly. Yeah, I know.

3:34:20Anyhow, my future book should interest you guys. Oh, what are you working on? No, not working on it's actually going to come out. It deals with Israeli and Arab atrocities war crimes, I call them in the 48 war. Oh really? Yeah. Just deals with that subject. Is this because I know you've also talked about the closure of the archives and stuff. Well, it's it's marginal because they do it deals with that as well. But they have tried to seal off documents which I already used and seen. So now they don't let people see them. That's happened, but it's it's marginal in terms of its effect on on. were the British are useful for you for the new book?

3:35:04Well, for this list it's mostly Israeli architech. The British and the Americans and you and did deal with these subjects but not not as well as Israeli documents. What's your casualty count for a daily assignee? It's about a hundred. I think there's agreement on that by Israelis and Arabs, 105. Because before they were... They used to say 245 or 154. Those were the figures. The British and the and the Hagganae agreed on at the beginning. Because the Red Cross, I think, was the one that first put out that number. I don't remember. Maybe it was what's his name? Jacques de Rainier, or maybe. Yeah, maybe he came up with that number.

3:35:41But it was just he didn't count. They didn't count bodies. They just threw the number out and everybody was happy to blame the Ergun and the Lechy for killing more Arabs than actually were. Well, and they put it to good use as well. Well, they said that it helped to precipitate more evacuation. So they were not big enough. Yeah, they also used that. Yeah. So first of all, thank you for that heated discussion about the present. I would love to go back into history in a way that informs what we can look for in a as a way of hope for the future. So when has in Israel and Palestine had been closest to something like a peace settlement?

3:36:26to something that Like where both sides would be Happy and enable the flourishing of both peoples Well my my from My knowledge of the 120 years of sort of conflict the closest I think the two sides have been to reaching some sort of settlement appears to have been in the year 2000 when Barack and then subsequently Clinton offered a two -state settlement to P .L .O. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. An Arafat seemed to waver. He didn't immediately reject what was being offered. But ultimately came down at the end of Camp David in July 2000. He came down against the proposals and the Clinton who said he wouldn't blame him later blamed Darrafat for bringing down the summit and not reaching a solution there.

3:37:26But I think there on the table, certainly in the Clinton parameters of December 2000, which followed the proposals by Barack in July, the Palestinians were offered the best deal they're ever going to get from Israel unless Israel is destroyed and then there'll just be a Palestinian Arab state. But the best deal that Israel could ever offer them they were offered which essentially was 95 % of the West Bank, each Jerusalem, half of the old city of Jerusalem, some sort of joint control of the temple mount and the Gaza Strip, of course, in full and the Palestinians said no to this deal. And nobody really knows why Arifat said no.

3:38:09That is some people think he was trying to hold out for slightly better terms. But my reading is that he was constitutionally, psychologically incapable of signing off an a two -state deal, meaning acceptance of the existence of a Jewish state. This was really the problem of a Israel or of a Jewish state? Of a Jewish state, the Jewish state of Israel. He wasn't willing to share Palestine with the Jews and put his name to that. I think he just couldn't do it. That's my reading, but some people say it was because the terms were insufficient and he was willing but was waiting for slightly better terms.

3:38:48I don't buy that, I don't think so. But other you think? Well, just briefly in response, um, Erefa formally recognized Israel in in 1993. Um, I don't, I don't think actually that in 2000, 2001, uh, a genuine, um, resolution was on offer because I think the maximum Israel was prepared to offer admittedly more than it had been prepared to offer in the past, fell short of the minimum that the Palestinians consider to be a reasonable two -state settlement, bearing in mind that as of 1949, Israel controlled 78 % of the British mandate of Palestine. The Palestinians were seeking a stay on the remaining 22%, and this was apparently too much for Israel.

3:39:47My response to your question would be... Wait, they were being offered something like 22 or 21 percent. They were being offered, I think, less than a withdrawal to the 1967 border as with mutual and minor and reciprocal land swaps and the just resolution of... The refugee problem was one of the questions. Yes. You know, I worked for a number of years with International Crisis Group, and my boss at the time was Rob Malley, who was one of the American officials present to Cam David. We would be thrown out of the State Department, whatever. Well, the point I want to make about Rob was he wrote, I think, a very perceptive article in 2001 in the New York Review books.

3:40:33I know that you and A. Wood Barak have had a debate with him, but I think he gives a very compelling reason of why and how Camp David failed, but rather than going into that, you wrote that together with the Hussein Arah. Yes, who was not at Camp David. But in response to your question, I think there could have been a real possibility of Israeli -Palestinian and Arab -Israeli peace in the mid -1970s in the wake of the 1973 October War. I'll recall that in 1971, Moshe Diane, Israel's defense minister at the time, full of triumphalism about Israel's victory in 1967, speaking to a group of Israeli military veterans, stated, If I had to choose between Sharmishikh without peace or peace without Sharmishikh, this is referring to the Resort in Egyptian Sinai, which was an under -Israeli occupation, Diane said, I will choose for Sharmishikh without peace.

3:41:53Then the 1973 war came along. And I think Israeli calculations began to change very significantly. And I think it was in that context that had there been a joint U .S. Soviet push for an Arab Israeli and Israeli Palestinian resolution that incorporated both in Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. I think there was a very reasonable prospect for that being achieved. And ended up being aborted, I think, for several reasons. and ultimately the Egyptian president on what Sadat decided for reasons we can discuss later to launch a separate unilateral initiative for Israeli Egyptian rather than Arab -Israeli peace.

3:43:04And I think once that said in motion the prospects disappeared because Israel essentially saw its most powerful adversary removed from the equation and felt that this would give it a free hand in the occupied territories also in Lebanon to get rid of the PLO and so on. So you ask when were we closest and I can't give you an answer of when we were closest. I can only tell you one, I think we could have been close and that was a lost opportunity. If we look at this situation today, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about a two -state settlement. My own view, and I've written about this, I don't buy the arguments of the naysayers that we have passed the so -called point of no return with respect to a two -state settlement.

3:44:03Certainly, if you look at the Israeli position in the occupied territories, I would argue it's more tenuous than was the French position in Algeria in 1954, than was a British position in Ireland in 1916, than was the Ethiopian position in Eritrea in 1990. And so as a matter of practicality, as a matter of principle, I do think the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories remains realistic. I think the question that we now need to ask ourselves, it's one I'm certainly asking myself since October 7th and looking at Israel's genocidal campaign, but also looking at larger questions, is it desirable?

3:44:57Can you have peace with what increasingly appears to be an irrational genocidal state that seeks to confront and resolve each and every political challenge with violence and that reacts to its failure to achieve solutions to political challenges with violence by applying even more violence that has an insatiable lust for Palestinian territory, that, you know, a genocidal apartheid state that seems increasingly incapable of even conceiving of peaceful coexistence with the other people on that land. And so I'm very pessimistic that a solution is possible. I look at, I grew up in Western Europe in the long shadow of the Second World War.

3:46:00I think we can all agree that there could have been no peace in Europe had certain regimes on that continent not been removed from power. I look at Southeast Asian in the late 1970s, and I think we're all agreed that there could not have been peace in that region, had the Khmer Rouge not been ousted. I look at southern Africa during the 1990s, and I think we can all be agreed that had the white minority regimes of that world's imbibwean South Africa not been dismantled. there could not have been peace in that region. And although I think it's worth having a discussion, I do think it's now a legitimate question to ask, can there be peace without dismantling the Zionist regime?

3:46:57And I make a very clear distinction between the Israeli state and its institutions on the one hand, and the Israeli people who I think, regardless of our discussion about the history, I think you can now talk about an Israeli people and a people that have developed rights over time and a formula for peaceful coexistence with them will need to be found, which is a separate matter from dismantling the Israeli state and its institutions. And again, I haven't reached clear conclusions about this, except to say, as a practical matter, I think a two -state settlement remains feasible. But I think there are very legitimate questions about its desirability and about whether peace can be achieved in the Middle East with the persistence of an irrational genocidal apartheid regime, particularly because Israeli society is beginning to develop many extremely, extremely distasteful supremacists, the humanizing aspects that I think also stand in the way of coexistence that are being fed by this regime.

3:48:27So if you look back into history, when we're closest to peace, and do you draw any hope from any of them? I feel like in 2000, I feel like the deal that was present, at least at the end of the top of summit, I think in terms of what Israel think had the appetite to give and what the Palestinians would have gotten would have definitely been the most agreeable between the two parties. I don't know if in 73, I'm not sure if the appetite would have ever been there for the Arab states to negotiate alongside the Palestinians. I know that in Jordan there was no love for the Palestinians after 1970 after Black September.

3:49:05I know that Sidot had no love for the Palestinians due to their association with the Muslim Brotherhoods, attempted assassinations in Egypt. Sorry, which, P .O .L .O. with the Muslim Brotherhood? Sidot was upset because there were attempted assassinations by people in, oh no, an assassination. It was a personal friend of his, you sooth, alcy, buy, I can't pronounce that. You were assassinated by a palestinist. He killed the Abu Nidal organization. Sure, yeah. Admittedly, he says as much, belongs to a center group, not to be allowed directly, but I think that there was a history of the Palestinian sometimes fighting with their neighboring states that were hosting them if they weren't getting the political concessions they wanted.

3:49:44The assassination of the Jordanian King and 51 might be another example of that in Jordan. It feels like over a long period of time, It feels like the Palestinians have been kind of told from the neighboring Arab states that if they just continue to enact Violence whether in Israel or abroad that eventually a state will materialize somehow I don't think it's gotten them any closer to a state if anything I think it's taken them farther and farther and farther away from one and I think as long as the hyperbolic language is Continually employed internationally the idea that Israel is committing a genocide the idea that there is an apartheid the idea that they live in a concentration camp.

3:50:20All of these words, I think, further than narrative for the Palestinians, that Israel is an evil state that needs to be dismantled. I mean, you said as much about the institution, at least, to the Zionist government. Israel's government is probably not going anywhere. All of the other surrounding Arab states have accepted that, or at least most of them down in the Gulf, Egypt and Jordan have accepted that. The Palestinians need to accept it too. The Israeli state, or the state apparatus is not going anywhere, and at some point they need to realize like, hey, we need a leader that's going to come out and represent us, represent all of us, is when we take political risks, is willing to negotiate some lasting peace for us.

3:50:52And it's not going to be the international community or some invocation of international law or some invocation of morality or justice that's going to extricate us from this conflict. It's going to take some actual difficult political maneuvering on the ground of accepting Israel of accepting Israel. They formally did in 1993, which they formally did in 1993. Yeah, but then no, no lasting peace came after that in 2000. No, because 1993 was not a peace agreement. Sure. They also, of course, were an interim, final solution, were an interim, interim agreement. And Palestinians actually began clamoring for commencing the permanent status resolutions on schedule.

3:51:34And the Israelis kept delaying them. In fact, they only began, I believe in 99. under American pressure on the Israelis. I think you're being between one side. Both sides didn't fulfill the promise of Oslo and the steps needed for Oslo. There was Palestinian terrorism, which accompanied Israel's expansion of settlements and other things. The two things fed each other and led to what happened in 2000, which was a breakdown of the talks altogether when the Palestinians said no. But I think this, I don't agree, incidentally with this definition of Israel or the Israeli state as a partied it's not there is a some sort of a partied going on in the West Bank.

3:52:18The Israeli regime itself is not in the partied regime that's nonsense by any definition of a partied which well by the formal definition I think it qualifies no it doesn't qualify a partied is a race race based distinction between different segments of the population and some of them don't have any representation at all like the blacks in South Africa. But that's not a, that's not a real, in Israel itself, the minority, the Arabs, do have representation, do have rights and so on. I don't think Israel is also genocidal. I don't think it's being genocidal. It wasn't so in 48, it wasn't so in 67, and it hasn't been recently, in my view.

3:52:57And talk about dismantling Israel, and that's what you're talking about, I think Stephen said it correctly, is counterproductive. it just pushes Israelis further away from willing to give Palestinians anything. Please, Norm, tell me you have something optimistic. Optimistic to say. I, even though I agree, I've thought about a lot, and I agree with Moines analysis. I'm not really in the business of punditry. I rather look at the historical record where I feel more comfortable and I feel on terra firma. So I'd like to just go through that. I don't quite, I agree and I disagree with Moean on the 73 issue.

3:53:43After the 1973 war, it was clear that Israel was surprised by what happened during the war and it took a big hit. The estimates are, I don't know what numbers you use, but I hear between two and three thousand Israeli soldiers were killed during the 19 ,000 -2500 27 .0. Yeah, okay, so I got right there. I read different numbers. That's you know, so very large number of Israelis who were killed there were moments at the beginning of the war where they were the fear that this might be it No, no, there wasn't no no, these no these you everybody forgets his Israel's atomic weapon. I know, but so how could they have because Diane talked about the collapse of the third time.

3:54:31But it was hysterical. Well, I can't. I don't know who's going to stop. I don't know. Serious of the Egyptian. But we're talking about perceptions. Yeah, I'm not. I'm not saying. I can't tell you if he was hysterical or not. No, he wanted to say what he was saying room with him. Where day was just like, let's not bog down on that. The war is over. And when President Carter comes into power, Carter was an extremely smart guy, Jimmy Carduk, extremely smart guy and he was very fixed on details. Stream, he was probably the most impressive of modern American presidents, in my opinion, by a wide margin.

3:55:06And he was determined to resolve the conflict on a big scale, on the Arab -Israeli scale, on the Palestinian issue. He wouldn't go past what he called a Palestinian homeland. He wouldn't accept. Palestinian National Home. And the Palestinian National Home, he wouldn't go as far as a Palestinian state. I'm not going to go into the details of that. I don't think realistically given the political balance of forces that was going to happen, but that's a separate issue. Let's go to the issue at hand, namely what is the obstacle or what has been the obstacle since the early 1970s. Since roughly 1974, the Palestinians have accepted the two states' settlement on the June 1967 border.

3:55:50Now, as it got, as more pressure was exerted on Israel because the Palestinians seemed reasonable, the Israelis to quote the Israeli political scientist, Avner Yaneef, he since passed from the scene, he said, Yaneef in his book, The Lemus of Security, he said that the big Israeli fear was what he called the Palestinian peace offensive. That was their worry that the Palestinians were becoming too moderate. And unless you understand that, you can't understand the June 1982 Lebanon War. The purpose of the June 1982 Lebanon War was to liquidate the PLO in southern Lebanon because they were too moderate, the Palestinian peace offensive.

3:56:41I'm going to have to fast forward. There are many events. There is the first Interferra, then there's the Oslo court, and let's now go to the the the heart of the issue, namely the 2000, 2001 negotiations. Well, the negotiations are divided in the three parts for the sake of listeners. There's Camp David in July 2000. There are the Clinton parameters in December 2000. And then there are negotiations in Taba in Egypt, in 2001. Those are the three phases. Now, I have studied the record probably to the point of insanity because there are so many details you have to master. I'll vouch for that. I'll then send it.

3:57:34Yeah, I actually I will vouch for it. I will personally vouch for it. There is one extensive record from that whole period from 2000 to you could say 2007. And that is what came to be called the Palestine Papers, which are about 15 ,000 pages of all the records of the negotiations. I have read through all of them every single page and this is what I find. If you look at Shlomo Ben Amiz book which I have with me, prophets without honor, it's his last book. He says going into Camp David, that means July, going into Camp David, July 2000, he said the Israelis were willing to return about, not return, but withdraw from 90, relinquish.

3:58:3192 % of the West Bank. Then I mean was that camp? Yeah. He was at Taba. Oh yeah, he was also at Camp Darius. They wanted Israel wanted to keep all the major settlement blocks. It wanted to keep roughly 8 % of the West Bank. They were allowing for you put it at 84 to 90 % in your books. They put it at roughly 92%. Israel was pulling pickups. How you calculate. Yeah, that was enough. It depends what stage of camp David, because it was two weeks. I'm, yeah, I'll get to the proposals changed during the two weeks. Israel wants to keep all the major settlement blocks. Means the border area of the West.

3:59:20Well, not the border. We have Ariel. We have Maole Adoumim. We have as condolites, a rice called Ariel. She said it was a dagger into the heart of the West Bank. So they want to keep 8 % of the land. They want to keep the settlement blocks. They want to keep 80 % of the settlers. They will not budge an inch on the question of refugees to quote Ehud Barak in the article he co -authored with you in the New York Review of Books. We will accept, and I think the quotes accurate, no moral, legal, or historical responsibility for what happened to the refugees. So forget about even allowing refugees to return.

4:00:07We accept no moral legal or historical responsibility for the refugees and on Jerusalem They wanted to keep large parts of Jerusalem now How do we judge who is reasonable and who is not? Then Ami says I think the Israeli offer was reasonable. That's how he sees it But what is the standard of reasonable? My standard is what does international law say? International law says the settlements are illegal. Israel wants to keep all the settlement blocks. 15 judges, all 15, in the whole decision in 2004 and July 2004, all 15 judges, including the American judge Bergenthal, ruled the settlements are illegal under international law.

4:01:04They want to keep 80 % of the settlers under international law, all the settlers are illegal in the West Bank. They want to keep large parts of East Jerusalem, but under international law, Easterous Islam is occupied Palestinian territory. That's what the international is. That's because the law is not Palestinian. Okay. Under the name of the Palestinian state. How could we be Palestinian? I listen patiently to you. Sorry. Under international law, if you territory beyond the Green Line, which includes East Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. The exebs and the Golan Heights. The designated unit according to the International Court of Justice, the designated unit for Palestinian self -determination.

4:02:12And they deny any right whatsoever on the right of return. The maximum, I don't want to go into the details now, the maximum formal offer was by Ehud Omar in 2008. He offered 5 ,000 refugees could return under what was called family reunification, 5 ,000 in the course of five years, and no recognition of any Israeli responsibility. So, if you use as the baseline what the UN General Assembly has said and what the international Court of Justice has said, if you use that baseline international law by that baseline, all the concessions came from the Palestinian side. every single concession came from the Palestinian side, none came from the Israeli side.

4:03:18They may have accepted less than what they wanted, but it was still beyond what international law allocated to them. Now you say - I'll get it to the Palestinian. I'll get it to Palestinians, yes. Thank you for the clarification. Now, about Arifat, like the Mufthi, never liked the guy. I think that was one of the only disagreements of a woman and I had when Arifat passed, you were a little sentimental, I was not. Never liked the guy, but politics you don't have to like the guy. There was no question, nobody argues it, that whenever the negotiation started up, The Palestinians just kept saying the same things.

4:04:08No. No. They kept saying no. No. Professor Morris with due respect incorrect. They kept saying international legitimacy, international law, UN resolutions. They said we already gave you what the law required. We gave that in 1988, November 1988, and then ratified again at Oslo in 1993. And they said, now we want what was promised us under international law. And that was the one point where everybody in the other side agreed. Clinton, don't talk to me about international law. Livney, during the Omar administration, she said, I studied international law. I don't believe in international law. every single member on the other side, they didn't want to hear from international law.

4:05:08And to my thinking that that is the only reasonable baseline for trying to resolve the conflict and Israel has along with the... But when has international law been relevant to any conflict basically in the world? Hey, that's why over the last time that's why the Palestinians have to recognize Israel because that's international law, but international law is meaningless. That was you went resolution to for so by international law or in accordance with international law. Then Professor Mars, for argument's sake, let's agree on that. Strickly for argument's sake. What's the alternative? Dennis Rua said, we're going to decide who gets what on the basis of needs.

4:05:58So he says Israel needs this. Israel needs that. Israel needs that. Dennis Rua decide to be the philosopher king. he's going to decide on the basis of needs. Well, if you asked me since Gaza is one of the densest places on earth, it needs a nice big chunk of sign -on. Well, not a sign. That's what it actually needs. OK, I don't even want to go there. It needs a nice big chunk. But I have to accept international law says no. OK? International law is irrelevant. Now, Benjamin says, I think the Israeli offer was reasonable. OK, that's the reasonable. That's here. He seems even though, OK, I've known him on the go.

4:06:49I've debated him and part of the agreed with you. But who decides what's reasonable? I think the international community in its political incarnation, the General Assembly, the Security Council, all those UN Security Council resolutions saying the settlements are illegal, annexation of East Jerusalem is null and void, and the International Court of Justice. is that to me is a reasonable standard. And by that standard, the Palestinians were asked to make concessions which I consider unreasonable, or the international community considers unreasonable. I think that the issue is when you apply international law or international standards, I wouldn't say what Ben -Imore says that they're irrelevant, but I think that these have to be seen as informing the conversation.

4:07:41I don't think these are the final shape of the conversation. I don't think historically Israel has ever negotiated within the strict bounds of whether we're talking resolution 242, whether we're talking about any general assembly resolutions, that's just not how these negotiations tend to go. You might consider international opinion on things, but at the end of the day, it's the bilateral negotiations oftentimes historically started in secret, independent of the international community, that end up shaping what the final agreements look like. I think the issue with this broad appeal to international law is, again, going back to my earlier point about all of the euphemistic words, all it simply does is drive Palestinian expectations up to a level that is never going to be satisfied.

4:08:20For instance, you can throw that ICJ opinion all you want. It was an advisory opinion. That came in 2004. Have Palestinians gained more or less land since that 2004 advisory opinion was issued? So what would your standard be then? Both sides have to have a delegation that confronts each other and they assess the realistic conditions on the ground and they try to figure out within the confines of international law and then what both sides are reasonable for. But like, Francis this statement of like full with retreat from the West Bank. What is it? 400 ,000 settlers. How many settlers live in the West Bank now?

4:08:48Probably. Yeah. 100 million. Yeah. You're going to think that you include the Jerusalem suburbs. Four or 500 ,000 people are never with the Jerusalem suburbs. Perhaps it is not. There's not a million people. Jerusalem, not settlements. I know that, but that's not what the Lord, the Lord calls it null and void. Let me let me say we can say whatever we want that went over blue in the face. But like there's half a million Israeli people are not being expelled. My response. You're basically saying if I understand correctly, There's only one way to resolve this and that is through direct bilateral negotiation.

4:09:16Probably, yeah. Okay. So, ideally, but... I've taken over your house. Okay. You're not going to go to the police because, you know, the laws of only of limited value. So you come over and sit in what is now my living room that used to be your living room. And we negotiate. The problem there is that you're not going to get anything unless I agree to it. standards and norms and law and all the rest of it be damned. So you need to take into account that when you're advocating bilateral negotiations that effectively that gives each of the parties veto power. And in the current circumstances, Palestinians have already recognized Israel.

4:10:05They have... What you keep bringing that up is a significant infection. And I don't even even if it's not even true. It doesn't but it doesn't the recognition from Palestine isn't doing anything for your your Hamas totally reject. I'm not talking about Hamas. Hamas is the majority in the pal among the Palestinian people They won the elections in 2006. They actually they won a majority of the seat. Yes, they didn't win a majority of both opinion poll today says the majority of Palestinians that sounds right to Hamas. That sounds right. Hamas absolutely rejects But if Arifat the 2003 or 1993 or whatever issued a sort of recognition, it was a sort of recognition of Israel.

4:10:44It does, it's meaningless. It's meaningless. It's meaningless. Any, any, I don't believe that Arifat was sincere about it. Does it matter what you were, I think, what Israelis do in that does matter. Okay. So, but Hamas says no, and Hamas is the majority state. So for years, so for years, the Israeli and US demand was that the Palestinians recognize 2, 4, 2, and 3, 3, 8. They did. But you're saying, OK, we demanded that they do this. But it was meaningless when they did it. Then the demand was that. The tactical thing, yes. Then the demand was the PLO recognizes real. Tactical. OK, we demanded that they did this.

4:11:22And they did it. But it's meaningless. And they never changed their chart of the PLO. You may remember that. In fact, in 1996. They supposedly abrogated the old chart but never came up with a new one. No, but in 1996. in 1996. And Faru Kadumi said, of course, the whole charist, still in, yes, of course, yes. But the point is, you know, the Palestinians, demands are constantly made of them. And when they, and when they exceed to those demands, they're then told actually what you did is meaningless. So here's a new set of demands. I mean, you know, it's like a hamster. It's like a hamster. Let me, let me, let me, let me, let me tell you what, let me tell you what, let me tell you what, let me tell you what, if you run, if you run, if you'll get out of the cage, no, The bottom line is that Israel would like a Palestinian Sadat.

4:12:07It wants the Palestinians, let me just really worst case scenario in the book. Okay, let me just, yeah, because they shot Sadat. But then, yeah, the Israelis want the Palestinians, Israelis want the Palestinians to actually accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel and the Zionist project and then live side by side with them in two states. That's what the Israelis don't even know the truth. I don't even know that true today. And what is the formal position of this Israeli government? No, no, I'm saying. I don't know for the exact date. Okay, it's predissessor. I'm talking about the idea. I'm talking about the idea.

4:12:42And it's predissessor. Come on. That's what Israelis want. The other Mars change of sight of psyche among the Palestinians. The Moon hasn't been in the same state. That doesn't happen. There won't be a Palestinian state. I mean, the rest of Mars. The Moon has an interesting point. Because I found I found I know you want to I know you want to forget it just like you want to forget the genocide charge But I know you want to forget that well the power He needs to want to forget it doesn't suit that as far as here's the problem and it's exactly the problem that Moongi has brought up Now I read carefully your book one stay two states with all due respect Absolutely a disgrace coming coming from you coming from you most reviewers didn't agree with you Yeah, coming from you was like you wrote it in your sleep.

4:13:24It's nothing compared to what you wrote before. I don't know why you did it. In my opinion, you ruined your reputation not totally, but you undermined it with that book. But let's get to the issue that Moean wrote. Here's what you said. You said formally, you said, yes, it's true. The Palestinians recognized Israel. But then you said viscerally in their hearts. They didn't really recognize Israel. So I thought to myself, how does Professor Morris know what's in the hearts of Palestinians? I don't know. I was surprised as a historian, you would be talking about what's lurking in the hearts of Palestinians.

4:14:10But then you said something which was really interesting. You said, even if in their hearts they accepted Israel, you said, quote, rationally, they could never accept Israel because they got nothing. They had this beautiful palace nine and now they're reduced to just a few pieces, a few parcels of land. So they will never accept it. So yes, so you said, there's no way they can accept it. I would say that as well. Yeah, so states. So as proposed. Exactly as Moean said, you keep moving the Gulf Coast. Until we reach the point, we'll realize, according to Benny Maris, there can be a solution. So why don't you just say that outright?

4:14:59Why don't you say it outright? They're according to you, the Palestinians can never be reasonable because according to you, they want all of Palestine. They couldn't possibly agree to a two -state settlement because it's such a lousy settlement. Because they want all of Palestine. But you said rationally they couldn't accept it. Not their feelings. You said rational. You went from formerly, viscerally, rationally. So now we're reaching the point we're according to Benny Morris, the Palestinians can't be reasonable because reasonably they have to reject two states. They won't go all the way. It's absolutely correct.

4:15:51There's no way to resolve the problem. According to your logic. He said that himself. He said they should dismantle Israel. I'm talking about what I said. I didn't say that. What I said, and I've written... I'm glad you didn't deny it. I've written extensively on this issue, on why a two -state settlement is still feasible. I came out in support of that proposition, perhaps in my heart, you can see that I was just bullshitting, but that's what I actually wrote. That was a number of years ago. And just as a matter of historical record, beginning in the early 1970s, there was fierce debate within the Palestinian National Movement about whether to accept or reject.

4:16:39And there were three schools of thought. There was one that would accept nothing less than the total liberation of Palestine. There was a second that accepted what was called the establishment of a fighting national authority on Palsimian soil, which they saw as the begin as a springboard for the total liberation of Palestine. And there was a third school that believed that under current dynamics and so on that they should go for a two -state settlement. And our friend and correspondent, Kauter Loerse, has written a very perceptive article on when the Puello, already in 1976, came out in open support of a two -state resolution at the Security Council.

4:17:25PLO accepted it. Israel of course rejected it, but the resolution didn't pass because of the U .S. and the UK vetoed it. It was both of that. It was nine to five. Ah, okay. Yeah. But the fact of the matter is that the PLO came to accept a two -state settlement. Why they did it, I think, is irrelevant. And subsequently, the PILO acted on the basis of seeking to achieve a two -state settlement. The reason, I think, and I think, Norm, you've written about this, the reason that Arafat was so insistent on getting the minimally acceptable terms for a two -state settlement at Camp David and afterwards was precisely because he knew that once he signed, that was all the Palestinians were going to get.

4:18:18If his intention had been, you know, I'm not accepting Israel, I simply want to springboard. He would have accepted a Palestinian state in Jericho, but he didn't. He insisted. That's the thing I've never understood. He should have logically accepted the springboard, and then from there, law enforcement. He doesn't understand. He should have done that. If international law would put a real constraint on him. No, but once he accepted it was over. Institutionally, he was incapable of signing. Well, if that's right, then he should have accepted it. But if you're correct, okay, that he was really out to eliminate Israel, then he wouldn't have cared about the borders.

4:18:58He wouldn't have cared about what the thing said about refugees. He would have gotten a sovereign state and used that to achieve that first place. But I think it was precisely because he recognized that he was not negotiating for a springboard. He was negotiating permanent status that he was such a stickler about the details. The second, just as a factual matter, he wasn't such a stickler. When they asked him how many refugees, the numbers, as he was a principal rather than the other. He said that would be pragmatic about it. Yes. And the numbers that were used at Annapolis were between 100 and 250 ,000 refugees over 10 years.

4:19:39That was the number. Arifat, when he was asked at Camp David, he kept saying, I care about the Lebanese, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, which came to about 300 ,000. So it was a large concession from whether you accept the number or not that he wasn't talking about six million. He was talking about between 100 and 250 ,000 over 10 years. Now, the best offer that came from the Palestinians, excuse me, the best offer that came from Israel was the all -mournth offer. Can we just pretend like we didn't all lay out the exceptionally pessimistic view of a two -state holoste, I can two -state solution?

4:20:21And let's pretend that in five years and 10 years, a two -state peace settlement is reached. And as historians, you'll still be here and writing about it 20 years from now, how would it have happened? I think that historically, I think that the big issue is, I think that both sides have had their own internal motivations to fight because they feel like they have something to gain from it. But I think as time has gone on, unfortunately, the record proves that the Palestinian side is delusional. The longer that the conflict endures, the worst position they'll be in, but for some reason, they've never had a leader that convinced them of that as much.

4:20:59That era fat thought that if he held on, there was always a better deal around the corner. A boss is more concerned with trying to maintain any legitimacy amongst Palestinians than actually trying to negotiate anything realistic with Israel. That Palestinians are always incentivized to feel like as long as they keep fighting, either the international community is going to save them with the 5 millionth UN resolution condemning whatever that another ICJ advisory opinion is finally going to lead to the expulsion of half a million Jews from the West Bank or that some other international body, the ICJ and the genocide charge is going to come and save the Palestinians.

4:21:29As long as they in their mind feel like somebody is coming to save them, then they feel like they're going to have the ability to get something better in the future. But the reality is, is all of the good partners who piece of the Palestinians had have completely and utterly abandoned them. Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf States, whether you're talking bilateral piece of the Abraham Accords, most of the Arab leaders in negotiating peace with Israel have just not had as much of an interest in maintaining the rights and the representations of what the Palestinian people want and the only people they have today to draw legitimacy from or to have on their side to argue with them are people that I guess write books or tweet or people in the international community that do resolutions or embassy international reports.

4:22:10And the reality is we can scream until we're blue in the face on these things. None of it has gotten any closer to helping the Palestinians in any sense of the word. The condition has only gotten worse. The settlements only continue to expand. The military operations are only to get more brutal. The blockade is going to continue to have worse effects. As long as we use international law as the basis, and there isn't a strong, a seduct like Palestinian leader that's willing to come up and confront Israel with the brave, peaceful negotiations to force them to acquiesce, nothing is going to happen.

4:22:38I think that the issue you come up with is whether it's people like Norm that talk about how brave the October 7th attacks were or how much respect they have for those fighters. the Israel in a way, and I think people have said as much about Netanyahu, the right wants violence from the Palestinians because it always gives them a perpetual excuse to further the conflict. Well, we have to go in in October 7th and we've got to remove from us. Well, we can't trust these people in the West. We have to do the night raids because, you know, the second intifada, you know, it made us feel like the Palestinian people didn't want to trust with us.

4:23:06I feel like the biggest thing that would force Israel to change its path would be an actual, a real, not for like two weeks, but an actual peaceful Palestinian leader, somebody committed to peace that is able to apply those standards and hold the entire region of Palestine to those standards, because I think over time, the mounting pressure from without the international community and the mounting pressure from within, because Israel hosts a lot of its own criticism, if we talk about Beth Salem, we talk about her, it's like Israel will host a lot of its own criticism, I think that that pressure would force Israel towards an actual peace agreement, but it's never going to come through violence.

4:23:40Historically, it hasn't. And in the modern day, violence has just hurt the Palestinians more and more. If you pay in a picture of the future, that was a good moment for both Palestine and Israel to get new leadership. Net Nyahos on the way out, Hamas possibly is on the way out. Who should rise to the top such that a peaceful settlement can be reached? The problem is, like Benny said, yeah, it's difficult because Hamas enjoys so much widespread support amongst the Palestinian people. I think that the, well, I don't know, there's opinions on whether democracy or pushing them towards elections was the right or wrong idea, but with like an Islamic fundamentalist government for Hamas, I don't know if a negotiation with Israel ever happens there.

4:24:20And then when the international pressure is always, you know, 67 borders, infinite right of return for refugees, and a total withdrawal of Israel from all these lands to even start negotiations, I just don't see realistically that on the Palestinian side, no negotiations are ever going to start in a place that Israel is willing to accept. If you want to dismiss international law, that's fine, but then you have to do it consistently. You can't set standards for the Palestinians, but reject applying those standards to Israel. If we're going to have the law of the jungle, then we can all be beasts and not only some of us.

4:25:01And I think so it's either that or you have certain agreed standards that are intended to regulate our conduct, all of our conduct, not just some of us. So that's a fundamental saying to abandon. Well, you're saying international law and the millionth UN resolution, you're being very dismissive about all the things. And that's fine. But then you have to be dismissive across the board. That was a chapter six resolution. That's non -binding. But two for two is the same thing. Absolutely not. What is binding? Do you know anything about how the UN system works? If you read the language of the resolution, binding is typically if it commits to a polling in a particular international or for the status of the child.

4:25:41What is the job role? You just throw out words. You hear binding not for two. There's two for two mentioned up, how does Indian state know? Of course, that's part of the problem. That was the reason why the Palestinians didn't want to recognize two for two. Because they only refer to the very end of the record. recognize one eight one and two foot to when they're there. Hold on, hold on. Every United Nations Security Council resolution, irrespective of under which chapter it was adopted, is by definition binding, binding not only on the members of the Security Council, but on every member's state of the UN.

4:26:16That's read the UN charter. It's black and white. Sure. People look at the language. Yes. The language even of two four two is kept intentionally vague, such that it doesn't actually provide again the final con that they because the term the term land for a piece Originates and two for two the idea of a territorial acquisition and israel's need to give it up West kept a fake That's why 70 that's why 79 is all that they've built their obligations under two points of information Allow me points of information Yeah, the first principle in you on resolution two four two is it the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force which is made was it may be meaningless to you Mr.

4:26:58Mr. Benel that principle was adopted by the friendly nations resolution the UN General Assembly in 1970 that resolution was then reiterated in the international court of justice this ruling advisory opinion in 2004, that was the basis of the coalition against Iraq when it acquired Kuwait and then declared it a province of Kuwait. Which I think that's important. That's what's cool. That's what's cool. I did support it. That's why you have to shoot a deal with the author of the verse. It's not accurate. I'm not gonna go there. I'm not gonna go there. It's not accurate. It's not accurate. It's not accurate.

4:27:42I'm not going to go there. It's called under international law use coagins or preemptory norms of international law, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That is not controversial, it's not vague. You couldn't put it more succinctly. You cannot acquire territory by force under international law. That is, that is. That is. That is. this trip before 67. Mr. Benel, don't change the subject. If you don't know what you're talking about, at least have the future. At least have the future. You know what to talk about. Chapter two, you don't know how far the series has two fortuitous notes to the Palestinian.

4:28:26You don't know how far the series has two fortuitous notes to the Palestinian piece. From tweet five, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just so embarrassing. At least have some humility between us with red maybe 10 ,000 books on the topic. And you've read two wiki pedia entries and you start talking about chapter six. Do you know what chapter seven is? You know what chapter seven is? Answer me question. How close is two four two gotten the Palestinians to a state? How close is the two thousand four advisory opinion gotten the West Bank settlement? What's your alternative? The alternative is you just you just not this whatever this making money off the conflict is the actual alternative.

4:29:01The actual alternative. Yes, you should talk about your money. Yeah, you're a media. You go and talk to 50 million different people You're a lot more important. But the issue is you have all these solutions have gotten the Palestinians no closer to state. You're close to here earlier. Of course, because of the US veto. They're not going to be in force. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Okay, no, if I may. If I may. I'm going to force the IDVP. You know what? You know what? Professor Morris. Professor Morris. Because of your logic and I'm not disputing it, that's why October 7th happened. Because there was no options left for those people.

4:29:40Exactly what my way of options are left after October 7th. What's Kylie? What's the option? Oh, this is the only option. Oh, no, it's not an expert on Palestinian mentality. You're contradicting yourself. I only am telling you. I only am talking about Egypt didn't find an answer. Egypt didn't find an answer. It's necessary to negotiate peace. But you're called Paul Zanian. Jordan didn't find an answer. Hey, it's fine. It's fine. You're, you're contradicting it. Yes, but all of that international law. Everybody, wait. You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're saying all the Palestinians do is fight and violence and terrorism and all the rest of it.

4:30:18But on the other hand, you're saying they're expecting salvation from, uh, from UN resolutions and international court. Those aren't violent. No, but it's part of maintaining. It's the, it's the continual putting off of negotiating. They've been in a situation. They've been in a situation. As in when Erifett, he said, he's to respond. When Erifett and he's to respond, I think all over the world, the world, the world, the world. Yes. But put in the conflict of the state. Except with two states in 1975, they don't get the power of something. No, that's what it is. But in the years, it's the legend.

4:30:52There's an army. No, no, they didn't accept the two states of the state. He's fallen to the moment. You can quote Erifett talking about how he's lying. And he's just going to use a 94 and a 95 when he's making trips Well, there's a very very the starting ground. I'm sorry. I can also you can watch you do me. There's a point five speed If you don't understand what I'm saying. Let me fit. There's a very there's a very lengthy history of Israeli Palestinian negotiations I you want to deny that those negotiations took place where it feels like there was a good faith effort Where where there was a good faith effort where it was a good faith effort?

4:31:25We have written record. We have a written Mr. Poppistaro, you can't even read the written records. I don't know why you're referring. Excuse me. I just said there are 15 ,000 pages on the nappelist. And I'm sure you cherry -quit your favorite quote from all of them. Okay. That's great. That's great. Barrow at least I had a quote to share. That's great. All you have to do is make me pee. I gave you quotes. I gave you quotes. Do you want to do any quotes? Find me the information. I think the Palestinian cause has been furthered by any international law. I think the problem is different. Okay, you you want to say the Palestinians were only fighting and then when I point out they've also gone to the court and you want to say well All they do then is these things and you say they should be negotiating and I Demonstrate that there was a lengthy Record of negotiations and said yeah, but they didn't go into good faith Again, you're placing the hamster in the wheel and telling him if he runs fast enough Maybe one day he'll get out of the cage.

4:32:21What was the best? Okay, and please if I could just finish I think the fundamental problem here is not what the Palestinians haven't done, and it's perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether they could have been more effective. Of course, they could have been more effective. If everyone could have always been more effective. The fundamental issue here is that Israel has never been prepared to concede the legitimacy of Palestinian national rights in the land of the former British mandate of Palestine. How do you explain Tabasama? How do you explain the capital? No, they're up there.

4:33:01No, they're up there. They're up there. You explain all the parts of the policy of Palestinian demands. Well, they didn't want to give the Palestinians all of Palestine. That's all. No, all of Palestine. All of Palestine. You mean all of the occupied territories? No, no. You're talking about all of Palestine. Wait, what is the occupied territory? What is the occupied territory? The occupied territories are those territories that Israel occupied in June of 1967 The Palestinians often use that term to define the whole of Pakistan, not just the West Bank They show me Professor Morris in all the negotiations, all the negotiations and all the accounts that have been written Can you show me one where the Palestinians end in the negotiations, because that's what we were talking about, wanted all of Israel.

4:33:51The maximum I can say that, because international community won't accept it. So they didn't say it, they didn't ask for it. No, that's what Hamas did. Hamas always said that. Hamas only negotiated with Israel about prisoner exchanges. Yeah, no, so we were talking about a lot of the Palestinian people who would agree. The only place I saw pieces of Israel where the land swaps and the land swaps accounted for about two to five percent of Israel. Nobody asked for all of Israel. Why would you mean they asked for all of Israel in 48? They asked for all of Israel in 67. What do you think those words were about?

4:34:26You're not going to respond to anything I'm saying because you have no answer. You're not going to respond to anything I'm saying because you have no answer. That's correct. Okay, Mr. Bino, we were talking about the diplomatic negotiations beginning with 20, 2000, 2001. I said we can't pretend that the first ask for Israel. was in diplomacy. It was through war. You don't know what you're talking about. Is the international law argument ever going to get the Palestinians closer to state? Is the Israeli state ever going to be dismantled? Do you think that's like realistic coming up? Never. In the next 20 years.

4:34:54Again, I'm posing a question. And the question is regardless of of of what's feasible or realistic today, the question I'm posing is, can you have peace in the Middle East with this militant, irrational, genocidal, apartheid, state, and power. Lost, I don't think so now. Okay, and the question I'm asking is, can you have peace with this regime, or does this regime and its institutions need to be dismantled similar to what the examples I gave of Europe and Southern Africa have? How do you contend with the fact that most of the surrounding Arab states seem to agree that you can? Yeah, you're correct.

4:35:39Several of them, most importantly Egypt, Jordan have made their peace with Israel. I should add that Israel's conduct since then has placed these relations under strain. I had very little I didn't take the reports of a Saudi Israeli reprochement particularly seriously before October 7th. The reason being that it was really a Saudi -Israeli -US deal, which committed the U .S. to make certain commitments to Saudi Arabia that would probably never get through Congress. Do you not consider the Egypt -Israeli peace deal legitimate then? Since the United States made a great financial contribution at Egypt?

4:36:23I don't think the question is whether that deal is legitimate or not. I think that deal exists. But the point is whether the core of this conflict is not between Israel and Egypt. The core of this conflict is between Israel and the Palestinian people. And the reason that Israel agreed to relinquish the occupied Egyptian Sinai And the reason that Egyptian Israeli peace treaty was signed in 1979 is because Israel in 1973 recognized that its military superiority was ultimately no match for Egypt's determination to recover its occupied territories and that there would come a point when Egypt would find a way to extract an unbearable price.

4:37:17Maybe just Israelis wanted peace. Well, the Israelis wanted. Not just because they were afraid of what Egypt might do at the time. If you're talking about the average Israeli citizen, I think that's a fair characterization. If you're talking about the Israeli leadership, I think they looked at it in more strategic terms. I think it's the most powerful two point, two point, simple point. What was the terms of that Egypt is real peace treaty? International law. Egypt demanded every, nobody scared about it. I've got to allow me to finish every single inch of Egyptian about it. The national law. They give and professor and said that talk about the reality.

4:37:59No, professor. A lot of professors. Professor Morris. Professor Morris. I know the record. They demanded as you know, because you've written about it. They demanded every square inch. As you know, they demanded the oil fields be the smell. No, that's in the airfield. No, not the smaddle. They want the door. And it wanted the settlements dismantled. That was the settlements. The settlements, the oil fields in the airfield, they demanded all three back, you can't have. Leave me back, the airfields weren't there. Oh, okay, that's incorrect. What's wrong? You're incorrect. They built an airfield. The Israelis built an airfield in the occupied sign office.

4:38:41And they wanted it back. They didn't want it back, wasn't they? Okay, they wanted the territory in which they built. Okay, the oil fields, the airfields, the settlements have to be dismantled. Yes, Bacon said, I don't want to be the first prime minister to dismantle a settlement, but he did. Why? Because of the law. No, because of Peter. It was normalization at the law. The law had nothing to do with anything. It was in the Bush and the state's members. Each of which wanted to have an accident. The law had nothing to do with anything. I said repeatedly in the negotiations. You're not listening, you're missing my point.

4:39:16Where the negotiation is? There is nothing to do with it. There are no foreign relations of US volumes on. Nobody cares about the law. The Palestinians kept saying we want exactly what they were there. Allow me to finish. The Palestinians kept saying we want what Egypt got. We want what Egypt got. Yeah. Egypt got everything back. That's not going to do with the law. Okay. Nothing to do with it. And number two, I'm not saying it's the whole picture. But as foreign minister Moishitayan said at the time, he said, if a car has four wheels and you remove one wheel, the car can't move. And for them, removing Egypt from the Arab front would then remove any Arab military threat to Israel.

4:40:07The first part did. And that's what the Palestinians kept saying. We want each of God from each of those true. But forget international law. And by the way, everything to do one last thing, one last on a personal note. The quote about Charmail Shake with our peace. Yeah, yeah. OK. That's the only thing you ever cited from a book of mine. You've cited your book? Yes. I was absolutely shocked at your betrayal of your people. That was your reason. I apologize for that. I apologize. Okay, I apologize. All right, well, let me try once again for the region and for just entirety of humanity, what gives you hope?

4:40:55We just heard a lot of pessimistic cynical takes. What gives you hope? It's just like war. That's a good reason. That's hope. In other words, the fear of war, the disaster of war, should give people an impetus to Try and seek peace when you look at people in Gaza and people in the West Bank people in Israel Fundamentally no, but fundamentally they hate war. Yes. I think so What what gives you hope there is no hope no, it's an extreme no, I'm hey I'm not happy to say that of course you are it's a It's a very bleak moment right now Because that I agree with, I agree with it. Israel believes it has to restore what it calls its deterrence capability.

4:41:43I think you've written about it actually, I just realized. Israel has to restore its deterrence capability. And after the catastrophe of October 7th, restoring its deterrence capacity means this part, you didn't write about the annihilation of Gaza and then moving on to the Hezbollah. No, that didn't. So, so the Israelis are dead set on restoring that deterrence capability. On the Arab side, and I know Mawin and I have disagreed on it, and we're allowed to disagree. I think the Arab side, the lesson they learned from October 7th is Israelis aren't as strong as we thought they were. And that would be an unfortunate message.

4:42:29And they, that's really what that And they think that there is a military option now. And I think that that's a zero sum game at this point. And it's very, very bleak. And I'm not going to lie about that. Now, I will admit my predictive capacities are not perfect. Are limited. But for the moment, it's a very bleak situation. And I don't see right now a way out. However, at the very minimum permanence fire ended in human and illegal blockade of Gaza. And for illegal, they were shooting rockets in Israel for 20 years. Why is that illegal to blockade Gaza? He thinks they've got a right. Why is it illegal?

4:43:17I'll tell you why. You don't rocket your neighbor. I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. Expect consequences. But that works both ways. I know, I know, I know, I know. Professor, Professor Farrah, I'll tell you why. Because every human rights humanitarian and UN organization in the world has said, you know, you can't hold your head. Nobody cares about that. It's a form of collective punishment. Nobody cares about that. It's illegal under international law. Forget the legal. You think a blockade would you don't have to stand the way the world works. And you think, and you think, confining, because that's the blockade.

4:43:56Yes, you don't find it. Confining a million children. Confining. That's the choice of the most. Confining. That's how million children in what the economist called a human rubbish sheep. The economist supported Israel in this war and continued to support Israel. What international committee of Red Cross called a sinking ship with a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called a toxic slum, You think you think it's legitimate to come. Hey, I know you want to forget the law. It's the other thing that every is what every Israeli fears the most the law. No, no, no, no. Zippy Littleby said, I studied international law.

4:44:46I oppose international law. Of course you don't want to hear about the law. So anything. Okay, so here's the thing. Yeah, then don't complain about October 7th. If you don't want to do you want to say I forget about the law? I said was there like there is no international humanitarian law. There's no distinction between civilians and combat and should be and so How am I now you're doing what Moein said you're becoming very selective about the law If you want to forget about the law How much had he ever do what he did? It had every right to do what he did according to you not to me because you want to forget the law Do you still support the hooties shooting random shots?

4:45:30Absolutely. Okay. That's a violation of international law. You play the same name absolutely And where there are power during World War II who had the courage of the Houthis where there were power that had that kind of courageous to be bombing merchant ships. Well tens of thousand people died actual starvation. Not the starvation that exists in the Gaza Strip where people before our time was like don't die of starvation. What about starvation in Yemen? Don't have it. Something better to do. Yes I know don't have it. I mean three years. Should they be feeding? Should they be feeding the 60 ,000 Yemps die?

4:46:09Why fight? Why fight? Why fight the Western powers in Israel when you should be taking care of your problems at home? The who -tis? Often the only allies of the dispossessed are those who experience similar circumstances. Don't you think that they should take care of the Yemeni problems? I'm very happy. I'm very happy they're helping out the Palestinians. Anyone who helps the people, any of them, anybody who comes to the aid of those suffering, the genocide has no human rights. Half of whom are children. Yeah, according to the most current UN reports, as of today, one quarter of the population of Gaza, that means 500 ,000 children are on the verge of famine.

4:46:54They keep saying on the verge of I have not seen I have not seen one Palestinian die of starvation in these last four months. Well, they're have been documented cases. They're not the verge. They have been documented cases. I haven't seen yesterday, Al Jazeera said six in the day before that they said two. So those are the two. That number probably dies in Israel of starvation also. Yes, I don't think there is famine in Israel. There isn't. There isn't in the Gaza Strip either. There's something which is produced for the West. There are infants dying due to a engineered lack of access to food and nutrition.

4:47:31I don't think it's engineered. I think the FAMAS stopped shooting perhaps or as you said engineered. I think, um, I'm the same to excuse me, human rights watch code that using starvation as a weapon. That's called engineering. Okay. That's what they did. But you were pushed on this by Coleman Hughes to bring up like an example of why is the Gaza Strip? Like what by what metric are they starving by what metric is it so behind the rest of the world you know if we're going to bring up uh... why wanna hear an answer that because you didn't answer it yeah i just called you from the humanitarian organizations they said one quarter of the population of Gaza is now verging on families four october seven before i'm going before i'm going before i'm told you you said it's justification for homos fighting you say the conditions were unlivable they had to fight i said to him so my question what made it unlivable prior to our government what are that what are the metrics that you're using?

4:48:18There were about five, six, or seven reports issued by UNC dead, issued by the World Bank, issued by the International Monetary Fund, and they all said, that's why. That's why they say why. Why do they say that? That's why the economist, not a radical periodical, described Gaza as a human rubbish. So tell me by what metrics. If you're a historian of you,

4:48:59Okay, I'm going to answer. Okay, I'm going to answer. You remember where I said a moment ago, I said to Professor Morris, I defer to expertise. I look at what the organizations say. I look at what the United Nations High Commission are saying right now. You don't know. You don't know where you don't care. I don't know. You know how complicated have you ever investigated? How complicated is the metric for hunger, starvation, and famine? It is such a complicated metric they figured out. If you asked me to repeat it now, I couldn't do it. And yet we have a human development index where we rank countries that we can still measure infant mortality, life expectancy.

4:49:40Yeah, we can measure all of these things. Morning. I'm holding out for you here. You still didn't answer the hope question. What gives you a source of hope about the region? Well, first of all, I would agree with Benny Morris and Norman Finkelstein that the current situation is bleak. And I think it would be unreasonable to expect it to not get even bleaker in the coming weeks and months. And we now this conflict really, it originated in the late 19th century. It's been a more less active conflict since the 1920s, 1930s, and as produced a tremendous amount of suffering and regional conflict in geopolitical complications and all of that.

4:50:37But what gives me hope is that throughout their entire ordeal, the Palestinian people have never surrendered. And I believe they never will surrender to overwhelming force and violence. They have taken everything that Israel has thrown at them. They have taken everything that the West has thrown at them. They have taken everything that those who are supposed to be their natural allies have on occasion thrown at them. But this is a people that never has, and I believe, never will surrender. And at a certain point, I think Israel and its leaders will have to come to the realization that by hooker by crook, these people are going to achieve their inalienable and legitimate national rights.

4:51:38And that is going to be a reality. What you mean by that? You mean all of Palestine? Is that what you mean? No, and from the river to the sea. Well, ideally, of course, yes. And what What I was saying earlier and then the discussion got sidetracked is that I did believe that a two -state settlement, a partition of Palestine along the 1967 boundaries, would have been a reasonable solution because I think it also would have opened pathways to further, but now you believe what? Further non -violent engagement between Israel and the Palestinians that could create other forms of coexistence in a federal or by national or other.

4:52:35What do you think about refugees in regards to that? Do you think there has to be a resettlement of the five or six million whoever wants to lay claim to be innocent? I think there has to be an explicit acknowledgement of responsibility and of the rights. I think that in the framework of a two -state settlement, I think a formula would need to be found that does not undermine the foundations of a two -state settlement. and I don't think it would be that difficult because I suspect that there are probably large numbers of Palestinian refugees who, once their rights are acknowledged, we'll find it exceptionally distasteful to have to live among the kind of sentiments that we've heard around this table today to be quite frank.

4:53:34I mean, I heard, I was previously unfamiliar with you. And I watched one of your preparation videos. Very disconcerting stuff I have to say. You were explaining two days ago in the discussion about apartheid and how absurd it was, that in your view, Jim Crow was not apartheid. Jim Crow was not apartheid. But Arab states, not giving citizenship to Palestinian refugees is apartheid. That's what I meant with my earlier comment about white supremacy. So my issue, that's great, the white supremacy comment. And if I, well, hold on, let me respond. My issue is that I feel like we have jumped on this euphemistic treadmill, and I think that's part of the reason why this conflict will never get solved.

4:54:17It's because on one end, you've got a people who are now convinced internationally that they're victims of apartheid, genocide, concentration camp conditions, ethnic cleansing, they're forced to live in an open air prison, with all of these things that are stacked against them, all of these terms that are highly specific that refer to very precise things. And then when people like you said nothing less from someone who doesn't think Jim Crow is a part I don't know Who does because of our state's not giving morely loading for you apartheid is when racist do bad things no No, there's a definition of a part that's great But it's very clear to top down racial domination and acted through top down like federal legislative policies or whatever Means it I don't know if I don't know if Jim Crow would have qualified for part of that doesn't make it any less Excuse me, thank you, I'm talking right now.

4:55:05Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, Twinklestein, I'm talking to your friend over here. I don't know if it would have qualified as the crime of apartheid. Just like if Israel were to literally nuke the Gaza Strip until two million people, I don't know if that would qualify for the crime of justice. In your eyes, probably not. I don't, well, yeah, but because genocide requires a special intent. I think the issue is, and instead of, I don't think this conversation is actually, is emblematic of the entire conversation. I don't think anything. Let me finish answering, then more of this question. Well, sure, but you would accuse me of supporting racism.

4:55:29So, yeah, I think you did. And you are. I did it. Do you think I support Jim Crow laws? Look, the fact that you can't even answer that honestly. It doesn't matter what say they 800 civilian you know We're killed by a high Hamas. You said well, maybe 400 were killed by Israel. No, I don't know the number Maybe you said you said 400 you co -sign the opinion. No, I didn't know I did Well, wait how many what do you I think the word was some that's what I heard? Well, you weren't listening how many people do you think approximately if you had to ballpark it? How many do you think we're killed by Hamas?

4:55:58I'm October 7th. I think it's pretty clear that the majority 40 of civilians that were killed 51 % or 90 % don't ask me to put a number on something I don't know. First of all, are you when you say Hamas? Do you mean Palestinians or do you mean Hamas specifically? I mean, I'm saying Palestinian force. I don't like to say Palestinians because I don't think all Palestinians civilians were involved. I'll say Hamas, Islam, Islam, whatever. You're out cutting stuff for others. That's how this discussion started. You said Hamas and I began to answer to that. And then Benny Morris said, actually, he means hamassing in addition to as you have in the others.

4:56:31So, so of the invading Palestinian force, how many do you think killed civilians versus the idea of what do you think of the ballpark, the percentage? Well, the figures we have are that about a third of the casualties on October 7th were military and about two -thirds were what's your question? Yes, how many what percentage of civilians are killed by the invading force? I think I think a clear majority, but I can't give you specific figure. If you thought it was close to 51 % or 99 % we're killed by how how that? How is it interesting to actually stay out of position? Yeah, it's interesting. It's going to be completely ignored.

4:57:03Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. It's time. Complete ignorance because we don't know. Professor Morris doesn't know. We're not going to speak with absolute certainty that the idea is targeting and murdering Palestinian children intentional. Oh, you see the double standard? No, I don't. You see. I know you don't. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I looked at the UN report. Uh -huh. The goldstone report? No. The UN report on the great march of return in 2018. And they said that the snipers were targeting children, medics, journalists, and disabled people. Just as they are now in this conversation.

4:57:42Exactly. No more journalists have been killed in the last several months in Gaza than in the other cause. Let me agree that they operate in civilian uniforms that their goal is to induce that confusion that that's the the way that they conduct themselves militarily. Let me finish my point. More journalists have been more you want children. I don't want to hear it so. No, because it's so hard. It is. Yes, like when you see children over and over again. That's what How many Israelis were killed? That's not virtue signaling, because that's human life. I don't care about it. I don't care if 100 ,000 people were killed.

4:58:26I just think he's trying to get into. 51 % of the population, and then we, and then the resumption of the bill, and then we, we mentioned that more journalists were killed in Gaza than in all of World War II. That doesn't get it. And there are any part of the protest. More medics were killed in Gaza. No, no, no, that's silly. And then he says, It's virtual scenario, but when Israelis get killed that serious

4:58:59I'm asking a substantive question of who do you assign blame to or do you plan to norm think of students conspiracies that the ambulance They should have known immediately who was dead that the numbers were changed because they were fake By by Hamas and Islamabad But you asked me direct question and you got a direct answer. I did it. I got majority, which could be a clear majority. What percentage is a clear majority as opposed to a majority? A clear majority in my view is well over 50%. Please don't ask me to be more precise because you could say 80, 90, 95. If I knew that, I would say it. I think it's a reasonable, it's a reasonable.

4:59:38Perhaps it is, but I'd you're not the best person to be asking that question. You know I read when you wrote up described operation defensive shield and you said a few dozen homes were destroyed You told my lab in Virginia refugee camp and you said no the Arabs said 500 you guys said 500 Palestinians were killed in I never said and then the but no but that was the state The P. L. O. R. is a constant in authority You said a few and the domesticers there a few dozen. Yes, a few dozen. Yeah, well It's turned out a 140 buildings were destroyed. 5 ,000 people were left homeless. You're just 5 ,000.

5:00:19You described it, no, I'm talking about homes destroyed. So you're not the best person to be criticizing what Muayin says when he says clear majority, but he can't say more. You know why he can't say more? He doesn't know. He doesn't know. Yeah, yeah, and stand that. I hope that's a history. If I was trying to belittle, I would give you a very different answer. I would just say I don't know. I do know the right phrase. The right phrase there would be the overwhelming majority were killed by Arab government and very small number were killed by Israelis by accident or whatever. That's probably that's probably that that may be that I can I can stay with confidence a clear majority overwhelming majority.

5:01:01You may be correct but I can't state that with certainty. I think there's a very easy way to find out is to have an independent

5:01:31I know, of course you forget it. Forget the law. the the passion I'm really grateful that you would spend your really valuable time and just one more question since we have two historians here what just briefly from a history perspective what do you hope your legacy as historians Benny and Norm will be of the work that you've put out there maybe Norm you can go first and try to just say briefly. I think there's a value to preserving the record. I'm not optimistic about where things are going to end up. There was a very nice book written by a woman named Helen Hunt Jackson. At the end of the 19th century, describing what was done to the Native Americans.

5:02:28She called it a century of dishonor, and she described been vivid, poignant detail, what was done to the Native Americans. Did it save them? No. Did it help them? Probably not. Did it preserve their memory? Yes. And I think there's a value to that. There was a famous film by Eisenstein, Sergei Eisenstein. It was either Battleship Potemkin or mother, I can't remember which one. The last scene was the Zars troops mowing down all the Russian people. He pans the scene. Not all the Russian people, but he pans the massacre. He pans the massacre. But he could have killed a lot more. And the last words of the movie were proletarians exclamation point, remember, exclamation point.

5:03:27And I've seen it as my life's work to preserve the memory and to remember, I didn't expect that anyone would read my book on Gaza. It's very dense. It gives me even a bit of a headache to read at least one of the chapters. You wrote a book on Gaza? And but I thought that the memory deserves to be preserved. Amen. Well, I would just say very briefly, unlike my colleague, I think, writing the truth about what happened in history and various periods of history, if I've done a little bit of that, I'm happy. Thank you, Norm. Thank you, Benny. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you, Muin. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Norman Ficklstein, Benny Morris, Muin Robani, and Stephen Bernal.

5:04:16To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Lyndon B. Johnson. Peace is a journey of a thousand miles, and it must be taken one step at a time. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.