#418 – Israel-Palestine Debate: Finkelstein, Destiny, M. Rabbani & Benny Morris
05:04:51 Share

The following is a debate on the topic of visual and alliston with Norman fixin, bendy morus, moin Robinia and Steven panel. Also known online is destiny. Norm in benny are historians, maine is a middle standing list, and Stephen is a political commentator and streamer.

All four have spoken and debated extensive on this topic. The goal for this debate was not for anyone to win or to score points. IT wasn't to get user 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 in future visual impact in 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 were along. And I quickly realized that this very conversation, in a very real human way, was a microcosm of the tensions and distance and perspective on the topic of visual maleine. For some debates, I will 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 in the future, but the anger, the frustration, the biting wit, and at times, respect, income, rotary, were all there. I guess, said we did IT. And then, perhaps all too human way, I will do more debates and conversations on these difficult topics, and I will continue to search for hope in the middle of death and destruction, to search for 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. And now a quick .

your second mention .

of its sponsor. Check them out in the description is the best way to support this podcast. We got expressed pm for privacy bubble for learning new languages, policy genius for insurance, and eight sleep for you, guess to sleep, choose wise.

And my friends also, you want to work with our amazing team and just get in touch with me. Good elect treatment that cosne h contact. And now onto the full at reads is always no, as in the middle.

I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponges. I enjoy the stuff. Maybe you will too.

This episode is brought you back. Express V, P, M. I use them to protect my privacy on the internet. I used them for many years.

I've had great conversations with several people on the podcast about the essay and the overreaching power that there is really interesting to think about the value of privacy, the value of digital privacy in our lives, how much we take for granted, how much we look the other way on the product of whatever we are using is good enough and we become the product, our data becomes the product. It's really interesting. I think transparency there is required because while IT is true, all of us value privacy.

We're very hypocritical on that point. In many cases, we distrust what certain things. I don't violate privacy that much, and we trust blindly other things that video, a huge number privacy release, have the capacity to a lot of us using a smart phone, with a camera, looking at us always.

We trust that device human psychologist facing, and worries me how easily we could be convinced that a mass scale by natus distributed propaganda, a or centralized propaganda at all, works and IT. All is terrifically effective, something you think about. You should have several layers of protection in your digital, in your physical space.

Express V P M, A good V P N, and that's when I use, is something should definitely be using good to expressed, be in a calm flash x pod for an extra three months free. This epsom is also brought by bible and APP and website that gets you speaking in a new language within weeks. They get spanish, french, german, italian, russian, portuguese more.

I'm doing more, more translation. In fact, if you are somebody that speaks fluently in russian, in professionally, dust translation, I just did a very lengthy podcast, or both. Me in the gas speak russian, and i'm looking for translation from russian to english, professionally done, like really, really well done.

This is actually a very difficile task. And then also for hope for the same person, but not necessarily to do the voice hovers in english, given how fast the other person speaks, that I interviewed is actually pretty tRicky thing. But all that is to say that I deeply care about breaking down the barriers that language creates.

I think a lot of those barriers are artificial. They hide from ourselves, the common humidity, that's obviously there. There are differences, of course, and culture in the music of people, in the music of a language.

But underneath at all, it's all the same fears, the same hopes, the same excitement, the same dynamics, the same things we care about, family and food and simple joy, big joy, chasing dreams, all that kind stuff. Anyway, I use babel more to learn languages. I don't know that well, sometimes i'll use IT for russian just for fund practice, getting the rest off, but i'm learning spanish now.

Also, I took french in high school and very rusty, so i'm using bible to, again, get some of the rust stuff. And one day I hope to get Better. German and italian of travel in a couple times will be very helpful to be able to speak the language so that I could you navigate the streets with Grace and skill.

I, anyway, for a limited time, you can get eighty percent off a one time payment for a lifetime bible subscription at babel, a counselling pot that's fifty percent off at bible. A console. B A, B, B, E, L.

Rules and restrictions apply. This, ephod is also brought, you buy policy genius, a marketplace for insurance, all kinds, life insurance, auto, home, disability. And I apologize for the heavy of my tones in this few minutes that will get to spend together here. This episode was a difficult one, and perhaps this is a good moment to mention why. Because it's human beings talking about other human beings who are suffering, human beings sitting in the comfort, the room that's not getting boned, that's not getting shot at a room that surrounded by other rooms and other buildings that are safe in the way that most .

places .

in amErica are safe. Meaning, even when there's a crime, the rule of law applies. But the raw aspects of human nature, of the destruction in death involving wars seems out of this world.

IT is difficult to really hold inside your mind. The things i've seen in ukraine, the hate i've seen in people's eyes, when I travel to the worst bank, there's a lot of love there. There's also a lot of hate, and there's a happiness that comes with conversations like this.

Of course, I really, really tried to bring out the humanity, even moments of joy. The commodity I tried. I'll continue to try. Anyway, this is about about genius.

You can find life insurance policies there that start at just two hundred and nine two dollars per year for one million dollars of cover head depos genius that conflate legs are, click the link in the description to get you free your life insurance quotes and see how much you can save. That's policy genius that come flash legs. This episode de is brought to you by asleep and spot three cover another thing that I get to enjoy in life.

Hand others done. I've always been able to find join the simplest of things. Any absence of material positions that was so beauty. Every moment has the capacity. To create .

contempt.

to create real happiness, just this feeling of gratitude to be alive. There's a real feeling again, when all in ukraine people that lost the home, they lost their family, there was still a kind of joy there, humor there again in there. It's hard to explain, I think, because when everything is ripped away, you're still grateful to be alive.

And the people that you love there are still there. You're grateful for them and for those moments that you share. That's the foundation of all that. The only thing that matters all is bullshit, that we buy an own all.

That is just a beautiful icing on the cake, where the cake is just the very essence of existence, the very factor, or or alive, alive and are able to love each other and hold on to each other, had to experience moments together. We just, we just looking and see, you know, see each other. I go on the earth for short time, and where in this together, and we'll lose each other one day, but today, work together.

It's, I don't know that the most important thing, everything else is the icing. But you know, it's it's nice to have things. It's nice to have things you can enjoy together.

I do want IT definitely is nice to have a bit to sleep on and to have modern technology and have a bad cool itself is a ridiculous. I love IT. IT does not, doesn't, doesn't make any sense, but was one of things that just brings me happiness.

You can check IT out in a special saving thing. You go to asleep on flash legs. This is an extreme podcast to support IT. Please check out our sponsors in the description and now their friends Norman vicens ine benee's is moye Robinia and Stephen mano.

First question is about one thousand nine forty eight four israelis. Nineteen forty eight is the establishment of the state of israel and the war of independence for palestinians. Nineteen forty eight is a knocked bar, which means catastrophe or the displacement of seven hundred thousand palestinians from their homes as a consequence of the war.

What to you is important to understand about the events of ninety, forty eight and the period around there, forty seven and forty nine? That helps us understand was going on today, and maybe helps us understand the rules of all this. That started even before one thousand forty eight. I was hoping that norm can speak first, and benny and win. And after the .

world war two, the british said they didn't want to deal with the palestine question anymore. And the ball was thrown into the court of the united tions. Now, as I read the record, the U.

N. Was not attempting to arbitrate or a judici 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 land, the U. N, special comedian posten, which came into being before the U. N, one eight one partition resolution, the U.

N, special committee is recommended two states in palace in there was a minority position represented by A A ran india uga slavia. They supported one state, but they believed that if forced to, the two communities would figure out some sort of modest and and live together. United nations general assembly supported partisan between what he called the jewish state and an arab state.

Now in my reading of the record, I understand there is new scholarship in the subject which I have not read, but so far I have read the record. There's no clarity on what the united nations general assembly meant by a jewish state and an arab state, except for the fact that the jewish ate would be demographically, the majority would be jewish, and the arab state demographically would be arab. The on scope, the U.

N. Special comedian power line IT was very clear. And IT was read ated many times that in recommending two states, each state, the arab state and the jewish state, we 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, is very unclear what I meant to call a state jewish or call the state arab, in my view, the partition resolution, what's 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 yoga slavia, 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 U. N. General assembly proceeding by the Silvia foreign minister rome co.

I was very tempted, the quoted at length, but I recognized that would be uh, taking too much time, uh, so I asked the Young friend Jamie turn winner to edit IT and just get the essence of what foreign minister growing o had to say. During the last war, gro mico said, the jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering. Without any exaggeration, this sorrow and suffering are indescribable.

Hundreds of thousands of jews are wondering 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 hit, the rights and their allies. This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, IT must be admitted.

Croma o 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 era populations of palestine proved to be so bad, that would be impossible to reconcile them. And to ensure the peaceful coexistence of the arbs and the juice, the Silvia 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 zone's movement has been faithful through the position that proclaimed during the unscored public hearings at the time.

Then goria 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 the state where you has, in any way, any privilege more than anyone else. A jewelers state means a state based on absolute equality of all her citizens and on democracy, unless this was not to be, as professor Morris has written, quote, zionist ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist.

And then he wrote in another book, transfer the uh ism for expulsion transfer was inevitable. And in built in technical m because it's sought to transform a land which was arab into a jewish state, and a jewish state could not have a reason without a major displacement of error population. And because this aim automatically produced resistance among the arabs, which in turn persuade the issue's leaders the issue of being the jewish community, the issues leaders that are hostile, ara majority, or a large minority, could not remain in place if a jewish state was to arise or safely ensure.

Or as professor marrs retrospectively put IT quote, a removing of a population was needed. Without a population explosion, a jewish state would not have been established. On quote, the arab side rejected out right the partition resolution.

I won't play games with that. I know a lot of people try to prove it's not true. It's clearly, in my view, is true.

The arab side rejected out right the partition resolution, while israeli leaders, acting on the compulsion, inevitable and inbuilt enthusiasm, found the pretext in the course of the first arab israeli war to expelled 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 aboard IT. Thank ask that .

you make a lengthy statement in the beginning, benny. I hope it's okay to call everybody. But their first name in the name of corti norm has quoted several things you said. Perhaps you can comment rather than the question of nineteen and may be respond to the things .

that north said you on scope, the united nation's special committee on palestine and recommended partisan, the majority of lens cope, recommended politician, which was accepted by the U. N.

General assembly november one thousand nine hundred and forty seven, essentially looking back to the peel commission, in one thousand nine and thirty seven and ten years earlier, a british commission had looked at the problem of palestine, the two warring, a national groups who refuse to live together, if you like, or consolidate A, A unitary state state between them and peel, said, h, there should be two states that the principle, the country must be participating in two states. This would give a model m of justice to both sides, if not all their demands, of course. And the united nations followed suit, the united nations in scope and and the U.

N. General assembly representing the will of the international community said, two states is the just solution in this complex situation. The problem was that immediately with the passage of the resolution, the arabs, arab states and the arabs of palestine said no as not a Normal fingle sh.

Time said, they said no, they rejected the partition, a idea, the principle of partition, not just the idea of what percentage which sides should get, but the principle of partition, they said no to the jews should not have any part of palestine for their sovereign a territory. Maybe juice could live as a minority in palestine. That also was problematic in the eyes of at the palestinian arab leadership, who says he had said only jews were were there before one, nine hundred and seventeen could actually get citizenship and continue to live there. But tara ab is rejected.

Partition and the arab s of palestine launched, in very disorganized fashion, war against the resolution, against the implementation of the resolution against the jewish community in palestine and and this will defeat in that civil war between the two communities while the british were withdrawing from palestine lead to the arab invasion, the other invasion ed by the arab states in main one thousand hundred and forty eight of of the country, again, basically with the idea of eradicating ating or preventing the emergence of a jury state in line with the united nations, the decision and the will of the international community a Norman is said that the zone's enterprise and quoted me, meant from the beginning a to transfer or excell the arabs of palestinian, some of the arabs of and I think he's sort of am quoting out of context, the context in which the statements were made that the the church state could only emerge if there was a transfer of arrow population was proceeded in the way I wrote IT in the way that actually happened by arab resistance and hostilities towards the jury community. Had the arab s accepted partisan that would have been a large ara minority in the jewish state, which emerged in forty forty seven, and in fact, jewish economists and state builders took into account that there would be a large arab minority and its and needs would be cared for eeta. But this was not to be because arabs attacked.

And had they not attacked, a perhaps say, A, A jury state of the large of minority could have emerged. But this didn't happen. They went to war.

The jews resisted. And in the course of that war, arab populations were driven out. H, some were expelled, some left because arab a leaders advise them to leave or order them to leave.

And at the end of the war, israel said they can return because they just tried to destroy the jewish state. And that's the basic, a reality of what happened in forty eight. At the juice created a state.

The palestinian arabs never bothered to even try to create a state four, four, eight. And in the course of the nine hundred forty eight, four. And for that reason, they have no state. To this day, the jews do have a state because they, they prepared to establish a state forth, forth and a established, hopefully lastingly the .

hostility. In case people are not familiar, there was a fall on war where states invaded and israel, one that war.

Let me just have to clarify. The war had took parts to IT. The first part was the arab community in its militia attacked to the juice from november one thousand and forty seven, and others from the day after the U.

N. Partition resolution. IT was past arab gunman were busy shooting up jews. And that snowball into a full scale civil war between the two communities. In palestine, in main nine hundred and forty eight, a second stage began in the war in which the arab states invaded the new state, attacked the new state, and and, and they too were defeated. And thus in the state of israel emerged in the course of this two stage were a vast palestinian refugee problem um occurred and so after .

that the transfer, the expulsion of the thing that people call the knock back ah happen moon, could you speak to nineteen forty eight and the historical .

significance of IT? There's a lot to unpack here. I'll try to limit myself to just few points regarding zinser and transfer. I think high White man, the head of the world's inst organization, had IT exactly right when he said that the objective of sinister is to make palestine as jewish, as england, as english or france is french um in other words um as as Norman explained um a jewish state requires jewish political, demographic and territorial supremacy without those three elements um the state would be jewish named olly and I think what distinguish assign ism is insistence, supremacy and exclusivity that would be my first point second point is um I think what the soviet foreign ister at the time under A H Gomez said is exactly right with one reservation. Um domingo was describing a european and savory unleased against europe's choice at the time. You know IT wasn't palestinians or arabs the savages in the barbarians were european to the core um had nothing to do with developments in palestine um or middle east.

Secondly, at the time that Gomez was speaking um those jewish uh survivors of the holocaust 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 savory, I don't think that any one state or country um should have born the responsibility for addressing this crisis I think I should have been an international a responsibility um so the union could have contributed, germany certainly could and should have a contributed um the united kingdom and the united states uh which slam their doors shut to uh the prosecuted juice of europe as anodes were rising to power, they certainly should have played a role but instead what passed for the international community at the time decided to partisan palestine and here I think we need to uh judge the partition resolution against the realities that obtained at the time um two two thirds of the population of palestine was arab uh the issue the jewish community in palestine constituted about one third of the total population and controlled even less of of of the land uh within palestine as as a preeminent palestinian historian uh where either halliday has pointed out the partition resolution and giving roughly fifty five percent of palestine the jewish community um and I think forty one forty two percent um to the arb community to the palestinians did not preserve the position of each community or even a favour one community at the expense of the other rather IT thoroughly inverted and revolutionized uh the relationship ah between between the two communities and as many have written the nectar was the inevitable consequence of partisan given the nature of sinister um given the territorial disposition given the weakness of the past in community whose leadership had been largely decimated during a major revolt at the end of the thousand nine and thirties given that the arab states we're still very much under french and british influence um uh the neck ba was um inevitable the inevitable product of the partition uh resolution and and what last points also about um the the U S partisan resolution is yes um formally that is what the international community decided in on the twenty th of november one thousand and forty seven is not a resolution that could ever have gotten through the U N general assembly today for a very simple reason IT was a very different general assembly most african most asian states um we're not yet independent um we're the resolution to be placed before the international community today and I find IT telling that um uh the minority opinion was made by india.

Iran and uga slavia I think they would have represented the clear um majority so partisan given what we know about zinn's, given that that was entirely predictable, what would happen given um the realities on the ground and power stein um was deeply unjust and the idea that either the palace inigo or the arab states could have accepted um such a resolution is is I think an illusions that was in one thousand nine forty seven we saw what happened in forty and forty nine palestinian society was essentially um destroyed over eighty percent I believe of palace ian residents in the territory that became the state of israel el were either expelled or flood uh and ultimately were ethnically cleansed because ethnic lens and consists of two components. It's not just forcing people into refugee or expelling them. It's just as importantly preventing the return.

And here and and and beneath is has written I think article about your self lights and the transfer committees. And there was a very detailed initiative to prevent the return. And IT consisted of raising hundreds of palms inie villages to the ground, which was systematically implemented and so on and so became a stateless people. Now um what is the most important reason that no arab state was established in palestine well since one thousand and thirties design est leadership and um the house might of Jordan as has been thoroughly ly research in written about by israeli british story in navy slime essentially colluded um to prevent the establishment of an independent arab state um in palestine um in the late one nine hundred and forty um there's there's much more here, but I think um those those are the key points I I would make about a one thousand forty eight.

We may talk about sinister britain, you assembly and all the things you mention. There's a lot to dig in to. So again, if you can keep IT just once, stay in moving forward after student, if you want to go longer.

Also, we should acknowledge the fact that the speaking speeds of people here are different, even speaks about ten times faster. me. Uc, you come on in nineteen forty eight.

yeah. I think it's interesting where people choose to start the history. I noticed a lot of people like to start at either forty seven or forty eight because it's the first time where they can clearly point to a catastrophe that occurs on the arab side.

They want to describe one hundred percent of the blame to the newly emerging israeli state, to, 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. Whenever people are talking about forty eight or the establishment of the eb state, I never hear about the fact that a civil war started in forty seven. Ah there was largely instigated because of the airborne ism of the forty seven plan.

I never hear about the fact that the majority of the land that was acquired happened by purchases from George org ization of uh palestinian arabs of the autumn empire before the Mandatory period nineteen twenty even started. Finally enough came to do al love. Jordan was quoted as saying the arabs are as practical and selling their land as they are in weeping about IT. I never hear about the multiple times that arabs rejected partition, rejected living with jews, rejected any sort of state that would have even had any sort of jew sh exclusivity.

It's funny because I was brought up before that the partition plan was unfair and that's why the eras rejected IT as though they rejected IT because IT was unfair because of the amount of land es were given and not just due to the fact that jews were given land at all as though a thirty percent petition or a twenty five percent petition would have been accepted when I don't think that was the reality, the circumstances, I feel like most of the other services have been said. But I noticed that whenever people talk about forty eight or the years proceeding forty eight, I think the worst thing that happens is there's there's a Cherry picking of the facts where basically all of the blame is described to this. This built an idea of sign ism that because of a handful of quotes, are because of an ideology.

We can say that transfer, or population explosion, or the the basically the Mandate of all of these always being kicked off the land was always going to happen when the refusal, sometimes as well, to acknowledge that, regardless of the ideas of some designer's 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 of reason or an excuse to fight and acquire land to that way, because of their refusal to negotiate on anything else. Whether IT was the partisan plan and forty seven, whether with the the losing peace conference afterwards, where is really even offered to anees goa in fifty one, where they offered to take in one hundred thousand refugees, every single deal is just projected out of hand because the arabs don't want to do ish 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 names, just not mine way of relating.

You can just call me morrice. You don't need the profit. okay?

It's a real problem here. And it's been the problem of head over many years of reading your work part, perhaps from a grandchild I suspect nobly knows you will work Better than I do. I've got at many times, not once, not twice, at least three times everything have written.

And the problem is, is a kind of quick silver. It's very hard to grasp a point and hold you to IT. So we're going to try here to see whether we can hold you to a point and then you argue with me the point. I have no problem with that. Your name please, Stephen, by now OK .

mister banner.

referring to Cherry picking and hand full of quotes. Now it's true that when you wrote your first book on the palestinian refugee question, you only have a few lines on this issue of transfer, full pages in the first, in the for a day before. You know, i'm not going to quark.

My memory is not clear. We're talking about for the years ago, I read IT, I read IT, but then I read other things for you. okay? And you were taken to task. If 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 claim for a mainstream israeli historian to say, as you did not first book that from the very beginning transfer figured prominently in sign this thinking, that wasn't unusual. If you read a leader, superior, superior, you read chapter I have IT. That was an unusual.

Acknowledged by you. And then I found a very impressive that in that revised version of your first book, you devoted twenty five pages to obviously documenting the silences of transfer in zone's thinking. And in fact, you used a very provocative and resonant phrase.

You said that transfer was inevitable. And in built in tai ism, we're not talking about circumstantial factors, a war, arab state. You said IT, in inevitable and in built in design.

M, now as I said, so we won't be accused of Cherry picking. Those were twenty five 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 exposure, a jewish state would not have been established. Now you are the one again. I was very surprised when I read your book here are referring to reaches victims.

I was very surprised when I came to that page thirty seven where you wrote that territorial displacement and dispose sons was the chip chief mode of ara resistance design ism, territorial displacement and dispossession, where the chief mother of our resistance design ism so you then went on to say, because the error population rationally feared territorial disputes ment and disposition, sion IT, of course, oppose designation m that as Normal as native americans opposing the euro american manifest destiny in the history of our own country, because they understood IT would be their expense. IT was in built and in the inevitable. And so now for you to come along and say that that all happened just because of the war, that otherwise designers made all these plans for a happy minority to live there.

That simply does not jail IT does not cohere IT is not responsible with what you yourself have written IT was inevitable and inbuilt. Now in other situations you have 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 theater roseveldt gum in our own country.

He said. We don't want the whole of north amErica to remain a walid refuge for these wiggs and tps. We have to get rid of them and make this a great country. But he didn't deny that I was in built and inevitable. I think you've .

made your point in first. Now take up something that moon said. He said that the knock bar was inevitable as you and predictable. No, no, no.

I i've never said that I was inevitable and predictable only because the arabs assaulted the jewish h community and state in one thousand hundred and forty seven and forty eight, 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. Expulsion to occur.

R. A dispossession, massive dispossession to occur. These occurred as a result of war. Now, Norman said that I said that transfer was in built into zionism in one way or another. And this is certainly true. In order to buy land, they had the jews a broad tractive land on which some arabs sometimes live, sometimes the tracts of land on which they were in tarr villages that sometimes they bought land on which they were arabs.

And according to autumn law and the british, at least in the initial eight 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 know the land, who are basically squatting on the land, which is the arab tenant farmers, which is we talk about a very small number actually, of arabs who displaced as a result of land purchases in the automated period or the Mandate period. But there was dispossession in one way. They didn't posse the land.

They didn't own IT that they were removed from the land. And this did happen. Enzymes m, and there's, if you like, inevitability in the onest ideology of buying tracts of land and starting to work at yourself and settled a with your own people and so on.

That made sense. But what we're really talking about this, what happened in forty seven and forty eight, and in forty seven, forty eight, is 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 a result.

And we see something similar going on today in god and the gaza strip. They do something terrible. They kill two, one hundred jews.

They abduct two hundred and fifty women and children and babies and old people and whatever. And then they start screaming, please save us from what we did, because the jews are counter attacking. And this is what happened in, and this is what is happening now.

There's something fairly similar in the situation here, expulsion. And this is important to enormous. You should pay attention to this.

So you didn't raise that expulsion transfer when ever policy of design est movement before forty seven IT doesn't exist in sign st platforms of the various political parties of the sign sst organization of the israeli state of the jewish agency. Nobody would have actually made IT into policy because he was always a large minority of the world. People wanted IT.

Always a large minority of politicians and leaders would have said, no, this is a moral. We cannot a start a state on the basis of an expulsion. So IT was never adopted, and actually was never adopted as policy. Even in forty eight, even though bingeing wanted a few arabs in the course of the war staying in the jewish state after they attacked, he didn't want this loyal citizens staying there because they wouldn't have been loyal citizens. But this made the sense in the world itself, but the movement itself and its political parties never accepted IT.

It's true that the one thousand nine hundred and thirty seven, when the british, as part of the proposal by the peel commission to divide the country into two states, one arab, one juice, which darabos, of course, rejected appeal, also recommended the arabs, most of the arabs in the jewish h state, to be should be transferred, because otherwise, if they stayed and were disloyal to the emerging jewish h state, and this would cause endless disturbances, warfare, killing and sown. So binger an and lightman latched onto this proposal by the most famous american democracy in the world, the british democracy, when they proposed the idea of transfer side by side with the idea of partition, because that made sense. And they said, well, if for the british say so, we should also advocated. But they never actually tried to pass IT as sign st policy. And they fairly quickly stopped even talking about transfer after one thousand nine hundred and thirty eight.

You're saying is that forty seven was an offensive war, my defensive war, and you are 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 very localized phenomenon result in resulting from individual land purchases um and 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 lets say prior .

to one thousand forty seven IT would be your claim um that the idea that a significant reduction or wholesale removal of their population was not part of of sinus thinking well I I think there's two problems with that.

Um I think what you are saying about localized uh disputes is correct but I also think that um there is a whole literature n that demonstrates um that transfer was envisioned by the itis leaders on a much skill than simply individual land purchases. In other words, it's IT went way beyond. We need to remove these tenants so that we confirm this land.

The idea was we can have a state where all these arab s remain, and we have to get rid of them s. And the second, I think, impediment to that view is that long before the U. N. General assembly convened to address the question of palestine, pastor ian and thera and other leaders as well had been warning at infant item that the purpose of design est movement is not just to establish a jewish ate, but to establish an exclusivist, uh, jewish state.

And that transfer forced displacement um uh was fundamental um uh to that uh project and just responding to um sorry, was a banana do 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 t for the arab s is always more I think there is a problem with that I think um you might do well to recall um the one thousand hundred and thirty six general strike conducted by palestinians 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 um published last year by Loring Allen a history of false hope with discusses in great detail the consistent engagement by palestinians they are leaders. Their elites. They are diplomats and so on with all these international committees.

If we look at today, the palestinians are once again going to the international court justice. Um they're consistently trying to persuade the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court to do his job. They have launched widespread uh boycott campaign. So of course, the palace, ian, have engaged in military resistance. But I think the suggestion that this has always been their first and last resort and that they have somehow spend civic action spurn diplomacy, I I think really has no basis in reality.

I was one of that in a question for norm to taking to a kind I think when he answers spend because I am curious obviously, I have fresh eyes on this and i'm a newcomer this arena versus the three other guys for sure. Um a claim that gets brought up a lot has to do with the inevitability of transfer enzi ism, where are the idea that as soon as the jews and vision to state in palestine, they knew that I would involve some mass transfer population, perhaps some as expulsion um a trouble talk about plant develop anty at some point the issue that i've run into is while you can find quotes from leaders, while you can find maybe desires expressed and diaries, I feel like it's hard to truly ever know if there would have been mass transfer in the face of arab piece because I feel like every time there was a huge deal on the table that would have had a sizable jewish and arab population looking together, the arabs would reject IT out of hand.

So for instance, when we say that transworld was inevitable, when we say that silenus would have never accepted, you know, a sizable error population, how do you explain the acceptance of the forty seven petition plan that would have had a huge error 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 excel all of these arab citizens from their country? Or how do you explain that in lusson, a couple years later, that israel was willing to formally annex the gaza strip and make two hundred thousand so people know citizens? But but 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, and the history of ireland and a little of before, where is there wouldn't accepted a state that would have ve had a massive error population in IT is, yes, your idea that they would have just slowly except .

them afterwards or question .

either one I just Carried with their incorporation of the answer.

You this some misunderstandings here, so let's try to clarify that. Number one, IT was the old historians who would point to the fact, in profess Morris terminology, the old historians were, he called, not real historians. He called them chronic gloves, not real historians.

IT was the old israeli historians who denied the centrality of transfer in zionist thinking. IT was then professor Morris who, contrary israel's hist historian establishment, who said, now you remind me its four pages, but came at the end of the book. IT was done at the .

beginning of the book transfer. Your answer is dealt within four years, the begin of of my first book on the back. Okay, a few g problem.

It's afford of my memory. But the point till stand that was professor Morris who .

introduced this idea in what you might call, so that I never said I was center.

I was a Better way k to respond back and for the great. And also just a quick question. If I made you're using quotes from banning from professor, it's also OK to say those quotes do not reflect the full contents. Like if we go back, if you know, of course, we've said in the past and you've both here have been three, you have written this topic a lot, is this should be careful and just admitted like ah yeah just .

not what you really quite just to be cleared of. The contention is that normous quoting apart and saying that this was the entire reason for this.

where is apart? I'm quoting part. I'm calling twenty five pages where professor marrs was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. Now you will say IT never became part of the officials sign this platform.

He became kk, I policy .

for my day. But also as well, this is true. Why did that happen? Why that? It's because the very simple fact, which everybody understands, ideology doesn't Operate in a vacuum.

There are real world, practical problems. You can 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 arb resistance to sign ism. And that resistance was based on the fact, as you said, the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. So you couldn't very well expect designers movement to come out in neon lights and announce, hey, we're going to be expelling you the first chance we get. That's not realistic. Now respond.

You have said in the number of times that the arabs from fairly early on in the in the conflict from the nineteen ninety ish, the early twenty one hundred, said the jews intend to expel us. This doesn't mean that is true. That means that some arabs said this may be believing IT was true. Maybe using this as a political instrument, gain support to mobilize arabs against design is experiment, but the fact is transfer did not occur before one thousand nine hundred and forty seven, and arabs later said then and since then have said that the jews want to build a third temple on the temple amount, as if that's what really the the mainstream of silis m has always wanted and always strive for. But this is nonsense, is something that who say he 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 the fact that arab said that their a the design is want to this possesses doesn't mean it's true IT just means that there's some arabs thought that maybe maybe said IT sincerely .

and maybe insincere. rs.

Later became a self first. Professor.

professor mars, I read through your stuff even yesterday. I was looking through richest victim.

You should ad out the things, wasting your time. No.

no, actually no. I do read other things, but I will consider the waste of time to read you. Not at all.

Um you say that. This wasn't inherent in zionism. Now would you agree that have been we've ve been growing. Was a zionist .

A A major side.

right? Would you agree that an invitee was a scientist? yeah.

okay. I believe they were. I believe they took their ideology seriously. IT was the first generation, just like with the bolshoi s.

The first generation was committed to an idea by the nineteen thirties. IT was just pure rail. The ideology went out the window.

The first generation, I have no doubt about their convictions. Okay, the resign ists transfer was inevitable and in built in zionism this repeating because I have, as I said, denning, mr. Morris, I have a problem reconcile what you're saying. IT either was incidental or IT was deeply entangled. Here I read is deeply entangled, two very resonant words, inevitable and inbuilt.

deeply and trench. I never wrote, I, I, I, okay.

people, and build .

the idea. Let me can see something. The idea transfer was there. Israeli and handle a british science is talked about IT early on in the century. Even herzl, in some way.

talked about transformer ages. everybody.

We keep bringing up this line in the twenty five pages, in the four pages. You know, we're lucky to have many in front of us right now, but I need to go to the quotes at, like we can legitimate how central is expulsion to sign ism? Uh, in its early version of cynical m and what whatever signaling is today and how much power uh influence designers and ideology in israel and they like influence the the philosophy the ideologist minister have on israel today.

The science st movement up to thousand nine hundred and forty eight scientist ideology was central to the the whole scientist experienced the old enterprise up to one nine hundred and forty eight. And I think scientist ideology was also important in the first decade of israel's existence. A slowly the the, the hold of sign ism, like, if you like, like, like bolsover m held, the soviet union gradually faded.

And a lot of israeli today think in terms of individual success. And then the a capitalism and all sorts of things which are nothing to do, a design ism. But sign ism was very important. What i'm saying is that the idea of transfer wasn't the core of zinn's m. The idea of sinister was to save the jews would be vastly persecuted in eastern europe, and incidentally, in the ara road, the muslim world for centuries, and eventually ending up with the holo cost.

The idea of signers m must to save the jewish people by establishing a state of establishing a jewish ate on the ancient to jew h homeland, which is something the arabs today even deny that they were jews in palestine. I of the land of israel, two thousand years ago, arahat famously said, what temple was there on temple mount, maybe IT was a nablus s which, of course, is nonsense, but but they had a connection, strong connection, thousands of years to the land to which they wanted to return. And return there.

They found that on the land lived hundreds of thousands of arabs. And the question was how to accommodate the vision of a jewish h state in palestine, alongside the existence of these arab masses living on where indigenous, in fact, to the land by that stage, and the idea of partition because they couldn't live together, because 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 design is accepted.

Okay, we can only get a small part of palestine. The arabs will get in thirty seven. Most of palestine in one thousand nine hundred, and forty seven of the ratios were changed. But we can, we can live side by side with each other in the partisan palestine. And this was the essence of IT. The idea of transfer IT was there, but IT was never adopted by as policy but in nineteen and forty seven and forty eight the arabs attacked, trying to destroy essentially the juice h design is enterprise an emerging to a state and um the reaction was a transfer in some way a not as policy but this is what happened on the battle field and this is also what binger on at some point began to want as well.

Well, you know one of the first um books on this issue, uh I read when I was still in high school because my my late father had IT was a diary of theater or hurts so and I think you know theater hurtle of course was was the founder of of the contemporary zone's movement. And I think if you read that it's very clear for hersel the model upon which design st movement would uh would proceed. His model was cessile roads his um I think you know roads from what I recall correct me i'm wrong, has quite a prominent place and uh hurt diaries I think hurt so was also corresponding with them and seeking his support. Cessile roads of course was um uh was the british um colony list after whom the former White minority regime and uh in rodesia uh was named and hero also says explicitly in his diaries that IT is essential um to remove uh the existing population from palestine in a moment he says we shall have to spirit the penny .

list population .

across the borders and procure employment for them elsewhere or some an israel's angle who you mention a land without a people for a people without a land they knew dam well IT wasn't to. People are aligned without the people. I'll continue but all but please go.

There is one small diary entry in hertz, vast.

five volumes.

Five volumes is one paragraph which actually mentions the idea of transfer. There are people who I think the turtle 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 buy out to buy, offer spirit, the the penalty, a natives, uh, to make way for jew's settlement.

Uh, maybe wasn't even talking about the arabs in that particular passage that the argument of some people, maybe he was that the point is IT IT has only a one hundred of a one percent of the diary which is devoted to the subject. It's not any central idea in in a thinking, die, what hurts wanted. And this is what's important.

Not rude. I don't think he was the model IT. Hers wanted to create a liberal, democratic western state in palestine for the juice that that was the idea, not some imperial enterprise serving some a imperial master, which is what rose was about, but to have a jewish ate, which was modeled on the western democracies in in palestine.

And this, incidentally, was more or less what Whiteman and bingeing, binging want, a binger ian was more of a socialist White man moves more of a liberal, a western, or that they wanted to establish a social democratic or liberal, a state in palestine. And they both decisions through most of the years of their act activity. That there would be an arab minority in the jury state is true, that bengali strive to have as small as possible an arab minority in the jewish ate because you 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.

Just a quick positive to mention them for people who are familiar that hurts. So we're talking about over a century ago and everything we've been talking about has been mostly one thousand forty eight and before.

Yes, just one clarification on hurts those dies. I mean the other thing that I recall from those diaries as he was um he was very preoccupied with in fact getting great power patronage age in palestine the jewish ate in pass and I think his words an outpost of civilization against barbarism yes in other words, very much seeing his project as a prox as a proxy for western imperialism in the middle east no proxy.

He wanted to establish a jure state that should be independent to get that he hoped that he would be able to a garner support .

from major imperial wer, including the auto he tried to cultivate. I just want to respond to point you mad earlier, which was that people express the rejection of the partition resolution on the grounds that IT gave the majority of the of palestine to the jewish community, which formed only a third. Um we're as in fact um if I understood you actually you are saying the palace is in the arabs would have rejected any partition resolution yeah I think a .

couple things that one that would have rejected any two a lot of that landed ven wasn't than I. Gait was pretty terrible land of the time. And three of the land that would have been partitioned to jews, I think, would have been, I think I think I was like five hundred thousand error. I would been five hundred thousand juice, four hundred thousand arabs and I think like eighty thousand bedroom .

would have there so the state would have I think you raise a valid point 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 design est movement only added in suits to injury I mean um one doesn't have to sympathy with the palestinians um to recognize that they have now been a stateless people for seventy five years.

Can you name any country yours, for example, or yours, that would be prepared to give fifty five percent, twenty five percent, ten percent of your country to the palestinians? Of course not. And so um the issue was not the existence of juice in palestine. Um they had been there for centuries and of course they had ties to palestine and particularly to ju salem and other plays going back centuries, if not mEllenda, but the idea of establishing and 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, seventy five years later and say, well, you should have accepted losing fifty five percent of your homeland because you ended up losing seventy eight percent of in the addition and the remaining twenty two percent was occupied in one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven. That's that's not how things work yeah and I can I can imagine, I can imagine in american rejecting giving ten percent of the united states to the palestinians. And if that rejection leads to war and you lose half your country, I doubt that fifty years from now you're going to say, well, maybe I should have accepted that church.

So I like this answer more than what I usually feel like i'm hearing when IT comes to the palestinian ject of the forty separatin 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 fifty five percent of our land use are only maybe one third of the people here and we've got forty five and now the math doesn't work basically.

But IT wasn't a math problem, I think, like a matter of principle. IT was an ideology problem. No was a matter of principle, ideologically driven that that they are, as a people, have a right to or entitled to this land. They've never actually had an dependent on they've never had even aga and independence .

ve never been ruled direct because for lots and justice um the Mandate system recognized palestine as a class a Mandate which provisionally recognized the independence of of that terrors of what would emerge from that .

territory but he was provisionally .

recognized but but the territory .

itself was but not of the palestinian people. To have a right or guarantee to .

a government that not the british Mandate of .

is the word exclusive, which you keep using is nonsense. The state which benger an envisions would be a jew h. Majority state, as they accepted the one hundred and forty seven partition.

Uh resolution, as Steven said. H that included four hundred thousand plus in the state which would have five hundred thousand jews. So the idea of exclusivity wasn't anywhere in the air or among designers, readers.

In forty seven, forty eight, they wanted a juice h majority state, but we're willing to accept the state which had forty and arabs. That's one point. The second thing is the palestinians may have regarded the land of palestine as their homeland, but so the juice IT was the homeland of the juice as well.

The problem was the arabs were unable, and remain, to this day unable to recognize for the jews, that is their homeland as well. And the problem then is, how do you share this homeland, either with one by national, 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 juice. As juice feel as much as the both .

you guys. Because I haven't heard these questions and I really want these questions would be, i'm just curious what to makes sense of them. I was correctly brought up that I believe that bencher ian had um I think slum benny descries that as an obsession with getting validation or support from western states, great britain and then a couple decades later.

yeah exactly .

correct. That was one of the major motivator, and I had to work with britain and france on a military Operation. But then the question, again, I go back to if that is true, if benger, ian, if the early israel saw themselves as a western fashion nation, how could we possibly imagine that they would have engaged in the transfer of some four hundred thousand arabs after accepting the partition plan that not have completely and totally destroyed their legitimacy in the eyes of the entire west world?

We will not have been. How not? Well, first of all, I think that the designers leadership is acceptance of 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 border of second of all the the .

boris the boris expanded war.

accepted the U N partition resolution borders and all accepted you can say that some of the designers deep in their hearts have the the idea .

that maybe at some including their more to get more, including their .

most senior leaders who said, said, said this is what .

and second of all, I mean removing dark people, darker people, it's, it's, it's, it's try to western history. So the idea that americans or britts or the french would have an issue with, I mean, if french, he'd been doing IT in algeria for decades. Americans have been doing IT in north amErica for century.

So how would israel forcibly displacing palestinians? somehow? The merge israel in the eyes of the west.

in the nineteen for the four resolution of the labor party, and at the time, even birch, and was a member of the late reporting IT endorsed ed transfer of arabs out of palestine as moines 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 display uh, the palestinian population. Now I do believe there's a legitimate question. Had IT been the case, as you said, professior mars, that designers wanted to create a happy state with a jewish maturity, but a large wish minority, and if by virtue of gration, like in our own country, in our own country, given the current trajectories, non Whites will become the majority population in our in the 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 is an argument that had there been mass jewish immigration change the demographic bounce in power stine and therefore, uh, jews became the majority IT can make an argument in the abstract that the indigenous era population should have been accepting of that, just as weights in the united states called the quote, Whites have to be accepting of the fact that the demographic majority shifting to non weights in our own country. But that's not what science ism was about. I did write my dark, real dissertation and sciences m, and I don't want to get now bogged down in abstract ideas.

But as I suspect you know, most theory of nationalism say there are two kinds of nationalism. One is a nationalism based on citizenship. You become a citizen, your integral to the country, that 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. Zonis m is squarely in the german romantic idea. That was the whole point of zionism.

We don't want to be burnest 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, no.

let's before we get to the arabs, let's get, let's stick to the juice for a moment. Or designers. We want our own state.

And in that concept of wanting your own state, the minority at best lives on sufferings and at worst, get expelled. That's the logic of the german romantic zone's idea of a state. That's why they're scientists.

Now, I personally have shied away from using the word cynical m, ever since I finished my dog real dissertation, because that's painful because, as I said, I don't believe it's the Operative ideology today. It's like talking about boshoff ism and referring to crush jeff. I doubt crush jeff could have spelled boshof c, but for the period were talking about, they were scientists.

They were committed to their exclusive state with with a minority living on sufferings, 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 vitamin, and they wanted to live peacefully with the arabs. Vite man described the expulsion in one thousand four, the eight as quote the macula clearing of the land. That doesn't sound like somebody shed ding too many tears at the loss of the indigenous population.

Let me usually er the on suffering I don't agree with, I think that's wrong. The jewish state came into being in one thousand nine hundred and forty eight. IT had a population which was twenty percent arab when I came into being after arab refugees. And many of them have become refugees, but twenty percent remained in the country. Twenty percent of this role s population at inception in one nine hundred and forty nine was ara.

Eighty percent went missing.

No, no, no. I would come about what remained in palestine, israel, after he was created. The twenty percent who lived in israel received citizenship.

And all the rights of israeli is, except, of course, the right to serve army, which they didn't want to. And they have supreme court justices. They have connected members.

They enjoy basically, basically four period.

They look, no, no, no, no. And at the begin, at the beginning, south fantasy, at the beginning that they received siddhas could vote in elections for their own people, and they were put into parliament. But in the first years, the israeli, the jewish majority suspected that maybe the arabs would be this royal because they had just tried to destroy the jewish h state. Then they dropped the military government, and they became fully equal citizens. So if the whole idea was they must have a state without arabs, this didn't happen in forty nine, and he didn't happen in the.

and why did you say, professor, and why did you say, without a population explosion, a jewish state would not have been a step?

Because you're missing the first section of that paragraph, which was they were being assaulted by the arabs. And as a result, a jew state could not have come in to being unless there had also been an expulsion of the population.

which was trying to give no officially forbidding. You referencing that again, I think that we've responded to IT. So the main point you're making, we have to take that, that is word is like there was, uh, a war and that's the reason why he made that day but .

I think just one last point on this. I I remember reading your book when I first came out and and and reading you know one incident after the other and and one example after the other then getting to the conclusion where you said, um uh the neck ba was a product of war, not design. I think we are good and I remember reacting almost in in, in, in shocked to that that I felt you had mobilized, overwhelm evidence that IT was a product of design, not war and I think our discussion today very much uh reflects, let's say, the dissident uh between the evidence and the conclusion. You don't feel that that the um um the research that you have conducted and published demonstrates that I was in fact inherent and and built and inevitable um and I think the point that Normal making is is that your own historical research together with that of others in dispute demonstrates s that IT does I think that's a fundamental disagreement we're having here.

Can I wait can I actually respond that this is actually, uh I I think this is an implementation of the entire conversation um I washed a lot of norms, interviews uh and conversations of preparation for us. And I here Normal say this all over and over over again. I only deal in facts.

I don't deal on hypotheticals. I only deal ein facts. I only deal ein facts. And that seems to be the case, except when the facts are completely, totally contrary to the particular point you're trying to push. The idea that jews would have out of hand rejected any state that had error s on IT always had a plan of explosion is just betrayed by the acceptance of the forty seven party.

I think you understand politics. Did I just say that there is a casm that separates your ideology from the limit and constraint imposed by politics and reality? Now, professor marrs, I suspect, would agree.

That designers movement from fairly early on was committed to the idea of a jewish state. I am aware of only one major study, probably written four years ago, the by national idea in Mandatory palestine, by a woman I forgot name. Now you remember her trying, yeah, okay, which you know the book yeah.

He is the only one who tried to persuasively argue the design est movement was actually not formally actually committed to bind national idea. But most historians of the subject agree design this movement was committed to the idea of a jewish state. Having written my doctoral dissertation on the topic, I was confirmed in that idea because professor charm ski, who was my closest friend for about four years, was very committed to the idea that by nationalism was the dominant trend.

enzymes. M, I could not agree with. I couldn't go with him there, but professor Morris, you are aware that until the built more resolution in one thousand four two design, this movement never declared IT was for a jewish state.

why? Because IT was politically impossible at the moment until nineteen forty two. There is your ideology, there are your convictions, there are your Operative plans.

And there is also, separately, what you say in public design. This movement couldn't say in public. We're expelling all the arabs. They can say that. And they could not even say we support a jewish state until nineteen forty two.

You're conflating two things that the designers wanted a jury state, eric didn't some of the a it's not the same thing. They wanted a jewish ate with the jewish majority. But they were willing, as IT turned out, both and thirty seven and in forty, forty seven and subsequently, to have an arab minority, a large.

a large ara mina. They were willing to .

have a large area minority in the country. And they ended up with a large minority in the country. They ended up forty nine.

They ended up, and they ended up for about five minutes before they were expelled. They agreed to be up to forty seven and and they were gone by march nineteen.

What happened in between the rejection of a position plan and the expulsion of the arabs?

The arabs launched the war.

Yeah what I mean.

like it's not IT wasn't random like there is a potential that .

the dom there was, in this case the that betray you. There was no arabic acceptance of anything that would have allowed for a juice, say, to exist. Number one. And number two, I think that is 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 ology of play, that there is a people that disagreed on who had territorial rights to land. There was a massive afterwards, and then a unch of their friends invaded after to reinforce the idea that the juicy people, this case couldn't have a state, there could have been a transferred.

regardless anything could have been. That's not what history is about.

History is about palestine. I rejections .

into any .

peace deal .

over when the wall was thrown into the court of the denied 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 territory displacement and dispose sons was inhering in design this project, I do not believe I can be a legitimate political enterprise. You might say that speaking from twenty twenty two or twenty twenty four, okay, but we have to recognize that from nearly the beginning, for perfectly obvious reasons, having nothing to do with anti semitism, anti western m, anti europeanism. But because no people that I am aware of with voluntarily seed its country.

you you can perfectly .

understand native american resistance to euro colonialism. You can perfectly well understand IT without any anti european and ism, anti vitiis m, anti Christ ism. They didn't want to see their country to invaders. That's completely understand.

minimizing the anti semitic element in the books .

you minimize.

No, no, no. Who say me was an ntc. My, the leader of the palestinian national movement in the thirties and forties was an ntc. might.

This was one of the things which drove him and also drove him in the end to work in berlin for him four years with A N given again to the arab world, calling on the arab to murder the juice. That's what he did in world war two. That's the ader of the palestinian arab national move. And he wasn't alone.

He wasn't a loan. He was. Have you read your book reaches 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 emptying semi sm IT. I didn't say that .

doesn't exist. exist.

Hey, I don't know a single and you doesn't harbor .

empty tics .

r but I don't know anybody. That's just part of the human .

condition .

and is among .

the arms.

So professor mars, here is my problem. I didn't say that in your righteous victims, even when you talked about the first into father and you talked about the second into father, and you talked about how there was a lot of influenced ed, by hamas, the islamic movement. You even stated that there is a lot of anti semitism in those movements. But then you went on to say, but of course, at bottom, IT was about the occupation. IT .

wasn't about. And i've ready agents again. I think seven.

the one are talking about. I looked and looked and looked for evidence of this antisemitism as being a chief motor of ara resistance. Size M, I didn't say you like.

I don't remember word, chief.

One is the elected binary one, the yes .

bine don't give me this post modern and. Do you talk about your black and White you talking and black .

and White concepts when history is much great? Are 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 as .

you quite because it's for them to talk to just too very good question. What what do you think the ideal solution was on the arab side from forty seven? And what would they have preferred? And what kind of and the second, what would have happened if juice would have lost the war in forty eight? What do you think would have happened .

to the israeli population? I think the tinian and the arms were explicit that they wanted a unitary I think federal uh state and and they made their submissions to uh one scope. Uh they made their um uh appeals at the U N general assembly.

What do you mean unity federally? I don't get that they wanted an arab state. They wanted palestine to be an arab. Yes, it's simply that were a unitary federal. They wanted palace, an arb, an exclusively .

aran inclusively. I think we have to distinguish between palestine an and arab opposition to a jewish state in palestine on the one hand, and um palestinian and arab attitudes to um jewish existence in pali. There's a fundamentally .

the leader of the movement said that all the jews would come since one hundred and seventeen, and that's the majority of the jews in palestine in nineteen and forty seven.

Shouldn't be there. Well.

he shouldn't be citizens .

and he shouldn't there he did. He did say, i'm not true. I can understand this and I think it's wrong.

But also.

you guys guys know once you are you .

guys use the words earlier that IT was the premises and exclusion.

I want to answer your question as who say they say and i'm sure there was a very substantial uh body of passing in a public opinion that endorses that um but by the same token, I think uh unitary it's arab state as you color 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 in proposed but never a resolved. And again, I think you know jewish fears about what would the .

second well no, that was the jewish AR a second home that that .

may well have been the jewish sphere IT wasn't unfounded.

Jewish sphere IT .

was unfounded .

of course IT was unfound.

What about like in you really think that the palestinians had they won the war, we're going to import ovens and cream material from germany.

And but there were no problems across in almost every single area state where they were duce living after after forty eight, after seventy six, after there were always programs, there were always flights from juice from those countries .

to israel upwards. I, I, I would I wouldn't say there were always programs in every year of stay. I think there was flight of of of, uh, arab jews for multiple reasons, in some cases for precisely the reasons you say if you look at the jewish community and algeria for example, their flight had virtually nothing to do with um um there by israeli conflict. The issue of of algerian juice 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 leaving out of fear or out of disappointment out of whatever um the jews were identified as french rather than algerian this is a bit of a red .

hearing the world programs in the arab countries in bahrain, even where there's almost no jews, there was a background in one hundred and forty seven. There was a program in the lippo in one .

thousand nine killings .

of jews in iraq and the egypt one thousand nine and forty eight, forty nine. So, but darn juice basically fled the arab states, not for a beautiful reasons. They fled because they fit that. The government's there, and the societies amid which they had lived for hundreds of years no longer .

wanted to look without getting into the details. I think we can both degree that ultimately a clear majority of arab jews who believed that after having lived in these countries for for centuries, for centuries, for centuries, if for centuries, for centuries, if not millennia, um came to the unfortunate conclusion that the situation had become untenable. Ble yes um I also think um that we can both degree that this had never been an issue prior design ism and the emergence of the state of this look i'm not .

didn't begin with zionism in the arab.

The issue is is the point I raised, which is whether these communities had ever come to a collective conclusion that their position had become intinded in this part of the world.

though they were erb too well, because untanned meant there was no alternative. But with the creation of this real, there was an alternative right? Where they could go would not be discriminated against, delivers second class citizens or be subject to error.

Majority states, I also think, is interesting that like when you analyze the the flight of jews h people, and i've seen as that there IT wasn't just I agree with IT wasn't just a mass expulsion from all the erb states. There were definitely be push factors. There were also poll factors.

I don't know how you guys talk about the knock ba, but when the analysis the knock ba comes in again, it's back to that. Well, that was actually just a top down explosion. You know, the retreat of wealthy arab people and authorities didn't matter.

Are any of the messaging from the surrounding arab states didn't matter? IT was just and explosion from jewish people, or people running from their lives from jewish massacres. Again.

it's like, I think like that wish because IT wasn't know the jews of england or the soviet .

is private of forty eight. I is really the issue .

just I think we should I think it's useful to to say um refer designers before one thousand day in israelis after four day we don't need to implicate.

But but but the jew's people that were being attacked in arab states weren't the silanus.

They were just choose living comment on that. I was a rereading uh slamon benny ese last book and he does at the end discusses some length the whole issue of the refugee question bearing on the so called peace process and on the question of four, the eight and the arab immigration. If you allow me, let me just quote him.

Israel is particularly fond of the awkwardly false symmetry SHE makes between the palestinian refugee crisis and the forced immigration of six hundred thousand jews and arab countries following the creation of the state of israel. As if they were quote, and unplanned exchange of on populations, on quote. And then mr.

Benami, for those of you who are listening, he was his real former a foreign minister, and he's an influential history in his own right. He says, in fact, invoice from the most sad and the jewish agency worked underground in our countries and iran to encourage juice to go to israel. More importantly, for many jews in arab states, the very possibility of emigrating to israel was the combination of millennial aspirations.

IT represented the consumption of a dream to take part in israel's resurgence as a nation. So as I idea that they were all expelled after nineteen ninety eight, it's that's one area, professor mars, I defer to expertise. That's one of my credos in life. I don't know the israel literature, but as it's been translated in english, there is very little solid scholarship on what happened in the nineteen forty, the eight and the arab countries, and which caused the juice to the the arab you but SHE almost then. I mean, that was .

the literature.

He knows this color because .

we are not prosthetist. They were in cynical. So certainly average lives family was anti .

I and average sound. When he was interviewed by marine rapport 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 joe who left IT with his father of family in nineteen.

For the eight, they will push out earn. That's probably the right phrase.

I think I think it's more complex than than I think IT was sorry, I interpret no.

I interrupting me because I don't. I only know what's been translate into english. And the english literature on the subject is very small and not scholarly.

Now there may be an 呃 your he bro literature， I don't know, but I was surprised that even sonoma, then on me, a steward of his state, fair enough. On this particular point, he called IT false symmetry. No.

no. Stephen is right. There was a pull and push mechanism in the departure of the jews from the arab lens post forty eight. But there was also a lot of push.

a lot of people that's that's disputable there was.

And on the point of agreement, let us 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, wondering if we can just say a couple of last words on this topic still yeah I think .

that when you look at the behaviors of both parties um in the time period around forty eight or especially forty eight and earlier, there is a assumption that there was a huge building mechanism of sign ism and that IT was going to be inevitable from the inception of the first designers thought, I guess that appeared in hurt le's mind that there would be a mass violent population transfer of a palestinians out of what would become the israeli state.

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 become their state borders, their nation borders, I just don't think that the historical record agrees with the idea that sinners would have just never been OK living alongside her, a palestinians. Uh, but when you look at the other side areas, would, out of hand reject literally any deal that a portioned, any amount of that land for any state relating to jewish or the israeli people. And they get a set, even on the other, on the table, that a area palestine ans would have never accepted, the area would have never accept to any jewish ate whatsoever.

So it's interesting that on the ideology part, where it's claimed the designers are people of exclusion and supremacy and explosion, we can find that entire entries. But we can find that expressed very real terms on the arab side, I think, in all of their behavior around forty eight and earlier, where the goal was the destruction of the israeli state. Um IT would have been the dispossession of many jewish IT probably would have been the explosion of a lot of them back to europe and I think that very clearly plays out in the demonstrating the actions of the arab versus some diary and trace of some jewish leaders.

Benny.

what one thing which stood stood out. And then I think mine made this points that the arabs had nothing to do the but then the world community forced the arabs to pay the Price for the holocaust, the traditional arab argument. This is likely distorting the reality the arabs in the one thousand hundred and thirties did they are utmost to prevent jew h immigration from europe and reaching palestine, which was the only safe haven available, because america, britain, france, nobody wanted juice anywhere, and they were being persecuted in central europe. Eventually would be massacre red in large numbers.

So the arab efforts to pressure the british to prevent jews reaching palestine and 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 the safe haven. That's important. The second thing is, of course, there's no point in billing the fact that the arab, a palestinian arab social movements, people who say I am worked for the nations in the nineteen and forties.

He got a salary from the german foreign ministry, he raised troops a among muslims in bosnia for the access a and he broadcast to the our world calling for the murder of the juice in the middle east. This what he did and the arabs since then I ve been trying to White wash who say his role and not saying he was a the the instigator of the holocaust. He did, he help helped the are the germans along in in doing what they were doing and and they supported them in doing that so that this can be removed from the fact that throbs, as you say, paid the Price for the holo cost. But they also participated in various ways in helping IT happen.

I'll make two points. Um the first is um you mention has a minute how si and is a collaboration with the entirely legitimate point to raise but I think one can also say definitively had has a mean of how he never existed, the holy cost would have played out precisely certainly as I did certainly as far as palestinian opposition to jewish immigration to palace in um during the one thousand nine thirties is concerned IT was of a different character than, for example, british and american um rejection of jewish migration. They just didn't want jews .

on their soil objective the germans killed IT in .

the past stinking an case their opposition to jewish migration 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 zn ism transform so on, but I think there's a more fundamental aspect to this which is the designers and 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 passing in historian will italian has turned the british shield because I think without the british sponsorship we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

Um the british uh sponsored sinister for a very simple reason which is that during world world one the autumn armies attempted to march on the suas canal sue as canal was the jugular vein of uh the british empire um you know between 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 an a uh foreign minority, implant them amongst a hostile uh population and establish a protector IT over them. I don't think um a jewish day in palestine had been part of british intentions in the belt are 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 two and I think this had may be less to do with the and more to do with the effective bankrupcy of the united kingdom during that war. And its inability to sustain um its global empire ended up giving up india, ended up giving up a palestine and is in that context I think that we need to see the emergence of a of a jewish ate in power side and again, a jewish ate means a state in which the jewish community enjoys not only a demographic majority but an uncontestable demographic majority an uncontestable territorial, a aggeles and uncontestable political supremacy and that is also why after one thousand hundred and forty eight the licence israeli states config ted, I believe up to ninety percent of lands that had been previously owned by pastino who became citizens of vizio IT is why the new israeli state imposed a military government on its population of palestinian citizens between one thousand nine hundred and forty eight and one thousand nine hundred and sixty six IT is why the israeli states effectively reduced the palestinians living within these really state as citizens of these really state, two second class citizens on the one hand promoting jewish nationalism and jewish nationalism parties on the other hand doing everything within its power to suppress and eliminate palestinian or arab nationalist movements and that's why today there is a consensus among all major human rights organizations that israel is an apartheid state with israeli human rights organization bet selm describes a regime of jewish macy between the river and the sea. You're really .

tempting or response from the other side the last few cents as we will talk about of the claims of apart so on it's a fascine discussion. We need to have .

IT on the question of the responsibility of the palestinian arms for the nazi holcus, direct or indirect. I consider that an absurd claim as grown, niko said, and I quoted him, the entire western world turned its back on the jews. To somehow focus on the palestinian strikes is completely ridiculous.

Number two, as Marvin said, it's a perfectly understandable reason why palestinian arabs wouldn't choice, because in their minds, and not irrationally, these jews intend to create a jew's state, which would quite likely have resulted in their expulsion. I'm a very generous person. I've actually taken in a homeless person for two and a half years.

But if I knew in advance that that homeless person was going to try to turn me out of my apartment, I would think ten thousand times before I took him in. Okay, as far as the actual, uh, complicity of the palestinian arabs, if you look at, uh, raw hill berg, three volume classic work, the destruction of the european injury he has in those thousand plus pages, one sentence, one sentence on the role of the muffy of jerusalem. And that, I think is probably an overstatement, but we'll leave at the site.

The only two points I would make a ife nahla OS 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 sign est immigration to palace, the fear of territorial displays ment and this possession. 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 are advised on youtube, turn up to speed twice to three times whenever i'm on.

One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach a value to every word I say, and IT is discomforting. This where you have a person whose produced a volumnius corpse, rich in insight and rich in archival sources, who seems to this own each and every word that you pluck from that corpse by claiming that it's either ud of context or its Cherry picking. Words count. And I agree with legs. Everybody has the right to see what you've said the past, but what you cannot is that you didn't say what you said.

I'll stick to the history, not the current propaganda. One thousand, nine hundred and seventeen, the british the designers movement began way before the british supported designers movement for decades.

In one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, the british jumped in and issued the welfare declaration supporting the emergence of a jewish national home in palestine, which most people understood to mean eventual jorce stated in palestine, most people understood that in britain and in his longer sinus, and among the arabs. But the british declared the bell for declaration on, issued the declaration not only because of imperial self interest, and this is what you're basically saying. They had the imperial interest of buffer state, which would protect the solar canal from the east.

And the british also were motivated by idealism. And this, incidentally, is how belt are described, the reasoning behind issuing the declaration. And he said, the western world, western Christendom, owes the jews a great det.

Both for giving the, the world and the west, if you like, a value social values as as embodied in the the bible and social justice and all sorts of other things. And the Christian world owes the juice because they persecuted them for two thousand years. This debt were now beginning to repay with the one thousand nine hundred and seventeen declaration favouring zim.

But it's also worth remembering that the jews a weren't proxies or attached to the british A A imperial endeavor. They were happy to receive british support in one thousand nine and seventeen, and then subsequently when the british ruled palestine twenty thirty years. But they weren't part of the british imperial, a 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 as well. But is not because where studies or extensions of american imperial interests. The british, incidentally, always described in arab a narratives of propaganda as consistent supporters of zyl ism. They weren't the first british rulers in palestine and one thousand nine hundred and seventeen.

one thousand hundred and twenty years.

Note before herbert Samuel, Samuel came in one thousand nine hundred and twenty, the british rule there for three years previously, and most of the leaders, the british generals and sam, who were in palestine, were anti zone's. And subsequently in the twenties and thirties, the british occasionally curbed zone's immigration to palestine, and thousand hundred thirty nine switched horses and supported the arab national movement and not sign m.

They turned anti zone's and basically said, you arabs will rule palestine within the next ten years. This is what we're giving you by limiting jewish immigration to palestine. A but arabs didn't actually understand what they were being given on a silver platter, who say me again and he said, no, no, we can't accept the british White paper of may nineteen thirty nine, which had given the arabs.

Everything they wanted basically self determination in an arb majority state. So what i'm saying is the british, at some point a did support designers enterprise, but at other points were less consistent in the support. And in one thousand nine hundred and thirty nine until one thousand nine hundred and forty eight, when they didn't vote even for partisan for jesus statue in palestine in the U.

N. Resolution, they didn't support sign ism during the last decade of the Mandate. It's worth remembering that .

i'd like to respond to that. I've been speaking of propaganda I find IT simply impossible to accept um that belfour who as british prime minister in nineteen no five was a chief sponsor of the aliens act which was specifically changed his mind, which was specifically designed keep persecuted eastern european and juice out of the streets of the U. K. And who was denounced as an anti semi by the entire british jewish establishment a decade later, all of a sudden .

change is like this.

people change their minds. But when the the changing of the mind just coincidentally happens to coincide with the british pal interest, I think perhaps the transformation is a little more superficial than he's being given credit for. IT was clearly a british period venture and if they're been no threat to the suez canal during world war one, regardless of what belfer would have thought about the jews and their contribution to um history and and their persecution and so on, there would have been no bel for .

I really quick a question that why did the british ever cap immigration then from juice to that area at all?

Well, we're talking now about twenty, sure.

but i'm saying that if there was no whole goal was just been a pus project like there were .

terrors attacks from jewish and .

we're talking .

now about one hundred and seventeen and and as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the british had a jewish state in mind. That's why they use the term jewish national home. I think what they wanted was a british protectorate loyal to independent upon uh the british. I think an outstanding um review of british policy towards 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 twenty years, early thirties, they recognized these the mess they were in, the irreconcilable differences and basically pursued a policy of just mottling on um and muddling on in the context of british rule in palace in um whose overall purpose was to serve um for the development of of sinus institutions you should economy and so on meant even if the british uh were not self consciously doing this um preparing the groundwork for the eventually establishment answer turn first and maintain there were .

and maintained that something this .

no no before they were being shot up .

but maintained that and design this posture until one thousand hundred and forty .

eight o and and if I may just also one point um you mention has any during a world entirely legitimate but what I what I would also point point out is that you had design st organization the lady three hundred people, three hundred people. One of whom happened to become an israeli prime minister and israeli foreign minister, speaker of israeli parliament um you should give this name um you check shamir, uh, proposing an alliance with naughty germany, nineteen forty one e of which was a process later no, if he's a red haring.

uh.

lucky was, i'm sorry.

lucky was an an important to organization in the issue. Three hundred people versus thirty thousand and longed to the hug a so this was not a very important organization. It's true. Before the holocaust really began.

they wanted allies against the british, where they could nineteen thirty, I .

nineteen were they approached the the german.

and if I may, proposed an alliance with nazi germany on what the lay he described as on the basis .

of red, red of you said, you know the state, but you know that .

you know what the statement is said and the basis of a shared ideology, why you say no.

That .

said.

no, you're saying that forget statements, you like to quote things, but where were they not? Are they not? That's what i'm king. What did the study?

He say that the basis of the pack was their agreement on ideology.

That wasn't anybody suggested.

I say, right. And what did the agreement .

say they want in arms against the british? They.

well.

that's what I no.

no, they didn't in helping the na regime the .

I wanted no.

but this is who say me, did you know that he was an anti metal? You've probably read some of his works. I wasn't just anti he was all to anti sim. We had a common ground with him. And I think .

we can agree every and sum is a little right. I think that .

part he literally worked with the notice, recruit people.

He wasn't just a guy. I absolutely revolting, disgusting human being. I don't even .

understand of all the crimes .

you want to ascribe to the palestinian people trying to blame them directly, indirectly, directly or indirectly three times to moved for the not see hello cost is completely on the way.

There's not a he blaming them for the holocaust's saying that from the perspective he's saying that from the perspective of juice in the region, palestinians would have been part of the reason that is not he said .

understand him I believe a lot more of call your self and israeli story I like ground .

I just if I can just respond I don't know understand that the there there were two tricks that's fine. There were two tricks that are being played here that I think is interesting. One is you guys clam that the lady was trying to fortune lines with nazi germany because of a shared ideology. Yeah, but no, no, it's about what you said. You brought that up to imply the design ism must be inactively .

linked to notting words in my okay.

what was the purpose of of saying that the he claimed that they, who are people, were revived by many.

not by everybody.

They will come Terry movement called them terror, yes.

and hand them have to share, called .

himself a .

terrorists. They were so irrelevant that their leader ended up being kicked upstairs to the leader of israeli parliament, to is to israeli foreign minister and big.

And also you wanted character .

ze him as irrelevant as well.

go. Character is relevant. Relevant decades later. The timing matters. Well, the question is, what is the point of saying that the like he tried to force.

and why is, why is, why is of IT is bringing up the mouthy of jerusalem and trying .

to blame the holocaust? No, no, no.

The the the moody was the leader of the palestine arab national. He was three and .

had not much to do with the native hello .

uses is I did no he recruit people for the s how .

you away from? He recruited soldiers in the book mostly, which was disgusting. I have no doubt about that. But he had, don't let .

the. Out, receive letters from who say me during during the holo cost, during the holo cost. Don't let the jews out. Don't let the jews out. I'm not saying he .

was a major tech.

but I agree, if agreed, that has a minute of the muffy of jerusha. Em collaborated with the nazis during world or two and actively soft the sponsorship. Why is IT irrelevant?

Probably wanted the destruction of .

european injury. He probably wanted a lot of things OK. Okay, if that's relevant, why is irrelevant that the prime minister of israel.

no prime minister, one nine hundred forty forty one, he wasn't prime minister israel. He was the leader of a very small terrorist. So do you consider terrace consider .

do you consider an irrelevant? That many years ago, mahadei bus wrote a doctoral thesis, which is basically OK.

But I don't but didn't bring that up. You the one is bring you up. You think little in the holocaust, what you think the president of the palestinian national authority, the little the holocaust? Ens, or only a few juice.

a fair characterization of I am up. I bought IT up. yeah. okay. Because my question is, then why is shame anti dency relevant?

He was a terrorist leader of a very small marginal group who said he was the heat, the movement at the time.

also the point of bring that, I think the point of bring up. Who said my stuff wasn't to say that he was a great further of hola cost is that he might have been a great further in the prevention of juice fleeing to go to policy to escape the holocaust.

That was the point 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 role during world war two, why is IT illegitimate to bring up a man who would become israel's speaker of parliament.

foreign ister and yes.

why is IT and and also, and was also responsible for the murder of of the united nations, is first international envoy. Burn aoi fulk y burn adult. Why is all that relevant?

Think I don't understand. I think just the reason why he was brought up was because jewish people at the in this time period would have wed IT as um there is a prevention of jews leaving europe because of the palestinians pressuring the british to put a curb seventy five thousand immigration limit, yes, but it's not about like it's not about them furthering the holocaust, being an architect, major minor play a we use a major ay in that region. So what .

Morris was Better made the specific claim that the palestinians played an indirect role in the hole.

The indirect role would have been in the prevention of people escaping from. yes.

And my response to that is, first of all, I I disagree with that characteristic.

But second of all, can you agree with that? They prevented, they forced to the british to prevent immigration of june and europe and reaching safe shores in .

palestine. Again, they said, the only spot of land on.

yes, basically, was the juice. And what .

about your great friends in britain, the architects of the ball? What about the .

palestinians .

who were not europeans, who had zero role in the rise of noti ism, who had no relation to any of this? Why are they somehow uniquely responsible before what happened in europe and united?

The have really denied .

states wasn't to say a potential stay safe haven. The only one was palestine. The the united states had no room.

In .

the deep.

amErica should be blamed for not letting juice in during .

the thirties playing, but nobody blames them for the hello course. I've never heard IT said that Franklin nor roseville was indirectly responsible with the cause. I never heard that now maybe it's in israeli literature.

Uy, because israeli is, have gone mad. Yes, your prime minister said the whole idea of the gas changers came from the muffy of jerusalem. Oh, no. yeah.

There is so many things which you happened .

to I starting, be possible you responsible for them. But IT is relevant that he is the longest serving .

prime minister of his unity .

and and he gets, and he get selected, not despite saying such things.

but because he said, voters don't care about jo. They know nothing about his base.

know nothing about.

knows nothing about anything. And you 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 anyway, not to beat a that horse but I don't I I still don't understand .

I i'll .

just conclude but thing I don't understand why the mofo of jerusalem m is relevant.

He is levant .

is relevant, but the head of the national .

and wasn't the head of with the national movement. He represented hundred or two hundred and three hundred gunman who are considered terrorists by movement at the time. The fact that thirty years later becomes prime minister.

that's the crooks of .

maleine arb. And at what I think .

we're speaking, i'm talking facts.

Let's move to the modern day and we will return to history, maybe sixty seven and other important moments. But that looked today in the recent months, october seven. Let me ask sort of a pointed question, was october seventh attacks by hamas on israel, genocidal was was an an act of ethnic cleansing, just so we lay out the moral calculus that we are engaging on. I don't maybe .

the problem, the problem with october seven is this, the hamas fighters .

who who .

were invaded southern israel, a percent ordered to murder, rape and do all the nasty things that they did. And they killed some twelve hundred is really is that day, and they abducted them. As we know, something like two hundred and fifty is civilians, mostly civilians.

also. Some soldiers took him back to gaza, dungeons and gaza. But they were motivated not just by the words of their current leader in the gaza strip, but by their ideology, which is embedded in their charter from eight thousand and eight, eight of fire member correctly.

And that charter is genocide. IT says that the juice must be eradicated basically from the land of israel, from palestinian. The jews are described.

There are sons of apps and pigs. The jews are a base people, killers of profits. And they should not exist in palestine. IT doesn't say that they necessarily should be murdered all around the world, the haas charter, but certainly the juice should be eliminated from palestine.

And this is the driving ideology, a behind a, the massacre of the juice on october seven, which brought down on the gaza strip. And I think with the intention by the hamas of israel counteroffensive, because they knew that that counteroffensive would result in many palestinian dead, because a the the hamas, a fighters and their weapon sm 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 a sinar, by the head commas. And he strive for that. But initially he wanted to kill us many juices he could in the border areas h around the gaza .

trip all respond directly to the points humid. And then i'll leave IT to norm to bring in the historical context that um hamas charter is from the nineties, I think two thousand nine hundred and eighty so much from the eighties um I think you're characterization of that charter as um antisemitic is in dispute able I think your character zone of that charter is genocidal is off the mark import and more importantly, that charter has been succeeded by a new charter in fact has been reveal there is there is a is no new change there is explanation of state to twenty .

two thousand and seventeen two thousand eighteen is supposedly clarifying things were doing the charter but IT doesn't actually step back from what the charter and says eliminate this. Eliminate the juice .

from the land of us and twenty eighteen the hamas charter if we look at the current version .

of the charter is eight eight by s anyway IT IT makes a clear .

distinction um between Jason's zests and twenty eight now you can choose to dismiss and believe IT it's sincere and sincere uh whatever I sincere is the probably the right word. Secondly, i'm really unfamiliar um with fighters who consult these kinds of documents uh before before they go on in the kindergarten .

they told killed the juice. They they practice with make believe guns and uniforms with there .

five years old in the kindergarten.

I said the class has kindergartens and summer camps in which they trained .

to kill jews children second secondly you keep you keep saying jews um to which I would respond, to which I would respond that s does not have a record of deliberately targeting jews who are not israeli and in fact that also doesn't have a record of deliberately targeting either jesus elis outside israel, el and palestine so you know, all this talk of .

we're talking about, we're talking about talking about .

october seventh and hamas's if you'd also like to speak about get to that separately 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 israeli rather than against jews for the reasons that I just mentioned and again I find this constant conflation of of of of jews israel zine ism to be a bit disturbing secondly I think um there are a quite a few indications in the factual curd that raise serious questions about um the accusations of the genocide intent and and genocide practice of what happened on october seventh in 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 I palestinians on october seventh or is there there after in the reason that we need such an investigation is because hamas is there won't be any hearings on what haass did on october seven, seventy international court of justice, because the international convention on 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, get him on lx, any and all credibility ties and the an absolute failure at his job. He's just been sitting on his backside for years on this file and I think um 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 are 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.

certain things you don't even have to investigate. You know, how many citizen civilians died in the october? You know that there are lots of allegations of rape. I don't know how persuaded you are of those. They did find bodies without heads.

which there were, no.

there were some be heading ings.

Apparently this rarely, and even claim that in the document is submitted before the I, C, J, go read what your government submitted and never mention the headings.

So as far, I said blue would be headed in up.

You also denied .

that they were rapes there.

I didn't deny. I said, have not seen convincing evidence that confirms IT. I've said that from day one and i'll say today, four and a half months later.

do you know if they killed eight or nine hundred .

civilians in the absolutely that seems to be dispute able. And i've said that from day one. Well, to be clear.

you haven't. You did a debate, I member the talk show, but you seem to imply that there a lot.

ross F, I D, that I said that there is no question the names were published in horris. There is no question that roughly of the twelve hundred people killed, eight hundred of them were civilians. I see eight, fifty five.

So I never said that. But then I said, no, we don't know exactly how they were killed, but eight hundred civilians killed. No, eight hundred fifty, no question there. And I also said, on repeat occasions, you can take any doubt, in my opinion, as of now with the available evidence, that how much was responsible for significant atrocities. And I make sure to include the plural.

There's a lot of tRicky language being employed here.

here. Do you think of the intercity? It's called attaching value towards and not talking like a motor e mouth. I am very careful about qualifying because that's what let me that's great. Let me just ask a clarifying question.

Do you firmly believe that the majority of the eight hundred and fifty civilians were killed.

by my view, is even if they were half, four hundred is a huge number by any .

reckoning. I even .

because Denny, because professor Morris, I don't know. I agree with moving rubini. I'm not sure if he concedes .

the four hundred and three hundred I have.

I you're saying for gay .

one you believe this particular thing and you can do you I don't believe this thing.

You know, one you said .

people died.

That's not controversial.

Hold on, versie. mr. B, I attach a value to .

what I was.

Please slow down the speech and attempt to listen when I was explicit asked by pierce Morgan, I said, there can be no question that how much .

committed attractive .

on october seven. If you want me to pin down a number, I can do that and ask you about the number.

You can listen to me ask, no, my question is that i'll ask .

very this is .

a very easy to .

my question .

is do you think the majority of the people that were killed by the civilians were killed .

by hommage? Difficult time to answer. The total number of civilians killed was eight hundred, eight hundred fifty.

We know that mass is responsible um probably for the majority of those killings. We also know that there were killings by islamic jihad ad. We also know .

bunching together the islamic he had come .

that's closing ears now .

that he means he means is the first thing .

i'm speaking at opposition to the conspiracy theory that um people like you prefer Norma professor or shrinkin steer what do you .

I don't know you. How do you the best?

Theory is the idea that the idea of killed the .

majority of that.

And then there was also a theory that, as norm pointed out on the show that he was on, that he thought that he was very strange that given how reputable israeli services are when IT comes to sending ambuLances retrieving bodies, he thought he was very strong that was.

do you know why the number went down? The number went down because the israeli authorities were in we're in possession of two hundred corpses that were burned to a crisp that they assumed were israeli um israeli who had been killed on october 7。 They later determined that these were in fact paste an fighters. Now how does the paston fighter get burned to a crisp?

Now you're mixing two things. Some of the bodies they didn't were unable to identify eventually, they just ruled that some of the more actually arab a roaders, rather than israeli victims. Some, a few of them, also of the jews, were burnt to a crisp. And I took time. They came out initially with a slightly higher figure, fifteen hundred dead, and eventually reduced .

to two and the and the reason is that a proportion of israeli civilians killed on october seventh, I don't believe IT was a majority. We don't know how many um some were killed in cross fire, some were killed by um um israeli shellfire helicopter fire and so on and uh the majority were killed by potentials and of that majority um we don't know. I mean, again, I I understood your question is referring specifically to harass, which is why I try to answer IT that way. But if you meant generically palace ines, yes, if you mean specifically hamas, we don't .

have a clear breakdown of .

that's fine.

But some can mean anywhere from one percent to forty nine per.

but we don't know. So the numbers here in the details are interesting in important almas from legal perspective. But if we zoom out, the moral perspective are palestinians ans from gaza justified in violent resistance?

Well, palestinians have the right to resistance falling. That right includes the right to armed resistance. At the same time, armed resistance um is subject to the laws of war.

And they're very clear regulations um that separate legitimate act of armed resistance from act of armed resistance that are not legitimate, the attacks of utrovand where do they land for you? There has been almost exclusive focus on the attacks on civilian population centers and and the killings of civilians on october. Um what is much, much less discuss to the point of amnesia is that there were very extensive attacks on israeli military and intelligence facilities on october seventh. I would make a very clear distinction between those two and um secondary um i'm not sure that I would characterize the efforts by palestinians on october seventh to seize israeli territory and israeli population centers as in and of themselves the legitimate you mean attacking .

israeli civilians?

No, no, no, that's not what I said. I think what you had on october seventh wasn't an effort by hamas to seize israeli territory and population and that's not what I said. What I said is I think I, I, I, I would not describe the effort to see israeli territory as in and of itself a legitimate as a separate issue from the killing of israeli civilians were in those cases where they had been .

deliberately targeted. That's a very clearly family go to hospitals in israel and sam again and drove .

palestinian .

cancer patients .

to hospitals.

And I don't .

select the.

for example, A A condemn israeli assaults on civilians, deliberate the souls on civilians I would condemn but you're not do that .

know you know the issue was um I ve been speaking in public now. I was to the late one thousand nine hundred eighties and intervention so on. I have never runned one occasion ever been asked to condemn any israeli when i've been in group discussions, those supporting israeli action or perspective.

I have never encountered an example where these individuals are asked to condemn what israeli is doing. The, the, the demand and obligation of condemnation is exclusively applied. And my personal experience over decades is exclusively applied. Two power seniors.

And those has condemned day and night on every television channel, on every and husband telling .

you about a personal experience lasting decade.

You said, quote.

oh, no.

anything at you .

should .

say for us, yes, you just said I would condemn. And anytime israel deliberately attacks civilians, okay, the problem, professor Morris, is over and over again. You claim in the face of overwhelming evidence that they didn't .

attack civilians that's true as .

a xi is so .

extensively I know .

in cave and and now let's go select I were pic that's fast forward when you were in a dot. What did you say about the one hundred and eighty two lebanon war? What did I say? You don't remember.

Allow me. okay. So IT happens that I was not at all by any. I had no interest in the israel palestine conflict as a Young man until the next two, until the nineteen eighty two, seven on war.

I'll find IT o you bring .

up something that's really important that a lot of people don't draw distinction between and 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 however, um while I appreciate the recognition of the distinction, the idea that the cause for war that homos was engaged in, I don't believe if we look at their actions in war or the same as they've made IT doesn't seem like I had to do with territorial acquisition no.

no.

no no the point no.

the point I was making was what was hamas trying to achieve military on october seventh. And I was pointing out that the focus has been very much on on 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 intelligence facilities. And as far as the day the other aspects are concerned, because I think either you or legs asked me about the legitimacy of these attacks.

I said i'm unclear whether efforts by hamas to seize israeli population centers in and of themselves are a legitimate 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 the israel civilians. Those strike me as by definition and legitimate um and I want to be very clear about that. I have where .

legitimate means you condemn them.

a legitimate means they are not legitimate. I have a problem condemning your side, no, not condemning my side. I have a problem with selective outrage and I have a problem with selective condemn. And as I I explained you a few minutes ago, in in my decades of of appearing in public and being interviewed, I have never seen, uh, I ve never been asked to condemn israeli action. I've never been asked for a world judgment on an israeli action um exclusive request for condemnation has to do what palin is you more and just as importantly um i'm sure if you watch BBC or C N N one is the last time in israeli spokesperson has been asked to condemn and is really act i've i've never seen IT I don't know we .

can demn the arb sides of nation no but now that .

were talking about israeli victims, all the sudden moralities really .

comes because there is no shortage. International condemn for israel as Normal will point out a million times that there are fifty billion year resolutions. You've got embassy's national.

You've got multiple bodies, the U. N. And you've got another case for the I, C. J. So is no question .

of if there's a condemnation. Sorry, if interact you. In one thousand forty eight, the entire world stood behind the establishment of visual state .

in the entire the world, states, states.

Well, O K I N requestion .

supported .

establishment, the israel. My good question was, you said that you believe that there's a version when you know you, that you think that there's an argument to be made that the people in gaza, and is on my side to ever participated, had a just cause for war. Maybe they didn't do IT in the correct way.

but they maybe had a just cause for war.

I think maybe there, so that israel has a just cause for Operation source of iron.

No course.

Okay, you can say you okay.

Um first of all, on this issue of double standards, which is the one and uh irks or irritate machine, you said that you are not a person of double standards. Unlike people like mine, you hold high a single standard and you condemn deliberate israeli attacks on um civium when they are. And I would say that's true for the period until one hundred and sixty seven and I think it's accurate.

You are your account of the first into father there IT seems to me you are in conformity with most mainstream accounts. And the case of the first into father, you also used, surprisingly, he used arab human write sources like our hack, which I think moine worked for during the first into father. That's true. But then something very strange happens. So let's illustrates IT.

Where do something strange .

happen OK by .

accepting .

the .

oslo agreements.

if we have time. I know the record very well. Are they very happy to go through with you? But let's get to those double standards. So this is what you have to say about israel's invasion of lebanon in one thousand hundred and eighty two. He said israel was reluctant to harm civilians, thought to avoid casualties on both sides, and took care not to harm lebanon and palestinian civilians.

He then went on to knowledge the massive use of idea firepower against civilians during the siege of bay route, which traumatized israel society Marks marris quickly enter the caviar, the israel quote tried to pinpoint military targets, but inevitably many civilians were hit. That's your description of the lebanon on war. As I say.

That's when I first got involved in the conflict. I am a vacuous reader. I read everything on the lebanon on war. I would say there's not a single account of the lebanon war in which the estimates are between fifteen and twenty thousand palestinian lebanese were killed, overwhelmingly civilians.

The biggest bloodletting until the current gaza, uh, genocide, a biggest blood letting, I would say I can think of a single mainstream account that remotely APP approximates what you just said. So leaving the side, I can name the books, the lomi's huge volumes. I'll just take one example now you will remember because I think you served in lebanon and eighty told and corrupt on that.

yes. yeah. So you remember that dov arma kept the war diary. So with your permission, allow me to describe what he rolled during his diary.

So he writes, the warm machine of the f is grouping and tramping over the conquer territory, demonstrating a total sensitivity to the fate of the arabs who are found in its path. A pillow 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 house over the deaths of their loved ones. The air is permeated with the snow, I think, is destruction. And I continuing .

to forget .

my descriptions.

The point .

you're making, you know.

let let me let me just finish my sense. The point your making in which you summer forget is that there are israelis who strongly criticize their own side and describe how israelis are doing things which they regard as a moral. You don't find that on the arab side. I.

mr. Morris, i'm not talking about death, talking about you, the historian, how did you depict the life?

I I believe that israeli military try to avoid committing .

a civilian house .

by .

robbert fish. Competition, you know, I know, has always been right. So that's why, that's why why you can say with such confidence that you don't you don't condemn deliberate israeli. Agree.

I condemned.

Yes, there are. I never quarter with facts. Your your description of the nineteen eighties, a two war is so shocking IT makes my inn's arrive and then you're description of the second into father, your description of defensive .

shield .

juice and .

masses .

and .

buses and in restaurants, that's the second. The father, you are that suicide bombers in juice lee's buses.

I am completely aware of that. You, but if you forgot the numbers, IT was three to one. The number killed mostly.

No, I know that's what you say in the book, but that's not what amnesty international said. That's not what human rights I don't member, I do. That's not what I don't.

My figures, right in the second four palestinians, most of them armed people, and almost.

professor mom is fantasy. But i'm not going to argue with here. Here is a simple chAllenge.

You send that to look at the camera. Where is the people are? Make the open chAllenge.

You are going to them. no. Professor marrs open chAllenge. Words are in print. I wrote fifty pages analyzing all of your work. I quote, some will say Cherry pick, but I think accurately, a quote you here is a simple chAllenge. Answer me in print, answer what I wrote and show where are making things .

up and in the a okay.

no, that's no problem. You're a busy van. You're an important historian. You don't have to know everything that's in print, especially by modest publishers. But now, you know, and so here's the public chAllenge. You answer and show where I Cherry picked, where I miss represented and me find. And then we can have a civil scattered discussion.

I'm sure we will agree if we don't have to .

go for the reader to decide looking at both sides where this truth to no.

And if I may ask, it's good to discuss ideas there in the air now is supposed to citing literary, those are in the past as much as possible, because listeners were not familiar with the literature. So like whatever was written, just express IT, condense the the key .

idea can debate ideas, public debate, but is also within words.

Yes, i'm just telling you that you is, as an academic historian, put a lot of value in the written word, and I think that is valuable. But in this is certainly .

not the only a story. And who puts value towards, I also do to, but just one.

two senses at a time.

This in this context, just for the education process of purpose.

is why would people commit what I have to acknowledge? Because I am faithful to effects massive atrocities on october seven. Why did that happen? And I think that's the problem. The past is erased. And we suddenly went from nineteen forty eight, two, october seventh, twenty twenty three, and there is a problem there.

So first you have plead freedom to backtrack and we will go there with you. Um obviously, we can cover every single year, every single event, but there is probably critical moments in time. Can I respond .

something relating to the little and war? I look at the book, but I got this problem. What the quote from um IT sounds cold to say that but war is tragic and civilians die. There is no war that this has not happened in in the history of all of human kind. 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 shipping meditation in law or laws, the government conflict, where we say things like civilians dying as a war crime, or civilian homes or hospitals getting destroy as necessarily a war crime, or is necessarily somebody intentionally targeting civilians without making distinctions between military targets or civilian ones. I think that will we analyze different attacks when we talk about the conduct of the military, I think it's important to understand, like prospectively, from the unit of analysis of the actual military committing the acts, what's happening and what are the decisions being made rather than just saying retrospectively, oh, well, a lot of civilians died. Not very many military people died compatibly speaking.

So there must have been war crimes, especially when you got another side, facebook, to homos, that intentionally attempts to induce those same civilian numbers, because homos is guilty of any war crime that you would potentially accuse. And this is according to amnesty international, people that no one loves to decide homes 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 just saying that essentially as in terms of how international law defines and not know the international defines, but international describes times of human children but they don't actually apply the correct international legal standard.

I know .

absolutely I absolutely absolutely think I am not re one of but I am saying that on the homo that there's an attempt induce this type of military activity, attempt induce civilian harm that is not just enough to say. Like here's a diary entry where a .

guy talks about how I I think the problem with with your statement is 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 you state that in a very factual matter. Then when you start talking about haas, all of a sudden you've ve discovered morality and you've ve discovered condemnation, and you've discovered intent, and you are, unfortunately, far from alone in this. I give you, i'll give you, you know, who for me is a perfect.

if we don't need examples. So the false equivalency of the two sides is astounding. When homos kills civilians in a surprise attack on october seven, this isn't because they are attempting to target military targets. And they happen, stumble into a giant festival.

people that, but they did.

but they did. But when they stumbled into IT, that wasn't an issue of trying to figure out a military target or not. They they weren't fAiling a distinction. There wasn't a proportionality assessment done IT was just to kill civilians, even the amnesty international in two thousand and eight and in two thousand fourteen .

and even today will anyone who will deny that hamas has targeted civilians in the example there of suicide bombings, uh, during the second and to father, I mean, that or facts.

and I think that the homos target, even civilians, different than the incidental loss of life. That course, when israel does .

no genocide, is the intentional mass murder, which genocide .

is that can tirely 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 no no, I don't believe IT.

Well when you historical, do you mean like in the fifties to the sixties are dooming from .

the thirties of the last century to the twenties of this century? I just like to make you know you the way the way you um characterized IT. I think the best example of that i've come across during the specific conflict is is john Carry, the White house spokesman.

I've i've named him tears toast for a very good reason when he's talking about past stinking an civilian death s war as hell. You know, it's a fictive life. Get used to IT when he was confronted with israeli civilian this on october, and he literally broke .

down in tears. One is deliberate and one isn't.

You understood that? No, that's what he tried to make us.

No, is he was speaking facts that hamas guys were a tactical team. They are apart from the attacks on the military sites. When they attacked, the keyboard team were out to kill civilians, and they killed family after family house house israel attacks on hamas installation Better and find no, you don't know, is really film that d you, you, you don't know, they believe that they are killing s are you? And if the hams are hiding behind ilia every .

time they target, every time they target the kid, i'm sure they believe it's haas when they kill yeah when they yeah when they killed the four kids in the they really yes, I know they, even though they I know who is quoted that you've lied about the other instant .

in the past those kids weren't just on the beaches as opposite and articles, those kids literally coming out of a previously identified most that they they literally .

respect with all the respect. You're such a fantastic moron. It's terrifying that that warf was filled with journalists. There were tens scores of journalists. That was an old Fisherman's shack. What are you talking about? It's so pain, it's so painful to listen to this idiot and take place.

On the other side, your implying that strike was okay on the israeli side where they said we're just sent four haleine y four today for no reason. Children, here we go.

I will answer the question. I will even .

children and mother mouth .

to go. Okay, answered. In twenty eighteen there was the great march of return in gaza, by all reckoning, ings of human rights or organizations and journalists who were there. IT was overwhelmingly nonviolent IT.

Whoever .

organize, I agree.

Let's go for the people. The bigger illa, it's safe. Okay, overwhelmingly organize, overwhelmingly nine violent, resemble at the beginning, the first time here. yes. Okay, not bombs.

But this to be .

continue. So.

but i'm not sure if .

we'll be more. Okay, okay, no way. Please allow me to you don't .

allow me.

allow me to think I .

don't know anything about the side.

Like, okay. So as you know, along the gossip parameter, there was israel's best trained snipers, correct?

I don't know, best train there was nippers sniper .

OK right you because hey lah, it's hilarious. The stories so funny.

you is so much Better, had aspects violence to IT. Even the us. Says themselves, okay, but the us.

Says you like the problem. Mister morely is you don't know the link english language I can .

read from the U. N. Website itself regards to the great march, they said, while the vast majority of protest acted in a peaceful matter, something to damage of burning Price, growing stone. Molotov contains towards israeli forces and flying incendiary codes influence into israeli territory, the letter result an extensive damage to agricultural land in major reserves inside the, and realize israeli civilians some instance of shooting going fast. I'm .

just from the and .

you like you got the month .

wrong. You ve got the month wrong. We're talking about the beginning in march thirty one.

Describe that market. Mos, okay.

allow me to finish. So there were the snipers. okay. Now you find IT so far fetched israelis purposely, deliberately targeting civilians that such a far fetched idea, an overwhelmingly nonviolent march.

what did the international was?

A camp? What did the U. N.

Investigation find? He just fine.

I read the report. I don't read things off of those machines. I read the report.

What IT did find? Brace yourself, you think that was so funny. The idea of df targeting civilians IT found.

Go look this up on your targeted .

journalists, targeted medics. And here is the funniest one of law. It's so hilarious. They targeted disabled people who were three hundred meters away from the fence and just standing by trees.

True if if it's true, just quick pause.

Um I think everything was fascine to listen to accept dimensional glorious. Nobody finds any of these calories. And if any of us laughing, it's not at the suffering of civilians or suffering of anyone is at the a, the obvious, joyful combatant in the room. So i'm enjoying IT and also the joy of learning. So thank you.

I like the targeting surveying a little bit. I think there's like an important underline not necessarily that I just I think it's important to understand yeah I think that the point understand there was like three different things so that we need to about. So one is a policy of killing civilians, do we? So I would ask the other side, i'm going to ask for three because another won't a sure answer.

Do you think there is a policy top down from the idea after targets? finance? That's one thing. A second thing is when I am, yeah, yeah, that's okay. But then the second thing is there's two the things you want to drop between. I think that he would say this, I would say this um I am sure undoubtedly there have been cases where I, D, F, soldiers, for no good reason, have targeted and killed palestinians that they should not have done that would be prosecuted as war crimes .

as defined by being.

And I absolutely sure, sure, sure, sure, we would all agree for soldiers that happens. I think that it's important. I think that it's important that when we talk about military strikes, 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 Operation, including intelligence gathers, including weapons, erin.

And there also have typically lawyers involved when you make the claim that an idea soldiers shot A A palestinian, those three people, the three hostages that came up with the White flag in something horble. 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, the claim that you're making, the claim that you're making is that multiple levels of the idea signed off.

I do you stand .

the problem, I understand you. And if anybody I can help me talking people, you talk to people who have work in the military of you think that bombing and strikes are decided by one person in the field, you think one person, I restarted .

dos higher apparent .

that are designed to figure out how to strike and who to strike. And when you say that four children are targeted, you're saying that you all apparatus stride's. Are you .

my arment? Really that it's impossible at the command level. It's impossible that command level. But you said that they couldn't have .

done the bottom if IT warned also. So you don't understand the strength of the claim that you're in. And poetry initials.

it's true, it's true. I don't spend my nights on wikipedia. I read books. I admit that a single ah I know books are a waste of time with .

all do regard there the three questions that .

you completely respect the fact and i'll say on the air as much as I find totally disgusting, what's how come of your politics a lot of the books are excEllent and i'll even tell you because i'm not afraid of saying IT whenever I have to check on the basic fact, the equivalent of going to the britannia, I go to your books I know you got a lot of the facts, right? I never never say books are a waste of time. And it's regrettable to you that you ve got strapped with a partner who thinks that .

all the wisdom.

all the .

wisdom.

i'd like to respond to what you were saying um the the I think the question that that were trying to answer.

I think you don't stand this really finally, I think that .

I think we all agreed yes that palestinians have deliberately targeted civilians, whether we're talking about hamson ezza mics he had today or previously. I prefer .

the word murdered and raped rather than targeted. Targeted is too soft.

What the haas did i'm .

not talking .

about yeah i'm trying to answer his question um history ally, there is a substantial evidence that palestinians have targeted 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 civium.

Now we agreed both that I said this .

has happened here, kay.

and I think greed on that. I think um .

what we're saying is not policy, which is what you guys are implying that they killed .

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 command right cells that are involved in that. My .

understanding of the israeli military, and you could perhaps you've served in IT, you would know Better. It's actually fairly chaotic organization.

No, no, that's not true. Especially not they are force extremely, extremely organized. The air force works in a very organized fashion, as he says with lawyers, her chain of command. And ultimately the pilot drops the bomb where he toys .

and drop two hundred, two hundred strikes like sixty seconds. I think I they get opening a protective edge like that. Yeah, the coordination.

But you are about .

two thousand days I think yeah just twenty fourteen but understand that .

the ordination in the military is pretty understanding of israeli military that is quite chaotic in this so a lot of testimonies from israeli but be that as IT may okay, i'm i'm prepared to accept um both of your contentions that is a highly organized and disciplined force. Air force on the rai scene is going to be more organized and the other branches and and you're saying such a strike would .

have been inconceivable, not say that, that would .

require OK you you're basically yes.

I your basic claims .

that would be fair to assume that such a strike could have only been Carried out with multiple levels of authorization 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 vapor ized in single strikes who is in the families who .

lives in the house inside no for next to the house, which these families we have .

seen incident.

You know that homesick weren't in that house. Do you know that the animation dump S I don't have .

to prove an negative.

You are saying that deliberately talking about family know I wanted to kill civilians in gaa. They could appeal five hundred thousand by now.

with a number .

of the fact .

they only killed .

a cirl. Small probably is an indication .

that targeted and .

that there are how much targets in these places.

So i've children is and if that's the case, why is that? You said only only the professor mars. Here's a question for if we take every combat zone in the world for the past three years, every combat zone in the world.

americans.

people, I, A movement. So don't stop the million people. Fine, fine.

And and, uh, thirty million russians were killed. So in during world, world to everything else is irrelevant. Okay, here is a question, preference, preference, mars. Here is a question is 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 compared on the world, you get gaza. okay? So .

when .

you try everybody.

so.

so which may not true. I could invent anything because you know that they are.

Yous ga, I know ious, believe me, you like delicious, has in the israeli ministry of fire and affairs. Okay, so here is to think you say they could have killed five hundred thousand, but they only killed only that. Your words, they only killed you. You believe .

that they deliberately marked civilians. They have killed many, many more. The fact is that they can do Better.

Please target civilians.

For as you don't done the art of starting.

I don't want to understand this reality society. We went on the truth. I don't want to, I don't want against their heads. That's the problem. Ninety per A A, A good story.

And good story tries to get into the heads.

There's a limit. There's a limit. There's a limit. When ninety percent, when ninety percent of israeli think that israel's using enough or too little force in gaza, I don't want to inside that head.

Forty percent think the israel using insufficient force in gaza. I don't want to inside that head. I don't want to inside the head of people who think they're using insufficient force against the population, against the population, half of which is children.

I don't want to get inside that head, but here is the point, because your partner wants to know the point. You don't understand political constraints. One of your minister said that drop in the atomic bomb. You.

no, no, no. We said in the sort questionable way, you didn't .

say they should.

The other and israeli .

s chief historian, the fame, justifiably fame, benning marrs. Thus, we should be dropping nuclear weapons on the rain.

Iran has for years, leaders for years have said we should destroy as well. You agree with that. They've said we should destroy israel.

Israel must be destroyed. You have you that correct? This is what iranian leaders have been saying .

since would say iranian leaders have sent mixed messes.

Okay, okay. But some of them have said, including you .

don't know the evidence.

You know .

why for the extended who these are trying to stop the genocide .

and got know I I support, I think ree and .

no.

norm, norm, norm, stop please. Norm, just for me, please just give you you said that there is no genocide going on. A goal asked that clear question. The same question I asked on homosexuality is there from illegal for asha moral perspective? Is a genocide going on in gaza today?

Is your genocide going on in gaza? Well, in several years, we will have a definitive response to that question. What has happened thus far is that on the twenty nights of december the republic of south africa instituted um proceedings against israel pursuant to the one thousand and forty eight convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide um south africa basically accused the rael of perpetrating um genocide in the gaza strip on the twenty six of january the um the court issued its initial ruling the court at this stage is not making a determination on whether israel has or has not committed genocide so just as IT has not found israel guilty, IT certainly also hasn't found israel innocent.

What the court had to do at this stage was take one of two decisions 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 violated its obligations under the genocide convention and that IT would on that basis hold on a full hearing. Now a lot of people have um looked at the courtroom ruling of the twenty six of january and focused on the fact that the court did not order a ceasefire. I actually wasn't expecting you to order a ceasefire and I wasn't surprised that I didn't because in the other cases that the court has considered most prominently lavenia and mon mad IT also in order to a cease fire um and south africa in requesting a ceasefire also didn't ask the court to render an opinion on the legitimacy latter of of israel um of israel's military Operation from my perspective um the key issue on the twenty six of january was whether the court would simply dismiss the case or decided .

to proceed with IT .

and they decided to proceed and they decided to be and I .

think that's enormously and I think decide you already the committed de it's .

get allow me, allow me that's now I don't know you .

say finished well.

The end of the story .

is you specifically asked whether I think israel's 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, yes, in in the bozzi a case, the court determined that of all the evidence place before them, only strip needs a qualified as genocide, and all the other atrocities committed did not qualify as genocide. You know, international law is a developing organism. I don't know how the course is going to respond in this case. So I wouldn't take IT as a forgone conclusion um how the court is going to respond.

But I have to .

I have to because you're asking .

my personal personal .

as as a matter of law, I want to stay very clearly. IT has not been determined and won't be determined for several years. Based on my um observations and and the evidence before me， I would say it's dispute able that is real is engaged in a genocide assault against the past and the people .

in the goal line with .

the program. The pillow is long past as .

as you are saying genocide is is is not a body count um genocide consists of two elements um the tion of a people in whole or in part so in other words, you can commit genocide by killing thirty thousand people. IT doesn't five? Probably yes, but I think thirty thousand crosses the threshold. Ld, and not reaching five hundred thousands, 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 urged, red, it's not genocide. And as far as incentives.

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. South africa.

south A. I like um you know for .

some reason you don't have a problem with people being poises eli at the time of of of of this but they support palestinian s right to life yourself determination. They get demonizing the legitimizes .

organization which murder twelve people live supporting .

a state that is murder thirty thousand.

They happen because these are .

thirty thousand are basically huge.

used by the house in which wanted killed. They wanted them killed. Just wanted these. You don't think they wanted them killed. Now to find them with shelters, they build tunnels for their fighters, but not one shelter for their own civilians.

Asked me about him. You ask me about in tempt. And the reason that I bought in um the south african application is because IT is actually exceptionally detailed on intent by .

quoting numerous .

well yeah including the prime minister, the defense minister, the chief of staff this are according .

to according to a .

cash the philosophy is yeah he said that that yahoo was in genocide so he's an idiot the reason I raised the south african application is too full no hama it's .

exceptionally detailed on the .

question of on the question of intent and secondary went when the international court of justice issues are 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 this specific question because he was basically saying that he didn't think south africa presented a persuasive case but he said their 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 I C J, A case that south afra brought, I think as a couple things I need to be mentioned. One is and I saw youtube talk at links about this, the plausibility standard is incredibly low. The only thing we're looking for is a basic presentation of fact that make IT .

conceivable .

or possible plausible which illegally this is obviously below criminal conviction.

below yeah like an endicott sure .

possibly maybe even a lower level than even an entitled. So plausibility is an incredibly low standard. Number one. Number two, if you actually go through and you read the complaint that south africa failed, um I would say um that if you go through the quotes and you even follow through to the source of the quotes, the this representation that south africa does in their case about all of these horrendous quotes, in my opinion.

borders on .

criminal and you know they .

could be but .

week even .

the american judge, he must have been awful incompetent if SHE was unable to see the this representations that mr. Penel.

based on his wikihouse, icio. I, C, J.

okay, that's great.

If you go through and actually identify any of the sources .

to underline actually to yourself this, and we could confirm IT yaniv, cogan and israeli and jammy stern viner, half israeli, they checked every single quote in the hebrew original. And ya nieve cogan love the guy. He has terrifying powers of concentration.

He checked every single quote is our correct machine, and jie 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 sixteen, fifteen judge was fifteen to two.

sixteen to two. I think there .

are fifteen and the cord plus two, so it's seventeen, so it's fifteen to two. I don't think those fifteen judges were incompetent. And I certainly don't believe the president of the court and american would allow herself to be due because .

you recall, mr. sure. So this was taken from the 呃， from the south african complaint.

There's tons of these. But so here's one in the, in the complaint for the I, C. J.

They said that on the twelve of october twenty twenty three, president ii, her herz g made clear that israel was not distinguish between militants and civilians in gaza, stating in a press conference to foreign dia in relation to palestinian an in gaza, over one million of whom our children, quote, quote, it's an entire nation out there that is responsible. IT is not true. This rhetoric about civilians not aware or not involved, I saw, it's absolutely not true.

And we will fight until we break their backbone. And 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 redick, about civilians not being aware and not involved.

It's absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over gaza in a CUDA top.

But we are at war. We are defending our homes. We are protecting our homes.

That's the truth. And when the nation protects its home, IT fights. And we will fight until break their backbone.

He acknowledged that many goths had nothing to do with him, as 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 mysql in your god damped kitchen and you want to shoot IT at me, and 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 is no distinction between militants and civilians in gaza.

His statement here is actually fully complaint with international law to the letter, because if you are storing the military supplies in civilian areas, these things become military targets, and you are like to do proportionality assessment afterwards. So this is supposed to be one of many quotes that they have shown that this was to demonstrate genocide intent. But IT is very easily explained by militaria intent, or by a content between two parts.

I saw that press conference.

Let me just say something. All of this talk is a bit relevant because IT sounds that may sound to the listeners that the the court in the hug has ruled that israel is committing geni. It's is IT going in the next few years to look at all? Okay, there has been no no determination at all. And as as Stephen says, h some of the quotes are not exactly accurate .

quotes .

or taking up. okay.

IT is correct as moving put IT that at least seven, several years before the court makes a determination.

And my guess is, is a little determined. There was no genocide. That's my guess. That's not just give you my.

uh, I can predict I got that all wrong actually, as moving walk a test. I got all wrong the first time. I never thought the american judge with in favor of possibility course.

I think i'd tell mine twice today. 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 that can be wrong.

Okay, leaving that the site, first of all, as mine pointed out, there's a difference between the legal decision by the ruling and an independent judgment. Now south africa is not filing a frivolous case. That was eighty four pages. IT was single, even eighty four single place.

They take an hour in a house that was not in that of cause.

There was single space and had literally hundreds of foot.

can still be previous with .

possible course. Christmas isn't.

Yeah, I read the report to tell the truth. I followed very closely everything that's been happening to october seventh. I was memorized. I couldn't believe the comprehensiveness of that particular report. Number two, there are two quite respected judges.

Excuse me, there were too quite respected, uh, experts sive international law sitting on the south african panel, john do guard and one in law, one law, as you might know, he argued that the world case in two thousand four, before the international code 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 note mr. Do god personally and have correspond with von low. I've heard their claim.

I've read the report. I would say they make a very strong the 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 gonna beyond the olympic team. IT doesn't mean they're gonna win a gold metal, A A silver metal or Brown.

Brown. They can swim that. No, I would say that's .

a very high bar.

They can swim. They even quality .

swim well enough to have a realistic problem.

yes. yeah. So they even make IT to plausible .

ble that not sure that is absolutely .

different. Please don't teach me about the english language.

So the decoration judge, I lots of people, is the same as swell lifed. The court has 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 even well founded.

The court is you said that plausible as a high standards is absolutely not IT is a this representation of the strength of the case against israel, just like the majority of the quotes they have in this case are and also he said he was an extremely in the case they spend like one forth of all of the quotations, some even pope from the goldstone report. They try to try deal with the intent part, which is, by the way, I think you guys, I don't know, use of the dollar. Is that the intentional part of genocide? I think it's because I think called dollar special as this is the most important part of genocide, which is proving the special as a highly special intent to commit genocide.

Possibly is good man, right?

No, the man, really. Yes, I understand the state of mind. But for genocide, there is a codology special, is, is a highly special intent.

Did you read the case?

Oh, IT, is this the first?

I'm gonna ask you again. Yes, please stop .

displaying your impossible on .

public display that you are on. At least have the self possession to shut up.

Did I read putting my business on? But I read the .

case around four times. I read all of the of the the majority opinion, the decorations, I read our on barracks .

declaration .

standard because I said even reaching the benchmark of plausibility is a very high standard in the world, is the equivalent of our regional player qualifying for an olympics. It's still two steps removed. You may not be on the team and you may not get a metal, but to get qualified, which in this context is the equivalent of plausible, you must be doing something pretty horrible happened.

I have remember what I just told you.

the I don't expect to be living around when the court reaches is fine on decision why it'll take a long, long time I years.

which was a immediate, a special type of case, they were accusing serbia of sponsoring the bus in service that look, I think seventeen years from ninety years.

the point you're .

making so horrible must be happening.

The even.

I know, but they were they were rendering a ruling on the war.

They were rendering .

a ruling on the gene. And then I think .

the problem with your character zone is you're saying in so many words, the south africans basically only have to .

show up in court with .

a cohesive sphere. They needed .

to do a lot more. They needed, they needed .

to persuade ma suada.

Judges go according .

to what the majority want to hear.

but they need a president.

They needed to persuade the court that IT was worth investing several years of their time in hearing this case to well paid whether they take this case or not. I mean, you know they have they have a full docket um whether they accept to reject this case. And I think I don't think we .

remember what I just said. They won't rule there was genocide.

Remember what I said? Also, I recommend people actually read the case, would follow through a lot of the courts that they .

just don't show generali finance.

And eight october taken from the I. C. J. This is from south exhibition biz. Lo motril. I can read this stated ago, okay, at a meeting of the is really cabinet that quote, we need a delay below that IT hasn't been seen in fifty years and take down gaza and quote, but again, if you click through, you read the source, their own links, source that says, as per their own source, quote, the powerful finance minister, subtle leader, a bela moti I camp since demanded at the commit meeting late saturday that the army, quote, hit homos brutally and not take the matter of the captive into significant consideration. And quote, quote, in war, as in war, you have to be brutal and quote, he was quoted the same, what we need to delete below that hasn't been seen fifty years, and take down gaza and quote, you can strip the quotation of homos .

anything .

to be wet and then, no, when your pain says we need to defeat russia, that gene m telling .

all russian system. One, when is the defense? ridiculous?

Yes, ridiculous.

The american .

show doesn't interpolate .

the american american judge. Red.

you are holding the american .

judge to .

be the end of them and deal with the actual fact of the matter.

The american judge read several of the clothes. Look at the american.

the supreme court today. They may support of.

without going too far a field, if you will. Heard this statement by the defense minister. The defense minister said, we are going to prevent any food, water, fuel or electricity .

from entering.

And no onderstand asking this. We're turning about statements now intend. How would you interpret .

that after two thousand hundred of your citizens are murdered the way they were? I would extreme statements, but you know that they .

lost their entire country.

Good point. No, no.

to a good point.

And on that on .

on that moment, brief moment of agreement, let's take a quick pause. In a smoke break, in a water break, in a .

bathroom break.

I don't want me. What is down? Guys want me with the iraq we wanted to destroy. That was a general statement. There's a reason why genocide is so is such an importantly guarded concept, and it's to condemn every nation that goes to war.

But you're solicitude for international laws. You should try learn here sometime .

that would help you. Sorry out, a lot of the civilian .

does fifty judge.

You can keep citing the judges you share to try reading the actual statements.

This is tiring. You've invited us to a tiring .

session.

You get doing.

okay, okay, this there are major things that disgusting and not just one what some court is doing the judging 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 conflicts because there are really important things to discuss, but they will never be discussed.

We're not going to talk about like like A A B C or what a transforms. It's going to talk about apart tight where talk about you know the differences in how do you conduct war in an urban environment with a cide. When I gna talk about what's a good luck.

be productive over the next two hour, and talk about solutions.

about solutions. I have no idea what to say. I mean, I don't see any solutions on, if you want to, a positive of end this discussion, which is what you said at the beginning. I can contribute to this because I am pessimistic. I don't see anywhere anyway forward to.

but the lack of the solution is is easy. The reason why the solution is hard is because the history the are completely there's a different factual record.

right? One of things would be good to talk about solutions with the future is going back in all the times that has failed every.

But even at that, we're probably not going to he's going to say you've got right that I can predict the whole line. He's going to say from ninety three to ninety ninety, say israel didn't IT hear to the oslo courts ever settled expansion, continued h rates, happened to the west bank, that there was never a legitimate that night yahoo came in and violated the um the why member the transference he's going to say have all of this and he's going to bring up any new polis that and then for camp David he's going to say that yeah that era at was trying that the maps and the territorial exchange wasn't good enough that .

they were asking palestinians make all the .

concessions that is very quickly. And my future book should interest you guys .

working .

not working on its actually going to come out IT deals with israeli and arab atrocities, war crimes I call them in the forty eight more really just reject because .

I know you've also a talked about the closure of the archives and stuff.

Well, it's it's marginal. They do deals with that as well that they have tried to get seal of documents which had already used and seen. Now they don't let people see them. That's happened, but it's marginal in terms .

of its effect with the british useful for you for the book.

Well.

for this place it's mostly is radio. The petition in americans and U. N. Did deal with these subjects, but not not as well as israel documents.

What's your casual count for the a scene?

About one hundred? I think this agreement on that by israeli sand arabs, hundred.

hundred and five before they were.

they used to say, two, forty five and fifty four. Those were the figures, the british, the arabs and the hagan's. A agreed on the beginning .

because the cross, I think, was the one that first put out that number.

I don't remember maybe IT was what his name the same year or maybe yeah, maybe he he came up with that number, but he was just they didn't count. They didn't count bodies. They just throw the number out and everybody was happy to blame the one on the left for, you know, killing more arms and actually.

well, and they put IT to good use as well.

Well, they said that he helps the precipice more .

evacuation.

So they yeah, yes, they use that. yes.

So first of all, thank you for that. He did discussion about the present. I would love to go back into history in a way that performs what we can look for in a, uh, as a by way of hope for the future. So when has in israel paste have been closest to something like a piece, admit 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 hundred and twenty years or so conflict, the closest I think the two sides have been to reaching some sort of settlement appears to have been in the year two thousand, when barrack and then subsequently clinton a after a two state, a settlement, a to pillow palestinian authority chairman. Yesterday, at and ara seemed to waver. He didn't immediately reject what was being offered, but ultimately came down a tent of camp David in july two thousand. They came down against the proposals and the clinton, who said he wouldn't blame him later blame dara feat for a bringing down the summit and not reaching a solution there.

Um but I I think there on the table a certainly in the clinton parameters of december two thousand, which followed a the proposals by barin july, the palestinians were offered the best deal they are ever going to get from israel unless israel is destroyed and then there will just be a palestinian arab state but the best deal that israel could ever offered them, they were offered which essentially was ninety five percent of the west bank east ju eem a half of the old city of jersey m some sort of joint control of the temple of mount a and the guys a strip, of course, in full and the palestinian said no to this deal. And nobody really knows why arahat had know that is some people thinking was trying to hold out for slightly Better terms. But my my reading is that he was constitutionally psychologically incapable of signing off a tuesday deal, meaning acceptance of the existence of a jewish h state. This was really the problem.

a israel of a juice state.

a juice state, the juice state of israel. He wasn't willing to share palestine with the put his name to that. I I think he just couldn't do IT that that's my reading. But some people say that was because the terms were insufficient and he was willing, but that was waiting for slightly Better at terms. I don't buy that, I don't think so, but other people disagree with me on this.

What what do you think will just briefly, in response, era formally recognized israeli and in nineteen ninety three, I don't think actually that in two thousand two thousand one uh a genuine um resolution was on offer because I think the maximum misery was prepared to offer, admittedly more than I had been prepared to offer in the past, fell short of the minimum that the palace ian considered red to be reasonable. Two state settlement bearing in mind um that as of one thousand nine hundred and forty nine uh is real controlled seventy eight percent of the british Mandate of palestine um palsy ans were seeking a state on the remaining twenty two percent and this was apparently too much for israel. My response to your question would be .

where they were being offered something like twenty two or twenty one .

percent were being offered, I think less then to withdraw to the one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven borders with mutual and minor and reciprocity landslips and the just resolution .

of one of the .

question um you know I I worked for a number of years um with um uh international crisis group and my boss at the time was rob mali who was one of the american officials present .

to come out the point of the point I .

want to make about uh rob was he wrote I think a very perceptive article in two thousand one in the new ork review books I know that you and a hood barac have had a debate with them but I think he gives a very compelling reason of why and how um uh camp camp David failed but rather than going .

into that of the rope that .

together with who in A N A yes who was not at camp with but in response your question I think there could have been a real possibility of israeli palestinian and aarabi israeli peace in the midnight thousand nine hundred and seventy in the wake of the one thousand nine hundred and seventy three october war um um i'll i'll recall that in one nine hundred and seventy one madam israel's a defense minister at the time a full of triumph sm about israel's Victory in one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven speaking to a group of israeli military veterans stated.

You know, if I had to choose between uh shat mh without peace or peace without shat my shape this is referring to the resort in in egyptian sina which was an under israeli occupation, dian said. I will choose for some mishap without peace. Um then the one thousand nine hundred and seventy three war came along and um I think israel coaly late began to change very significantly and I think IT was in that context that had .

there .

been a joint U S. Soviet um push for um uh an arab israeli and israeli postini an resolution that incorporated both in israeli withdrawal to the one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven lines and the establishment of a pale inie state and in the occupied territories. I think IT there was a very reasonable prospect for that being achieved and ended up being aborted.

I think for several reasons and ultimately um the egyptian a president on what to that um decided um for reasons we can discuss latter to launch a separate lateral initiative for israeli egyptian rather than arab zai peace and I think once that said in motion um the prospect um disappeared because israel essentially saw its most powerful adversary removed from the equation and felt that this would give you a free hand in the occupied territories, also in lebanon to get rid of the P L O. And so on. So um you know 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. If we look at the situation today now, there has been a lot of discussion about a two state settlement. My own view and i've i've written about this, I don't I don't buy the arguments of the naysayers that we have passed the so called point of no return with respect to a two state settlement.

Certainly, if you look at the israeli position in the occupied territories, I would argue it's more tenuous. That was the french position in algeria in one thousand nine hundred and fifty four, then was a british position in ireland in one thousand nine sixteen. That was the ethopia an position and uh eritrea in nineteen ninety. And so as a matter of practicalities, a matter of principle, I do think um the establishment of a palestinian state in in the occupy the territories remains realty. I think the question that we now need to ask ourselves, it's one i'm certainly asking myself since october seventh and looking at israel's genocide dal campaign but also looking at larger questions isn't 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 chAllenges with violence by applying even more violence that has an unsatiable lust for palestinian territory, that a genocidal apartheid state that seems increasingly incapable of even conceiving of peaceful co existence? Um with with the other people on that land. So i'm very pessimistic that uh solution is possible. I look at 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 uh south east station one thousand nine hundred and seventy and I think we'll agreed that there could not have been peace in that region had the cirrus not been ousted I look at southern africa during the nineteen nineties and I think we can all be agreed that have the White minority regimes of um that rules in bowen's south africa not been dismantled? There could not have been peace in that region.

And although I think it's worth having a discussion, I do think it's now legitimate question to ask, can there be peace on without demanding a design est regime? And I make a very clear distinction between the israeli stay and its institutions on the one hand um and the israeli people who I think regardless of our discussion a about the history, I think you can now talk about an israeli people and the people that have developed rights over time and a formula for peaceful co existence with them. Uh will need to be found which is a separate matter from a dismantling um 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 A A feasible but I think there are very legitimate questions about its desirability um and about whether peace can be achieved in the middle ast um with the persistence of an irrational genocide apartheid uh regime particularly because israeli society is um uh beginning to. Develop um many extremely extremely distant ful supremest uh the humanizing aspects that I think also stand in the way of coexistence that are being fed by this regime.

So if you look back into history, when were closed to peace and do you draw any hope for many of them?

Um I feel like in two thousand and I feel like the deal that was present um at least at the end of the top of summit, I think in terms of what yeah I think that the abbati to give and what the palestinians have gotten would have definitely been the most agreeable between the two parties. Um I don't know within seventy three, i'm not sure if the appetite we've ever been there for the arb states to negotiate alongside the palestinians. I know that um injured and there was no look for the palestinian and after you know one nine hundred and seventy after black september um I know that sidot had no love for the palestinians due to their association association with the most brotherhoods attempted assassinations and egypt um sorry.

which P L O and the muslim brotherhood .

sett was upset because they were attempted assiniboia and no anasco sino IT was a personal friend of his usual ali by I can't pronounce up use a organ's much group .

of directly but I think that there was .

a history of um the palestinian sometimes uh fighting with their neighbouring states that were hosting if they were not getting the political concessions they wanted the assassination of the Jordanian king and fifty one might be another example of that in Jordan IT feels like over a long period of time IT feels like the palestinians have been kind of told from the neighbor erb states that if they just continue to enact violence, whether israel or abroad, that eventually a state will materialized somehow I don't think it's got them any closer to a state.

If anything, I think it's taken them farther and father and farther away from one and I think as long as the hyperbolic language is continually employed IT internationally, the idea that is realest 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 than narrative for the palestinians, that israeli zan evil state that needs to be dismantled. I mean, you said as much about the institution, at least to design this government. Israel's government is probably not going anywhere.

All of the other surrounding erb sides have accepted that were at least most of them down in the gulf. Each of in Jordan have accepted that the palestinians need to accept that to the the israeli state, where the state up ratio not going anywhere. And at some point we need to realize like k, we need to lead if it's going to come out and represent us, represent all of us is when we take political risks, is willing to negotiate some lasting peace for us. 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 extractors from this conflict. It's going to take some actual difficult political manuvers .

on the ground of accepting .

israel accepting .

israel yeah former did. And ninety three.

which they formally did in nineteen ninety three. Yeah but then no, no lasting piece came after that in two thousand no.

because nineteen and ninety three was .

not a peace agreement.

sure. The also corum agreements and ali is actually began clamoring for commencing the the permanent status, uh, resolutions on schedule and israelis kept delaying them. In fact, they only began, I believe, in ninety nine under american pressure on these rates and you're .

being a bet, one sided. Both sides didn't fulfill the promise of oslo and the steps needed for oslo. There was palestinian terrorism, which israel's expansion of settings and other things, the two things fed each other.

And they had to what happened in two thousand, which was a breakdown of the talks all together, when the palestinian said no. But I think this I don't agree. Incidently, with this definition of israel, of israel ate as A A party.

It's not there is a some sort of apartheid going on in the west bank. Israeli regime itself is not in the partied regime. This is nonsense by any definition apart side.

which by the formal definition.

I think you qualify no IT doesn't qualify apart. That is a race race bed, a distinction between different segments of the population and and some of them don't have any representation at all like the black is in south africa. No right at all.

Israel in israel itself, the the minority, the arabs do have a presentation, do have rights and so on. I don't think is also also genocidal. I don't think it's being genocidal.

IT wasn't so in forty eight, wasn't so in sixty seven. And IT hasn't been recently, in my view. And talk about dismantling israel, that's what you're talking about, is I think Steven said correct is counterproductive. IT just pushes israel further away from willing to give palestinians anything.

Please, norm, tell me you have .

something of optimistic to say.

I even though I agree, I thought about a lot and I agree with movies 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 terror firmer. So i'd like to just go through that. Um I don't quite I agree and I disagree with mine on the seventy three issue after the nineteen nineteen seventy three war a IT was clear that israel was surprised by what happened during the war and um I took a big hit. The estimates are I don't know what numbers you use, but I hear between two and three thousand is really soldiers were killed during the night .

was twenty five hundred twenty seven.

Yeah, okay. So I got right. I read different numbers to very large number of israeli who were killed. There were moments at the beginning of the war where there was a fear that this might be IT.

No, no, there isn't. Isn't, isn't. no. Everybody, this atomic weapon, I know. So how could they have been decided?

Didn't talk about .

the flaps of the third time .

he .

was sick. I don't historical or not. No, we want the same room with him. But just let's not bog down on that. The war is over. And when president Carter comes into power corner was an extremely smart guy, jmi cortex, extremely smart guy. And he was very fixed on detail, extreme. He was probably the most impressive of modern american presidents, in my opinion, by a wide margin and he was determined a result the conflict um on the on a big scale, on the arab israeli scale, on the palestinian uh issue he wouldn't go past. When he called the palestinian homeland.

he went national .

home and the international home. He wouldn't go as far as of poetry. Ian state, i'm not going to go into the details of that. I don't think realistically, given the political bounds of forces, that was going to happen, but that's a separate issue.

Let's get to the issue at hand, namely, what is the obstacle or what husband obstacle? Since the early ninety seven, since roughly one thousand nine and seventy four, the palestinians have accepted the two state element in the june one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven border. Now, as he got as more pressure was exerted on israel, because the palestinians med reasonable, the israeli is, to quote the israeli political scientist of her Young eve, he since passed from the scene.

He said, Young, even this book, the lemons of security. He said that the big palestine, big israeli fear, was what he called the palestinian peace offensive. That was their worry that the palestinians were becoming too murdering.

And unless you understand that, you can understand the june nineteen and eighty to live in on war. The purpose of the june one thousand nine hundred and eighty two lebanon war was to liquidity the P, L, O, in southern lebanon, because they were too, murdering the palestinian peace offensive. I'm going to have the fast forward.

There are many events. There is the first into further than there is the issue, cord. And let's now go to, uh the the the heart of the issue named the uh the two thousand two thousand one negotiations.

Well um the negotiations are divided, the three parts for the sake of listeners this camp David in july two thousand. There are the clinton parameters res in december two thousand. And then there are negotiations in turbo, uh, in egypt.

Turbo in egypt in two thousand one. Those are the three phases. Now I have study the record, probably to the point of insanity, because there are so many details.

You have the master, I i'll vulture that .

I actually, I will vulture IT I would personally vote for um there is one extensive record from that whole period from two thousand, you could say two thousand and seven. And that is what came to be called the palestine papers, which are about fifteen thousand 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 the Normal benny ese book, which I have with me, profits without honor is his last book. He says, going into camp David. That means a july.

Going into camp David, july two thousand, he said the israeli is, were willing to return about that return, but will withdraw from ninety, relinquish a ninety two percent of the west man he was at. Yeah, then he was a tabo. 哦， yeah.

He was also come down. Uh, they wanted israel, wanted to keep all the major settings. block.

Ks, IT wanted to keep roughly eight percent of the west bank they were allowing for. You put IT at eighty four to ninety percent in your books. Ah, they pulled at roughly ninety two percent.

Uh.

israel is the games, how you calculate .

vid s posers. So israel wants to keep all the major settings locks .

means the border ever.

well, not the border. We have ario. We have milla. I do mean we have is kind of letes, kind of letes a rice called ario SHE said IT was a dagger into the heart of the west bank.

So they want to keep eight percent of the land. They want to keep the settle ment blocks. They want to keep eighty percent of the settings.

They will not budge an inch on the question of refugees, to quote a aho barrak in the article he coortin review in the new york review of books, we will accept, 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 historic or responsibility for the refugees.

And on jerusalem, they wanted to keep large parts of jerusalem. Now, how do we judge who is reasonable and who is not? Then ami says, I think the israeli offer was reasonable. That's how he sees IT.

But what is the standard of reasonable? My standard is what is international law? Say international law says the supplements are illegal.

Israel wants to keep all the settings locks fifteen judges or fifteen in the whole decision in two thousand four, in july two thousand four, all fifteen judges, including the american judge burden. So Z. The settlements are illegal under international law.

They want to keep eighty percent of the settings. Under international law, all the settings are illegal in the west bank. They want to keep large parts of estero salem. But under international law, easter rusalem is occupied palestinian territory. That's what the .

international palestine is. Okay, never been palestinian state. Now.

can I see you? Sorry, under international law, if you read the decision or territory than that two thousand four world decision, all territory beyond the Green line, which includes eater jo salem, is occupied palestinian territory of the .

designated unit .

according to the international court of justice, the designed 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 a hood on mark. In two thousand eight, he offered five thousand refugees could return under what was called family reunification, five thousand in the course of five years, and no recognition of any israeli responsibility. So if you use as the baseline what the U.

N. General assembly has said and what the international court of justice has said, if you use that baseline international law by that baseline of 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 then they, what I wanted, but I was still beyond what international law allocated to them. Now you .

stalest .

thank you for the clarification. Now about our fat, like the mufty never like the guy. I think that was one of only disagreeing, moving.

And I had, when arifin passed, you were a little sentimental. I was not never like the guy, but power takes. You don't have to like the guy.

There was no question nobody argues IT that whenever the negotiations started up, the palestinians just kept saying the same thing. No, kept saying, no, no, professor marrs with do respect incorrect. They kept saying, international legion acy, international law, U.

N. resolutions. They said, we already gave you what you, what the law required. We gave that in one thousand and eighty eight november nineteen eighty, and then ratified again at oslo in nineteen ninety three. 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. Levi, during the omar t. Administration, he 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 alone.

But when has international lobe been relevant to any country .

in the world? That's why, over the last hundred, our initial to recognize this real because that international lotion.

or in accordance with international .

professor mars, for argument sake, let's agree on that strictly for argument sake. What's the old alternative? Denis rule said, we're going to decide who gets sort on the basis of needs.

So he says, israel needs this. Israel needs that. Israel needs that. Then is ross decided to be the philosopher king. He's going to decide on the basis of needs. Well, if you asked me, since gazes, one of the best places on earth, IT needs.

yeah, needs.

needs. Part of needs, a nice big chunk of china. Well, okay, I I don't .

even want to go there in need to. I speak chunk, but I have to accept international losses.

No OK lowest relevant now.

But me says, I think the israeli offer was reasonable. Okay, reasonable that you he seems even though okay, I want to go debated him and partially be with you um but who decides was reasonable? I think the international community in its little go uh incarnation, the general assembly, the security council, all those U.

N. Security council resolution saying the elements are illegal anx ation of easter rusalem is now involved, 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 concerns unreasonable.

I think that the issue is, when you apply international law, international standards, I wouldn't say what anymore says that there irrelevant, but I think that these have to be seen as informing the conversation. I don't think these are the final shape of the conversation.

I don't think historically, israel has ever negotiated within the strict bounds of whether we're talking resolution to for two, whether we're talking about any general assembly resolutions. That's just not how these negotiations tend to go. You might consider international opinion things, but at the end of the day, it's the bilateral negotiations often times historically started in secret, independent of the international community, that end up shaping what the final agreements look like.

I think the issue with this broad appeal to international law is, again, going back my earlier point about all of the uh, mitic words, all IT simply does is drive palestinian expectations up to level that is never going to be satisfied. For instance, you can throw that I C, J. Opinion all you want. IT was an adviser opinion that came in two thousand, four, how palestinians gained more or less land. Since that two thousand and four advisory opinion was issued.

I don't know what your standard be.

Then both sides have to have a delegation that conference each other and they assess the realistic conditions on the ground and they tried to figure out within the confines es of international with both are reasonable for but like france is this statement of like full retreat from the west neck was at four hundred thousand settled. How many new sets leave the west neck?

Now if you include the the suburbs, hundred .

thousand people are .

with the loom suburbs, perhaps settle no.

that, but that's not what the law, the law calls IT.

No envoy say whatever blue in the face. But like there's if you're basically saying.

I understand correctly, there is only one way to resolve this and that is through direct .

bilateral negotiation. Probably okay.

So are ideally. But i've taken over your house. Okay, you're gonna go to the police because you know the laws of only of limited value. So you come over and sit in what is now my living room, that you to be your living room, and we negotiate. The problem there is that you're not getting get anything unless I agree to IT and standards and and norms and and law all the rest of IT be done. So um you need to take into account that when you're advocating batter al negotiations that effectively that gives each of the party's veto power and and the current circumstances the palace inigo have already recognizes real um they have they have you keep bring .

that up like is a significant construction .

and and even if .

you but he does the recognition from poland doing anything .

for much totally a is a majority in the among the palestinian people, one elections in two thousand and six.

They actually they a majority of the sea, they didn't a maories .

of the poll today says the majority of support the bus, the is absolutely reject feed two thousand and three, nineteen ninety three, whatever, issued a sort of recognition OK a recognition of israel IT doesn't it's meaningless. It's is less is I don't believe that .

I was sort about IT doesn't matter.

doing that doesn't matter OK so matter, but harasses know. And how masses.

the majority. So for years, so four years, these really and U. S. Demand was that the palace inie recognize, uh, to fortune three, three, eight. They did. But you are saying, okay, we demanded that they do this, but IT was meaningless when they did IT.

The demand was actual thing.

Yes, the demand was a, the P, L, O recognizes real. Okay, we demanded that they did this and they did IT, but it's .

meaningless. And they never changed their charter of the pillow. You may remember that, in fact, nice posey .

abrogated the old charter and never .

came up with a new one. So no.

yes, of course yes. But the point is, you know, the past students demands are constantly made of them, and when they, and when they exceed to those demands, then then told, actually what you did .

is meaningless. So here's a new set of the mad I an that will .

be today if you run fast, if you'll .

get out of the k. No, no. The bottom line is that israel would like a palestinian, a dut IT wants the palestinians.

Let.

let me, okay, let me just the shots. Then the the, the, israel want the palestinians. Israeli want the palestinians to actually accept the legitimacy of the state of israel. And designers project and then live side by cyclone in two states. That's what this is really what .

today and what .

is position .

of of this israeli government?

No, i'm change of a psyche among the palestine that doesn't happen. There won't .

be a aleman marine has an interesting point .

but because .

I I found I found, I know you want to, I know you want to forget that. You want to forget the genocide charge.

Now you want to forget that .

here's the problem. And that's exactly the problem. That movie has grown up. now.

I read carefully your book, one state, two states with all do respect. Absolutely a disGrace. Coming coming from you.

coming from you. Most of you didn't .

agree with you. Coming from you was like you rolled IT in your sleep. It's nothing compared to what you rope before.

I don't know why you did IT. In my opinion, you will want your reputation, not totally, but you undermine IT with that book. But let's get to the issue.

That movie mode. Here's what you said. You said formally, he said, yes, it's true.

The palestinians recognize israel. But then you said visually in their hearts, they didn't really recognize this. So I thought to myself, how does professor more? No, no.

What's in the hearts of ian? I don't know. I, I was. So I was, I was explained. I was. I was surprised, as a historian, you would be talking about what's lurking in the heart of palestinian. But denise said something which was really interesting. You said, even if in their hearts, they accepted israel, he said, quote, rationally, they could never accept israel because they got nothing. They had this beautiful palace, and now they reduced to just a few paces, a few parts les of land.

So they will so yes.

so used to there's no .

way they can excel no that yeah so so thing .

as moving said you keep moving the gopal, no, no, no. Until we reach the point where we realize, according to benny marrs, there can be a solution. So why don't you just say that outbreak maybe? Why don't you say, alright, there, according to you, the palestinians can never be reasonable, because according to you.

they.

according to you, they could possibly, they could possibly agree to a two state summer because it's such .

A L Y S that because you.

but you said rationally, they couldn't accept IT not their feelings. You said rational. You went from formally, visually, rationally. So now we're reaching the point we're going to. In Morris, the palestinians can be reasonable because, reasonably, they have to reject two states they want.

All absolutely correct.

There's no way to resolve .

the problem actually he said, I M what are you said .

what I said and and I and i've written glad you .

didn't deny IT. I writing .

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 sitting but that's what I actually wrote that was a number of years ago and and just as a matter of total record um beginning in the early one thousand nine seventies 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 palace in there was a second that accepted what was called the establishment of the fighting national authority on pulsing in soil which they are as the begin as a springboard for the total liberation of palin 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 counter lower sa has written very perceptive article on when the pillow already in thousand nine hundred and seventy six came out an open support of a um two state uh resolution at the security council pillow accepted IT israel of course rejected IT but the resolution didn't pass because the U. S. In the U. K, V. Told IT IT .

was both of that .

was nine to five okay yeah but but fact of the matter is that the pillow came to accept A A two state settlement why they did IT I think is irrelevant um and subsequently the pillow acted on the basis of seeking to achieve a two states. The reason I think and I think norm, you've written about this, the reason that arafat was so insistent on getting um uh minimum 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 past onions were going to get if his intention had been you know i'm not accepting israel. I simply want a springboard he would have accepted a passing in state, jero, but he didn't .

he insisting i've ever understood he should have logically accepted the springboard .

and then from there launched the next stage and the international would put our real constraint on him. And he was .

he was incapable .

signing of that.

But if you're correct, okay, that that he was really out to eliminate is he wouldn't have cared about the borders. He wouldn't have cared about what the things said about refugees. He went have gotten a sovereign stay and used that to achieve that purpose. But I think he was precisely because he recognized that he was not negotiating for a springboard. He was negotiating permanent status, that he was such a sticker ove the details.

The second is a factual matter. He wasn't such a sticker when they asked them humanly refugees. The numbers was the principle.

rather than cio.

He said that would be pragmatic .

about IT and the mbs that were used at um an appeals were between one hundred and two hundred fifty thousand refugees over ten years. That was the number of fat. When he was asked at camp David, he kept saying, I care about the lebanese, the power senior refugees in lebanon, on which came .

about three countries .

of which was a large concession from the whether accept the number or not that he wasn't talking about six million IT was talking about between one hundred and two hundred fifty thousand over ten years. Now the best offer that came from the palestinians, excuse me, the best offer for that came from israel was the onward offer.

Can we just pretend like we didn't all layout the exceptional pessimistic.

uh, view of a tuesday.

how I can tuesday solution? Let's pretend that in five years and ten years A A two state p cement is reached and and .

as historians.

you will still be here writing about IT twenty years now. How would this 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 time has gone on. Unfortunately, the record proves that the palestinian inside is delusional.

The longer that the conflict endures, the worst position they'll be in. But for some reason, we've never had a leader that convinced ed them of that as much. That era fat thought that if he held on, there was always a Better deal around the corner.

A boss is more concerned with trying to maintain any legitimacy amongst palestinians than actually trying to negotiate anything realistic with israel, that palestinians are always incentivised to feel like as long as they keep fighting, either the international communities going to save them with the five million yu and resolution condemning whatever that another I C. J. Advisory opinion is finally going to lead to the explosion of half a million juice from the west bank, or that some other international body, h the I C, J in the genocide are is going to come to 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 piece of the policy he's had have completely and utterly abandoned them. A egypt, Jordan, the gulf states where they're talking a bilateral piece of the abm accords, most of the arab leaders and negotiating piece with israel have just not had as much of an interest in maintaining the maintaining the rights and the representations with the policy of people want and the only people they have today to draw legitimacy from or to have on their side to argue with them, are people that, I guess, write books or tweet, or people in the international community that do resolutions or embassy international reports.

And the reality is we can scream IT to were blue in the face on these things. None of IT has gotten any closer to helping the palestinians in any sense of the word. The condition has only got worse. The city has only continue to expand. The military Operations are only to get more brutal.

The block aide is going to need to have worse effects as long as we use international law as the basis and there isn't a strong a sidot like palestinian leader is willing to come up and confront israel with the with the brave, peaceful negotiations to force them to to act with us, nothing is going to happen. And I think that the issue come up with is whether is people like norm to talk about how brave the october seven month, the tax, where or how much respect they have for those fighters, the israel, in a way. And I think people have said as much about nekaya the right wants violence from the palestinians, because I always gives them a perpetual excuse to further the conflict.

Well, we have to go in in our tober, something we ve got a room with for us. But we can't trust these people. We have to do the night rates. Because if you know, the second into father know, I made us feel like the palestinians didn't want trust with us. I feel like the the biggest thing that would force israel to change its path would be an actual, a real pete, not for like two weeks, but an actual peaceful palestinian leaders, 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 international community and the mounting pressure from within, because israel, host of its own criticism, we talk about heart like as we will host a lot of its own criticism, I think that that pressure would force israel towards and actual peace agreement. But it's never gonna to violence. Historical IT hasn't. And in the modern day, violence has just hurt the palms inie more and more.

If you paint a picture of the future, now is a good moment for both palace in in israel to get new leadership, and then yahoos on the way out, how much possibly on the way out, who should rise to the top, such that a peaceful settings can be reached.

Difficult because hamson enjoys so much widespread to support amongst the palestinian people. I think that the one I don't know, there's opinions on whether democracy are pushing them towards elections with the right wrong idea, but would like an islamic fundamentalist government for homos. I don't know if the negotiation with israel ever happens there, and then when the international pressure is always know, sixty seven borders, infinite right to return for refugees and a total withdrawal of israel of all these lands to even start negotiations. I just not 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 applying those standards to israel um if we're going to have to love 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 are intended to regulate our conduct, all of our conduct, not just some of us.

So that's the abandoned well.

you're saying, you know international law, the millions you and resolution, you're being very dismissive .

about all and that's fine, but then .

you have .

to be dismissed. This was the .

first is .

binding. Do you know anything .

about how the u if you read the language of the resolution finding .

to the throw.

you hear binding this two, two, palestine, an state, no course about the problem.

reason why potentials, and want to recognized two, four, two. Because they only referred .

at the very end of, yeah, all on 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 day of the U. N. That's read the U.

N. Charter is black. And watch at OK. And now regarding yes, language.

even of two, four, two, is kept intentionally vague such that IT doesn't actually provide.

again, the final work, because the term, the term for peace originates into for two ideas, territorial .

acquisition and israel's need to give IT up wise capital. That's why in seven, seventy, ninety saw them to fill their obligations under two.

two points. My points of information, the first principle and U. N, resolution to four to is the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, which IT may be meaningless to.

You miss different life. Okay, mr. banknote. That principle was adopted by the friendly nations resolution, the U. N. General assembly in one hundred seventy. That resolution was then reiterated in the international court of justice, this ruling advisory opinion in two thousand four that was the basis of the coalition against iraq and acquired coffee and then declared .

in a province of code. I'm not not just not that i'm .

not going to go there.

I'm not going to go there OK.

I'm not going to go there OK. Uh, it's called under international law, use cogan or preemptory norms of international law the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That is not controversial.

It's not very big. You can put IT more succeed. You cannot acquire territory .

by force under international law.

But now don't change the subject. If you don't know what you're talking about, at least have, at least have a hui.

How is two .

four good?

how? How is go to .

the five? You have no idea what you're talking about. It's just so embarrassing. At least have some humility between us. We've read maybe ten thousand books on the topic and you've read two wikipedia entries and you started talking about chapter six.

Do you know chapt there is no close to two four, two gotten the palestine ans to a stay. How close is in two thousand and four? Advisory pint opining.

gotten the west bank. Your alternative.

the alternative is is, is not this, whatever, this making money off conflict, or the actual alternative, the actual estate should get your media place where you go to talk .

to all have the palestinians .

no close earlier because of the U. S. In k, what? You you know what you know what professional .

marrs .

professor marrs, because of your logic. And i'm not disputing IT. That's why october seven happened, my god, because there was no options left for those people.

Exactly what my options are left over after.

But what I A one stop to this, this now an expert .

on mentality.

That for cessile.

right? You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you're saying all the patients do is 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 from U N. Resolutions and international cord. Those aren't .

violent is part of maintaining it's it's the continual putting off of negotiating any solutions. Yes, I can set the two states in .

one thousand nine hundred seventy five years and this is so they didn't accept the you are .

talking about how he's .

lying and he just .

use in ninety four and ninety five when he made trips on the one used the starting and sorry, I get so you can wash you down saying a very engaging .

history of israeli past senior negotiations you wanted deny that those nations negotiations took place where IT .

feels like there was a good faith effort, where there was a good faith effort. Where was a good faith effort? mr. Pop story, you can even read the written records.

Don't know you're I just said there are fifteen thousand pages and .

the apple are you Cherry with your favorite Grace, at .

least quote .

to you, I ve you. Find me the product I think the palestinians uses been furthered by any international we can do IT.

I think the problem is is different. Okay, you you want to um say the posting is on the fighting and then when I point out they've also gone to the court and the U N say, well, all they do that I sey 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 me me if he runs fast enough, maybe one day he'll get out of the cave the best. okay.

And please, if I could just finish I I think the fundamental problem here is not what the palestinians haven't 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 all 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 palace.

How do you explain toba summer? How do you explain .

the korner did estonian? They didn't to give the palestinians all of palestine.

that's all. Now, all of powers.

all of the occupied .

territory .

to are those territories .

that israel occupied in june of one hundred and .

sixty thousand. Ten to five is in .

all the negotiations, all the negotiations and all the accounts that have been written. Can you show me one where the palestinians and the negotiations, because that's what we were talking about, wanted all of israel. The maximum .

I can say that .

is international community.

So they .

say I negotiated with .

this about prisoners.

Is we talking past tinian? People agree.

the only place I saw a pieces of israel where the landscape and the landscape accounted for about the two to five percent of israel. Nobody asked for all of israel.

Why would you mean? And they ask all of the forty eight. They ask all of the sixty seven. You're not going to. So respond you.

Okay, this to be known. We were talking about the diplomatic negotiations beginning with twenty two thousand.

two thousand. And what to ask for a diploma IT was.

is the international .

law argument ever going to get the palestinian country said, is the israeli estate ever going to be dismantled? Do you think it's like realistic coming up ever in the next twenty years?

Again, i'm i'm posing a question um and the question is regardless of of of what's feasible or realistic today, the question i'm posing is can you have peace in the middle east with this militant, irrational, genocidal apartheid state and power?

I don't think so now.

okay. And the question i'm asking is can you have peace with this regime or does this regime and its institutions need to be dismantled? Similar to what the examples I gave of europe and the and you contend with .

the fact that most of the surrounding areas seem to agree that .

you can you're correct. Um several of them most importantly egypt uh Jordan have made their peace um uh with this real I should add that israel else conduct since then has placed these relations under strain I I had very little um I didn't take a the reports of a saudi israeli recruiting ma particularly seriously before october seven. The reason being that IT was really a saudi israeli U S. Deal which committed the us. To make certain commitments to saudi aba that would probably never .

get through congress. The egypt really pay sense of the united states made a great financial c contribution each.

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 know the core of this conflict is not between israel and egypt. The core of this conflict is between israel and the past, ian people. And the reason that israel agreed to relinquish occupied egyptian sni, and the reason that egyptian israeli peace treated will sign in one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine is because israel, in one thousand hundred and seventy three, recognized that its military superiority was ultimately no match for edyth determination to recover occupy territories, that there would come a point when egypt would find a way to extract an unbearable .

Price is really wanted peace.

not just because .

they are eype if are talking about .

the average's really citizen. I I think that's a fair characterising. If you talking about israeli leadership, I think they looked at IT in more strategic tor.

I ready to remove the most powerful, very simple. What was the terms of that? Egypt, israel peace treaty, international lot. Egypt demanded everybody .

scared .

me to finish every single inch nobody had .

talked about .

in the law, begging and the, and talked about the reality. Sor fessor marrs. Professor mars, I know the record. They demanded, as you know, because you've written about IT, they demand every square inch, as you know. They demand that the oil fields, be this, that the .

that .

il fields in the air field, they demanded all three back you .

can have back. Their fields weren't there.

They increase what you're incorrect building airfield, these really building airfield in the occupied sign.

And they wanted IT no o they wanted to tell you in, which is really .

the oil field, the air field, the settings have to be dismantled. Yes, agan said, I don't want to be the first prime minister to dismantle a assessment, but he did. why?

Because of the no.

No, I know that in negotia foreign relations of us, volumes are nobody the palestinians kept saying we've exact. They were there. Allow me to finish. The palestinians kept saying, we want when each you've got, we warned. When each you've got, yeah.

each you've got everything, nothing to OK nothing .

I number two, i'm not saying it's the whole picture, but as foreign minister moi should I am said at the time, he said, if a car has four wheels and you remove one, the car can't move. And for them, removing egypt from the arab front would then remove any arab military threat to israel. Not the first part did. And that's what the palestinians keep say we want for .

each of got through, but forget.

And on a personal note, the quote about sharman shake without this. Yeah, okay. That's the only thing you ever sign IT from a book of mine.

You could.

Yes, I was absolutely shocked at your betrayal of your people. That was your reason. IT .

was apologetic.

right? 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 like war. That's that's a good reasons. Hope that is the fear of war, the disaster war should give people in imposes to transit piece.

When you look at people in gaza and people in the west bank, people in israel, they amba. They ate more.

Yes, I think so what?

What gives you hope? There is no hope? No, it's no. I'm hey, i'm not happy to say that. It's a very blague moment right now because that .

I agree with I .

agree with israeli believes IT has to restore what IT calls its uh, deterrence capability. I think you've written about that actually. I just realized israel has to restore its the turns capability and after the catastrophe of october seventh, restoring its deterrent capacity means this part you didn't write about the anio lation of gaza and then moving onto the hospital. No, so so the israeli is are that said i'm restoring the deterrence capability on the arb side and I know mine and I have disagreed on IT and were allowed to disagree. Um I think the arab side, the lesson they learned from october seventh is is really aren't as strong as .

we thought they were and that would be an d and that .

and think that there is a military option. And I think that that's IT is zero. Some game at this point and it's very, very bleak.

And i'm not going to lie about that now. I will admit my predictive capacity are not expect are limited. But for the moment, it's a very bleak situation and I don't see right now a way out. However, at the very minimum, permanent ceasefire ended in human and illegal blocking e of gaza. And um why .

illegal? They were shooting rockets at israel for twenty years. Why is that illegal .

to block IT gaza? why?

Why is IT illegal? I'll tell you, you don't t to tell you expect .

consequence.

but works. I'll .

tell you why, because every human rights, humAnitarian, an and U. N organization in the world has said, I said that the is a form, is a form of collective punishment under international and the you you think a block.

he, you don't stand the way the world, yes, these things and you .

think confining because that's the blockade, confining, confining a million children compound combining, that's a million children in what the economist called K A H rubbish sheep.

The economy supported his role in this war and continue .

to support this world. But international committed red cross called a sinking ship with the U. N.

High commissioner for human rights called a toxic slum. You think? You think .

international law.

you think it's legible? Hey, I know you want to forget the law is the one thing that every what every israeli fears the most, the law I said, I studied international law. I oppose international law.

Of course, you don't want to to hear about the little thing. okay. So here is to think, yeah, then don't complain about october seventh. If you don't want, if you want to say, I get .

about the law and there .

is no international humAnitarian law. There's no distinction between civilians and compassion be and so no, now you're doing what what moon said. You're becoming very selective about the law. If you want to forget about the law, how much had every right to do what did have every right to do what you did according to you, not to me, because you want .

to forget the law, do you still support the is shooting Randy m.

OK, that's a violin where there power during world war two, who had the couple of the hoses? Where there are power.

you have that kinds of garages to be bombing margin ships, while tens of thousand of actual people. Now, the starvation, that.

what about starvation? Yeah, don't do something very. Yes.

I should be feeding. They be feeding the, find the western powers .

in israel. When you should be taken, Carry your problems at home. The who is .

often the only allies of the dispossessed are those who experiences similar circumstances.

Don't you think that they should take, take care of the em d problems?

I'm very happy. I'm very happy they're helping out the palestinians.

anyone who helps the best of enemy.

anybody, anybody who comes to the aid of those suffering the genocide. Hala children. yeah.

According to the most current U. N. Reports, as of the one quarter of the population of gaza is starving. That means five hundred thousand children are starving, are on the virtual famine.

IT keeps saying .

on the virgin, I have not.

have not seen, I have not seen one and dive starvation in these last .

four months. They are always on the first, the verge. I have .

an documented cases that number probably .

died in his row.

Starvation also. I don't think there is famine in israel.

There is, there isn't. In the gaza strip, there is something which is produced .

for the western infant dying due to a engineered lack of access to food.

And engineer, I think the famous stop shooting perhaps.

or as you said.

as you ired, I think ama stand to accuse me. Human rights watch call that using starvation as a weapon that's called engineering.

Okay, that's what they did. But you were pushed on this by common hues 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 to the rest of the world?

You, if we're going .

to bring up, I wanna here.

i'm happy to answer IT, yeah, I just called you from humAnitarian organizations. They said one quarter of the population of gaza is now .

virgin on family. I'm not going before that. We use that as justification for fighting. You say the conditions were unable .

and I said to him, so my.

what made IT unlivable prior to offer cement ment are what are .

the metrics that you're using? There were about five, six or seven reports issued by unc dead, issued by the world bank, issued by the international monetary fund. And they all said, that's why.

that's why say why?

Why say that's why the economist, not a radical periodical, describe goza a human rubbish.

So tell me, by what metrics, if you, if your history, you all this work thing to tell me.

what doesn't this so tell me, but he's not .

gonna wer a gun.

I don't think i've avoided any of your questions. Expect expect when they reach, they breach the threshold of complete emphasis.

I so okay, i'm going to to you remember .

what I said a moment to go. I said to process or marrs, I prefer to expertise. I look at what the organizations say. I look at what the united nations high .

commissioner say, you don't know you, 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 a metric. They figured out if you asked .

me to repeat IT. Now I couldn't do IT and have human E E asure measure all of these things more.

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 venemous and and Norman Frankl stein that the current situation is a bleak, and I think that would be unreasonable to expect IT to not get even bleaker in the coming weeks and months. And we now this conflict really originated in the late nineteen century.

It's been um been a more less active conflict since one thousand and twenties, one thousand and thirties and and has produced tremendous amount of of of suffering and and regional conflict in geopolitical complications in all of that. But what gives me hope is throughout their entire ordeal, the passing people have never surrendered, and I believe they never will, surrendered to overwhelming force and violence. They have taken everything that israel has thrown at them.

They have taken everything that the west has thrown at them. They have taken everything that those who are supposed to be their natural allies have, on occasion, thrown at them. But this is a people that never has and I believe never will surrender and um at a certain point I think israel and its leaders will have to come to the realization that by hooker by crook these people are going to achieve their unalienable and legitimate um uh national rights and and that that is going to be a reality I I as what what do you mean by that you mean a lot of .

palestine is what did you mean?

no.

And from the river to .

the sea well, ideally, of course yes. And what I was no what I was saying earlier and then the discussion got side track, is that I did believe that a two state settlement, a partition of palestine um along the one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven uh boundaries um would have been a reasonable solution because I think IT also would have opened pathways to um further but now you believe .

what further .

nonviolent engagement between, as you on the past, unions that could create um other forms of go existence and in a federal or by national or or other .

refugees and regards to that, do you think there has to be a resettlement the five .

or six million whoever wants to like claimed because has to be an explicit acknowledgement .

um .

of of of the responsibility and and of their rights I think that in the framework of a two state settlement I think a formula would to be found that does not undermine um uh the foundations um um of two state settlement and I don't think IT would be that difficult because I suspect that there are probably large numbers of paste in refugees who once their rights are acknowledged will find IT um exceptionally distasteful exceptionally distasteful um to have to live among the kind of sentiments that we ve heard around the table loom today to be quite Frank I mean, I heard I know I was previously unfamiliar with you and I watched one of your preparation videos.

A very disconcerting stuff I have to say you were explaining two days ago and the discussion about apartheid and how absurd IT was that in your view, jim crow was not apartheid. Jim crow was not apart time. But arab states not giving citizenship to post any refugees is apartheid. That's what I meant. Your comments about White supremacy.

So my issue, that's great, the White supreme, my issue is that I feel like we have jumped on this uh mitic trade mail. And I think that's part of the reason why this conflict will never get solved is because on one hand, you've got a people who are now convinced internationally that their victims of apartheid, genocide, concentration camp conditions, h ethnic cleansing ah the force live in an OpenAIr p rison. Um with all of these things that are stacked against them, all of these terms that are highly specific, that prefer to very precise things and then people like .

that less from someone who doesn't think jim crow is .

a part I don't know who I think they're loading for you. A is when racists do bad things no, that's great. Top down racial domination and acted through top down like federal legislator policies or whatever means that I don't know if um I don't know if jim crow would have qualified for a part that isn't make IT any less.

Excuse me, think listen, i'm talking right now. Excuse me, excuse me chickle steam. I'm talking to your front of over here. I don't know if I would have qualified as the crime of apart time, just like if israel were to literally knock the goza typical two million people.

I don't know if I would qualify for .

the crime of probably don't. Well, yeah, but because genocide requires a special time, I think the issue stead of and conversation actually is emblem of the entire conversation .

I don't answer .

cuse me of supporting races of. So yes, I did. And you are. And you think I support jim. Karla s.

look.

when the fact you can even answer that honestly does matter. Eight hundred and were killed, said maybe hundred were killed. Israel, no, may be at four hundred. You go, in the opinion.

No, I didn't. No.

I did. What way? How many? What do I think the word was? Some, that's what I heard.

Well, you weren't listening.

How many people do you think are proximately if you had the ball, if the ball park, how many do you .

think we were killed by him on a seven? I think it's pretty clear that the majority of civilians .

that were killed, thirty one percent, ninety .

percent, don't ask me to put a number on.

Both things are very different.

First, are you when you say, how much do you mean palestinians.

palestinians and palestinian viliamu?

What is that? How this discussion started, you said hamas, and I began to answer that. And then bending more is that actually he means haas's addition, as you have in the others.

So so of the invading palestinian force, how many do think killed civilians versus the idea of what do you think the ball park the percent? Well.

the figures we have are that about a third of the casualties on october. The third.

how many were killed by the invading force?

I I think a clear majority, but I can't yet you specific figure.

if you thought I was closer of fifty .

one percent or ninety .

nine percent, interesting to actually stake out a position if you want to be .

completely gnp ignorance because we don't know what is. Doesn't .

children intentional? You see the double standard. No, I.

I.

because I looked.

I look at the U. N report, I looked at the no, the U. N. Report on the great march of return to twenty eight. And they said that the snipers were targeting children, medics, journalists and disabled people.

just as are now in this kind, exactly know of more journalists have been killed in the last several months in gaza, an idea world.

Hamas is not filling journalists in .

the agree that the more .

right in civilian uniforms, that their goal is to induce that confusion, that the way that .

they conduct themselves militarily. Let me finish my point. More journalists .

have been more you isn't want to hear IT. So is talking about .

how king, about how that's not virtue signaling because that's human.

I about I don't. Care you just in machine mentioned that .

more journalists were killed in gaza .

than in all the .

world world tone. It's viral scenario.

But when is really is get killed that serious .

series on both? Side asking a substantial question of who do you sign blame to or do you planned to norm thinker steam conspiracies that the ambuLance that should have known immediately who was dead, that the numbers were changed because they were fake, or that maybe one percent of the people were killed by mom. And yes, but that were killed by the other.

You ask me direct question and you got a direct.

I didn't. I got majority.

which .

jordi always.

They live in majority .

in my view as well, over fifty percent. Please don't ask me to be more precise because .

you could say eighty, ninety.

ninety.

I don't if I knew that.

I would say that I think it's .

a reasonable.

reasonable perhaps that is you are not the best person to be asking that question. You know, I read when you will describe Operation defensive shield, and you said a few dozen homes were destroyed.

You talk about what happened in jian refuge. Can know the arab said five hundred, you guys said five hundred and were killed in.

And then that knows that that .

that was the state.

the P O, auth and the data.

And out .

a hundred buildings were destroyed. Five five thousand people, five thousand people were left homeless. You five thousand you describe did no, i'm the homes destroyed. So you're not the best person to be criticizing what mine says when he says clear majority but he can't say more. You know why he can't say more?

He doing he doesn't know yeah and stand that.

I hope that his story, if I trying .

to little, I would give you very different answer. I would just say I don't know, I know.

I know the right phrase. There would be the overwhelming majority were killed by arab gunman and very small number were killed by israeli by accidental or whatever. That's probably be that may be that .

I can I can stay with confidence to clear majority, overwhelming majority. You may be correct, but I can't say that was certainty. I think there is a very easy way to find out is to have a independent.

Forget independent. Of .

course .

you forget indeed .

independent.

Know a syrian was the .

heads of the U. N. Commission for human right.

Really, more honestly, tremeau at times really like the the view of history, the the passion. I'm really grateful that you spend your really valuable time and just one more questions since we have a two historians here but just briefly from a history perspective, what do you hope your legacy as a historian, benny and norm, will be of the work they've put out there? Maybe now we can go first and try to just say briefly.

I think there's a value to preserving the record. I'm not optimistic about where things are going to end up. There was a very nice book written by a woman named HEllen hunt Jackson at the end of the eighteen century, describing what was done to the native americans.

SHE called the the century of designer. And he described and vivid, uh, point in detail, what was done to the native americans. Did IT save them? no.

Did IT help them? Probably not. Did they preserve their memory? yes. And I think there's a value to that. You know, there was a famous film by icon.

In so gay icon, stein IT was either battleship for tempting or mother. I can remember which one the last scene was the arrest troops mowing down all the russian people. He pends the scene.

yeah, but he pends the .

massacre depends the massager.

but you could .

kill a lot more. And the last words of the movie were politi an explanation point. Remember, explanation point.

And i've seen IT as my life's work to preserve the memory. And to remember, I didn't expect anyone would read my book on gaza. It's very dense. IT gives me, even in a bit of a headache to read. At least one .

of the chapters wrote.

And but I thought that the memory deserves to be preserved. payment.

Well, I would just say very briefly, unlike my colleague, I think writing the truth about what happened in history and various periods of history. If i've done a little bit of that, i'm happy. Thank you.

Know, thank you Better. Thank you still. Thank you. win. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Norman fencin.

Many morals more in Robinia and Stephen are now to support this podcast. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you some words from london.

b. Johnson. Peace is a journey with thousand miles in a must be taken one step at a time. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.