Kind: captions
Language: en
that's a good point no no it's a good
point 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 one of the
reasons I speak slowly is because I
attach value to every word I say 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 to the particular
Point you're trying to push the 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
47 partition I don't think you
understand politics they forced the
British to prevent immigration of Jews
from Europe and reaching safe Shores in
Palestine that's what they did and they
knew that the Jew were being persecuted
in Europe Palestine the only spot of
land on Earth yes basically that was the
problem the Jews couldn't immigrate
about your great friends in Britain The
Architects of of the Bal for declar by
the late 1930 about the United States W
happy to take in Jews and the Americans
W happy why 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 un only safe haven for
Jews Professor
Morris because of your logic and I'm not
disputing it that's why October 7th
happened oh my God because there was no
options left for those people the Kamas
guys who attacked the Kim they apart
from the attacks on the military sites
when they attacked the kibuts were out
to kill civilians and they killed family
after family house after house talk fast
so people think that you're coherent I'm
just reading from the UN I know you like
them sometimes only when they agree with
you though you've lied about this
particular instance in the past those
kids weren't just on the beach as as
often stated articles those kids were
literally coming out of a previously
identified Hamas compound that they had
operated from they liter
belli with all due respect with all due
respect you're such a fantastic
it's
terrifying the following is a debate on
the topic of Israel and Palestine with
Norman fenin Benny Morris mu Rabani and
Steven benell also known online as
Destiny Norman many are historians muen
is a Middle East analyst and Steven is a
political commentator and streamer all
four have spoken and debated extensively
on this topic the goal for this debate
was not for anyone to win or to score
points it wasn't to get views or likes I
never care about those and I think there
are probably much easier ways to get
those things if I did care the goal was
to explore together the history present
and future of Israel and Palestine in a
free flowing conversation no time limits
no
rules there was a lot of tension in the
room from the very beginning and it only
got more intense as we went along and I
quickly realized that this very
conversation in a very real human way
was a microcosm of the tensions and
distance and perspectives on the topic
of Israel and
Palestine for some debates I will St
step in and moderate strictly to prevent
emotion from boiling for this I saw the
value in not interfering with the
passion of the exchanges because that
emotion in itself spoke
volumes we did talk about the history
and the future but the anger the
frustration the biting wit and at times
respect and camaraderie were all there
like I said we did it in an perhaps all
to human way I will do more debates and
conversations on these difficult topics
and I will continue to search for Hope
in the midst of death and destruction to
search for our our common Humanity in
the midst of division and hate this
thing we have going on human
civilization the whole of it is
beautiful and it's worth figuring out
how we can help it flourish together I
love you
all this is Alex Freedman podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description and now dear friends
here's Norman felstein Benny Morris muan
Rabani and Steven benell first question
is about
1948 for Israelis 1948 is the
establishment of the state of Israel and
the war of independence for Palestinians
1948 is the nakba which means
catastrophe or the displacement of
700,000 Palestinians from their home hes
as a consequence of the war what to you
is important to understand about the
events of 1948 and the period around
there 47 49 that helps us understand
what's going on today and uh maybe helps
us understand the roots of all this that
started even before
1948 I was hoping that Norm can speak
first and Benny then M and then
Norm after World War
II the
British decid that they didn't want to
deal with the Palestine question anymore
and the ball was thrown into the court
of the United
Nations now as I read the record the UN
was not attempting to arbitrate or
adjudicate Rights and
Wrongs it was confronting a very
practical
problem there were two national
communities in Palestine
and there were irreconcilable
differences on fundamental questions
most importantly looking at the historic
record on the question of
immigration and associate with the
question of immigration the question of
lend the UN special committee on
Palestine which came into being before
the UN 181 partition resolution the UN
special committee it recommended two
states in
Palestine there was a minority position
represented by uh Iran India
Yugoslavia they supported one
state but uh they
believed that if forced to the two
communities would figure out some sort
of modus sendi
and live
together the United Nations General
Assembly supported partition between
what it called a Jewish State and an
Arab
State now in my reading of the record
and they understand there's new
scholarship in the subject which I've
not read but so far as I've read the
record there's no Clarity on what the
United
Nations General said assembly meant by a
Jewish State and an Arab State except
for the fact that the Jewish state would
be
demographically the majority would be
Jewish and the Arab state
demographically would be
Arab the unscop the UN special committee
on
Palestine it was very clear and it was
re reiterated many times
that in recommending two
states each state the Arab State and the
Jewish state would have to guarantee
full equality of all
citizens with regard to political civil
and religious
matters now that does raise the question
if there is
absolute full equality of all citizens
both in the Jewish state and the Arab
state with regard to political rights
civil rights and religious rights apart
from the demographic
majority it's very unclear what it meant
to call a state Jewish or call the state
Arab in my view the partition
resolution was the correct
decision I do not believe that the Arab
and Jewish communities could at that
point be made to live together I
disagree with the minority position of
India Iran and
Yugoslavia and that not being a
practical option two states was the only
other
option in this regard I would want to
pay tribute to what was probably the
most moving speech at the UN General
Assembly
proceedings by the Soviet foreign
minister
gromo I was very
tempted to quote it at length but I
recognized that would be uh taking too
much
time uh so I asked a young friend Jamie
Stern Wier to edit it and just get the
essence of what foreign minister gromo
had to say
during the last war gromo said the
Jewish people
underwent exceptional sorrow and
suffering without any
exaggeration this sorrow and suffering
are
Indescribable hundreds of thousands of
Jews are wandering about in various
countries of Europe in search of means
of existence and in search of
shelter the United Nations cannot and
must not regard this situation with
indifference past
experience particularly during the
second world war shows that no Western
European state was able to provide
adequate assistance for the Jewish
people in defending its rights and its
very existence from the violence of the
Hitler ites and their
allies this is an unpleasant fact but
unfortunately like all other facts it
must be
admitted gromo went on to say in
principle he supports one state or the
Soviet Union supports one state but he
said if relations between the Jewish and
Arab populations of
Palestine proved to be so bad that would
be impossible to reconcile them and to
ensure the peaceful coexistence of the
Arabs and the Jews the Soviet Union
would
support two
states I
personally am not
convinced that the two states would have
been unsustainable in the long
term if and this is a big if the Zionist
movement had been faithful to the
position it proclaimed during the unscop
public
hearings at the time benorian
testified quote I want to express what
we mean by a Jewish state we mean by a
Jewish State simply a state where the
majority of the people are
Jews not a state where a Jew has in any
way any privilege more than anyone
else a Jewish State means a state based
on absolute equality of all her citizens
and on
Democracy alas the this was not to
be as Professor Mars has
written quote Zionist ideology and
practice were
necessarily and
elementally
expansionist and then he wrote in
another
book
transfer the euphemism for
exposion transfer was
inevitable and inbuilt
into
Zionism because it sought to transform a
land which was Arab into a Jewish State
and a Jewish State could not have Arisen
without a major displacement of Arab
population and because this aim
automatically produced resistance among
the
Arabs which in turn persuade the
yeshua's leaders the yeshu being the
Jewish Community the yeshua's leaders
that a hostile Arab majority or large
minority could not remain in place if a
Jewish state was to arise or safely
endure or as Professor Mars
retrospectively Put it
quote a removing of a
population was
needed without a population
exposion a Jewish state would not have
been
established
unquote the Arab site rejected outright
the partition resolution I won't play
games with that I know a lot of people
try to prove it's not true it clearly in
my view is true the Arab side rejected
outright the partition
resolution while Israel early
leaders acting under
compulsions
inevitable and
inbuilt into
Zionism found the pretext in the course
of the first Arab Israeli War to expel
the indigenous
population and expand its
borders I therefore
conclude that neither side was committed
to the letter of the partition
resolution and both sides aborted it
thank you Norm nor asked that you make a
lengthy statement in the beginning uh
Benny I hope it's okay to call Everybody
by their first name in the name of
camaraderie Norm has quoted several
things you said uh perhaps you can
comment broadly on the question of 1948
and maybe respond to the things that
Norm said yeah unscop the United Nations
special committee on Palestine um
recommended partition the majority of
uncope recommended partition which was
accepted by the UN General Assembly in
November
1947 essentially looking back to the
peel Commission in 1937 10 years earlier
a British commission had looked at the
problem of Palestine the two Waring
National groups who refus to live
together if you like or
um consolidate a a unitary state state
between them and and Peele said there
should be two states that's the
principle The Country Must Be
partitioned into two states this would
give a modicum of Justice to both sides
if not all their demands of course um
and the United Nations followed suit the
United Nations unop and then the UN
General Assembly representing the will
of the International Community um said
two states is the just solution in this
complex situation the problem was that
immediately with the passage of the
resolution the Arabs the Arab states and
the Arabs of Palestine said no as Norman
frl Stein said they said no they
rejected the partition idea the
principle of partition not just the idea
of what percentage which side should get
but the principle of partition they said
no to the Jews should not have any part
of Palestine for their Sovereign
territory maybe Jews could live as a
minority in Palestine that also was
problematic in the eyes of the the
Palestinian Arab leadership husseini had
said only Jews who were there before
1917 could actually get citizenship and
continue to live there but the Arabs
rejected partition and the Arabs of
Palestine launched in very disorganized
fashion war against the resolution
against the implementation of the
resolution against the Jewish community
in Palestine um and this was their
defeat in that civil war between the two
communities while the British were
withdrawing from Palestine um
led to the Arab Invasion the The
Invasion by the Arab states in May
1948 of of the country again basically
with the idea of eradicating or
preventing the emergence of a Jewish
state in line with the United Nations um
decision and the will of the
International
Community Norman said that the Zionist
Enterprise and he quoted me meant from
the beginning um to transfer or expel
the Arabs of Palestine or some of the
Arabs of Palestine um and I think he's
sort of um quoting out of context the
context in which the statements were
made that that um the Jewish State could
only emerge um if there was a transfer
of Arab population was preceded in the
way I wrote it and the way it actually
happened by Arab resistance and
hostilities towards the Jewish Community
had the Arabs accepted partition there
would have been a large Arab minority in
the Jewish state which emerged in
447 and in fact Jewish um economists and
state Builders took into account that
there would be a large Arab minority and
its needs would be cared for ETC um but
this was not to be because the Arabs
attacked and had they not attacked um
perhaps a a a Jewish state with a large
Arab minority could have emerged but
this didn't happen they went to war the
Jews resisted and in the course of that
war um Arab populations were driven out
some were expelled some left because
Arab leaders advised them to leave or
ordered them to leave and at the end of
the war Israel said they can't return
because they just tried to destroy the
Jewish State um and and that's the basic
reality of what happened in 48 the Jews
created a state the Palestinian Arabs
never bothered to even try to create a
state a before 48 and in the course of
the 1948 war and for that reason they
have no state to this day the Jews do
have a state because they prepared to
establish a state fought for it and um
established it um hopefully lastingly
when you said hostility in case people
are not familiar there was a fullon war
where Arab States
invaded and Israel won that war let me
just add to clarify the the war had two
parts to it the first part was the Arab
community in Palestine its militia men
attacked the Jews um a from November
1947 in other words from the day after
the UN partition resolution it was
passed Arab gunmen were busy shooting up
Jews and that snowballed into a
fullscale civil war between the two
communities in Palestine in May 1948 a
second stage began in the war in which
the Arab States invaded the new state
attacked the new state um and and they
too were defeated and thus in the state
of Israel emerged in the course of this
two-stage War a a vast Palestinian
refugee problem um um occurred and so
after that the transfer the expulsion
the the thing that people call the
nakba uh happened um will could you
speak to 1948 and the historical
significance of it sure um there's
there's a lot to unpack here I'll try to
limit myself to just a few points
regarding Zionism and transfer I think
himim whitesman uh the head of the world
Zionist organization had it exactly
right when he said that the objective of
Zionism is to make Palestine as Jewish
as England is English or France is
French um in other words um as as Norman
explains
um a Jewish
State requires
Jewish political demographic and
territorial Supremacy without those
three elements um the state would be
Jewish in name only and I think what
distinguishes Zionism is its
insistence Supremacy and
exclusivity that would be my first point
second point is um I think what the
Soviet foreign minister at the time
Andre gromo said is exactly right with
one
reservation um gomo was describing a
European savagery Unleashed against
Europe's Jews at the time you know it
wasn't Palestinians or Arabs uh the
Savages and The Barbarians were European
to the
core um it had nothing to do with
development
in Palestine um uh or the Middle
East secondly at the time that groma was
speaking um those Jewish uh survivors of
the Holocaust and and others who were in
need of Safe Haven were still
overwhelmingly on the European continent
and not on Palestine not in Palestine
and I think
um given um the scale of the savagery I
don't think that any one state or
country um should have borne the
responsibility uh for addressing this
crisis I think it should have been an
international uh
responsibility um the Soviet Union could
have contributed Germany certainly could
and should have uh contributed um the
United Kingdom and the United States uh
which slammed their doors shut to um uh
the persecuted Jews of Europe as the
Nazis were rising to power they
certainly should have uh played a role
but instead what passed for the
International Community at the time
decided to partition Palestine and here
I think we need to um uh judge the
partition resolution against the
realities that obtained at the
time um two 2third of the population of
Palestine was
Arab uh the yeshu the Jewish community
in Palestine constituted about onethird
of the total population and controlled
even less of um of of the land uh within
Palestine as as a preeminent Palestinian
historian uh W Al khi has pointed out
the partition resolution in giving
roughly
55% of Palestine to the Jewish
Community um and I I think 41
42% uh to the Arab Community to the
Palestinians did not preserve the
position of each Community or even um uh
favor one community at the expense of
the others rather it thoroughly inverted
and
revolutionized uh the relationship uh
between between the two communities and
as many have written the the neba was
the
inevitable consequence of partition
given the nature of Zionism um given the
territorial disposition given the
weakness of the Palestinian Community
whose leadership had been largely de uh
decimated during a major Revolt at the
end of the
1930s um given that the Arab states uh
were still very much under French and
British
influence um uh the neba was was um
inevitable the inevitable product of the
um partition uh resolution and and one
last point also about um the the un's
partition resolution is yes um formally
that is what the International Community
decided in on the 29th of November
1947 it's not a resolution that could
ever have gotten through the UN General
Assembly today for a very simple reason
it was a very different General Assembly
most African most Asian States um were
not yet
independent um were the resolution to be
placed before the International
Community today and I find it telling
that um uh the minority opinion was led
by India Iran and Yugoslavia I think
they would have represented the clear um
uh majority so
partition given what we know about
Zionism given that it was was entirely
predictable what would happen given um
uh the realities on the ground in
Palestine um was deeply unjust and the
idea that either the Palestinians or the
Arab states could have accepted um such
a resolution is is I think um uh an
illusion that was in
1947 we saw what happened in 48 and
49 Palestinian Society was essentially
um uh destroyed over 80% I believe of
Palestinians resident in the territory
that became the state of Israel were
either expelled or fled uh and
ultimately were ethnically cleansed
because ethnic cleansing consists of two
components it's not just forcing people
into Refuge or expelling them it's just
as importantly preventing their return
and here and and and beny Morris has
written I think an article about ysph
vites and the transfer committees um
there was a very detailed initiative to
prevent their return and it consisted of
raising hundreds of Palestinian villages
to the ground which was systematically
implemented and so on and so
Palestinians became a stateless people
now um what is the most important reason
that no Arab state was established um in
Palestine well since the
1930s um the Zionist
leadership and um the hashm might um uh
leadership of uh Jordan as has been uh
thoroughly researched and written about
by the Israeli British historian aiim
essentially
colluded um to prevent the establishment
of an independent Arab State um in
Palestine uh in the late
1940s um there's there's much more here
but I think um those those are the key
points I I would make about uh
1948 we may talk about Zionism Britain y
assemblies and all all the things you
mentioned there's a lot to dig into so
again if you can keep it to just one
statement moving forward after Sten if
you want to go a little longer uh also
we should acknowledge the fact that the
speaking speeds of of people here are
different Stephen speaks about 10 times
faster uh than me uh Stephen do you want
to comment on 1948 yeah I think it's
interesting where people choose to start
the history um I noticed a lot of people
like to start at either 47 or 48 because
it's the first time where they can
clearly point to a catastrophe that
occurs on the Arab side that they want
to ascribe 100% of the blame to the
newly emergent Israeli state to uh but 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 um
whenever people are talking about 48 or
the establishment of the Arab State uh I
never hear about uh the fact that a
Civil War started in 47 uh that was
largely instigated because of the Arab
rejectionism of the 47 partition plan uh
I never hear about the fact that the
majority of the land that was acquired
happened by purchases from Jewish
organizations of uh Palestinian Arabs of
the Ottoman Empire before the mandatory
period in 1920 even started um funnily
enough King Abdullah of Jordan uh was
quoted as saying the Arabs are as
prodical in selling their land as they
are in Weeping about it uh I never hear
about the multiple times that Arabs
rejected partition uh rejected living
with Jews um rejected any sort of state
that would have even uh 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 land at all as though a 30%
partition or 25% partition would have
been accepted when I don't think that
was the reality of the circumstances I
feel like most of the other stuff has
been said but I I I noticed that um
whenever people talk about 48 or the
years preceding 48 um I think the worst
thing that happens is there's a there's
a cherry picking of the facts where
basically all of the blame is ascribed
to this uh this built-in idea of Zionism
that because of a handful of quotes or
because of an ideology we can say that
transfer or population exposion or the
the 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 and 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
uh because of their refusal to negotiate
on anything else whether it was the
partition plan in 47 whether it was the
uh the Lucan 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 I 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 the
professor
okay there's a real problem here and
it's been the problem I've had over many
years of reading your work apart perhaps
from as grandchild I suspect nobody
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
quicksilver you very hard to
grasp a point and hold you to it so
we're going to try here to to see
whether we can hold you to a point and
then you argue with me the point I have
no problem with
that
uh your name please Sten banel okay Mr
banel 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 before 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 by you okay and you were taken to
task of my memories correct that you
hadn't adequately documented the claims
of transfer let me allow me to finish
and I thought that was a reasonable
challenge because it was an unusual
usual claim for a mainstream Israeli
historian to say as you did in that
first book that from the very beginning
transfer figured prominently in Zionist
thinking that wasn't unusual if you read
Anita shapira shapira you read chapai
heit that was an unusual acknowledgement
by 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 fact
you used a very
provocative and resonant
phrase you said that transfer was
inevitable and
inbuilt into Zionism we're not talking
about circumstantial factors a war Arab
hostility you said it's
inevitable and inbuilt into
Zionism 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 cite several quotes but I'll
choose one you said removing a
population was
needed let's look at the words without a
population
exposion a Jewish state
would not have been
established now you were the one again I
was very surprised when I read your book
here I'm referring to righteous victims
I was very surprised when I came to that
page
37 where you wrote that territorial
displacement and
dispossession was the CH Chief motor
of Arab resistance to
Zionism territorial displacement and
dispossession were the chief motor of
Arab resistance Des
Zionism so you then went on to say
because the Arab
population rationally
feared territorial displacement and
dispossession it of course opposed
Zionism that say normal as Native
Americans opposing the
euroamerican Manifest Destiny in the
history of our own country because they
understood it would be at their
expense it was inbuilt and
inevitable and so now for you to come
along and say that it all happened just
because of the
war that otherwise the zionists 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 uh indigenous
population that's another kind of
argument that was Theodore Roosevelt's
argument in our own country he said we
don't want the whole of North America to
remain a
squalid refuge for these wigwams and
teps we have to get rid of them and make
this a great
country but he didn't
deny that it was inbuilt and inevitable
I think you've made your point first
I'll take up something that mu said he
said that the nakba was
inevitable as have you and predictable
no no no I I've 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 there 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 Norman said that I said that
transfer was inbuilt into Zionism in one
way or another and this is certainly
true in order to buy land they had the
Jews bought tracts of land on which some
Arabs sometimes lived sometimes they
bought tracts of land on which they
weren't Arab Villages but sometimes they
bought land on which they were Arabs and
according to ottoman law and the British
at least in the initial a year years of
the 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
automon period or the Mandate period but
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
if you like an inevitability in Zionist
ideology of buying tracts of land and
starting to work at 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 47 48 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 their mistakes they
make mistakes they attack they suffer as
a a result and we see something similar
going on today in GA in the Gaza Strip
they do something terrible they kill
1200 Jews they abduct 250 women and
children and babies and um old people
and whatever and then they start
screaming please save us from what we
did because the Jews are
counterattacking and this is what
happened then and this is what's
happening now there's something fairly
similar in the situation here expulsion
and this is important Norman you should
pay attention to this you did raise that
expulsion transfer were never policy of
the Zionist movement before 47 it
doesn't exist in a Zionist platforms of
the various political parties of the
Zionist organization of the Israeli
state of the Jewish agency nobody would
have actually made it into policy
because it was always a large minority
if there were people who wanted it
always a large minority of Jewish
politicians and leaders would have said
no this is immoral 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
Boran 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 citizen 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 it's
true that in 1937 when the British as
part of the proposal by the peel
commission um to divide the country into
two states one Arab one Jewish which the
Arabs of course rejected a appeal 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 a
so Boran and whitesman latched onto this
proposal by the F most famous America
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 um 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
so just to clarify what you're saying is
that uh 40 7 was an offensive War not a
defensive War by the Arabs yes by the
Arabs yeah 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 um you're making you're making
the claim that transfer expulsion and so
on was was in fact a very
localized phenomenon result resulting
from individual land
purchases um and that if I understand
you correctly you're also making the
claim um that the idea that a Jewish
State requires a um removal or
overwhelming reduction of the non-jewish
population was if the Arabs are
attacking you yes but but that let's say
prior to
1947 it would be your claim um
that the idea that a significant
reduction or wholesale removal of the a
population was not part of of Zionist
thinking well I I think there's two
problems with that um I think what
you're saying about localized uh
disputes is correct but I also think
that um uh there is a whole
literature that demonstrates um that
transfer was envisioned by Zionist
leaders on a much broader scale than
simply individual land purchases in
other words it's it it went Way Beyond
we need to remove these tenants so that
we can form this land the idea was we
can't have a state where all these Arabs
remain and we have to get rid of them
and the second I think impediment to to
that view is that long before the UN
General Assembly convened um to address
the 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 a Jewish state but to
establish an
exclusivist uh Jewish State and that
transfer Force
displacement um uh was fundamental um uh
to that uh project and just respond to
um uh sorry was it bonell or with a B
yeah yeah um you made the point that um
uh the the problem here is that people
don't recognize is that the first and
last result for the Arabs is always War
I think there's a problem with that I
think um you might do well to recall um
the 1936 general strike conducted by
pales Ians um at the beginning of the
Revolt which at the time was the longest
recorded uh general strike in history um
you may want to consult um the book uh
published last year by Lori 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 um they're
consistently trying to persuade uh the
chief prosecutor of the international
criminal court to um do his job um they
have launched widespread uh boycott
campaigns so of course the Palestinians
have engaged in um uh 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 spurned
diplomacy I I think really has no basis
uh in reality I'll respond to that and
then a question for Norm to take into
account I think when he answers Benny
because I am curious obviously uh I have
fresher eyes on this and I'm a newcomer
to this Arena versus the three of you
guys for sure um 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 a state and Palestine they
knew that it would involve some Mass
transfer of population perhaps a mass
expulsion um I'm sure we'll talk about
plan Dall or Plan D 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 you
know a 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 is 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 explained that in
lcan couple years later that Israel was
willing to formally Annex the Gaza Strip
and make 200,000 or so people those
citizens but but I'm I'm just curious
how 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 and a little bit
before it where Israel would have
accepted a state that would have had a
massive Arab population in it is your
yeah is your idea that they would have
just slowly expelled them afterwards or
is that question to me or Norm either
one I'm just curious with the
incorporation of the answer yeah um
there is some misunderstandings here so
let's try to clarify that number
one it was the old historians who would
point to the fact in Professor Morris's
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
moris who contrary to Israel's historic
historian
establishment who said now you remind me
it's four pages but it came at the end
of the book it was no no it's at the
beginning of the book transfer yes
transfer is dealt with in four pages at
the beginning of my first book on the
palan refugee problem it's a fault of my
memory but the point still stands it was
Professor Maris who introduced this idea
in what you might call A way yeah but I
didn't say every the central to Des Des
experiment or experience you're saying
centrality I never said it was Central I
said it was there the idea 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 uh
it's also okay to say those quotes do
not reflect the cont of so like if we go
back if you know to quotes we've said in
the past and both here have written the
three of you have written on this topic
a lot is we should be careful and just
admit like well yeah well just well real
quick just to be clear that the
contention is that Norm is quoting a
part and saying that this was the entire
reason for this whereas Benny saying
it's a part of I'm not quoting a
part I'm quoting 25 Pages where
Professor moris 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 never
became part of policy
F 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 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 it was the British
mandate there was significant Arab
resistance to
Zionism and that resistance was based on
the fact as you said the Fe Fe of
territorial displacement and
dispossession so you couldn't 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 can that's not realistic
okay let me respond look you said you've
said it a number of times that um um the
Arabs from fairly early on in the be 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 um and Arabs later said and then
and since then have said that the Jews
want to build a third temple on the
Temple mount um as if that's what really
the the mainstream of Zionism has always
wanted and always strived for but this
is nonsense it's something that kusini
used to use as a way to mobilize
masses for the cause using religion as
as the way to get them to to join join
him um the fact that Arabs said that
they the Zionist want to dispossess us
doesn't mean it's true it just means
that there some Arabs thought that maybe
and maybe said it since and maybe
insincerely Professor Morris later it
became a self-fulfilling prophecy this
is true Arabs attacked the Jews
Professor Maris I read through your
stuff even yesterday I was looking
through righteous victim you should read
other things you're wasting your time no
no actually no I do read other things
but I don't consider it a waste of time
to read you not at
all um you say
that this wasn't inherent in Zionism now
would you all agree that Ben David
benorian was a
Zionist a z major Zionist right would
you agree Ken vitman 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 by the 1930s it was just pure raop
politic the IDE went out the window the
first generation I have no doubt about
their convictions okay they were
zionists transfer was inevitable and
inbu in Zionism you keep repeating the
same because I have as I said Benny Mr
moris 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
inevitable and inbuilt deeply entrenched
I never wrote I'm not sure it's
something you just invented but but in
inable and the idea let me concede let
me concede something the idea of
transfer was there Israel zangvil a
British Zionist talked about it early on
in the century even Herzel in some way
talked about transferring
according to your 25 Pages everybody
talked about on we keep bringing up this
line from the 25 pages and the four
pages uh you know we're lucky to have
Benny in front of us right now we don't
need to go to the quotes at like we can
legitimately ask how Central is
expulsion to
Zionism uh in its early version of
Zionism and what whatever Zionism is
today and how much power uh influence
the Zionism and ideology have in Israel
and like influence the Phil the
philosophy the ideology of Zionism have
on Israel today the Zionist movement up
to
1948 Zionist ideology was Central to the
the whole Zionist experience the whole
Enterprise up to 1948 and I think
Zionist ideology was also important um
in the first Decades of Israel's
existence um slowly the the the um hold
of Zionism like if you like like like
bolshevism held the Soviet Union
gradually faded and a lot of Israelis
today think in terms of individual
success and then the capitalism and all
all sorts of things which 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
a in in Eastern Europe and incidentally
in the Arab world the Muslim world for
centuries um and eventually ending up
with the Holocaust the 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 2,000
years ago Arafat famously said what
Temple was there on Temple Mount maybe
it was in Nablus which of course is
nonsense but but um they had a
connection strong connection for
thousands of years to the land to which
they wanted to return and returned 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 um um
Arab masses living on who were
indigenous in fact to The Land by that
stage um and 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 um
the zionists accepted okay we can we can
only get a small part of Palestine the
Arabs will get in 37 most of Palestine
in 1947 the the ratios were changed but
we can 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 by as policy but in
1947-48 the Arabs attacked trying to
destroy essentially the Jewish the
Zionist Enterprise and the emerging
Jewish State and a um the reaction was a
transfer in some way a not as policy but
this is what happened on the battlefield
and this is also what Boran at some
point began to want as well right well
you know one of the first um books on
this issue uh I read uh when I was still
in high school because my my late father
had it was a Diaries of Theodore
Herzel and I think you know Theodore
Herzel of course was was the founder of
of the Contemporary Zionist movement and
I think if you read that it's very clear
for Herzel the model upon which the
Zionist movement would uh would proceed
his model was Cil Ro roads has um I
think you know roads from what I recall
correct me if I'm wrong has quite a
prominent place in uh herzl's Diaries I
think Herzel was also corresponding uh
with him and seeking his support cesil
rhods of course was um uh was the uh
British um colonialist after whom the
former white minori regime in uh in
rudia uh was named and Herzel also says
explicitly in his diaries that it is
essential um to remove uh the existing
population from Palestine can I respond
to this in a moment please he says we
shall have to spear the penniless
population across the borders and
procure employment for them elsewhere or
something and Israel zil 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 um I'll continue but but please
go just to this there is one small diary
entry in herz's vast volumes yeah five
volumes there's one paragraph which
actually mentions the idea of transfer
there are people who I think that Herzel
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 a buy out or buy off
or Spirit the the penniless natives um
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 it has only a one 100th
of a 1% of the Diary which is devoted to
the subject it's not a central idea in
Herzel in herz's thinking the what
Herzel wanted and this is what's
important not RADS I don't think he was
the model Herzel wanted to create a
liberal Democratic Western State
in Palestine for the Jews that's that
was the idea not some Imperial
Enterprise serving some Imperial Master
which is what rhs was about but to have
a Jewish state which was modeled on the
western democracies in in Palestine and
this incidentally was more or less what
whitesman and Boran Boran wanted they
Boran was more of a socialist whitesman
was more of a liberal a um Westerner but
they wanted to establish a Social
Democratic or liberal state in Palestine
and 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 benguan strive 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 that would be necessary but
it's not something which they were
willing to translate into actual policy
uh just a quick pause to mention that
for people who are not familiar The
Herzel we're talking about a century ago
and everything we've been talking about
has been mostly 1948 and before yes just
one clarification on herzl's Diaries I
mean the other thing that I recall from
those Diaries is he was um he was very
preoccupied with in fact getting great
power patronage seeing Palestine um the
Jewish state in Palestine I think his
words an outpost of civilization against
barbarism yes in other words very much
um seeing his project as a prox as a
proxy for Western imperialism in the
Middle East right word 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 Powers
including including the ottoman Sultan
he tried to cultivate I just want to
respond to a point you made earlier
which was that people expressed their
rejection of the partition
resolution um on the grounds that it
gave the majority of the of Palestine to
the Jewish Community which formed only a
third um whereas in fact uh if I
understood you correctly you're saying
the Palestinians and the Arabs would
have rejected any partition resolution
yeah I think a couple things that one
they would have rejected any two a lot
of that land given was in the nigab it
was pretty terrible land at the time and
three the land that would have been
partitioned to Jews I think would have
been um I think I saw it was like
500,000 ER would have been 500,000 Jews
400,000 Arabs and I think like 80,000
bedwin would have been there so the the
state would have been I think you raised
a valid point um because I think the
Palestinians did reject the partition of
their Homeland in principle and I think
the fact that um the United Nations
General Assembly then awarded the
majority of their Homeland um uh to the
Zionist movement only added insult to
injury I mean uh um uh one doesn't have
to sympathize with the
Palestinians um 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 um the
issue was not the existence of Jews in
Palestine um they had been there for
centuries and of course they had ties to
Palestine and particularly to Jerusalem
and and other places going back
centuries if not Millennia um but the
idea of establishing an
exclusively Jewish State at the expense
of those who are 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
the addition and the remaining 22% was
occupied in
1967 that's that's not how things work
yeah um and I can I can imagine I can
imagine an 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 sure so I like this answer
more than what I usually feel like I'm
hearing when it comes to the Palestinian
rejection of the 47 partition plan
because sometimes I feel like a weird
switch happens to where the Arabs in the
area are actually presented as entirely
pragmatic people who are simply doing a
calculation and saying like well we're
losing 55% of our land Jews are only
maybe onethird of the people here and
we've got 45 and N 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 yeah
ideologically driven that that they as a
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 a govern that last point
is actually not correct because for all
its
Injustice um the mandate system
recognized Palestine as a class a
mandate which provisionally recognized
the
independence of of that territory of
what would emerge from that territory
but not thees it was provisionally
recognized but not but the the territory
itself was but not of the Palestinian
people to have a right or a guaranteed
to a government that was a British
Mandate of Palestine not the British
Mandate of Israel the word exclusive
which you keep using is nonsense the
state which benan envisioned would be a
Jewish majority State as they accepted
the 1947 partition
resolution as Steven 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
were 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 it 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 bational
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 not more than
for the Arabs I would say for the Jews
it's the Jewish I would also real quick
I just want for both of you guys because
I haven't heard these questions answered
I really want these questions to be I'm
just so curious how to make sense of
them um it was correctly brought up that
I believe that benan had um I think
Schmo benam describes it as an obsession
with getting validation or support from
Western States um Great Britain and then
a couple decades later explains the su's
war the's crisis exactly correct that
was one of the major motivators the idea
to work with Britain and France on a
military
operation but then the question again I
go back to if that is true if beneran if
the early uh 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
would not have been how not well first
of all I think that that the Zionist
leadership's
acceptance of um the partition
resolution um and and I think you may
written about this that they accepted it
because it provided International
endorsement of the the legitimacy of the
principle of Jewish statehood and they
didn't accept the borders um and in fact
uh later expanded the borders second of
all the borders the borders they
accepted the UN partition resolution
borders and all they you can say that
some of the zionists deep in their
hearts had the the idea that maybe incl
to including their most senior leaders
who said so and I think you've quoted
them they grudgingly accepted what the
United Nation the world Community had
said this is what you're going to get
and and second of all I mean removing
dark people darker people it's dark it's
inic are as dark as Arabs it's intrinsic
to Western history so the idea that
Americans or Brits or the French would
have an issue with I mean French had
been doing it in Algeria for decades the
Americans have been doing it in North
America for centuries so how would
Israel forcibly displacing um
Palestinians somehow besmer um uh Israel
in the eyes of the West even in the
1944 resolution of the labor party and
at the time even Bertrand Russell was a
member of the labor party it endorsed
transfer of Arabs out of Palestine as m
pointed out that was a deeply entrenched
idea in Western thinking that there was
nothing uh it doesn't in any way
contradict or violate or breach any
moral values to displace uh the
Palestinian population now I do believe
there's a legitimate
question had it been the case as you
said Professor Mars 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
nonwhites will become the majority
population in our United States quite
soon and according to democratic
principles we have to accept that so if
that were the
case I would say maybe there's an
argument that had there been Mass Jew
Jewish immigration changed the
demographic balance in Palestine and
therefore uh Jews became the majority
you 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 doctrinal
dissertation on Zionism and I don't want
to get now bogged down in abstract ideas
but 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 political
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 Jew 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 we don't want to become citizens
and just become a Jewish people in
England or friends we want our own State
like like the arab3 states no wait let's
before we get to the Arabs let's get
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
sufferance and at worst gets expelled
that's the logic of the German romantic
Zionist idea of a state that's why
they're
zionists
now I personally have shied away from
using the word Zionism ever since I
finished my doctoral dissertation
because
painful because as I said I don't
believe it's the operative ideology
today it's like talking about bism and
referring to Kush I doubt Kush could
have spelled
bik but for the period we're talking
about they were
zionists they were committed to their
exclusive state with 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 vitman and they wanted to live
peacefully with the Arabs vitman
described the exposion 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 let me just respond to the
word unsuffer the unsuffer 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 no I we
talking about what remained in Palestine
Israel after it was created um the 20%
who lived in Israel received citizenship
and all the rights of Israelis except of
course the right to serve in the Army
which they didn't want to um and they
have Supreme Court justices they have
knesset members they enjoy basically
under laws until 1966 for period sure
they lived under they didn't
immed no no wait a second 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 um but in the first years the
Israeli 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 um 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
the you say Professor Morris then why
did you say without a population
exposion a Jewish state would not have
been established because the you're
missing the first section of that
paragraph was they were being assaulted
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 nor I'm officially forbidding you
referencing that
again hold on a second wait uh we
responded to it so the the main point
you're making we have to take B's word
is like there was uh a war and that's
the reason why he made that statement I
think just one last point on this I I
remember reading your book when it first
came out and and and reading you know
one incident after the other and and one
example after the other and then getting
to the conclusion where you said um uh
the nakba was a product of War not
design I think re ex and I remember
reacting almost in in in 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 uh
reflects let's say the dissonance uh
between the evidence and the conclusion
you don't feel that that the um uh the
research that you have conducted and
published demonstrates that it was in
fact um inherent and inbuilt and
inevitable um and I think the point that
Norman I are making is is that you're
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 yeah can I actually
respond to that because this is actually
uh I think this is emblematic of the
entire conversation um I watched a lot
of norms interviews uh and conversations
in 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 Point
you're trying to push the idea that Jews
would have out of hand rejected any
state that had Arabs on it or always had
a plan of exposion is just betrayed by
the acceptance of the 47 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 Mars 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 the bational idea in
mandatory Palestine by a woman I forgot
her name now you'll remember her I'm
trying to yeah okay but you know the
book I think so yeah she is the only one
who tried to persuasively argue that the
Zionist movement was actually not
formally actually committed to the
bational idea but most historians of the
subject agree the Zionist movement was
committed to the idea of a Jewish State
having written by doctoral dissertation
on the topic I was confirmed in that
idea because Professor chsky who was my
closest friend for about 40 years was
very committed to the idea that b
nationalism was the dominant Trend in
Zionism I could not agree with I
couldn't go with him there but Professor
moris you are aware that until the
builtmore 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's also
separately what you say in public the
Zionist movement couldn't say in public
we're expelling 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 that
the The zionists Wanted a Jewish State
correct that didn't mean expulsion of
the Arabs it'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 transfer a large Arab minor
there was a trans 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 Arab and they ended
up for about 5 minutes before they were
expelled they agreed to end up till 47
and then they were gone by March 1949
what happened in between the rejection
of the partition plan and the expulsion
of the Arabs the Arabs launched the war
well yeah I mean like it's not it wasn't
random like there's a potential that
agree it wasn't random I totally agree
with that it was by Design youand you
can say that but in this case the facts
betray you there was no Arab acceptance
of anything that would have allowed for
a Jewish state to exist number 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 explosion 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 reinforce the
idea that the Jewish people in this case
couldn't have a state there could have
been a transfer regardless anything
could have been that's not what history
is about history is about Palestinian
rection is to any peace deal over over I
said when the ball was thrown into the
court of the United Nations they were
faced with a practical problem and I for
one am 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
202 now okay but 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 would
voluntarily seed its country all that
sold voluntarily you can perfectly
understand native American resistance to
Euro colonialism you can perfectly well
understanded without any
anti-europeanism anti-h ism anti-
christianism they didn't want to seed
their country to Invaders that's
completely understandable you're
minimizing the anti-semitic element you
minim in Arab Nation all your books you
minimized no no no the husseini was an
anti-site the leader of the Palestinian
national movement in the 30s and 40s was
an anti-site this was one of the things
which drove him and also drove him in
the end to work in Berlin for Hitler for
four years with Nazi giving Nazi
propaganda to the Arab world calling on
the Arabs to murder the Jews that'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 why is it have 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 though I didn't
say it doesn't exist you agree that it
exists hey I don't know a single non-jew
who doesn't Harbor anti-semitic talking
about Arabs now yeah but I don't know
anybody that's just part of the human
condition
anti-Semitism among the Arabs so
Professor Mars here's my
problem I didn't see that in your
righteous victims even when you talked
about the first in father and you talked
about the second into F and you talked
about how there was a lot of influence
by Hamas the Islamic movement you even
stated that there was 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 yeah
but you're moving from different I'm
notes across the ages talk about your
whole book The began the one talking
about I looked and looked and looked for
evidence of this anti-Semitism as being
a chief motor of Arab resistance to P
Zionism I didn't see it you like did he
make that claim I don't remember the
word Chief it's it's one of the element
very
binary yes binary please don't give me
this postmodernism binary you're the one
you are thinking in terms of you're the
one that said
the do you have your book here talk
about 137 talk in black and white you're
talking in black and white Concepts when
history is much grayer lots of things
happen because of lots of reasons not
one or the other and and you don't you
don't seem to see that can I ask to
because it's for them to talk to to very
quick question what was what do you
think the ideal solution was on the Arab
side from 47 what would they have
preferred and what would happened and
then 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
Jewish population I think the the
Palestinians and the Arabs uh were
explicit that they wanted a unitary I
think Federal uh State and and they made
their submissions to uh
unscop uh they made their um uh 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
simply the word unitary federal they
wanted Palestine Arab an exclusively
Arab State no wasn't an no 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 um
Palestinian and Arab attitudes to um
Jewish existence in Palestine there's a
fundamental difference the leader of the
movement said that all the Jews who had
come since 1917 and that's the majority
of the Jews in Palestine
1947 shouldn't be there they shouldn't
be citizens and they shouldn't be
there4 I'm not also it's true I can
understand the sentiment but I think
it's wrong but also you you we agree on
I also you guys you used the words
earlier that it was Supremacy and
exclusivity that the Zion I want to
answer your question um as you husseini
did say that and I'm sure there was a
very substantial uh body of Palestinian
Arab public opinion that endorsed that
um but by the same token I think um uh
unitary Arab State as you call it or a
Palestinian State could have been
established with arrangements with
guarantees um to ensure the security and
rights of of both communities how that
would work in detail had had been um uh
discussed and proposed but never uh
resolved
and again I think you know Jewish fears
about what would have second Holocaust
that's what we no I I think that was the
Jewish fear a second Holocaust that that
may well have been the Jewish fear it
was an unfounded uh Jewish fear it was
unfounded of course it was unfounded
what about like in 48 and you really
think you really think that the
Palestinians had they won the war were
going to import ovens and crematoria
from Germany but there were programs
across in almost every single Arab state
where there were Jews living after after
48 after 56 after 67 there were always
progrms there were always flights from
Jews from those countries to Israel
afterward I think I wouldn't I wouldn't
say there were always pograms in every
Arab State I think there was flight of
of um uh 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
um uh the Arab Israel conflict the issue
of of Algerian Jews was that the French
gave them citizenship during their
colonial rule of Algeria and they
increasingly became identified uh with
French rule and when Algeria became
independent and um all the French um
ended up uh uh leaving out of fear or
out of disappointment or out of whatever
um the Jews were identified as French
rather than Algerian this is a bit of a
red hairing there were programs in the
Arab countries in bahin even where
there's almost no Jews there was a prog
in 1947 there was a pram Aleppo in 1947
I'm not denying any of that history
killings of Jews in Iraq and Egypt in
49 so but 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
am Amid Amid which they had lived for
hundreds of years no longer want look
without without getting into the details
I think we can both agree that
ultimately a clear majority of Arab Jews
who believed that after having lived in
these countries for for centuries for
centuries for centuries for centuries
for centuries if not Millennia um came
to the unfortunate conclusion that their
situation had become untenable yes um I
also think um that we can both agree
that this had never been an issue prior
to Zionism and the emergence of the
state of isra prior to Zionism GRS
didn't begin with Zionism in the Arab
world the issue is is is 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 untable meant there was no
alternative but with the creation of
Israel there was an alternative right a
place where they could go and not be
discriminated against or live as second
class citizens or be subject to Arab
majority States I I also think it's
interesting that like when you analyze
the um the flight of Jewish people and
I've seen this that there it's not it
wasn't just I agree with you it wasn't
just a mass exposion from all the Arab
states there were definitely push
factors there were also pull factors now
I don't know how you guys feel about the
knba but when the analysis the nakba
comes in again it's back to that well
that was actually just a top- down
exposion um you know the retreat of
wealthy Arab people in the 30s didn't
matter uh 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 um again it's like that
I feel like it's a SEL a stive critical
analis the term Jewish here because it
wasn't the you know the Jews of England
or the Soviet say jewi because prior to
48 say Israeli you I think we should I
think it's useful to to say um referred
to zionists before 1948 and Israelis
after 48 we don't need to implicate um
well sure but
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 uh
schlomo bami's 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 immigration
if you allow me let me just quote him
Israel is particularly fond of the
awkwardly full FSE 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 UNP
populations unquote and then Mr benami
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
envoys from the mosad 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 immigrating to Israel was the
culmination 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 it's that's one area Professor
Maris I 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 194 48
in the Arab countries and which caused
the Jews to leave Arab Jews the Arab
Jews right uh
but uh shomo benami knows the literature
he knows the scholarship he's a his yeah
from morocc right so he knows from Iraq
was written on this issue and they wrote
that the Jews and the Arab lands were
not pro zionists they weren't zionists
at all certainly ai's family was anti
and AI schlim when he was interviewed by
Marin Rapaport 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 that's probably the right
phrase they were pushed I think it's
more complex than than that I think it
was sorry I interrupted you no you're
not interrupting me because I don't I 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 an uh Hebrew
literature I don't know but I was
surprised that even schomo benami a
stward of his state fair enough on this
particular point he called it false
symmetry no no step is right there was a
pull and push mechanism in the departure
of the Jews from the Arab lands post 48
but there was also a lot of push a lot
of push that's that's indisputable there
was p and on the point of agreement let
on this one brief light of agreement let
us wrap up with this uh topic of history
and move on to modern day but before
that I'm wondering if uh we can just say
a couple of last words on this topic
Stephen yeah I think that when you look
at the behaviors of both parties uh in
in the time period around 48 or
especially 48 and earlier um 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
I guess that appeared in herz's mind
that there would be a mass violent
population transfer of Arab Palestinians
out of what would become the Israeli
State uh I 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 uh within
what would be become their state borders
their nation borders uh I just don't
think that the historical record agrees
with the idea that Zionist would have
just never been okay living alongside
Arab Palestinians uh 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 I think it was said
even on the other end of the table that
uh Arab Palestinians 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 uh we can find that in
Diary entries but we can find that
expressed in 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 um
it would have been the dispossession of
many Jewish people it probably would
have been the exposion of a lot of them
back to Europe and 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 um I think mu 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 um this is
slightly distorting the reality the
Arabs in the
1930s did their utmost to prevent Jewish
IM 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 so 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 to anywhere and they
couldn't get to Palestine because the
Arabs were busy attacking Jews in
Palestine and attacking the British to
make sure they didn't allow Jews to
reach this 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 husseini um worked for the Nazis
in the 1940s he got a salary from the
German foreign Ministry he 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 he did and the Arabs
since then have been trying to whitewash
Hussein's role um and not saying he was
the instigator of the Holocaust but he
did he helped helped the Arab the
Germans along in in doing what they were
doing and and supported them in doing
that so there this can't be removed from
the fact that the Arabs um as you say
paid a price for the Holocaust but they
also participated in various ways in
helping it
happen right I'll make two points um the
first is um you mentioned ha husseini
and his uh collaboration with the
Nazis entirely legitimate point to raise
but I think one can also say
definitively had Haj am Al husseini
never existed the Holocaust would have
played out precisely certainly um as it
did certainly as far as um Palestinian
opposition to Jewish immigration to
Palestine um during the 1930s is
concerned it was of a different
character than for example British and
American um rejection of uh Jewish
immigration they just didn't want Jews
on their soil objectively it helped the
Germans kill the Jews and 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 um the other point I
wanted to make is we've we've spent the
past several hours talking about uh uh
Zionism transfer and so on but I think
there's a more fundamental aspect to
this which is that um Zionism I think
would have emerged and disappeared as
yet one more utopian political project
had it not been for the British um what
the preeminent Palestinian historian wi
khedi um has turned the British Shield
because I think without the British
sponsorship we wouldn't be having this
discussion today um the British um uh
sponsored Zionism for a very simple
reason which is that during World War I
uh the ottoman armies attempted to march
on the Suz uh Canal Suz Canal was the
jugular vein of uh the British Empire um
you know between uh Europe and India
and the British came to the conclusion
that they needed to secure the suas
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
you bring in a uh foreign minority
implant them amongst a hostile uh
population and establish a protectorate
over them I don't think um a Jewish
state in Palestine had been part of br
intentions and the bfor Declaration very
specifically speaks about a Jewish
National home in Palestine in other
words a British protectorate um things
ended up taking a different
course um and I think the the the most
important development was uh 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 uh during that war and its
inability to sustain um its Global uh
Empire it ended up giving up India ended
up giving up uh Palestine and it's in
that context I think that we need to see
um uh the emergence of a uh of a Jewish
state in Palestine and again a Jewish
State means a state in which the Jewish
Community enjoys um not only a
demographic majority but an uncontested
able demographic majority an
uncontestable territorial uh hemony and
an
uncontestable political Supremacy and
that is also why after 1948 the nent
Israeli States confiscated I believe up
to
90% of uh lands that had been previously
owned um 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 um it is why the Israeli State
effectively um reduced uh 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 um uh nationalist movements and
that's why today there's a consensus
among all major human rights
organizations that Israel is an
apartheid state what the Israeli human
rights organization bet selum describes
a regime of Jewish Supremacy between the
river and the Sea you're you're really
tempting a response from the other side
on on the last few
sentences okay we'll talk about the
claims of of apartheid and so on it's a
fascinating discussion we need to have
it uh nor on the question of the
responsibility of the Palestinian Arabs
for the Nazi holus direct or indirect I
consider that an absurd
claim uh as Gro said and I quoted him
the entire Western World turned its back
on the Jews
to
somehow focus on the Palestinians
strikes me as completely
ridiculous number two as M
said there's a perfectly understandable
reason why Palestinian Arabs wouldn't
want Jews because in their minds and not
irrationally these Jews intended to
create a Jewish state which would quite
likely have resulted in their exposion
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 uh
complicity of the Palestinian Arabs if
you look at uh rul hilberg's three volum
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 Muti of
Jerusalem and 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 YouTube to turn up
the speed twice to three times whenever
I'm on one 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 our
kival
sources who
seems 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 resend
what they' have 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 the Zionist
movement began way before the British
supported the Zionist movement for
decades in 1917 the British jumped in
and issued the balur 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 in
is among the zionists and among the
Arabs um but the British declared the
balur Declaration or issued the balur
Declaration not only because of Imperial
self-interest and this is a what you're
basically saying they had Imperial
interests above for state which would
protect the SE Canal from the East the
British also were motivated by idealism
and this incidentally is how balur
described the reasoning behind issuing
the Declaration and he said the West
Western World Western Christendom owes
the Jews a great debt both for giving a
the the world and the West if you like a
values social values as as embodied in
the the Bible um social justice and all
sorts of other things and the Christian
world owes the Jews because it
persecuted them for 2,000 years this
debt we're now beginning to repay with
the 1917 declaration favoring Zionism
but it's also remembering that the Jews
um weren't proxies or attached to the
British um Imperial Endeavor they were
happy to receive British support in 1917
and then subsequently when the British
ruled Palestine for 20 30 years um but
they weren't part of the British
Imperial design or Mission they wanted a
state for themselves the Jews happy to
have the British support them happy
today to have the Americans support his
Isel but it's not because we're stoes or
extensions of American Imperial
interests um the British incidentally
always described in Arab narratives of
propaganda as consistent supporters of
Zionism they weren't the first British
rulers in Palestine 1917 1920 Herbert
Samuel no before Herbert Samuel 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 um curbed Zionist
immigration to Palestine and in 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 a but the Arabs didn't
actually understand what they were being
given on a silver platter husseini 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 a at some point
did support the Zionist Enterprise but
that other points were less consistent
in the support and 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 Zion
during the last decade of the Mandate
it's worth remembering that I I'd like
to respond to that I mean speaking of
propaganda um I find it simply
impossible to accept um that balfor 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 keep
persecuted Eastern European Jews out of
the streets of of the UK and who was
denounced as an anti-semite by the
entire British Jewish
establishment a decade later all of a
sudden changed his mind this people
Chang their minds but when the when when
when the changing of the mind just
coincidentally happens to
coincide um with the British Imperial
interest I think perhaps the
transformation is is is a little more
superficial than he's being given credit
for it it was clearly a British Imperial
Venture and if there had been no threat
to the Su Canal during World War
I regardless of what balur would have
thought about the Jews and their
contribution to um history and their and
their persecution and so on there would
have been no B for declaration ask real
quick as a question on that why did the
British ever cap immigration then from
Jews to that area at all well we're
talking now
about sure but I'm saying that if it was
if the whole goal was just to be an
imperialist project like there were
terrorist attacks from Jewish uh yes but
you're you're I'll answer you0 yeah and
we're talking now about 1917 and 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 uh the British I think an
outstanding um review of British policy
towards these issues during the Mandate
has been done by Martin Bunton of the
University of Victoria and and he
basically makes the argument um that
once the British realized the mess they
were in certainly by the late 20s early
30s they they recognized
these the mess they were in the IR
ilable differences and basically pursued
a policy of just muddling on um and and
um and muddling on in the context of
British rule in
Palestine um whose overall purpose was
to serve um for the development of of
Zionist institutions yeshua's economy
and so on meant even if the British uh
were not self-consciously doing this um
preparing the ground work for the
eventual establishment of a Jewish State
I don't know if that answers your
question except they did turn anti
Zionist in 1939 yes of course
Main and maintain that Zionist no no
before they were being shot off but
maintain that anti-zionist posture until
1948 okay and and if I may just also one
point um you mention ha hus during were
entirely legitimate um but what I but
what I would also point point out is
that you had a Zionist organization um
the Ley 300 people more 300 people one
of whom happened to become an Israeli
Prime Minister and Israeli foreign
minister speaker of Israeli Parliament
um maybe you should give his name Yak
Shamir uh proposing an alliance with
Nazi Germany in 1941 Shamir propos well
no the Ley proposed some people in the
Lei proposed of which hamir was a
prominent ring no no okay well if he's a
red
uh was an unimportant organization in
the yesu 300 people versus 30,000 belong
to the hag so 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 Talking
1941 1944 41 from what I recall 1940
they were they approached the the German
Emissary in or some and and and if I may
proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany
on what the Le he described as on the
basis of shared ideolog shared
ideological princip sh ideolog well they
said they did they they they reved why
are you doing these things of
course state but you know you know what
the statement said on the basis of a
shared ideology why do you say no do you
think that the wait the people were
Nazis is that what you're saying I said
no are you saying that forget statements
you like to quote things but were they
were they Naz were the were the Lei
Nazis that's what I'm asking what did he
some did he say that the basis of the
PCT was their agreement on ideology
there wasn't any pack they suggested
they proposed an agreement right and
what did the agreement say they wanted
arms against the British that's what
they wanted well that's what wanted also
that's
what people didn't work in in helping
the Nazi regime I me what the IRA wanted
also no but this is what husseini did
you know that he was an anti-site you've
probably read some of his Works he
wasn't just anti-british he was also
anti-semitic and he had a common ground
with Hitler simp I think we can agree
not every anti-semite is a hitlerite I
think we that part he literally worked
with the Nazis to recruit people he
wasn't just a guy he was an absolutely
revolting disgusting human
being but the problem is you're saying
was influent you're saying the I I don't
even understand of all the crimes you
want to ascribe to the Palestinian
people trying to blame them directly
indirectly indirectly or indirectly
three times a moved for the Nazi
Holocaust is completely lunatic on the
wait there's not a he's not blaming them
for the Holocaust he's saying that from
the perspective wait no he's saying that
from the perspective of Jews in the
region Palestinians would have been part
of the region that is exactly he I've
him understand him here believe me I'm a
lot more literate than you Mr Bell I'm
going believe the guy that wrote you
read the Wikipedia say I read Hebrew and
you call yourself an Israeli historian
all on different grounds okay if I can
just respond no no I'm just saying that
the there were two there were two tricks
there were that's fine there were two
tricks that are being played here that I
think is interesting one is you guys
claim that the Ley 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 wait wait
no no it's about what you said you
brought that up to imply that Zionism
must be inexorably linked I'm sorry no
you're putting words in my mouth okay
wait well then what was the purpose of
of saying that the Lei claimed that they
the Lei who were small group of people
that were reviled by many in Israel not
many by everybody practically they were
called terrorist theist movement called
them
terrorists and hunted them and
called himself a terrorist they were so
irrelevant that their leader ended up
being kicked upstairs to the leader of
theel Parliament that's Israeli years to
Israeli foreign minister and bean was
also yes you want you want to
characterize him as irrelevant as well
go ahead no characteriz him as
irrelevant or irrelevant based on what
happens decades later the timeline
matters well the question is what is the
point of saying that the Le he tried to
forge
an relevant it's bringing up the muy of
Jerusalem and trying to blame the
Holocaust indect hoca the MU was the
leader of the Palestine Arab national
movement was 300 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 no he
recruited he recruited soldiers in the
balans mostly kavars which was
disgusting I have no doubt about that
but he had one wrote foreign minister
don't let the Jews out
I for minali forign Minister received
letters fromus during 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
minor but if we're agreed if we're
agreed that Haj am Al husseini the Muti
of
Jerusalem collaborated with the Nazis
during World War II and actively sought
their sponsorship
why is it irrelevant and probably wanted
the destruction of European jury 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 in 1940 41 he
wasn't prime minister of Israel he was a
leader of a very small terrorist group
denounced as terrorist by the main of
Zion do you consider it irrelevant that
many years ago Mahmud Abbas wrote a
doctoral thesis which is basically about
mmas but I don't didn't bring it up
you're the one who's bringing it
up beling the Holocaust that's what
you're saying the president president of
the Palestinian National Authority
belittle the Holocaust said it didn't
happen or only a few Jews died that's a
fair characterization of but I didn't
bring it up I brought it up yeah okay
because my question is then why is
shamir's antecedence irrelevant he he
was a terrorist leader of a very small
marginal
group was the head of the movement at
the time also the the point of
bring the point of bring up husseini
stuff wasn't to say that he was a great
further of the Holocaust it's that he
might have been a great further in the
prevention of Jews fleeing to go to
Palestine to escape the Holocaust that
that was the plan that and I explained
why I think um that's that's not an
entirely um accurate characterization
but and then I wanted to make another
point if it's legitimate to bring up his
during World War II why is it
illegitimate to bring up a man who would
become Israel's speaker of parliament
foreign minister 4 years why is it and
and also he was young terrorist and was
also responsible for the murder of of
the United nations's First International
Envoy bernotti foli bernotti why is all
that irrelevant I any 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 um
there's a prevention of Jews leaving
Europe because of the Palestinians
pressuring the British to put a curb
that 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 was a major player in that
region so Morris was spe made the
specific claim that the Palestinians
played an indirect role in the Holocaust
the indirect role would have been the
prevention of people escaping from yes
Europe to response to that is um uh
first of all I I disagree with that
characterization but second of all how
can you disagree with that they
prevented they forced the British to
prevent immigration of Jews from Europe
and reaching safe Shores in Palestine
that's what they did and they knew that
the Jew 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 about what
about your great friends in Britain The
Architects of of the Bal for DEC the
late
1930 wer happy to take in Jews and the
Americans weren't happy to take Jews why
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
to close the only safe haven for Jews
that's oh really the United States
wasn't a say a potential St Safe Haven
the only one was Palestine at the the
United States had no r
room to Pacific for Jews it did have
room but it didn't want that wasn't the
only Safe Haven this should you be
focusing your America should be blamed
for not letting Jews in during the 30s
are blam but nobody blames them for the
Holocaust well indirect indirectly I've
never heard it said that Franklin
delanor Roosevelt was indirectly
responsible for the Holocaust I never
heard that now maybe it's in Israeli
literature because the Israelis have
gone mad you're yes your prime minister
said the whole idea of the gas Chambers
came from the Muti of Jerusalem that's
nonsense we all know non but we also
know that nety nany say Netanyahu says
so many things which are AB happens to
be the long serving prime minister of
isra respons you're not responsible for
them but it is relevant that he is a
longest serving prime minister of Israel
unfortunately it says something about
the Israeli public I and he gets and he
gets elected not despite such things but
because he say his voters don't care
aboutus or Hitler they know nothing
about his voters right his Bas know
nothing about know nothing about
anything and he can 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 but but anyway not to beat a
dead horse but I don't I I still don't
understand dead horse right I I'll just
conclude by saying I don't understand
why the Muti of Jerusalem is relevant he
is relevant he is relevant but the head
Palestinian Shamir wasn't the head of
the national movement he represented 100
or 200 or 300 gunmen who are considered
terrorists by the Zionist movement at
the time the fact that 30 years later he
becomes prime minister that's the cirks
of of history and
hisus he was the head of the Palestine
Arab national movement at the time
anyway what can you do I think we're
speaking past each other not I'm 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 uh October
7th let me ask sort of a pointed
question was October 7th attacks by
Hamas on Israel
genocidal was it wasn't an act of ethnic
cleansing just so we lay out the moral
calculus that we are engaged in I don't
maybe was the the problem the problem
with October 7th is this the
Hamas
fighters who who um invaded Southern
Israel um 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 um as we
know something like 250 um civilian
mostly civilians also some soldiers um
took them back to Gaza dungeons in Gaza
um 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 8 1988
if I remember correctly and that Charter
is genocidal it says that the Jews must
be eradicated basically from a the land
of Israel from Palestine the Jews are
described there as sons of apes and pigs
H the Jews are a base people killers of
prophets and they should not exist in
Palestine it doesn't say that they NE
neily 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 um behind the massacre of the
Jews on October 7th which brought down
on the Gaza Strip and I think with the
intention by the Kamas of the Israeli
counter offensive because they knew that
that counter offensive would result in
many Palestinian dead because the the
Hamas Fighters and their weaponry and so
on were embedded in the population in
Gaza and 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 sinir by the head of the Kamas and he
strived for that but initially he wanted
to kill as many Jews as he could a A in
the Border areas around the Gaza Strip
I'll respond directly to the points you
made and then um I'll leave it to Norm
to bring in the historical context that
um Hamas Charter is from the '90s I
think 1988 1988 so it's from the
80s um I think your characterization of
that Charter as um anti-semitic is
indisputable okay I think your um
characterization of that Charter is
genocidal is Off the Mark it's simplicit
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
statement 200 something 2018 supposedly
clarifying things which are in the
charter but it doesn't actually step
back from what the charter says
eliminate Israel eliminate the Jews from
the land of Israel in in 2018 the Hamas
char if we look at the current version
of the charter it's not a called the
Char you're calling it a charter it
wasn't the only thing called the charter
is what was issued in 1988 by y himself
anyway it makes it makes a clear
distinction um between um Jews and
zionists in 2018 now you can choose to
dismiss it believe it it's sincere it's
insincere uh whatever ins sincere is the
probably the right word secondly I'm
really unfamiliar um with fighters who
consult the these kinds of documents uh
they go ucation system in the
kindergarten they're told kill the Jews
they they practice with make believe
guns and uniforms when they're 5 years
old in the kindergartens of theas at the
instruction of the commissioner general
of unra right I didn't say that I said
the Kamas has kindergartens and summer
camps in which they train to kill Jews
children five and six secondly you keep
you keep saying Jews um to which I would
respond 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 so you know
all this talk of um unlike theah which
has t Ted Jews outside we're talking
we're talking about October 7th in Hamas
if you'd also like to speak about hasb
let's let's get to that separately if
you if you don't mind um so again um
genocidal
well if 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 of of of Jews Israel
Zionism to be a bit disturbing secondly
I think um there are uh quite a few
indications in the factual record that
raise serious
questions about um the accusations of
the genocidal intent and and genocidal
practice of what happened on October 7th
and my final point would be I don't I
don't think I should take your 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 by uh Palestinians on October
7th or Israel thereafter and 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 at the international court of
justice um because the International
Convention the prevention and Punishment
of the crime of genocide Deals Only with
with States and not with movements I
think the international criminal court
and specifically its current prosecutor
Kim Khan lacks any and all credibility
he's and been an absolute failure at his
job he's just been sitting on his
backside for years on this file and I
think um uh 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 um
and I 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 and this is two
people sitting across the table from
each other no there certain things you
don't even have to investigate you know
how many citizens civilians died in the
October 7th
you know that there are LS of
allegations of rape I don't know how
persuaded you are of those they did find
bodies without heads which is there were
no there were 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 well as far as I know people
who were beheaded but we could bring it
up right now you also deny that there
were rapes there I didn't deny I said
not seen convincing evidence that
confirms it I've said that from day one
and I'll say it today 4 and a half
months later do you know that they
killed eight or 900 civilians in their
absolutely that seems to me indisputable
oh okay well I'm glad that you're I've
said that from day one well to be clear
you haven't you did a debate um I don't
remember the talk show but you seem to
imply that there was a lot of Crossfire
and that it might have been the IDF I
said I said that there is no question
because the names were published in har
there's no question that roughly of the
12200 people killed 800 of them were
civilians I see 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 no 850 no question
there and I also said on repeated
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 tricky it's called
attaching value to words and not talking
like a motor mouth 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 it's okay
wait you didn't I
even because Ben question because
Professor
moris I don't know I agree with mu raban
I'm not sure if he concedes the 400 I'll
say why 400 who thought up the 40000 of
the 850 slaughtered byas maybe a couple
of individuals were killed in this I
don't I don't know you're saying you
believe this particular thing you
clearly don't you clearly don't believe
this thing one I you said people died
that's not controversial wait hold on
hold on that's not controversial Mr
banel Mr banel I attach value to words
yes you said that you value them so much
Mr Bell please slow down the speech and
attempt to listen when I was explicitly
asked by Pierce Mor
I said there can be no question that
Hamas committed atrocities on October s
if you want me to pin down a number I
can't do that I'm ask you to pin down a
number you can listen to what I'm saying
no my question is I'll ask I'll ask a
very precise you because not it's a very
it's a very easy question I understood
your question correctly my question is
do you think the majority of the people
that were killed on October 7 civilians
were killed by Hamas or are we
subscribing to the idea that the IDF
killed hundreds 500 let me explain why
that's a difficult question to answer
the total number of civilians killed was
8850 MH we know that Hamas is
responsible um probably for the majority
of those killings we also know that
there were killings by Islamic Jihad we
also know we we bunching together the
Islamic Jihad and theas that's
splitting but he means he means the
Raiders he means the Raiders I'm
speaking in opposition to the conspiracy
theory that um people like do you prefer
Norm or Professor Franklin or what do
you I don't know what you're how do you
PR it's not a conspiracy the the
conspiracy theory is the idea that the
IDF killed the majority of them it's not
a conspiracy the there's there's also a
theory that um as Norm pointed out on
the show that he was on that he thought
that it was very strange that given how
reputable uh Israeli services are when
it comes to sending ambulances
retrieving bodies he thought it was very
strange that that number was continually
being adjusted do you know why say that
in combination with well I'm not sure
how many were killed you know why the
number 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 um PE Israelis who had been
killed on October 7th they later
determined that these were in fact
Palestinian Fighters now how does a
Palestinian fighter get burnt to a crib
no you're mixing two things some of the
bodies they didn't weren't able to
identify and eventually they 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 this out and they came out
initially with a slightly higher figure
1400 dead and eventually reduced it to
1200 and Reon Isis and the reason is
that a proportion of Israeli civilians
killed on October 7th I don't believe it
was a majority we don't know how many um
some were killed in crossfire some were
killed by um uh Israeli shell fire
helicopter fire and so on and um uh the
majority were killed by Palestinians and
of that majority um we don't know I mean
again I 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 don't
mean specifically Hamas but I just think
when you use the word some that's doing
a lot of heavy li who use some that's
fine but some can mean anywhere from 1%
to 49% but we don't know so the numbers
here and the details are uh interesting
and important almost from a legal
perspective but if we zoom out the moral
perspective are Palestinians from Gaza
justified in violent resistance well
Palestinians have the right to
resistance Palestinian that right
includes the right to Armed resistance
at the same time armed resistance um is
subject to the laws of war and there are
very clear
regulations um that separate legitimate
acts of armed resistance from acts of
armed resistance um that are not
legitimate and the attacks of October
7th where did they land for you there's
been um almost exclusive focus on the
attacks on civilian population centers
and and the killings of um civilians on
October 7th um what is much much less
discussed to the point of um 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 um secondly
um I'm not sure that I would
characterize the efforts by um
Palestinians on October 7th to seize
Israeli territory and Israeli population
centers as in and of themselves
illegitimate you mean attacking Israeli
civilians is legitimate no no that's not
what I I didn't understand what you said
I think what you had on October 7th was
an effort by Hamas to seize Israeli
territory and population and kill
civilians that's not what I said what I
said is I think I I'm I'm 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
um in those cases where they had been
deliberately targeted that's very
clearly illegitimate whole families were
slaughtered in kib but I'm making many
of them swingers incidentally who helped
Palestinians go to hospitals in Israel
and so on even drove Palestinian cancer
patients to hospitals I'm making a
distin you don't seem to be very
condemnatory of what the Hamas did well
I I don't do selective condemnation I'm
not talking about selective specific
condemnation of this specific
on I would I would for example condemn
Israeli assaults on civilians deliberate
assaults on civilians I would condemn
them you're not doing that theas you you
know what the issue is um I've been
speaking in public now I would say since
the late 1980s and interviewed and so on
I 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 um the the demand and obligation of
condemnation is exclusively
applied in my personal experience over
decades is exclusively applied to
Palestinians Israel is condemned day and
night on every television channel on
every and has been for the last tell you
about a personal experience lasting
decades you said
quote Oh No I'm trying to quote what you
just said I shouldn't have said anything
at any
you should say Professor Morris yes you
just said I would condemn any time
Israel deliberately attacks civilians
okay the problem Professor Mars 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 has
attacked
is extensively in they K and let's let's
so you're just eliminating selecting as
as Ste say you cherry pick were cherry
pick Let's fast forward when you were an
adult what did you say about the 1982
Lebanon
war what did I say you don't remember
okay allow me uh oh
okay so it happens that I was not at all
by any I had no interest in the Israel
Palestine conflict as young men until
the 19 true until the 1982 Lebanon war
yeah uh lost the passage I'll find it
okay real quick while he's searching for
that 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 correct
however um while I appreciate the
recognition of the distinction the idea
that the the cause for war that Hamas
was engaged in I don't believe if we
look at their actions in war or the
statements they've made it doesn't seem
like it had to do with territorial
acquisition no no no no I the the point
no the point I was making was um what
was Hamas trying to achieve
militarily on October 7th and I was
pointing out that the focus has been
very much much on um Hamas attacks on
civilians and atrocities and so on and
I'm not saying those things should be
ignored what I'm saying is that what's
getting lost in the shuffle is that
there were extensive attacks on Military
and intelligence facilities and as far
as the let's say the other aspects are
concerned um because I think either you
or Lex asked me about the legitimacy of
these attacks I said
I'm 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
um or actions that um should reasonably
have been expected to result in the
killings of Israeli civilians those
strike me as by definition illegit
legitimate um and I want to be very
clear about that I have where
illegitimate means you condemn them
illegitimate means they are not
legitimate I I have a problem condemning
your side yes no not condemning my side
I have a problem with Selective outrage
and I have a problem with Selective
condemnation and as I I explained to you
a few minutes ago in in my Decades of of
appearing in public and being
interviewed I have never seen um uh I
have never been asked to condemn an
Israeli action I've never been asked for
a moral judgment on an Israeli action
I'm um exclusive request for
condemnation has to do with what
Palestinians do more and just as
importantly um I'm sure if you watch BBC
or CNN when is the last time an Israeli
spokesperson has been asked to condemn
an Israeli act i' I've never seen it I
don't think we condemn the Arab side
either though right I don't think there
was any condemnation no but now that
we're talking about Israeli victims all
of a sudden morality is I think the
reason why it comes up is because
there's no shortage of international
condemnation for Israel as Norm will
point out a million times that there are
50 billion un resolutions you've got
Amnesty International you've got
multiple bodies of the UN you've got now
this case for the icj so there's no
question of if there's condemnation
sorry if I can interrupt you in 1948 the
entire world stood
behind the establishment of a Jewish
state in the entire world 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
de democracies that's what you're say w
democracies supported the establishment
of Israel my quick question was you said
that you believe that this is a very
short one you don't have to it's just
you think that um you think that there's
an argument to be made that the people
in Gaza that Hamas and Islamic J whoever
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 I don't think there's a maybe there
the palestin think they absolutely had a
just cause for do you think that Israel
has a just cause for operation swords of
iron no of course not okay all right you
can say your quote
okay uh first of all on this issue of
double standards which is the one that
uh irks or irritates
M you said that you are not a person of
double standards unlike people like muen
you hold High A single standard and you
condemn the liberate Israeli attacks on
um civilians when
they and I would say
that's true for the period up till
1967 and I think it's accurate you uh
your account of the first inap there it
seems to me you were in Conformity with
most mainstream accounts and the case of
the first inada you also used
surprisingly he used Arab human rights
sources like alhak which I think M
worked for during the first into further
that's
true but then something very strange
happens so let's illustrate it wait
there something strange which happened
is the Arabs rejected peace offers
that's what happen by accepting the Oslo
agreement
yeah 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 so
this is what you have 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 marks Mars quickly
anwers the caveat the 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 in the conflict I 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
blood leing until the current Gaza uh
genocide uh biggest blood leing I would
say I can't think of a single mainstream
account that remotely approx
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
82 am I correct on that yeah yeah yeah
so you'll remember that Dove yaria C the
war diary so with your permission allow
me to s describe what he wrote during
his
diary so he writes the war machine of
the IDF is Galloping and trampling over
the coner conquered territory
demonstrating a total insensivity incent
insensitivity to the fate of the Arabs
who are found in its path a PL 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 hes
destruction and death are
continue does Point you're making
actually does that sound like your
description of the Lebanon war forget my
descriptions the point you're making are
in print we let me let me just finish my
sentence the point you're making M 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
immoral you don't find that on the Arab
side I'm talking
about Mr Mars I'm not talking
about I'm talking about you the
historian how did you depict the Lebanon
I believe I believe that the Israeli
military tried to avoid committing a
civilian
C
I think they all the all accounts by
Robert Fisk and pity the nation F isti
anist journalist I know has always been
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 and because there
weren't any no I didn't say there
weren't any you you agreed I have
condemned Israeli attacks on civilians I
never quarrel with facts your your
description of the
1982 war is so shocking it makes my
inner RVE and then your description of
the second
inada your description of defensive
Shield when they the Arabs Bing Arab
suicide bombers Arab suici bombers
destroy fific Jews and masses and buses
and in restaurants that's the second in
Father do you remember that you can try
suicide bombers in Jerusalem's buses and
restaurants am completely aware of that
but you but if you forgot the numbers I
don't forget it was 3 to one the number
they killed mostly armed Palestinian
government that's what you say in your
book that's but that's not what Amnesty
International said that's not what human
rights wife said don't remember they
that's not I do that's not what don't
whether their figures are right my
figures are right listen listen in the
second some
Palestinians most of them armed people
and Israelis thousand Israelis were
killed almost all of them Professor Mars
fantasy but I'm not going to argue with
here here's a simple challenge you said
not to look at the camera scares the
people I'll make the open challenge you
are going to scare them no Professor
Mars open challenge words are in print I
wrote 50 pages analyzing all of your
work I quote some will say cherry pick
but I think accurately uh quote you
here's a simple
challenge answer me in print answer what
I wrote and show where I'm making things
up answer me I'm not familiar I'm sorry
I'm not familiar that's no problem
you're a busy man you're an important
historian you don't have to know
everything that's in print especially by
Publishers but now you know and so
here's the public challenge you answer
and show where I
cherry-picked where I misrepresented
send me the and and then we can have a
civil scholarly discussion I'm not sure
we will agree even if I we don't have to
agree it's for the reader to decide
looking at both sides where does truth
stands no and if I may ask uh it's good
to discuss ideas that are in the era 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 uh condense the
the key idea and then we can debate the
ideas of this no there are two aspects
there's a public debate but there's also
written words yes I'm just telling you
that you as a as a academic historian
put a lot of value in the written word
and I think it is valuable
but in this inally not the only
historian who puts value to words I also
do actually so more than just one or two
sentences at a time but this this in
this context just for the educational
purpose of teaching ucational 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 and 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
uh 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
the libanon War I looked at the book
that he got this from with the quote was
from um it sounds cold 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 I think that sometimes we
do a lot of weird games when we talk
about International humanitarian law or
laws that govern conflict where we say
things like civilians dying is a war
crime or civilian homes or hospitals
getting destroyed as necessarily a war
crime or is 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 uh like
perspectively from the unit uh 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
you know military people died
comparatively speaking so uh it must
have been war crimes especially when
you've got another side um fast forward
to 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 Norm loves to
site Hamas 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 as I'm just
saying that essentially yes in terms of
how international law defines and not
how Amnesty International defin but
amesty International describes times of
human shielding but they don't actually
apply the correct International legal
standard know what's the correct
absolutely I absolutely
abely I'm just saying I'm just saying
leave it or not normal the entire Geneva
conventions is all on Wikipedia it's a
wonderful website but I'm just saying
I'm just saying that on the Hamas side
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 like well here's a diary
entry where a guy talks about how tragic
I think the problem I think the problem
with with with your statement is that if
you go back and listen to it the first
part of it is War as hell civilians die
it's it's a fact of life and and 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 and and you are unfortunately
far from alone in this I'll give you
I'll give you you know who for me is a
perfect example wait hold on just resp
we don't need
examples the false equivalency of the
two sides is astounding when Hamas kills
civilians in a surprise attack on
October 7th this isn't because they are
attempting to Target military targets
and they happen to stumble into a giant
Festival of people that well they did
happen to stumble into it they did but
k00 but they but when they stumbled into
it it 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 done
it was just to kill civilians even the
Amnesty International in 2008 and in
2014 and even today we'll say'll find
anyone who will deny that Hamas has
targeted civilians you gave the example
there's a difference of suicide bombings
uh during the second interal I mean
facts are facts sure but I'm saying that
the Hamas targeting of in civilians is
different than the incidental loss of
life that occurs when Israel does you
know 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 um I know that's
what we're supposed to believe
um but but the historical record
stands very clearly I it does you've
written about when you say historical do
you mean like in the 40s to the 60s or
do you mean like over the from the 30s
of the last century to the 20s of this
Century I I just like to make you know
you the way the way you um characterized
it I think the best example of that of
come across during this specific
conflict is is John Kirby the White
House spokesman I've I've named HIM
Tears tosterone for a very good reason
um 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 Israeli civilian
deaths on October 7th he literally broke
down he understood that one is
deliberate and one isn't he understood
that no that's what he tried to make us
understand no he he's he was speaking
facts the Kamas guys who attacked the
Kim they apart from the attacks on the
military sites when they attacked the
kibuts were out to kill civilians and
they killed family after family house
after house the Israeli attacks on Hamas
installations and know better no you
don't know Israeli Pilots That's thank
God you know no you don't know pilot
they believe that they are killing Hamas
Niks they're giv
they and if theas is hiding behind
civilians they target every time they
target a kid I'm sure they believe it's
Hamas when they kid yeah when they yeah
when they killed the four kids in the on
the they believe they I know they
believe even though they were dtive side
even though they were angle you don't
see the no they saw let's see the oh I
know what he's quoting correctly you've
lied about this particular instance in
the past those kids weren't just on the
beach as as often stated in articles
those kids were literally coming out of
a previously identified Hamas compound
that they had operated from they
literally
with all due respect with all due
respect you're such a fantastic
it's terrifying that that Warf was
filled with journalists there were tens
scores of journalist 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 C on the other
side you're implying strike was okay on
the Israeli side where they said we're
just going to kill four Palestinian
children today for no reason you believe
that do you believe that do you believe
that right said right journalist do you
think that they children question he
will never answer that question I will
answer the question were
out and it was because that was a strike
that was a drone strike so it was a
proof all the way up chain that we're
going to kill children today kill pales
you want me to answer or do you want
your motor mouth to
go okay answer in
2018 there was the great March of return
in
Gaza by all reckonings of Human Rights
organizations and journalists who were
there it was
overwhelmingly nonviolent it organized
by theas what whoever organized
organized by Satan let's
startas Satan I I agree let's let's go
for the big one the big mcgilla it's
Satan okay oh overwhelmingly organiz
overwhelmingly nonviolent resembled at
the beginning the first the first in
represent the yeah yeah okay not bombs
but they tried to make holes in the
Spence obviously let's continue yeah so
but I'm not sure Israel behaved morally
in that okay no no no I wait wait wait
I'm willing to Grant you please please
I'm willing to allow me to you don't
have to
pursue allow me allow me to finish I
don't know anything about this I'd like
to Okay so
as you know along the Gaza perimeter
there was Israel's best trained snipers
correct I don't know best train they
were snipers fine snipers okay all
right hey laugh it's hilarious the story
is so funny you're lying about return
had aspects of violence to it ACC even
the UN says it themselves okay but you
only collect what the UN says that you
like see the problem Mr Morelli is you
don't know the L English language you
don't I can read from the UN website
itself in regards to the great March of
return they said while the vast majority
of protesters acted in a peaceful manner
during most protests dozens have
approached the fence attempting to
damage it burning fires throwing stones
and moloto Cocktails towards Israeli
forces and flying incendiary Kites and
balloons into Israeli territory the
latter results in extensive damage to
agricultural land and nature reserves
inside Israel and risk the lives of
Israeli civilians some in of shooting
throwing explosives also talk fast
people think that you're coherent I'm
just reading from the UN yeah but you
see I you like them only when they age
with you you got the months wrong you
got the months wrong we're talking about
the beginning in March 30th 2018 you
just describe that March as mostly
peaceful 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
nonviolent March what did the
international inves it was a campaign
whatever you want to call for months
whatever you want to call months yeah
what did the UN investigation find well
he just
read 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 uh targeting
civilians it found go look this up in
your machine I already know what you're
gonna say you're gonna say found only
one or two of them were
Justified targeted
journalists targeted Medics and here's
the funniest one of all it's so
hilarious they targeted disabled people
who were
300 M away from the fence and just
standing by
this is true if what you're
say just quick pause uh I think
everything was fascinating to 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 uh the obvious joyful
camaraderie in the room so I'm 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 just 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 do we so 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 topped down from the IDF to
Target surance that's one thing a second
thing is when I yeah that's okay but
then then the second thing is or there's
there's two distin I want to draw
between I think Benny would say this I
would say this um 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 r stat some
have been prosecuted
absolutely practically n I'm sure I'm
sure I'm you and your I'm sure that we
would all agree for soldiers that that
happens but I think that it's important
I think that it's important that when we
talk about military strikes or 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 weering and also have
typically lawyers involved when you make
the claim that an IDE of solders shot uh
a Palestinian those three people the
three hostages that came up with white
flags and 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 yeah
the claim that you're making the claim
that you're making is that multiple
levels of the IDF signed off on just
killing I have no idea what you don't
understand the process let me educate
you I can tell you I do understand the
process I'm telling you I'm trying to
explain you right now yes no it's basic
ask anybody to about Wikipedia can you
tell me your know to people who work in
the military what's your knowledge of
the idea audience can look this up do
you think that do you think that do you
think that bombing and Strikes are
decided by one person in the field do
you think one
person a pilot doesn't do it on own
entire apparates 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 murder
Palestinian children my argument than
ridiculous argument because oh really
that it's impossible at the command
level it's impossible at that command
level but you said that they couldn't
have done it at the bottom if it weren't
also you need you don't understand the
strength of the claim that you're making
you're saying that from a top down level
that lawyers multiple commanders sign
not tell me what I don't understand or
Palestinians it's true it's true I don't
spend my nights on Wikipedia I read
books I admit that as a a signal as I
know books are a waste of time with all
due regard there are the only you take
from them are two or three quotes you
completely respect 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 a afraid of saying it
whenever I have to check on a basic fact
the equivalent of going to the
britanica I go to your books I know you
got a lot of the facts right Benny
Moore's book 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 that all the wisdom all the
wisdom he didn't say that a waste of
time I I'd like to respond to what you
were saying um
the the I think the question that that
we're trying to answer I think I think
you don't understand Israel you know
nether let me let me finish pleas
understands I think we're I think we're
all agreed that
Palestinians have deliberately targeted
civilians whether we're talking about
Hamas and Islamic Jihad today or
previously I prefer the word murdered
and raped rather than targeted Target is
too soft for what the Hamas did I'm okay
I'm not I'm not talking about talking
about this now yeah but I'm I'm trying
to answer his question yeah yeah um
historically there is um substantial
evidence that Palestinians have targeted
uh civilians whether whether it's been
incidental or systematic is 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 as to Target a
civilian I don't no we've agreed both
said this has happened here and there
and I think we've agreed on that okay I
think um what we're saying is it's not
policy which is what you guys are
implying that they kill civilians
deliberately if 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 commands strike cells
that are involved in like drone attacks
or plane attacks yes my understanding of
the Israeli military and you could
perhaps um you've served in it you would
know better it's actually a fairly
chaotic Organization no 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 told to drop it protective
Edge was that 200 200 strikes in like 60
seconds I think I think at the opening
of protective Edge like the yeah the
coordination between talking about 2008
uh for I think was 2014 but I'm just
saying that the coordination in the
military is pretty well my my
understanding of the Israeli military
especially is that it's quite chaotic
and there's also a lot of testimonies
from Israel but be that as it may okay
I'm I'm prepared to accept um both of
your contentions that it's a a highly
organized and disciplined Force Air
Force under any scenario is going to be
more organized than the other branches
and and you're saying such a strike
would have been inconceivable I'm well
I'm not necessarily saying incon that
like that would have required Mur intent
so many I don't think good evidence been
presented to say that that's your basic
claim is that we we we it would be fair
to assume that such a strike could have
only been carried out with multiple um
uh levels of authorization and and and
signing off okay let's accept that for
the sake of argument um we have now
seen incident after incident after
incident after incident where entire
families are
vaporized and and single strikes who is
in the families who lives in the house
family MERS no next to the house these
families we have seen incident do you
know that kamnik weren't in that house
do you know that they ammunition dumps
weren why I have to prove a negative
you're saying that they deliberately
targeted families if Israel wanted to
kill civilians in in in Gaza they could
have killed 500,000 by now with the
number of strikes and the fact that they
only killed a certain small number, is a
small number small number in 30,000
number proportion over four months
probably is an indication 12000 targeted
and that there are Hamas Targets in
these places so I've I've get 12,000
children is only and if that's the case
why is it yeah 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 Vietnam the
Americans killed talking
about I was in yeah I was in the
anti-war movement so don't k a million
people inet fine fine and and uh 30
million Russians were killed so in
during World War II so everything else
is irrelevant okay here's a
question professor professor Mars here's
a question it's very perplexing
if 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 gossip okay so when you supposed to
prove okay I'm going to I'm going to
tell shut up you're relying numbers no
I'm not I'm rying on the numbers that
everybody else I'm rying on the numbers
what that those numbers okay which may
not be true they could invent any
anything because you know that they are
aous organ I know mendacious believe me
mous as in the Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Affairs okay so here's the thing
you say they could have killed 500,000
but they only killed only that's your
word only killed 30,000 you believe that
they deliberately Target civilians they
could would have killed
the fact
is tar cilian Professor Maris for you
don't understand for hisian I don't want
to understand Israeli Society you want
to know the truth I don't want to I
don't want to gide their heads that's
the problem 90%
of a good historian good historian tries
to get into the heads of's a liit theist
there's a limit when 90% when 90% of
Israelis think that Israel is using
enough or too little 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 gide that
head I don't want to gide 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
let's drop an atomic bomb on you think
he really meant that he said it no no no
it was said in a sort of a questionable
way he didn't say they
should I'm not supporting ID this
Minister this minister is
aiic idiot he didn't say dropping up
none other none other than Israel's
Chief historian the famed justifiably
famed Benny Maris thinks we should be
dropping nuclear weapons on Iran Iran
has for years its 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 I would
say Iranian leaders have sent mixed
messages okay okay but some of them have
said
including if you don't
knowm it's very funny that supports and
the H and Hamas they yourself wait wait
wait to the extent the hou are to the
extent that the houthis are trying to
stop the genocide in go there is no have
right
to selectively support international law
when it agrees with you and then when it
doesn't you decide to throw
International
laaz if you
like let me read what you said Norm stop
please Norm just for me please just give
me a second you said that there's no
genocide going on in Gaza let me ask
that clear question yes the same
question I asked on Hamas attacks is
there 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 to that
question what has happened thus far is
that on the 29th of December
the Republic of South Africa instituted
um proceedings against Israel pursuant
to the 1948 convention on the prevention
and Punishment of the crime of
genocide um South Africa basically
accused Israel of perpetrating um
genocide in the Gaza Strip on the 26th
of January the um uh the court issued
its initial ruling the court at this
stage um is not making a determination
on whether Israel has or has not um
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 either South
Africa's case was um the the equivalent
of a frivolous lawsuit and dismiss it
and close the proceedings or it had to
determine that um South Africa presented
a plausible case that Israel was
violating its obligations um under the
genocide convention and that it would on
that basis hold um a full hearing now a
lot of people have um looked at the
Court's ruling of the 26th of January
and focused on the fact that the court
did not order a ceasefire I actually
wasn't expecting it to order a ceasefire
and I wasn't surprised that it didn't
because in the other cases that that the
court has considered most prominently um
Bosnia and Myanmar it also didn't order
a
ceasefire um 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
um of Israel's military operation from
my perspective um 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 it decided to and I think that's
enormously that enormously you said they
committ genocide you already said they
committed genocide is committing
genocide allow allow me allow me
that's correct now I don't run away so
Norman you did say isra can you let
Finish 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 Bosnia case which I think all
four of us would agree was clearly a
case of genocide the court determined
mean by the serbs yes and in the bosia
case the court determined that of all
the evidence placed before them only
Sanita qualified as genocide and all the
other atrocities committed did not
qualify as genocide you know
international law is a developing uh
organism I don't know how the court is
going to respond um in this case so I
wouldn't take it as a foregone
conclusion um how the court is going to
respond but Norman has determined
already I have too because you ask my
personal op personal opinion is also so
as As a matter of law I want to State
very clearly has not been determined and
won't be determined for several years
based on my um uh observations and and
the evidence before me I would say it's
indisputable that Israel is engaged in a
genocidal assault against the
Palestinian people in the Gaza P line
yeah with the program the PLO is long
past what okay the authority as as as
you were saying um genocide is is is not
a body count um genocide consists of two
elements um the destruction of a people
and 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 thresold number
yes but I think 30,000 crosses the
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 if there is any other
plausible reason for why all these
people are being murdered it's not
genocide and as far as intent what about
hiding behind a human shield you don't
think that's the reason for them being
killed well let's get the intent part
out of the way first um South Africa's U
forget South Africa they're part I'd
like to finish
government that's that's got nothing to
do with I think they're Pro Satan as
well last time no they're proas um you
know for some reason you don't have a
problem with people being pro-israeli at
the time of of of of this but if they
support
Palestinians right to life or
self-determination they get demonized
and delegitimized as Pro they supported
an organization which murdered 1200
people deliberately that's my problem
but supporting a state that has murdered
30,000 but they haven't because these
are 30,000 basically human Shi used by
theas which theas wanted wanted killed
they wanted them killed Hamas wanted
these people killed if I could just get
you don't think they wanted them killed
they didn't provide them with shelters
they build tunnels for their Fighters
but not one shelter for their own
civilian you asked me about int course
they want them killed okay you asked me
about intent and the reason that I
bought in um the South African
application is because it is actually
exceptionally detailed on tent by
quoting numerous all sorts of idiotic
ministers in Israel well yeah including
the Prime Minister the defense minister
the chief of say genocide he
said the
word are a
really according to ASA kaser the
philosopher of the IDF yeah he said that
Netanyahu was avowing genocide now he's
an idiot so didn't say he's an idiot
pass it so the reason I raised the South
African application is twofold Hamas or
no Hamas it's exceptionally detailed on
the question of on the question of
intent and secondly when when the
international court of justice issues a
ruling individual justices um have have
the right can give their own opinion and
I found the German one to be the most
interesting on on this specific question
because he was basically saying that he
didn't think South Africa presented a
persuasive case but he said there um
their section on intent was so
overpowering that he felt he was left
with no choice but to vote with with the
majority so I think that answers um the
intent part of your question so for the
icj case that South Africa's brought I
think there's a couple things that 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 PL plausible
which legally this is obviously below
criminal conviction below um yeah below
think of it as an indictment sure
possibly maybe even a a lower level than
even an indictment so plausibility is an
incredibly low standard number one um
number two uh if you actually go through
and you read the complaint that South
Africa filed um I would say uh 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 well 16 icj judges
disagree with that's fine if 16 IG CJ
judges disagree must be competent you
know they could be but he must be all
even the American judge she must have
been awful incompetent if she was unable
to see the misrepresentations that Mr
benell based on his Wikipedia entry was
able to find so this is based on the
official icj report that was released
I'm not sure if you read the entire
thing or that's great did you go through
and actually identify any of the sources
for the underlying quot actually brace
yourself for this and M could confirm it
Yaniv kogan an Israeli and Jamie Stern
reer half Israeli they checked every
single quote in the Hebrew original and
Yaniv kogan love the guy he has
terrifying powers of concentration he
checked every single quote is that
correct mine and Jaimie 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 16 15 judges was 15 to2 16-2 I
think they're 15 in the court plus two
so it's 17 So it's 15 to two uh I don't
think those 15 judges were
incompetent and I certainly don't
believe the president of the Court an
American would allow herself to be duped
okay let
me
let read one sure so this was uh taken
from the uh from the South African
complaint there's tons of these but so
here's one uh in the in the complaint
for the icj they said that on the 12th
of October 2023 president Isaac her
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 1 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
it's absolutely not true and we will
fight until we break their backbone end
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 audet but we are at
War we are defending our homes we are
protecting our homes that's the truth
and when a nation protects its home it
fights and we will fight until we break
their backbone he acknowledged that many
Goins 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 if 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 mil uh
military supplies in civilian areas
these things become military targets and
you're allowed to do proportionality
assessments afterwards so if this is
supposed to be one of many quotes that
they've shown that is supposed to
demonstrate uh 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 the court in the hog has ruled
that Israel is committing genocide but
it hasn't has it's just is going in the
next few years to look at the whole
there has been no no determination at
all and as as Steven says some of the
quotes are not exactly accurate quotes
or taken out
characterization okay it this correct as
muen put it that it'll be seven several
years before the court makes a
determination and my guess is that we'll
determine there was no genocide that's
my guess yes I'm just giving you my
guess uh I can't predict I got it all
wrong actually as Molen will attest I
got it all wrong the first time I never
thought the American judge would vote
again would vote in favor of
plausibility so you admit that you were
wrong yeah of course I think I tell M
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 they can be wrong okay
leaving that aside first of all as M
pointed out there's a difference between
the legal decision by the ruling and an
independent judgment now South Africa
was not filing a frivolous case that was
84 Pages it was single even 84 Pages be
prous an hour and a half to read it was
not a massive Cas it was single spaced
and had literally hundreds of
footnotes with it's possible of course
one wasn't 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 respect
Ed uh Experts of international law
sitting on the South African panel John
Dugard and vau low v l as you might know
he argued the war case in 2004 before
the international court of justice now
they were not uh they were alleging
genocide which in their view means the
evidence in their minds we 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 Dugard personally and
I've correspond with vau low I've heard
their claim I read the report uh 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 Olympic team it doesn't mean they're
going to be on the Olympic team it
doesn't mean they're going to win a gold
medal a a silver medal or brown bronze
metal they can swim that's what you're
saying no I would say that's a very high
bar saying they can swim to even qualify
swim well enough to have a realistic
Prospect so to even make it to plausible
that is not true that is not what plaus
means it is absolutely not you're dead
wrong Mr berelli please don't teach me
about the English language so the
Declaration judge I
saidil 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
they're not well founded they're not
even well founded the you said that
plausible is a high standard is
absolutely not it is a misrepresentation
of the strength of the case against
Israel just like the majority of the
said
itations pulled from the report that try
to uh that 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 doo specialis that the intentional
part of
genocide the the I think it's I think
it's called Doo specialis it is the most
important part of genocide which is
proving the special is a highly special
intent to commit genocide it's possible
Israel that's men's no Pro the men's yes
I understand the state of mind but in
for genocide there is it's called do
specialis it's a highly special intent
did you read the case yeah it is high
special
intent yes please stop displaying your
imbecility okay I'm sorry if you think
the Declaration of the don't put on
public display that you're a at
least have the self-possession to shut
up did I readable putting my display on
camera you're putting yours in
books read case around four times I read
all of the the uh the majority opinion
the Declarations I read Aron barack's
declaration then why are you lying and
saying plaus are high
standard 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 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 you must be
doing something pretty
horrible as it happens as it
happens there was no that's what the
court R rule remember what I just told
you the court I don't expect to be even
around when the court reaches his final
deis why why it'll take a long long time
two years three years no I don't think
it'll take two or three years 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 I assume
they'll take two or three years but the
point you're making so this is a legal
something horrible must be happening to
even achieve it's horrible it's a war
yeah it's true
they weren't they weren't rendering a
ruling on a war they were rendering a
ruling on a genocide and I think I think
the suggest they said it was plausible
they also said it was plausible that
Israel is committing a military
operation 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 that's probably correct they
needed to do a lot more they they needed
they needed americ Jud atmosphere americ
judge
to judges go according to what the
majority want want to hear president
they needed to persuade the court that
it was worth investing several years of
their time in
hearing they're well paid whether they
take this case or not I mean you know
they have a they have a full docket um
whether they accept or reject this case
and I I think I don't think we should
remember what I just said they won't
rule there was genocide remember what I
said also I recommend people actually
the case and follow through a lot of the
quotes that they just don't show
genocidal the Israeli Minister of
Finance on the 8th of October 2023 this
is taken from the icj this is from South
Africa submission uh bizal smotri 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
end quote but again if you click through
and you read The Source their own linked
Source it says as per this own source
quote the powerful Finance Minister
settler leader Bez Tri I can't pronounce
this demanded at the cabinet meeting
late Saturday that the Army quote hit
Hamas brutally and not take the matter
of the captives into significant
consideration end quot in war as in war
you have to be brutal end quot he was
quoted as saying we need to deal a blow
that hasn't been seen in 50 years and
take down Gaza end quote you can't strip
the quotation of Hamas a entity have war
with and then Pretend There's genocidal
intent genocide so when the ukrainians
when the ukrainians say we need to
Russia that's not genocide when Ukraine
says we need to defeat Russia is that
genocidal mean killing all Russian C
Professor Mars here's another one when
the defense yeah ridiculous yes
ridiculous uh the American judge he also
doesn't determine policy the American
judge the American judge read you are
holding the American judge to you know
well he was the president he'll
Authority when it agrees with him 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 supreme court today they may
support Trump shows you how Jud
Professor Mars without going too far a
field if you heard a
statement by the defense
minister the defense minister said we
are going to prevent any food water fuel
or electricity from entering Gaza do
that he did Israel do that okay no I'm
I'm I'm wondering what he said I'm
asking you isn't Israeli government
poliy talking about statements Now
intent how would you interpret that
after 1,00 of your citizens are murdered
the way they were I would expect extreme
statements by lots of politicians but
but you're by lots of politici but you
don't accept extreme polic but you don't
accept he said is an Israeli policy they
let in water they let in gas you don't
accept but you don't accept extreme
Palestinian statements after they lost
their entire country not just 12200
people that's a good point no no it's a
good point and on that
uh on on that moment brief moment of
agreement let's just take a quick pause
we need a smoke break need a water break
bath break take down Gaza is not a
genoci defeat Russia is a genocidal stat
we went to war with Iraq and we wanted
to destroy Iraq that was a genocidal
statement there's a reason why genocide
is so is such an importantly guarded
concept and it's not to to condemn every
nation that goes to
war wait you do know how to pronounce my
name are you mispronouncing it he made
you into an Italian all the time by your
solicitude for international law you
should try learning it sometime it would
help you sort out a lot of the civilian
deaths unfortunately 15 judges disagree
you could keep citing the judges you
should actually try reading the actual
statements this is tiring how you you've
invited us to a tiring session yeah
there you go how you guys doing okay
okay there there are major things to
discuss here not just what what some
court is doing and going to 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 they're not
we're not going to talk about like uh
like uh area A and C or what a
transference of ter instead we're going
to talk about aparti we're not going to
talk about um you know the differences
in how do you conduct war in an urban
environment where people we're just
going to talk about genocide we're not
going to talk about what's a good
solution for the palan we're just going
to say ethnic possible to talk be
productive over the next two hours and
talk about Solutions about Solutions I
have no idea what to say I mean there
there I don't see any solutions on you
know if you wanted a positive end to
this discussion which is what you said
at the beginning I can't contribute to
that because I I'm pessimistic I don't
see anywhere any way forward here but
the lack of the solution is is easy the
reason why the solution is hard is
because the histories in the myths are
completely there's a different factual
record one of the things it' be good to
talk about Solutions with the future is
going back in all the times that 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 oso courts ever
settlement expansion continued uh raids
happened into the uh West Bank that
there was never a legitimate that
Netanyahu came in and violated the um
the Y memorandum the transference he's
goingon to say all of this and he's not
going to bring up anything pales side
and then for Camp David he's going to
say that uh yeah that Arafat was trying
that the maps in the territorial
exchange wasn't good enough that they
were asking Palestinians to make all the
concessions that Israel would have like
it's yeah well well lay it all up Lay It
Up you do talk quickly you know yeah I
know
yeah any my future book should interest
you guys oh what are you working on it
no it's not working on it's actually
going to come out ah um it deals with
Israeli and Arab atrocities war crimes I
call them in the 48 War that's book yeah
just deals with that subject is this um
cuz I know you've also uh talked about
the closure of the archives and stuff
well it's it's marginal they do it deals
with that as well but they have tried to
seal off documents which has already
used and seen now they don't let people
see them that's happened but it's it's
it's marginal in terms of its effect on
on on were the British archives useful
for you for this new book well for this
list it's mostly Israeli archives the
British and the Americans and the UN did
deal with these subjects but not not as
well as Israeli documents what's your uh
casual count for dar it's about 100 I
think there's agreement on that by
Israelis and Arabs 100 105 cuz before
they were they used to say 245 or 254
those were the figures the British and
the Arabs and the hag agreed on at 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 Jac de reer maybe
yeah maybe he he came up with that
number but 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 and the for you know
killing more Arabs than actually well
and and they put it to good use as well
well they said that it helped to
precipitate more evacuation so they were
and as they also use that number 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 uh as a by way
of Hope for the future so when has in
Israel and Palestine have we been
closest to something like a peace
settlement to 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 or so of conflict the
closest I think the two sides have been
to reach in some sort of
settlement appears to have been in the
year 2000 when Barack and then
subsequently Clinton ER offered a
two-state um
settlement ER to PLO Palestinian
Authority chairman yaser Arafat and
Arafat seemed to waver he didn't
immediately
in reject what was being offered But
ultimately came down at the end of Camp
David in July 2000 he came came down
against the proposals and the Clinton
who said he wouldn't blame him later
blamed Arafat for bringing down the
summit and um not reaching a solution
there um but I I think there on the
table H certainly in the Clinton
parameters of December 2000 which
followed ER the proposals by Barack in
July um the Palestinians were offered
the best deal they're ever going to get
from Israel unless Israel is destroyed
and then they'll just be a Palestinian
Arab state but um the best deal that
Israel could ever offer them they were
offered which essentially was 95% of the
West Bank East 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 Arafat said no
that is some people think he was trying
to hold out for slightly better term
um but my my reading is that he
was constitutionally psychologically
incapable of signing off in a two-state
deal meaning acceptance of the existence
of a Jewish State this was really the
problem and of 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 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 I don't I don't I
don't buy that I don't think so but
other people disagree with me on this
what what do you think well just briefly
in response
um Arafat formerly recognized Israel in
in 1993 yeah earlier um I don't I don't
think actually that in
201201 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
reasonable two-state settlement bearing
in mind um that as of
1949 uh Israel controlled 78% of the
British Mandate of Palestine um the
Palestinians were seeking a state on the
remaining 22% and this was apparently
too much for Israel my my response to
your question would be wait wait they
were being offered something like 22 or
21% they were being offered I think um
less than a withdrawal to the 1967
borders with mutual and minor and
reciprocal land swaps and the just
resolution of uh the refugee problem was
one of the question yes um you know I I
worked for a number of years um with um
uh International CR crisis group and my
boss at the time was Rob Mali who was
one of the American officials pres
thrown out of the state department
whatever the point I'm the point I want
to make about um uh Rob was he wrote I
think a very perceptive article in 2001
in the New York Review books I know that
you and ahud Barack have had a debate
with them but I think he gives a very
compelling reason of why and how um uh
Camp uh Camp David failed but rather
than going into that I'll he wrote that
together with Hussein ARA husin ARA yes
who was not at Camp David um but in
response to your question um I think
there could have been a real possibility
of Israeli Palestinian and Arab Israeli
peace in the mid1
1970s in the wake of the 1973 October
War um uh I'll I'll recall that in
1971 mosid Dean Israel's uh defense
minister at the time uh full of
triumphalism about Israel's uh victory
in
1967 speaking to a group of Israeli
military veterans stated you know if I
had to choose between um sh without
peace or peace without sh this is
referring to the um Resort and an an
Egyptian s which was then under Israeli
occupation Dean said I will choose for
sh without peace um then the 1973 war
came along and um uh I think Israeli
calculations began to change very
significantly and I think it was in that
context that had there been a
joint us Soviet um push for um uh an
Arab Israeli and Israeli Palestinian
resolution that incorporated both an
Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and
the establishment of a Palestinian State
um in in the occupied territories I
think it there was a very reasonable
Prospect for that being achieved it
ended up being aborted I think um uh for
several reasons and ultimately um the
Egyptian uh president Anar Sadat um
decided uh for reasons we can discuss
later to launch a separate unilateral
Initiative for um Israeli Egyptian
rather than Arab Israeli peace and I
think once that set in motion um the
prospects uh 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 um you know and you ask when were we
closest and I can't give you an answer
of when we were closest I can only tell
you when I think we we could have been
uh close and that was a that was a lost
opportunity um if we look at the
situation today you know there's been a
lot of
discussion about a two-state settlement
my own View and I've I've written about
this uh I don't I don't bu the arguments
of the naysayers that we have passed uh
the so-called point of no return with
respect to a two-state settlement
certainly 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 then was a British position in
Ireland in
1916 then was the Ethiopian position in
uh itria in 1990 and so as a matter of
practicality as a matter of principle I
do think um the establishment of a
Palestinian State uh in 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 um since October 7th and looking
at Israel's genocidal campaign but also
looking at larger questions is it
desirable can 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 um
challenges with violence by applying
even more violence that has an
insatiable Lust For Palestinian
territory um that you know a genocidal
apartheid state that seems increasingly
incapable of even conceiving of peaceful
coexistence um uh with with the other
people on that land um so I'm very
pessimistic that a a solution is
possible I look at um I grew up um in
Western Europe in the long shadow of the
second world war um I think we can all
agree that there could have been no
peace in Europe um had certain regimes
on that continent not been removed from
Power um I look at um uh southeast Asia
and the late
1970s and I think we're all agreed that
there could not have been peace in that
region had the K Rouge uh 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
um that ruled Zimbabwe and South Africa
not been dismantled there could not have
been peace in that region and although I
think it's worth having a
discussion um I do think it's now a
legitimate question to ask can there be
peace um
without dismantling uh the Zionist uh
regime and I make a very clear
distinction between the Israeli state
and its institutions on the one hand um
and the Israeli people who I think
regardless of our discussion uh about
the history I think you can now talk
about an Israeli people and a people um
that have developed uh rights over time
and um a formula for peaceful
coexistence with them uh will need to be
found which is a separate matter from uh
dismantling um 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 uh settlement remains uh uh
feasible but I think there are very
legitimate questions about its
desirability um and about whether peace
can be achieved in the Middle East um
with the Persistence of an irrational
genocidal aparti uh regime particularly
because Israeli Society is um uh
beginning to develop um many extremely
extremely uh tasteful supremacist uh
dehumanizing uh aspects that I think
also stand in the way of uh coexistence
that are being fed by this uh
regime so if you look back into history
when we're closest to peace and do you
draw any hope from any of them um I feel
like in 2000 I feel like the deal that
was present uh at least at the end of
the taba Summit I think in terms of what
Israel I think had the to give and what
the Palestinians would have gotten would
have definitely been the most agreeable
between the two parties um 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 um in Jordan
there was no love for the Palestinians
after you know 1970 after Black
September um I know that sedat had no
love for the Palestinians um due to
their associ association with the Muslim
brotherhoods attempted assassinations in
Egypt um sorry which PLO in the Muslim
Brotherhood Sadat was upset because
there were attempted assassinations by
people in oh no an assassination um it
was a personal friend of his Yu alai I
can't pronounce that was assassinated
cyress by AED by the ab
organization aded he says much belongs
to group not directly but I think that
um there was a history of um the
Palestinians sometimes uh fighting with
their neighboring states that were
hosting them if they weren't getting the
political concessions they wanted um the
assassination of the Jordanian King in
51 might be another example of that in
Jordan um it 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 uh 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 all of these words I
think further The Narrative for the
Palestinians that Israel is an evil
state that needs to be dismantled um I
mean you said as much about the
institution at least of the Zionist
government uh 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 uh the Palestinians need
to accept it too the the Israeli State
or the state apparatus is not going
anywhere and at some point they need to
realize like like hey we need a leader
that's going to come out and represent
us represent all of us is willing to
take political risks is willing to
negotiate some lasting peace for us and
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
which they formally did in 1993 which
they formally did in 1993 yeah but then
no no lasting came after that in 2000 no
because uh 1993 was not a peace
agreement sure the oso courts wer final
solution or an interim an interim
agreement and um Palestinians actually
began clamoring for commencing the the
permanent status uh resolutions on
schedule and the Israelis kept delaying
them in fact they only began I believe
in
99 under American pressure on on the
Israelis I think you're being a bit
one-sided both sides didn't
fulfill the promise of Oso and the steps
needed for Oso 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 altoe when the
Palestinians said no but I I think
there's a I I don't I don't agree
incidentally with this definition of
Israel or the Israeli State as a
apartheid it's not there is a some sort
of apartheid going on in the West Bank
the Israeli regime itself is not an
apartheid regime that is nonsense by any
definition of aparti which well by by
the formal definition I think it
qualifies no it doesn't qualify a aparti
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 no rights at all in Israel
in Israel itself the
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 been genocidal it
wasn't so in 48 it wasn't so in ' 67 and
it hasn't been recently in my view um
and talk about dismantling Israel and
that's what you're talking about um
is I think Stephen said it correctly is
counterproductive it just pushes
Israelis further away from willing to
give Palestinians anything please nor
tell me you have something optimistic to
say optimistic to say no I uh even
though I agree I've thought about it a
lot and I agree with M's uh
analysis um 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 uh I
don't quite I agree and I disagree with
Moen on the 73 issue after the 1973 War
uh it was clear that Israel was
surprised by what happened during the
war and
um uh it took a big hit the estimates
are I don't know what numbers you used
but I hear between two and 3,000 Israeli
soldiers were killed uh during the 19
2500 yeah 2700 okay so I got it right I
read different numbers that's you know
it's a very large number uh of Israelis
who were killed there were moments at
the beginning of the war where there was
a fear that this might be it uh in there
wasn't wasn't this is non everybody
forgets isra Israel's Atomic Weaponry I
know but so how could they have been
defeated talk about the collapse of the
third temp he did but that but it was
hysterical and silly because isra hadic
weapons they wanted to stop syrians or
thep we're talking about perceptions
yeah I'm not I'm not I can't tell you if
he was historical or not no he was the
same room with him I'm just saying let's
not bog down on that uh the war is over
and when President Carter comes into
Power Carter was an extremely smart guy
Jimmy Carter extremely smart guy and he
was very fixed on details extreme he was
probably the most impressive of modern
American presidents in my opinion by a
wide margin and he was determined to
resolve the conflict uh on a on a big
scale on the Arab Israeli scale on the
palestin
inian issue he wouldn't go past what he
called a Palestinian Homeland he would
Palestinian national home the
Palestinian national home he wouldn't go
as far as a Palestinian State uh I'm not
going to go into the details of that I I
don't think realistically given the
political balance of forces that was
going to happen but that's a separate
issue let's get to the issue ah hand
namely what is the obstacle or what has
been the obstacle since the early 1970s
since rough
1974 the Palestinians have accepted the
two-state settlement in the June 1967
border now as it got as more pressure
was exerted on Israel because the
Palestinians seemed reasonable the
Israelis to quote the Israeli political
scientist avner Yan he since passed from
the scene he said Yaniv in his book
dilemas of security he said that the big
palestin 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 I'm going to
have to fast forward there are many
events there's the first in then there's
the oo court and let's now go to uh the
the the heart of the issue namely the uh
the
negotiations well
um the negotiations are divided into
three parts for the sake of listeners
there's Camp David in July 2000 there
are the Clinton parameters in December
and then there are negotiations in
taba in Egypt 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 I'll
vouch for that the insanity I I actually
I will vouch for it I will personally
vouch for it um 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 were 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 shomo Ben Ami's
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 will withdraw from
90 relinquish uh 92% of the West Bank
benam me was at Camp DAV yeah Ben he was
at taba oh yeah he was also Camp DAV uh
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% uh in your books uh they put it at
roughly
92% uh Israel was willing to give how
you calculate depends what stage Camp
David because there were two weeks I'll
get to that proposals changed during so
Israel wants to keep all the major
settlement blocks means the Border area
of the West well not the Border we have
Ariel we have Mal adumim we have
asit as Condit rice called arel 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 uh
Ehud Barack 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 we
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 benami 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 do
international law say international law
says the settlements are illegal
Israel wants to keep all the settlement
blocks 15 judges all 15 in the wall
decision in 2004 in July 2004 all 15
judges including the American judge
bergenthal
ruled the settlements are illegal under
international
law they 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
East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian
territory that's what the international
not Palestinian because there was no
palestin there's never been a
Palestinian State how could it be
Palestinian I listen patiently to you
sorry under international law if you
read the decision
all
territory not 2004 World decision all
territory beyond the green line which
includes East Jerusalem is occupied
Palestinian territory the exception of
the Goan Heights the designated unit
according to the international court of
justice the designated unit for
Palestinian
self-determination and
they 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 AUD 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 they may have accepted less
than they with than what they
wanted but it was
still beyond what international law
allocated to them now you say allocated
to the Palestinians allocated to the
Palestinians yes thank you for the
clarification now about
Arafat like the Muti never liked the guy
I think that was one of the only
disagreements uh maren and I had when
Arafat passed you were a little
sentimental I was not never like 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 no and no they kept saying
no no Professor Mars with due respect
respect incorrect they kept saying
International legitimacy international
law un
resolutions they said we already gave
you what you what the Lord 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 on the other side
agreed Clinton don't talk to me about
international law Livy 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 and to my
thinking that that is the only
reasonable
Baseline for trying to resolve the
conflict and Israel has along with when
has when has International
La been relevant to any conflict
basically in the world hey that's why
over the last that's why the
Palestinians have to recognize Israel
because that's international
law that was UN resolution Sol by
international law or in accordance with
international law but then Professor
Maris for argument's sake
let's agree on that strictly for
argument sake what's the
alternative Dennis Ru said we're going
to decide who gets what on the basis of
needs so he says Israel needs this
Israel needs that Israel needs that
Dennis Ross 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 good it needs it needs part of
it needs a nice big chunk of well not
that's what it actually needs okay I I
don't even want to go there uh it needs
a nice big chunk but I have to accept
international law says no okay
international law is irrelevant now Ben
says I think the Israeli offer was
reasonable
okay that's he reasonable that's he
seems even though okay I don't want to
go there I've debated him and partly
agree with you um but who decides what's
reasonable I think the International
Community in its
political uh Incarnation the general
assembly the security Council all those
un Security Council resolution saying
the settlements are illegal annexation
of East Jerusalem is null and void and
the international court of justice 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 I wouldn't say
what Benmore says that they're
irrelevant but I think that these have
to be seen as informing the conversation
I don't think these are the final 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 G 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 often times historically
started in secret independent of the
International Community um 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 uh for 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 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 both
sides are reasonable but like forance
this statement of like full with Retreat
from the West what is it 400,000 sett
how many settlers live in the west now
probably half a million depends if you
include the Jerusalem suburbs four or
500,000 people are never with the
Jerusalem suburbs
perhaps half a million people not
settlements I know that but that's not
what the law the law calls it null and
void we can say we can say whatever we
want until we're blue in the face but
like there's half a million Israeli
people are not being expelled resp
you're basically saying if I understand
correctly there's only one way to
resolve this and that is through direct
bilateral negotiations probably yeah
okay so or ideally but I've taken over
your house okay you're not going to go
to the police because you know the law
is 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 and standard and
and norms and and law and all the rest
of it be damned so um 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 the
Palestinians have already recognized
Israel um they have they have why you
keep bringing that up like it's a
significant concession even it's not
even true it does the recognition from
Palestine isn't doing anything for Hamas
totally reject Hamas Hamas is a majority
in the among the Palestinian people they
won the elections in 2006 every they won
a majority of the seats didn't win
majority opinion poll today says the
majority of Palestinians support the
Hamas Hamas absolutely rejects hisra so
if arat 2003 uh 1993 or whatever issued
a sort of recognition was a sort of
recogn recognition of Israel it does
it's meaningless it's meaningless any
any I don't believe that Arafat was
sincere about it does it matter what you
I think well most Israelis do and that
does matter okay so that does matter but
Hamas says no and Hamas is the majority
to so for years so so for years the
Israeli and US demand was that the
Palestinians recognize uh 242 338 they
did but you're saying okay we demanded
that they do this but it was meaningless
when they did it then the then the
demand was that a tactical thing yes
then the demand was that is uh the PLO
recognize Israel tactical okay we
demanded that they did this and they did
it but it's meaningless and they never
changed their chart of the PLO you may
remember that in fact in 19 they
supposedly abrogated the Old Charter but
never came up with a new one so no
there's no new CH but in 1996 and Faruk
Kumi said of course the Old Charter is
still in yes but the point is you know
the
Palestinians demands are constantly made
of them and when they and when they
acceed 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 ofand it's like a hamster it's
like a hamster Stu in whe let me tell
you what told if you run fast enough
you'll get out of the cave no no the
bottom line is that Israel would like a
Palestinian Sadat it wants the
Palestinians listen listen this really a
worst case scenario okay let me just
they sh s but anyhow the the the
Israelis want 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 I
don't even know don't that's true today
and what is the formal position of of of
this Israeli government no no I'm saying
I don't know if it exist it's it's
predecessor and it's predecessor and
it's
come on that's what Israelis want they
want a change of of psyche among the
Palestinians if that doesn't happen
there won't be a palestin
m mine has an interesting point because
interal because I found I found I know
you would 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 Palestinians
want to forget it too and it doesn't
suit them as well right but here's the
problem and it's exactly the problem
that M just brought up now I read
carefully your book one state 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 it'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 M
wrote here's what you said you said
formerly you said yes it's true the
Palestinians recognize Israel but then
you said viscerally in their hearts they
they didn't really recognize
Israel so I thought to myself how does
uh Professor Mar no what's in the hearts
of Palestinians I don't know I was I was
I was explained I was I was surprised as
a historian you would be talking about
what's lurking in the hearts of
Palestinians but then you said something
which was really interesting in 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
Palestine and now they're reduced to
just a few pieces a few Parcels of land
they will never accept it so yes so you
said there's no way they can accept no I
I would say that as well the two State
solution as proposed
exactly as Moen said you keep moving the
gold post no no no until we reach the
point where we realize according to
Benny Maris there can't be a
solution so why don't you just say that
outright why don't you say it outright
that according to you the Palestinians
can never be reasonable because
according to you they want all
according to you they couldn't possibly
they couldn't possibly agree to a
two-state summon because it's such a
lousy
settlement Palestine because you but you
said rationally they couldn't accept it
not their feelings you said rational you
went from formally viscerally rationally
so now we're reaching the point where
according to Benny moris the
Palestinians can't be
reasonable because reasonably they have
to reject two states they want all of
pal absolutely correct there's no way to
resolve the problem according to your he
said that himself he said they should
dismantle Israel that's what he say what
I
said what I said and and I've and I've
written I'm glad you didn't deny it I've
I've written extensively on this issue
on on why a two-state settlement is um
still feasible and I came out in support
of that proposition perhaps in my heart
you know you can see that I was just
bullshitting but that's what I actually
wrote that was a number of years ago and
and just as a matter of historical
record um beginning in the early
1970s um there was fierce debate within
the Palestinian national movement about
whether to accept or reject and and
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 Palestinian 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 that um they should go for a
two-state settlement and and our friend
and correspondent cter lers has written
a very perceptive article on um when the
P already in
1976 came out an open support of a um
two-state uh resolution at the security
Council poo accepted it Israel of course
rejected it but the resolution didn't
pass because the US and the UK vetoed it
it was both of them I think it was N9
to5 yeah but but fact of the matter is
that the PLO came to accept um a
two-state settlement why they did it I
think is
irrelevant um and subsequently the PLO
acted on the basis of seeking to achieve
a two-state sett the reason I think and
I think Norm you've written about this
the reason that Arafat was so
insistent on getting um uh 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 if 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 ins that's something
I've never understood he should have
logically accepted the springboard and
then from there launched his next stage
don't understand he international law
would put a real constraint on
no but also he accepted it was over
constitutionally he was incapable of
signing know you're right that he he
should have accepted it but if you're
correct okay that that he was really out
to eliminate Israel then then he
wouldn't have cared about the borders he
wouldn't have cared about what the thing
said about refugees he would have gotten
a sovereign state and used that to
achieve that purpose but 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 it was
a principal rather than the num
principal he said I would be pragmatic
about it and the numbers that were used
at um
Annapolis were between and 250,000
refugees over 10 years that was the
number Arafat when he was asked at Camp
David he kept saying I care about the
Lebanese uh the Palestinian refugees in
Lebanon which came to about 300,000
prior which was a large concession from
the whether you accept the number or not
that he wasn't talking about 6 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 allart offer can we just pretend
like we didn't all lay out the
exceptionally pessimistic uh view of a
two-state hold on a second two-state
solution let's pretend that in 5 years
and 10 years a a two-state peace
settlement is
reached and and as historians you will
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
worse position they'll be in but for
some reason they've never had a leader
that convinced them of that as much that
Arafat thought that if he held on there
was always a better deal around the
corner um abas is more concerned with
trying to maintain any legitimacy
amongst Palestinians than actually
trying to uh negotiate anything
realistic with Israel that Palestinians
are always incen 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 uh the icj and
the genocide Char is going to come and
save the Palestinians as 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
for peace that the Palestinians had have
completely and utterly abandoned them
uh Egypt uh Jordan uh the Gulf States uh
whether you're talking bilateral peace
or 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 uh maintaining the
rights and the representations of what
the Palestinian people want and the only
people they have today to 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 Amnesty International
reports and the reality is we can scream
until we're blew 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 going to get more
brutal uh the 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 Sadat likee
Palestinian leader that's willing to
come up and confront Israel with the
with the brave peaceful negotiations to
force them to to acqu nothing is going
to happen and I think that the issue you
come up with is you know 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 the Israel in a way and I
think people have said as much about
Netanyahu um 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 uh in
October 7 we've got to remove Hamas well
we can't trust these people in the west
we have to do the night raids um because
you know the second inata uh you know
made us feel like the Palestinian people
didn't want trust with us I feel like
the the 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 the the International Community and
the mounting pressure from within
because Israel hosts a lot of its own
criticism if we talk about bet Salem we
talk her 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
historically it hasn't um and in the
modern day violence has just hurt the
Palestinians more and more if you paint
a picture of the future now is a good
moment for both Palestine and Israel to
get new leadership Netanyahu is 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
the problem is like said yeah it's
difficult because Hamas enjoys so much
widespread support um 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 for Hamas I don't know if
a negotiation with Israel ever happens
there and then when the 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 um I just don't see
realistically that on the Palestinian
side no negotiations are ever going to
start in in a place that Israel is
willing to
accept if you want to um dismiss
international law that's fine but then
you have to do it
consistently you can't um set standards
for the
Palestinians um but reject uh applying
those standards to Israel um if we're
going to have the law of the Jungle then
we can all be beasts and not only some
of us and I think so it's either that or
you have certain agreed uh standards
that that are intended to regulate our
conduct all of our conduct not just some
of
us I'm saying to abandon well you're
saying you know 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 say like forance AC that was
a chapter 6 resolution that's
non-binding but 242 is
binding what is what is binding do you
know anything about how the UN system if
you read the language of the resolution
binding is typically if it commits you
to upholding a particular international
law or if it establish
you just throw out words you hear
binding even does 22 mention a
Palestinian state of course part of the
problem that was the reason why the
Palestinians didn't want to recognize
242 because it only referred at the very
end recognized 181 and 22 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 state of the UN that's read the
UN Charter it's it's black and what sure
people look the language even of 242 is
kept intentionally vague such that it
doesn't actually provide again the final
not that vague because the term the term
land for peace originates in 242 the
idea territorial acquisition and
Israel's need to give it up was kept
vague that's why in that's why 79 is
thought that they their
point of information allow me points of
information the first principle in UN
resolution 242 is the inadmissibility of
the acquisition of territory by force
which is meaning it may be meaningless
to you Mr B M Mr benell 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 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 supported that's what's called
that's what's
called not accurate I'm not going to go
there I'm not
it's not accurate that ended okay I'm
not going to go there uh under
international law use kogan or
peremptory 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 on the west before 67
who on the STP before 6
M Mr benel don't change the subject if
you don't know what you're talking about
at least have the at least
humil close has2 gotten to the from
tweet five you have no idea what you're
talking about it's just so embarrassing
at least have some humility between us
we have read maybe 10,000 books on the
topic and you've read two wik media
entries and you start talking about
chapter 6 do you know what chapter seven
is answer me chapter answer me a
question how close is 242 gotten the
Palestinians to a state how close is the
2004 advisory opinion gotten the the
West Bank settlement what's your
alternative the alternative is you it's
not this whatever this making money off
the conflict is the the actual
alternative the actual alternative
should talk about making money you're
media will you go and talk to 50 million
different people about your
awes the issue is you these resolutions
have gotten the Palestinians no closer
because they haven't enforced because of
the US V they're not going to be enforc
wait wait wait if I may if I
may Professor talk about the case for
genocide Professor
Maris because of your logic and I'm not
disputing it that's why October 7th
happened oh my God because there was no
options left for those people exactly
and now what options are left after
October only
optionen only is now an expert on
Palestinian mentality you're
contradicting
mentality Egypt didn't find it necessary
Egypt didn't find it necessary to
negotiate peace with pales Jordan didn't
find it necessary to negotiate peace
with the Palestinian cours didn't didn't
the
palan all of the international
law you're contradicting yourself on the
one hand you're saying all the
Palestinians do was fight and violence
and terrorism and all the rest of it but
on the other hand you're saying they're
expecting salvation from uh uh from un
resolutions and international cour those
aren't violent they're no but it's part
of maintaining it's the it's the
continual putting off of negotiating any
solution they' negoti as when arat Tak
10 days to respond when arat takes 10
days to respond all over the world
yes put they AC the two states in
1975 brace yourself
they years ago half century ago they
didn't accept the two State solution
very good article you can quote Arafat
talking about how he's lying and he's
just going to use a 94 and a 95 when
he's making trips around the world how
he just want the starting ground I I'm
sorry I can talk slow you can watch
YouTu Slow Down to5 Speed if you don't
understand what I'm saying let me
there's a very there's a very lengthy
history of Israeli Palestinian
negotiations you want to deny that those
NE negotiations took place where it
feels like there was a a good faith
effort where where there was a good
faith effort where it was a good faith
effort record all due respect we have a
written Mr Pop you can't even read the
written records I don't know why you're
referring to excuse me I just said there
are 15,000 pages on Annapolis and I'm
sure you Cherry quied your favorite
quotes from all of them okay that's
great great at least I a quote to
charity
great want I gave you quotes I give you
you want quotes find me the information
the Palestinian cause has been furthered
by any international law you can't do it
I think the problem is is is different
okay you you want to um say the
Palestinians were only fighting and then
when I point out they've also gone to
the court and the UN say well all they
do then as these things and you said
they should be negotiating and I
demonstrate that there was a lengthy um
uh record of negotiations said yeah but
they didn't go in 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
what was the best negation if I could
just finish I I think the fundamental
problem here is not what the
Palestinians have and 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 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 palestin how do you explain
taba Summit how do you explain
the did how do
youy of Palestinian demands this is but
they just didn't want to give the
Palestinians all of Palestine that's all
no all of Palestine of pal you mean all
of the occupied territories you're
talking about all of Palestine what the
occup what is the occupied territories
the occupied territor all Israel the
occupied territories are those
territories that Israel occupied in June
of 1967 pans often use that term to
define the whole of pal not just the
West Bank could you show me Professor
Morris in all the
negotiations all the negotiations and
all the accounts that have written can
you show me
one where the Palestinians in the
negotiations cuz that's what we were
talking about wanted all of Israel the
maximum I they can't say that because
International Community won't accept it
they didn't say it they didn't ask for
it Hamas did Hamas always said Hamas
only negotiated with Israel about
prisoner exchanges in so we were talking
a lot of the palan people will agre the
only place I saw pieces of Israel were
the land swaps and the land swaps
accounted for about 2 to 5% of Israel
nobody asked for all of Israel why what
do you mean they asked for all of Israel
in 48 they asked for all of Israel in 67
what do you think those were about
you're not going to respond to anything
I'm saying you have no answer respond to
you that's correct okay Mr benel we were
talking about the Diplomatic
negotiations beginning with 20
200021 can't pretend that the for isra
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
St is the Israeli State ever going to be
dismantled do you think that's like
realistic coming up ever in the next 20
years again I'm I'm posing a
question um and the question is
regardless of of of what's feasible or
realistic today um the question I'm
posing is can you have peace in the
Middle East with this militant
irrational genocidal
aparti State and power L 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
of of Europe and southern Africa how do
you contend with the fact that most of
the surrounding Arab states seem to
agree that you can yeah you're correct
um several of them most importantly
Egypt uh Jordan have made their peace um
uh with Israel I should add that
Israel's conduct since then has placed
these uh relations under strain I I had
very little um uh I didn't take uh the
reports of a Saudi Israeli rushma
particularly seriously before October
7th the reason being that it was really
a Saudi Israeli us deal which committed
the US um to make certain commitments to
Saudi Arabia that would probably never
get through um Congress you not consider
the Egypt Israeli peace deal legitimate
then since is since the United States
made a great financial contribution to
Egypt I don't think the question is
whether that deal is um uh legitimate or
not I think I think that deal um uh
exists but the point is um whether you
know the the 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 um the occupied Egyptian sin
and the reason that Egyption Israeli
peace treaty was signed in 1979 is
because Israel in
1973 recognized that its military super
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
maybe just the Israelis wanted peace
well the Israelis not just because they
were afraid of what Egypt might do if
you're talking about the average Israeli
citizen I 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 how
do you remove the most powerful two
point two point simple points what was
the terms of that Egypt Israel
peace
treaty international law Egypt demanded
every nobody cared about interal allow
me to finish every single inch no about
international law
uhur and sad talked about the
reality territory Professor Maris
Professor
Maris I know the
record they demanded as you know cuz
you've written about
they demanded every square inch as you
know they demanded the oil fields be
dismantled the Airfield no not
dismantled they wanted the oil field
they wanted the settlements dismantled
settlements dismantled the settlements
the oil fields and the Airfield they
demanded all three back you can't have
what do you mean back the airfields
weren't there when the EG were there
okay that's incorrect what's you're
incorrect they built an Airfield the
Israelis built an Airfield in the
occupied
and they wanted it back they didn't want
it back wasn't their okay they wanted
the territory in which they is built
back oil fields the airfields the
settlements have to be dismantled yes
ban said I don't want to be the first
prime minister to dismantle settlement
but he did why because of the law
because of ital the law law had nothing
to do anything it was a negotiation
between two states Each of which wanted
certain
the law had nothing to do said
repeatedly in the negotiations you're
not listening you're missing the point
read the negotiations nothing to do two
foreign relations of us volumes on it
nobody cares about the law the
Palestinians kept saying we want ex the
palan they weren't there allow me to
finish the Palestinians kept saying we
want what Egypt got we want what Egypt
got Egypt got everything back nothing to
do with the law okay nothing to do with
and number two I'm not saying it's the
whole picture but as foreign minister
MOA Dean 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 m m
was no the first part did and that's
what the Palestinians kept
saying what Egypt got from that's true
but forget into National Law and by the
way to do one last thing one last on a
personal note the quote about charm
Shake without peace okay that's the only
thing you ever cited from a book of mine
you I cited from your book yes I was
absolutely shocked at your betrayal of
your people that was your
treason it was I apologize for that I
apologize I apologize I accept all right
well let me try once again uh for the
region and for just entirety of humanity
what gives you hope we just heard a lot
of pessimistic cynical takes what gives
you hope don't like War that's that's a
good reason that's hope in other words
the fear of war the dis disaster of War
should give people an a impetus to try
and seek peace when you look the 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
that Israel believes it has to restore
what it calls its
uh deterrence
capability I think you've written about
it actually I just realized Israel has
to restore its deterrence cap 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 so so the Israelis
are dead set on restoring that
deterrence capability
on the Arab side and I Know M and I have
disagreed on it and we're allowed to
disagree um 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 will be an unfortunate
unfortunate message that's really what
the come to think and they think that
there is a military option now and I
think that that's it's a zero sum game
at this point and it's very very B
and I'm not going to lie about that now
I will admit my
predictive capacities are perfect are
limited but for the moment it's a very
Bleak situation that I agree with and I
don't see right now a way out however at
the very
minimum permanent ceasefire ended inh
human and illegal blockade of Gaza and
uh why is it illegal they were shooting
rockets at Israel for for 20 years why
is that illegal to blockade Gaza he
thinks bottle
Ro why is it illegal I'll tell you why
you don't rocket your neighbor you
rocket your neighbor expect consequences
I'll tell expect consequences but that
works both way I know professor
professor both I'll tell you why because
every human rights humanitarian and un
organization in the world has said
said nobody cares
it's a form of collective punishment
illegal under International La you think
you think a blockade you don't
understand the way the world works these
things are irrelevant and you think
confining because that's the blockade
yes you don't confing confining a
million children confining that's the
choice comining million children in what
the economist called a human rubbish
sheep The Economist supported Israel in
this war and continued to support Israel
what um International Committee of Red
Cross called a sinking ship with the UN
High Commissioner for human rights
called a toxic slum you think it is a
slum of course SL you think but it's
caused under international law you think
it's
legitimate hey I know you want to forget
the law one thing that every what every
Israeli fears the most the LA
as Cy ly said I studied international
law I oppose international law of course
you don't want to hear about the law
it's got nothing to do anything okay so
here's the thing yeah then don't
complain about October 7th if you don't
want if you want to say forget about the
law all I said was like Barb there is no
International humanitarian law There's
no distinction between civilians and
combatants be and
so now you're doing what Meen said
you're becoming very selective about the
law if you want to forget about the law
Hamas had every right to do what it did
it had every right to do what it did
according to you not to me cuz you want
to forget the law do you still support
the houthis shooting random ships
absolutely okay that's a violation of
international law you play the same game
absolutely and were there a power during
World War II who had the courage of the
houthis where there a power that had
that kind of cage to be bombing Merchant
ships while tens of thousands of people
die of actual starvation not the
starvation that exists in the Gaza Strip
where people before October don't die of
starvation not that not the
concentration C the what about
starvation in Yen don't they have
something better to do was the hoies yes
I know don't don't they have anything in
three years 180,000 should they be
feeding
60,000 why fight starvation why fight
the Western powers in Israel when you
should be taking care of your problems
at home the htis often the only allies
of the dispossessed are those who
experience similar circumstances don't
you think that they should take take
care of the Yemen yemeni problems I'm
very happy I'm very happy they're
helping out the Palestinians anyone who
helps expense of anybody for anybody who
comes to the aid of those suffering a
genocide half of half of whom are
children yeah according to the most
current un reports as of today one
quarter of the population of Gaza is
starving that means 500,000 children are
starving are on the verge of famine they
keep saying on the verge of on thege not
seen I have not seen one Palestinian die
of starvation in these last four months
not one on the verge on the verge they
have been documented cases I haven't
seen yesterday aler said six and the day
before that they said two so those are
the the two the that number probably
dies in Israel of starvation also I
don't think there's famine in Israel
there isn't there isn't in the Gaza
Strip either it's something which is
produced for the Western there are
infants dying due to a engineered lack
of access to food and nutrition I don't
think it's engineered I think if the
Kamas stopped shooting perhaps
unfortunately as you said engineered I
think um amnesty and excuse me human
Rights Watch called it 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 um I want to
hear and answer that CU he didn't answer
I'm happy to answer it yeah I just
quoted you from the humanitarian
organizations they said one quarter of
the population of Gaza is now verging on
famine before October 7 before October
going before October you use that as
justification Hamas fighting you say the
conditions were unlivable they had to
fight I said to him so my question is
what made it unlivable prior to October
7th what are the what are the metrics
that you're using there were about five
six or seven reports issued by unad
issued by the World Bank issued by the
international monetary fund and they all
said that's why that's why why did they
say why why did they say that's why the
economist not a radical periodical
described Gaza as a human rubbish so
tell me by what
metrics if you're if you're a historian
if you do all this work to do things
tell me what they
said tell me by what he's not going to
answer again I I don't think I've
avoided any of your questions except
except when they breach when they breach
the threshold of complete imbecility to
tell me by what metric the Gaza Strip is
a human crisis you remember what I said
a moment ago I said to Professor Mars I
defer to
expertise I I look at what the
organizations say I look at what the
United Nations High Commissioner for
human rights that you don't know you
don't know 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 yet we can still measure
infant mortality life expect
yeah we can measure all of these
things 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 beny Morris and and Norman
finklestein um that the current
situation is Bleak and I think it would
be um unreasonable to expect it to not
get even
Bleaker uh in the coming week and months
and we now this
conflict really it originated in the
late 19th century it's
been um been a more or less active
conflict since the 1920s
1930s um and has produced a tremendous
amount of of of suffering and and
regional conflict and
geopolitical complications and all of
that uh but what gives me hope is is
that throughout their entire
ordeal um the paltin people have never
surrendered um 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 um uh on
occasion uh thrown at them but um this
is the people that never has and I
believe never will
surrender and um at a certain point I
think um
Israel uh and its leaders um will have
to come to the realization that by hook
or by crook
um these people are going to achieve
their
inalienable and legitimate um uh
National rights and and that that is
going to be a reality I I um as I what
do you mean by that you mean all of
Palestine is that what you mean no and
and from The River To The Sea well
ideally of course yes um and and what I
was those the inalienable rights no what
I was saying earlier and then the
discussion got sidetracked is um that I
did believe that a two-state
settlement um a partition of
Palestine um along the 1967 uh
boundaries um would have been a
reasonable um solution because I think
it also would have opened Pathways to um
further but now you believe what further
nonviolent engagement between Israel and
the Palestinians that could create um
other forms of coexistence in a in a
federal or bational or or what 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 I think
I think there has to be an explicit
acknowledgment um of uh respons of of a
responsibility and and the return and of
their 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 um uh the
foundations um uh 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 um Palestinian refugees who
once their rights are acknowledged will
find it um exceptionally distasteful
Canada exceptionally distasteful um to
have to live among the kind of
sentiments that we've heard around this
table um today to be quite Frank I mean
I heard I you know I'm I was previously
unfamiliar with you um and and I watched
one of your preparation videos uh 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 comments
about white supremacy so my issue that's
great the white supremacy comment well
hold on let me 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 is
because on one end you've got a people
who are now convinced internationally
that they're victims of apartheid
genocide concentration camp conditions
uh ethnic cleansing uh they're forced to
live in an open air prison um with all
of these things that are stacked against
them all of these terms that are highly
specific that refer to to very precise
things uh and then when people like
nothing less from someone who doesn't
think Crow is a part I don't know who
does stat the problem is you're morally
loading for you a part is when racists
do bad things no there's there's a
definition of a part that's
great top down racial domination enacted
through top down like federal
legislative policies or whatever means
that I don't know if um I don't know if
Jim Crow would have qualified for part
that doesn't make it any less excus mein
I'm talking right now excuse me excuse
me twinklin I'm talking to your friend
over here um I don't know would have
qualified as the crime of aarth just
like if Israel were to literally nuke
the Gaza St and kill 2 million people I
don't know if that would qualify for the
crime of In Your Eyes probably not I
don't well yeah but because genocide
requires a special intent I think the
issue is instead instead of and I think
this conversation is actually is
emblematic of the entire conversation I
don't think anything let me finish
answering accus me of supporting racism
so yeah I
think I did it do you think I support
Jim
croww look when the fact that you can't
even answer that honestly say that 800
civilian killed by by Hamas you said
well maybe 400 were killed by Israel I
don't know the number maybe you said 400
you co-signed the opinion no I didn't no
I didn't well wait how many 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
ball if you had to Ballpark it how many
do you think were killed by Hamas on
October 7th I think it's pretty clear
that the majority of civilians that were
killed 51% or 90% don't ask me to put a
number those are two very different
inition first of all are you when you
say Hamas do you mean Palestinians or do
you mean Hamas specif Palestinian Force
I don't like to say Palestinians because
I don't think all Palestinian civilians
were inv ATT I'll say Hamas Islamic
whatever Al that's how this discussion
started you said Hamas and I began to
answer that and then Benny moris said
actually he means Hamas in addition to
Jihad and the others so so of the
invading Palestinian Force how many do
you think killed civilians versus the
IDF what do you think the ballpark the
percentage well the figures we have are
that about a third of the casualties on
October 7th were military about two3
were what's your question how many what
percentage of civilians think were
killed by the invading Force I think I
think a clear majority but I can't give
you a specific figure if you thought it
was close to 51% or 99% we killed by why
would he know that how would he know
because it's interesting to actually
stake out a position it's you want to be
completely agnostic on it they stop
complete ignorance because we don't know
professor moris doesn't know
you can speak with absolute certainty
that the IDF is targeting and murdering
Palestinian children intentionally you
see the double standard no I don't you
see I know you don't it was aoral
question obviously don't why because
because the matter I looked at the UN
report I looked at the 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 this AED people just as they are now
in this confence exactly no more
journalists have been killed in the last
several months in Gaza than in any other
conf world war Hamas is not killing
journalists you 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 children he
doesn't want to hear it's soor you're
not having a material it is virt yes
like when you see children over and over
again that's
virt talking how many Israelis were
killed that's not virtue signaling cuz
that's human life I don't care about I
don't care if 100 or
thousand to1 curious ass the question
yes that's not the number that's the
response and then m m mentions that more
journalists were killed in Gaza than in
all of World War II it doesn't get that
doesn't any part of Medics were killed
that's that's silly journalist says it's
virtu but when Israelis get killed
that's serious I never said it's serious
on both
sides I'm not virt I'm asking a
substantive question of who do you
assign blame to or do you planed Norm
finklestein's conspiracies that the
ambulances should have known immediately
who was dead that the numbers were
changed cuz they were fake or that maybe
51% of the people were killed by uh by
Hamas and and Islamic but 49% were
killed by I helicopters as me direct
question and you got a direct answer I
didn't I got majority which could
be9 a clear majority what percent is a
clear majority as opposed to they live
clear majority in my view is well over
50% please don't ask me to be more
precise because I you could say 80 90 95
if I knew that I would say it I think
it's a reasonable it's a reasonable
you're not the best person to be asking
that question you know I read when you
wrote op described operation defensive
shield and you said a few dozen homes
were destroyed you're talking about what
happened in J refugee camp and you said
no the Arab said 500 you guys said 500
Palestinians were killed in and then no
but that was the statement of the
pan Authority you said a few dozen and
there were massacres there a few dozen a
few dozen homes well it turned out 140
building buildings were destroyed 5
5,000 people 5,000 people were left
homeless how many you 5,000 many you
described it no I'm talking about homes
destroyed so you're not the best person
to be criticizing what Moen says when he
says clear majority but he can't say
more you know why he can't say more
doesn't I he doesn't know yeah yeah I
understand that that's a historic if 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 you what the
right phrase there would be the
overwhelming majority were killed by
Arab gunmen and very small number were
killed by Israelis by accident or
whatever probably historian that's
probably that may be I I can I can state
with confidence a clear majority
overwhelming majority you 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 a independent forgetting
of course you forget forget that doesn't
mean anything the law Independent high
commission human necessar just repeat
all barbaric countries Assyrian was the
head of the UN commission for human
rights if it wasn't Israeli it would
have been okay he certainly would have
been more honest than a Oh Yeah from
your perspective well to disagree with
Stephen I thought this was extremely
valuable uh and at times really like the
the the view of History the the
passion
um I'm really grateful that uh you would
spend your really valuable time and just
one more question since we
have uh two historians here well just
briefly uh 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 brief
I think there's a 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 uh at the end of the 19th
century describing what was done to the
Native Americans she called it A Century
of Dishonor and she described in Vivid
uh 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 you know there
was a famous film by eisenstein Sergey
eisenstein it was either Battleship with
hkin or mother I can't remember which
one the last scene was the Zar troops
mowing down all the Russian people and
he pans the scene not all the Russian
people few well 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 and 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 a bit of a
headache to read at least one of the
chapters you wrote a book on
Gaza and uh 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 in
various periods of History if I've done
a little bit of that I'm happy thank you
nor thank you Benny thank you Stephen
thank you m
thanks for listening to this
conversation with Norman fonstein Benny
Morris Mo Rani and stevenh benell to
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