The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Aaron Mate on Israel and Palestine.

Episode Date: November 20, 2023

This is a version of a debate originally aired on Live From America. See an extensively sourced version on YouTube https://youtu.be/XuDK8nyyT2I

Okay, this is an annotated version of a conversation debate I had with Aaron Mate on another podcast I do. I recommend the YouTube version where I've tried to include references and links to all the facts and sources that Aaron and I argue about so people can do their own research. Let me know if you think I've been fair. Aaron is a journalist for the Gray Zone, which I think is properly described as a left-wing website, well known for its anti-Israel positions. He tweets against Israel so constantly, I joke that his followers must have been worried about him for the three hours he was missing. Recently, when Roger Waters in his Glenn Greenwald interview speculated that the Hamas atrocities

might be a false flag operation, he mentioned that he was informed by something he'd seen on the Gray Zone. To be fair, I don't know what he was referring to something he'd seen on the gray zone. To be fair, I don't know what he was referring to, but Greenwald, for his part, didn't seem surprised. Mate has also been of late closely associated with Norman Finkelstein, who I recently also hosted on our podcast. So I'm going to say a few words. I have a few bullet points here that pertain to both of them. First of all, I've gotten some very pointed private criticism from influential people who feel I should not be speaking to the likes

of Mate and Finkelstein. And how can I give airtime to a guy who on October 7th called the Hamas attack heroic and said, the heroic resistance in Gaza, it warms every fiber of my soul. The scenes of Gaza's smiling children as arrogant Jewish supremacist oppressors have finally been humbled. So I get it. That's tough talk to handle with. A guy whose soul is filled with happiness upon first report of these atrocities. So why and how can I talk to a guy like that? Well, first of all, there's something about me. I want to talk to people like that.

If I'm going to debate this, I want to debate the best known, most effective advocates of the other side. I don't want to be like one of those shows that brings on a lackey or a second-rate guy, second-rate advocate. And also, but also, I actually believe all the nonsense about free speech. I actually believe, as Justice Brandeis said, that in frank expression of conflicting ideas lies the greatest promise of wisdom. And maybe I'm missing something, but also it's infuriating to me that

for so many years people have been mocking the heckler's veto of, for instance, students on campuses that wouldn't let people like Charles Murray or even far less controversial speakers simply speak, the people who mocked that thing are now discouraging open conversations with people like Norman Finkelstein. Is it really possible that free speech is our most cherished value except when shit gets real? That sounds awfully woke to me. I think it's essential that the views of Mate and Finkelstein are challenged and challenged on a daily basis. Every serious TV network ought to be devoting some time to head-on debates of this issue. When I was a kid, there were like five TV channels and everyone read from the same newspapers. They

really, really had no choice. And this was no doubt a moderating influence on society, moderated politics, because everybody was well acquainted with the views of the other side. Now we have these ideological algorithmic bubbles where millions of people never once even hear contradictory facts or arguments. So of course, extremism mushrooms. And from within those bubbles and the limited facts and arguments available, why would these people,

how would these people even know that their views are extreme? They have nothing even to compare them to. So I decided if I want my point of view to be heard by the followers of Mate and Finkelstein, millions and millions of people all over the world, I need to talk to Mate and Finkelstein. I'll also admit, I have to be honest, I don't hate these guys. I can't account for why, because yes, the logical conclusion of at least some of the things they say, to my view, is just unacceptable. But I think there's a certain Vaseline you have to put over the lens when you deal with people who disagree with you.

Otherwise, first of all, you can't debate them. And the whole notion of a democratic society that allows for various degrees, multiculturalism, multi-ethnic, all of it, it can't work if we can't talk to each other. So I rather like the Vaseline over my eyes, and I was raised that way. After the conversation I had with Finkelstein, we enjoyed a nice meal together, and I enjoyed hearing him tear to shreds Barack Obama, Robin DiAngelo, Ibram Kendi.

If I didn't know Finkelstein's view on Israel, I would think he was some kind of genius. I'd be hanging out with him every day. So that's the way I feel about it. Mate and Finkelstein at least deal in sourced facts, facts that they will present me, facts that I can challenge, facts that I can look up and if they won't acknowledge that my version or my interpretation of the facts is correct, at least in front of a viewer, I can make the points as opposed to like a Rashid Khalidi, who I found actually to be totally dishonest. Anyway, on the subject of facts, I want to say something that I was thinking about. This is 2023. And I think we all have to acknowledge that digital words don't cost money

and they don't take up more space. They don't create bigger books. And some of the norms of scholarship ought to change. Until recently, a lot of scholarship was cut and paste. You extract some bit of a quote from something that someone was said, you put ellipses around it, and then you put a footnote to the name of a book and a page in the book. And of course, almost nobody has access to the books, nobody wants to spend the money, and that becomes an argument. I think that is totally unacceptable in 2023. I think that every single footnote in a modern presentation ought to include a generous portion of the original context. There's no copyright issue. Fair use, as I understand it, fully allows for it. And if it's a printed book, the book should have

a link, a website, where these extended footnotes are presented. I think this deceptive quote thing with ellipses should be extinguished. It should become extinct. A book should no longer be considered adequate. A scholarly book should no longer be considered scholarly if it doesn't include a few paragraphs before and a few paragraphs after any quote or any fact it wants to use. So let me give an example from Finkelstein's book on Gaza. But he does this, in my opinion, all the time. I have many, many examples that I've collected.

Mate does it too, but I confront him with it in the debate. Finkelstein, in his book on Gaza, presents evidence from a group called, a group of former IDF soldiers called Breaking the Silence, who testified about abuses that they saw in their experience in the IDF. So here's the quote. Finkelstein writes, indeed, one soldier after another, after another, testified that Israel deployed, quote, insane amounts of firepower during the invasion. Quote, we are hitting innocents and our artillery fire there was insane. Quote, firepower was insane. But from the very same paragraphs of that testimony, here's the kind of thing that Finkelstein leaves out. Quote, so I see I'm firing literally into a built-up area. I don't know to what degree it

is still inhabited because the army made considerable attempts to get people to leave. Finkelstein leaves that out. Continues, when the battalion commander spoke, his personal message was that he was not willing for any of us to get hurt or risk himself because of suspects. And if there's a need, we take down anyone. If there's a need, he would do everything in his power so that none of the soldiers would get hurt. This was the general attitude in the army. Go in with insane firepower because this is our only advantage over them. Another quote. Still, where I was in this respect, the tone was not overzealous. This is the same guy who said the stuff that Finkelstein quotes.

Our tone was not overzealous. Even if the soldier wanted to shoot, he didn't. Finally, quote, we are hitting innocents and our artillery fire there was insane. But on the other hand, you hear shooting out of Gaza and you return fire immediately. So you can feel however you want about that but i don't think a reasonable person could disagree that the context is slightly different or maybe significantly different from the impression that finkelstein communicates this this tactic of finkelstein's is so pervasive throughout all of his scholarship, it becomes almost impossible and exhausting to wade through it all. This is in comparison to the historian I most admire, Benny Morris, whose every book contains

a treasure trove of facts that can be used by either side of the debate. And this is because Morris is obsessed with the full unvarnished truth and full disclosure, in my opinion. I've read or skimmed like five Finkelstein books, and I don't think I found a single negative fact about Arab behavior. Is it really possible that in a hundred year conflict only one side has contributed to the conflict only one side has ever done anything wrong re-listening to my conversation with mate i made a few notes let me share them with you finally the one thing mate and i both agree on and finkelstein actually seemed to have agreed to this, or at least he didn't dispute it, is that civilian casualties are part of the Hamas plan. I said to Mate, this is the only war that I'm aware of in human history where one side wants its own civilians to die more than the enemy

they're fighting. Can you imagine fighting a war where the death of its own civilians is one of the enemy's prime objectives? In our conversation about the 1948 war, the War of Independence or the Nakba, I strongly disputed Aaron's claim of ethnic cleansing. But the point I failed to make is that the opposite is actually, in my opinion, more true. The Arab attack on the Jews to throw them into the sea, as Morris quotes, much more neatly fits the label of ethnic cleansing and even genocide. This was the bloodiest war in Israel's history. One out of 100 Israeli Jews died in that war. And one can only imagine what that percentage,

what that 1% percentage would have been if israel had been weaker and not been able to win that war we had a dispute about ethno states and arab rights in israel i was afraid to misspeak but i arab this is the rights of arab citizens of israel i was afraid to misspeak, but I did some research on it, and I double-checked. As far as I understand it, Arabs have all the same political rights in Israel that Jews do.

All the same political rights in Israel that Jews do, except they are not required to serve in the military. They may volunteer. For obvious reasons, they don't. Further, only Jews around the world have the automatic right to become citizens of Israel under the right of return.

Also, re-listening to this conversation and really many conversations I've had, it always comes to me how bad we are as humans at putting ourselves in the shoes of the people we disagree with. Like you take a comical example, like the way New York City is now freaking out about all the migrants pouring in after years of calling anybody from any other location, making the same complaint, racists. That's all we ever did was call them racists until it happened to us. And all of a sudden, oh, well, I guess it's more complicated than that. So similarly, and much worse, people are often quite casual about asking people to take chances

with the lives of their own families and their own children. So for instance, Finkelstein once mocked, it's in this debate with Mate, Finkelstein once mocked Israelis for worrying, or even, he implies, pretending to worry about the Hamas tunnels, stating flatly, there's no evidence whatsoever that Hamas's tunnels are used for terror. There are other times where Finkelstein claimed that the Hamas rockets were merely fireworks and could do no real damage to the Israelis, and that the Iron Dome was not only unnecessary, but that it was actually a fraud, that Israel knows the Iron Dome doesn't work, and Hamas knows that its rockets don't work, and Israel knows that Hamas's rockets don't work, and there's a kind of conspiracy between both sides to play out this charade for some reason that I'm not, I don't understand how

Finkelstein's logic concludes. But imagine if Israel had taken Finkelstein's advice and not concerned itself with the tunnels and not had the Iron Dome. Finally, there's a habit of lack of disclosure that Mate routinely does, which I find infuriating. So for instance, he found some obscure statement that the president, not the Ayatollah, not the leader of Iran, the president who's since been fired, signed onto in an organization of Arab states that would imply that Iran would be okay with a Palestinian state on the 67 borders says nothing about how the Right of return would be handled. It says nothing about recognizing Israel. But yes, there is that signature, but he ignores Countless calls by the actual leader of Iran to eradicate the Zionist entity. I put one of the tweets in the upcoming

debate, and he has this pattern over and over of finding some quote or even a part of a quote, which makes the point he wants, and totally ignoring any number of quotes by the same person to the contrary. For instance, the Arab-Israeli peace talks, Palestinian-Israeli peace talks of 2000 and 2007, Mate will dismiss the multiple detailed accounts by every single first-hand source I throw at him. Anyone who tells him what he doesn't want to hear is unreliable.

Okay, I'm going to stop there. I was also going to mention the Goldstone Report and the way it was walked back, but you can do that research on your own if you're really interested in it. Okay, as always, email me at podcast.com. and the way it was walked back, but you can do that research on your own if you're really interested in it. Okay, as always, email me at podcast.com. Aaron Mate, hit it.

Hello, welcome to Live from America podcast. This is Hatem Longsami, the one and only Norm Dorman. Hello. Good to see you, sir. Second podcast in a row for you. Yeah, yeah. Good to see you. And our guest is Aaron Maté, journalist and the host of Pushback Podcast with Aaron Maté.

Yes, good to be here. I'm also the co-host of Useful Idiots with my friend Katie Halper. Yes. Great to see you guys. Good to be here. Thank you for coming. You've been our guest for a couple of times, and I'm glad to have you now.

We can discuss a lot to discuss. First, your video with the congressman. Senator Coons, yes. Did you plan it? Tell us the truth. Did you plan it? I did not plan that. Yeah?

No. You just happened to sit across from him? That was fate. Did you see that video, no? I didn't see the video, but I read about the... Yeah. So what happened? It was fate.

It was fate. I was taking a train on Monday to D.C. And I didn't want to sit at that table, you know, on the cell. You have to sometimes sit four people to a table. I didn't want to sit there because I wanted to get some work done and not have to be around people. So I went to the cafe car, tried to work there, but it was too shaky. So I came back to my seat, put my laptop down and sat down. And right in front of me is Senator Chris Coons. And

I felt compelled to question him about his stance on the war on Gaza because he does not support a ceasefire. In the quiet car? It was in the quiet car. But in my defense, I did speak in a quiet tone. Now that's an atrocity.

What did you say? At least we can all agree on that. I mean, I saw the video, but did you actually get anything out of him? No. Well, at first, he didn't want to answer. At first, he refused to answer, and he asked me a bunch of questions. He asked me what my name is, what I do. He asked me how I got that seat.

I explained that I bought the seat. He threatened to have me thrown off the train for questioning him, which I thought was funny because he's a senator, but he's not a train conductor. But finally he answered my question. He just said that he supports Israel's right to defend itself and that they suffered this atrocity on October 7th. And I challenged him on some of the things he said, and finally he got up and left. And then he came back, and at that point a conductor had come because he had asked for help, for assistance,

because he didn't want to answer my questions. And the conductor said that either you take a different seat or we throw you off the train, so I complied, gathered my belongings in silence. By that point, I had filmed the video of our exchange, and so I tweeted it out. It started going viral. And about half an hour or so later, he walked by me. He saw me. I didn't say anything because I was respecting the fact that he had said that he wanted me to stop talking to him.

And we're still in the quiet car. And I think that triggered him, just him seeing me. And next thing I knew, we stopped in Philadelphia and some police officers came up to me and said, can you come with us? So they took me off the train and said I'd been removed at the request of the conductor, but I would bet anything that that was at the behest of the senator, who was not happy to see me still in his car. Now, when you saw the police, we've got to get to the other stuff, but when you saw the police officers, you're like, awesome, right?

This is really, I wouldn't blame you, like, this is going to turn into a... I actually didn't think that. I, you know, the video itself, I was happy to get that out, but I did not want to be dealing with police. So I kind of defended you on that. I said, look, this is journalism.

Journalism has a special place in our society. A lot of journalism is done by tenacious reporters, throwing questions at people. And as they say, one man's obnoxious journalist is another man's freedom fighter. So that's... I appreciate that. Yeah. So I'm like, you know, I mean, there are, there are, there are, as somebody said, well, you'd support, I wasn't there. If I had seen it, I might've said, I could imagine saying, oh, that's enough. You know, you've, you've gone over the line. But the fact that a journalist, I mean, these guys live

their lives by trying to avoid journalists, right? So you have to grab them when you can. So you grab, he's a senator for Christ's sake. This is, you know, it's not the end of the world. Yeah. So I, I, you know, I, I don't blame you. All right.

So look, let me speak, uh, uh, you know, a little personal. I'm very weighed down by all this. I almost didn't want to do it because to have this debate at the time when there's such suffering going on is a weird optic. and people of bad faith, and I've seen it already, will turn every argument into the fact that you don't care, blah, blah, blah. And I know that's what I'm getting into, and I really don't look forward to it. And by the way, just so you know, and you know this, but what my credentials are, I didn't make that argument although i do question the motives of people who um some of the people who were you know wanting to correct everybody who talked about the number of babies who were supposedly decapitated

as you know i also respected and say listen if if if it's being reported by a newspaper, then it's got to be accurate. And it's perfectly reasonable for somebody to expect it to be accurate and expect somebody to correct it if it's not accurate. Yeah. And while it's true that some of the people who are very gung-ho about that were certainly embracing that as a way to deflect the story into something else. I think we have to suck that up. So, you know, I only to say that I when people make arguments, I tend to try not to attack them personally for it. But I know that's I know I'm heading into a minefield here but anyway so look let me i thought about how to start it in a more uh genuine that's why i didn't want to be a debate because um

like i said there's a lot of a lot of suffering going on and and i just let me say one other thing just to set it up you know he and i have a common friend uh i was just telling him about who's palestinian and um and always in the past he and i for years i mean like 20 30 years arguing He and I have a common friend. I was just telling him about it. Who's Palestinian. And always in the past, he and I for years, I mean like 20, 30 years, arguing about Israel and Palestine, going back with my father. And then it got a little hot, you know. But always as kind of friends and like real friends, right? And I believe he's watching right now.

But on this issue, it, we, we couldn't really talk about it. And this is before the, uh, reprisal started. And, um,

so he started sending me, can I, he started sending me a lot of, uh, pictures of, of dead children. And I said, and I got upset.

I said, why are you sending me, I don't send you the pictures of the dead Israelis, you know. And I felt like this was, you know, not an argument. It was just kind of a, you know, it's like,

what am I supposed to say? You think I'm soft on children dying? I have children. I can't even imagine that kind of thing, that kind of suffering. And, but anyway, so then he, what's happening, you know, it didn't work. So then he, he left me, he recorded a message to me, you know. And as he started to record the message, he

just began to sob, just uncontrollably, you know. And I got it because it doesn't really matter what you think about it. You could even think, I'll take it from the Palestinian point of view, but take it from the Indian point of view. You could even think, this is Hamas's fault. I understand it. You could think all kinds of things, but it's still unbearable. It's still unbearable to see this kind of thing, and you not nearly as bad as most of the wars that we've considered to be justified have looked. But those happened invisibly in some way. So we're dealing with something. And maybe in the long term, this technology will bring war home to us in such a way that there'll be less war. Maybe.

Maybe, you know, because now that we're really understanding it more. I don't know. Maybe that's naive. But in any case, all of which is to say that it's very difficult to talk about this stuff. And I wanted to get that off my chest okay so i wrote something down i haven't looked at it in a couple days so i hope it doesn't sound stupid now but i was trying to think of a more gentle way to our first question first of all just so i know do you consider consider yourself a journalist or an advocate okay first of all before i answer no i can see

the pain in your face as you talk about this, so I just want to recognize that and I appreciate you having a conversation with me. I didn't come in here thinking we were going to debate. We're just talking about a really important issue. We're going to argue and sort of get into it. Well, sure, I'm sure we will. Yeah, don't push it on us. No, but I didn't come here thinking I'd be debating.

I'm happy to debate, but that's not how I see this. We're just talking. Okay. And I see the pain in your face, and I appreciate you wanting to facilitate a conversation about it, so thank you. to facilitate a conversation about it. So thank you. It's a really difficult time. I see myself as a journalist. And sometimes that involves some advocacy because I'm not going to pretend I don't have opinions.

I do have a bias. I'm very critical of Israel. I have been my whole life. And I do advocate for Palestinian freedom. And I'm not shy about that. But to me, there's no contradiction with my journalism because journalism speaks for itself. Either I'm factual or I'm not shy about that. But to me, there's no contradiction with my journalism because journalism speaks for itself. Either I'm factual or I'm not. Well, like I've been reading about the ethics for journalists.

So, for instance, journalists ethically are supposed to present facts to the contrary that a reasonable person would want to know about that happened in a story. Well, like, let's see an example. Look, if you're a salesman for Toyota, you can tell somebody, this car does zero to 60 in five seconds. You don't have to tell them, and by the way, that's the lowest in the class.

But if you're a journalist for Consumer Reports, you have to say it does zero to 60, and you have to say, but by the way, it's not. So that's the difference. The salesman is an advocate. And the journalist is, he could still focus on stories that he feels need to be heard. But I think, and by the way, I don't think many journalists do what I'm saying. We agreed on exactly what I'm saying during the Russiagate stuff. This is exactly what I'm describing. It's exactly what they didn't do. 100%. They would ignore facts, which any reasonable person would have said, oh, well, I didn't know that.

You didn't tell me that. Of course I wanted to know that. He didn't tell me that. Of course I wanted to know that. And you feel on this Palestinian issue, you always offer those facts that a person would want to know? If you have specific examples of me leaving out important countervailing facts, I'm happy to hear it. But in general... I do, I do. We'll get back to that later.

In general, I totally endorse the principle that it's unethical for a journalist to omit countervailing facts. And I call that out all the time in the work that i do so i totally uh i'm fine to hold myself to the same standard all right so so the notion that one party is completely at fault and one party is completely guilty is like silly enough in a divorce proceeding right like there's there's always to there's always things. To seriously believe such a thing to be true in a 100-year conflict between nations is stupid. It can't be one party's all 100% right, the other party never did anything wrong. And to take such an opinion without even getting to specifics undermines one's credibility as a historian or a journalist.

So let me start. Can I stop you there for a second? I've never said that Palestinians have done nothing wrong. I'm not saying it. I'm not saying it. Yeah. So let me start by giving you a chance. I wrote this out. Okay.

Starting in the late 1800s when Zionism came, what part of the Israeli narrative are you sympathetic to, and what part of the Arabic story are you highly critical of? The part of the Zionist narrative that I'm sympathetic to is the desire for a national home. After all that persecution... That's just a desire. That's not an action. Okay, well, are you asking me— Has the Jews ever did anything? The intent, the—okay, fine, even the action to seek a national home for a persecuted people, I'm very sympathetic to that. And I understand why people wanted to

create Israel. I just don't accept the self-proclaimed right of Zionists to establish that state at the expense of the indigenous population. So in the 1880s, if we were Jews being raped, our wives being raped by the Cossacks, and we said, let's, we can't, this is unbearable to use Obama's term. This is unbearable.

Let's go join our, let's go join the Jews in Israel. You would have said that's okay to do. Provided we did not infringe on the rights of the local population. No, we're going to go buy land. Yeah, provided we didn't, you know, have you heard of, what's his name, Ahad Ayam?

I mean, I learned about him growing up. He was a Zionist, a cultural Zionist, so he believed in a Jewish national home, but without infringing on the rights of the Arabs that are already there. That's not the caveat. I'm saying we can go and we can buy land. Okay, sure. If we're buying land and we have the consent of the people who live there, sure.

No, we don't need the consent of the people who live there. There's no law that says you need the consent of the people. How are you going to get the consent of the people who live there? There's no phones. Well, then you go there and you basically – if you're trying to build – it's one thing to buy land. But how about to build an actual – an ethnostate for yourself? No, no. Step by step.

OK. But it's OK to go buy the land. Sure. If everyone has property rights, then sure. Yeah. There's no reason why Jews can't buy land. Sure. All right.

Yeah. And there's no reason they can't expand their existing community. Sure. If they own it and if they've attained it legally sure yeah so so then for the most part up till like 1946 you're okay with the jewish no because before then i mean there were no there were no expulsions or anything before 1940 there were there was certainly there was violence and there was a British colonizer that was basically taking the position that we were going to create a Jewish state there without caring about the rights of the local population. Lord Balfour even wrote that privately. You can take that with the British.

I'm talking about the – Okay. But the Zionist movement played along with that. All right. And there were terror attacks committed by groups like – that were part of the Zionist movement. They were both. Yeah. Well, sure.

They were both. But the point is – Both ways. In the late 1800s, correct me if I'm wrong, the Jewish population in Palestine was about 5 percent, maybe less than that? Five or seven. It was a majority in Jerusalem. Okay. So there was a very small Jewish population, but the vast influx came from Palestine.

Well, it was a very small population in absolute numbers all around. The vast majority, can we agree the vast majority were Arabs? Yeah, yeah, but it is important that it was also very sparsely populated. Okay, sure. But also you had people like Jabotinsky, the Zionist leader, saying that Zionism is a colonizing adventure. He was honest about that. No, no, colonizing is not colonial. Yes, it is. No, colonial. Colonizing is not colonial. Yes, it is.

No, colonial and colonize have two different definitions. Okay. This gets into semantics. The point of Jabotinsky was that Zionism was a colonial endeavor because he understood— We could colonize an unpopulated land. Okay, but Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion, who was the founding prime minister of Israel, they understood that there were people there that they were trying to displace, which is exactly what they did.

Who would be displaced. Yes, there was definitely talk of that, but you're getting ahead of it. I'm trying to take a step. I think it's very necessary to take it step by step. I support the idea of a national home for Jews provided everyone is equal, which was a court. Some Zionists actually believed in that. Yes, that's that's I'm happy to say that because because you're picking.

There was a lot of different opinions. There were one state Zionists. Noam Chomsky believed in that. And he even went and lived in Israel for a bit, trying to be a part of that movement. But he realized quickly that that that dream was dead at that point. Well, neither side wanted that. Well, certainly Palestinian Arabs did not want a Jewish state in their midst. Yes, and I can't blame Palestinians for not wanting to be responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. I can't blame them for that.

Husseini supported the Nazis. Okay, yes, the leader picked by the British did support. He was the leader. Yes, and also American Jews also kept out Jewish refugees from coming here. I'm not talking about that. Okay, well, that's it. Anyway, there's so many historical issues we can debate, but the premise is there were people inside Palestine, and they were displaced to make this ethno-Jewish state. It's not disputed. When I was growing up, I was told

that all the Palestinian Arabs fled their homes voluntarily because they wanted the Arabs to wipe out Israel, which is not true. They were ethnically cleansed. And there were massacres like in Dari Yassin. And there are Palestinians now who still have the keys to their ancestral homes and their rights have never ever been addressed and I'm not going to deny that fact. I think that's just basic history. Well, wait, what do you mean? There were, I mean, this is the thing,

you won't take it step by step. I had something I wanted to read to you here but I can't find it. Up until 46, it was okay. I'm asking, but I can't find it. Up until 46, it was okay. I'm asking, what I'm getting at is, if a people move to a country legally,

I understand that the people on the other end are unhappy. I understand for God's sake that the black people in Harlem are furious about gentrification, although I don't mean to be glib, but this was obviously worse. But I'm saying that there is no, especially at that time in history, who would have had the nerve to tell somebody fleeing death? You can't go buy land in Palestine.

Nobody on planet Earth would have thought that. Well, American Jews told them, you can't come here. And they were fine to ship them off to Palestine. Many European Jews wanted to come here. But the Zionist movement actually lobbied to have them sent over to Palestine because they wanted to colonize the land. They needed people. They needed people to fight.

And that's what they did. And up until 1946, look, the whole reason that Jews were promised that land is because the British made that pledge. But why should I respect the rule of the British over Palestine? They're not indigenous to that land either. Most of it was under the Ottomans, right? Okay. And then the British took it over, and that's when they promised a Jewish state inside Palestine. And the British, after they promised that, and you can read about this in Rashid Khalidi's book,

The Hundred Years' War in Palestine. I read that. I know you had him on recently. They prevented people locally from learning about it. They stopped the printing presses. They didn't want, because locals didn't want to. Have you looked at the footnotes of Khalidi's book? It's a disgrace.

No, no, because I did some research about this. I've not looked at the footnotes because I did some research about this for another issue. I've not looked at the footnotes because I have a lot of respect for him. I was shocked. I was researching Khalidi's book for the issue of the Clinton parameters. And like Benny Morris' book has this book and that book, page numbers, paragraphs. Khalidi just says, he just has the title of two books. He says, you know, there's not a lot of good books about this.

Like if he were a professor, if you handed something into him as a professor, he'd give you an F. I couldn't, I literally, anybody please check this out. I could not believe how, I wouldn't even call it sourced. I'm going to bet that I'm not going to agree with you because I have a lot of trust, but I'm happy to take a look. You won't disagree about the – About the footnotes?

About the footnotes. Absolutely you won't. I'll bet you $1,000. Do you want to debate whether he's right about the Clinton parameters? I have no way of knowing if he's right because he has no sources. Okay. I have a question. If you buy the land, that doesn't mean you change the laws of the area. It doesn't mean you start an army. It doesn't mean a lot of things, am I right? Yeah, exactly. It doesn't mean you have the right to create an ethno-state that- Or a state at all.

That privileges- At that point. Yeah, and that's what I'm saying about Zionism. It wasn't just a friendly land acquisition. It was a deliberate attempt to create an ethno-state where one particular ethnicity has... Ethnostate is jargon. They went to create a state. What states weren't ethnostates in those days? France was an ethnostate. Italy was an ethnostate.

They went to create a state. Russia was an ethnostate. Every state was ethnostate. They went to create... You're saying ethnostate like Japan is an ethnostate. Let's name what states are not ethnostates in 1945. Okay, well, but... Let's name... What states are not ethno-states in 1945? Okay, well, but... No, no, what states are not ethno-states?

The difference is that this was the state of the Jewish people, meaning any Jew around the world could come there and have rights and have more rights than the people who originally lived there. More rights than the people who originally lived there is... Right now, they don't have more rights. Well, except they have... Do they have some more rights do they have some more rights?

They have some more rights. Israelis have a lot more rights than the Palestinian Arabs who have been allowed to stay inside 1948 Israel. Yes, they do. So, Benny Morris, on the issue of the expulsion, so you know that Benny Morris, who is really the expert on all this. Well, the Israeli expert, yes, he is. No, even Finkelstein has, well, Finkelstein has disagreed with his conclusions, but he's never disagreed with Morris' facts. He certainly was, in terms of Israeli expert, yes, he is. Even Finkelstein has disagreed with his conclusions,

but he's never disagreed with Morris' facts. He certainly was, in terms of Israeli scholarship, he's the main person, yes. So he said, most of the Palestinians, 700,000. So just so people know, and you correct my history, when the UN partitioned, the two peoples could not live together.

Finkelstein said to me, I asked him, did he agree with the partition? He said, yeah, there was no way they could live together.kelstein said to me, I asked him did he agree with the partition he said yeah, there was no way they could live together he said it's a mini-olotry when the UN tried to create the two states I believe the next day a civil war broke out and then five Arab armies attacked

and in that melee, this is when the 700,000 were moved. Not to another country. False. By the time the Arab states intervened in May 1948, half of those more than 700,000 people had already been expelled by Israel. I said a civil war started.

Okay, but it was, I would call them expulsions. The Zionist militias expelled people. Committed massacres. Well, I'm just saying, whatever word you want to use to the fact that these people were out, this began after the partition, not before. Started with the civil war, which was the Palestinian people, and then they were joined by the five Arab nations.

I don't even think I'm saying anything tendentious yet. I don't mean to. Okay. All right. So Morris, who is the expert, says most of the 700,000 refugees, he puts refugees in quotes, fled their homes because of the flail of war and the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders. But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lida and Ramla, from which the Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became refugees, and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country, which is the usual definition of a refugee, was not a racist crime, but the result of a national conflict and a war with religious overtones from the Muslim perspective launched by the Arabs themselves. Okay. Is he incorrect there?

Well, his conclusions don't support the facts that he has brought to light based on the Arabs themselves. Okay, and... Is he incorrect there? Well, his conclusions don't support the facts that he has brought to light based on the Israeli archives. The term I've seen him use... He's the guy who covered the Israeli archives. The term I've seen him use for what Israel did to the Palestinians is ethnic purification. That's his term,

which sounds to me a lot like ethnic cleansing, and that's exactly what he describes in his books, which includes documented massacres like in Dariassin. And that was just that that is now established fact. Is there a Palestinian scholar who's uncovered the Palestinian massacres? What I'm getting at is there's no parody. How many people died at Dariassin? Hundreds of people. There's no parody here.

You have, you know, look, I can show you a million quotes from Zionist leaders recognizing that they were just... 117. No, I'm sorry, 254. Okay. You know, Ben-Gurion even recognized that this country was stolen from Palestine. There's a quote from him in the late

70s. There's quotes of everything from everybody. Well, either they're fake or they're not. I mean, I have no reason to... No, but there's contradictory quotes. Okay. Well, all I know is that Benny Morris described what Israel did as ethnic purification, and he documents in his books...

I've never seen that. So you wanted to take it step by step in history. What's the reason? I just wanted to... I've never seen Benny Morris use the term... Ethnic... Google it. Okay.

And there are many more books that have come out based on the Israeli archives. I don't think 1948 is an issue of much debate anymore. It was when I was growing up. And when I went to Sunday school and summer camp, I was told a bunch of... Benny Morris says he sees the Jews as the greater... Because Morris later denied the term ethnic cleansing with regard to the actions undertaken by Jewish forces in Israel during the year 1948. He said that possibly the term might apply

in a limited or partial context to Ludd or Ramla. Well, what Benny Morris has also said, and I'll find where he said ethnic purification, his point was that it didn't go far enough. And he said we should have finished the job. And that's his point. No. Because he supported it.

No, no. Yes, he did. This is where you're not, no. I know what you're talking, there's an interview, then we'll move on. There's an interview where Benny Morris did in Haaretz with, what the fuck, Slavit, I forget his name, where he said that in retrospect,

it might have been better if the Arabs had been moved out, given what the history has been and the lack of optimism for the future, meaning that it would have happened and it would have been over with. They were moving from this side of the line to that side of the line. And then over time, it would disappear. Now, this is one of those things where... Are you listening to me? I'm listening.

This is one of these things where at the time to suggest that would be outrageous because people have rights. In retrospect, it's not to me an offensive thought because look at what we're dealing. Look at how many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are suffering, are continuing to suffer. I mean, let me give you another, it's a glib example, but I don't think it's crazy. In this country, we move people to build shopping centers. We will, with eminent domain, we will pay people,

and paying people is probably, would be a good thing, one way to settle this in a two-state solution someday, God willing, would be to pay people off for this. But we move people. Say, listen, we're building a shopping center here. You got to go. Okay. And we're going to buy your house.

That's not what happened here. No, it's not what happened. But I'm saying, but people move. Okay. I don't accept the right of a European Zionist to come in and move an indigenous Palestinian by waving around a Bible for 2,000 years. My only point is, not that it was okay to do it, that the consequence of moving, although it's very unfair if somebody does it to you, is then you're within the same country. Going forward, wouldn't what Benny Morris was saying, well, wouldn't it have been better if everybody just moved to this other side of the line and then there wouldn't be these wars anymore?

Okay. But that's what he said. Am I not describing what he said? Let's assume that your characterization is correct. He's still accepting the premise that Zionists had the right to displace... No, he never said they had the right. What he said was... Given that it happened, they should have gone away with it. No, he didn't even say that. What he said was, in retrospect, it might have been better. Okay, well, so yes, he's... Yes, sure. So he's doing a counterfactual. Fine. Let me quote you also what he said. He said that transfer,

quote, was inevitable and built in Zionism because it sought to transform a land which was an Arab into a Jewish state, and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population. And that's from Benny Morris' birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. The quote continues, and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs, which in turn persuaded the Yishuv's leader that a hostile Arab majority, a large minority, could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure. And the quote about ethnic purification, that is Chomsky translating Benny Morris from Hebrew. I'll send you both those references. So he's acknowledging there that a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of the Arab population.

Yes, but the displacement didn't have to be violent displacement. Okay, but it was violent. But displacement would not the right to come back and would not have the same rights in the same area. Right, right. We need to move on, but I want to know, because I know you want to talk about a lot of stuff.

I also want to talk about cold things, but you wanted to go step by step in history. I just want to know what's the reason. Okay, so let's get to where Aaron did a long tweet yesterday, and I think this tweet was very interesting. It would be a good thing. We can break it up into pieces to discuss everything. If you're endorsing Israel's Gaza assault by declaring that Israel has the right to

defend itself, then you're also endorsing the October 7th attack. If Israel can slaughter civilians in the name of defending itself, then Palestinians can too. They were ethically cleansed in 1948 and have been occupied since 1967. Israel has refused to end the occupation and rejected the only diplomatic solution with international, including PLO, Hamas, and Arab states' support, an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, and a creation of a Palestinian state there, a huge compromise for Palestinians and 22% of their ancestral land.

Actually, before we get to this, because I'm not sure, are you against what Hamas did on October 7th? Yes. So tell me your position on that. not sure. Are you against what Hamas did on October 7th? Yes. So what, what, what, what, tell me your position on that. Well, um, the killing of civilians can't be justified. So, um, if Hamas had just targeted military bases, uh, I certainly would not criticize that, but I would criticize it, uh, only from the point of view if it you know set back Palestinian liberation which I think it really did I'd love to be proven wrong but I think what Hamas did for the purposes of Palestinian freedom

was a disaster and look at the consequences now I think they gave Israel a big gift and they let and they gave Israel a grounds to now take advantage of that and do what they've always wanted to now take advantage of that. And they've always wanted to do, which is transfer people out of Gaza and slaughter them. And they managed to recruit even more people now, all these kids going out. So from that point of view, the point of view now, but I'm not Palestinian, and also I'm not living under occupation. So there are limits on my opinion in terms of whether this was beneficial

for the Palestinian long-term cause or not. Because I'm not living under, But in terms of killing civilians... People are saying they're not occupied. I understand that there's a blockade. Yes. And Israel still controls everything about Gaza. Even though they withdrew their settlers

in 2005, that doesn't mean they're not occupied. So you don't agree with Finkelstein on this Nat Turner argument of his? I don't, no. What's the argument for people listening? Norman Finkelstein's argument is that just like the slave, Nat Turner's slave rebellion, where they basically did the same things, killed babies and all that kind of stuff, that this was somehow

I want to be fair to his position, that this was This was a slave revolt, yeah. That this was like almost like a battered wife syndrome kind of excuse for murder. This was, his argument is that these were hopeless people, trapped in a cage their whole lives, looking ahead to a wretched existence

where Israel would control their every movement, people who have all probably had family members killed or have suffered under Israeli occupation, which is brutal and savage. Israel won't let even some cancer patients leave the territory to get treatment. There's a huge list of savagery. So his argument is this was a revolt by those slaves, and I don't see Hamas that way. You don't buy that. I mean, I don't fully accept it, no. Can I say something before you go to the tweet?

Obviously, a lot of people have been asked about the Seventh, and a lot of people have been condoned with the Seventh, Arab and Muslims and all that. But what's interesting to me, and obviously I'm against killing civilians, but what's interesting to me is the starting talking point is always on the 7th, where it should be years before that. What led to that?

A lot of things led to the 7th. It didn't start on that day. There's a lot of things done by Israeli government as well. Netanyahu, we talked about it before. I agree, and that's the point of my tweet, where I say that if you are endorsing this assault on Gaza by claiming Israel in the name of claiming that Israel has a right to defend itself, then you're also endorsing the logic of the October 7th attack, which says that Palestinians are under

attack, much worse attack than Israel, because they've been occupied for decades and routinely killed, routinely had their land stolen. And so you're saying then, if it's okay to kill innocent civilians in Gaza because of one attack on October 7th, then you're saying then, if it's okay to kill innocent civilians in Gaza because of one attack on October 7th, then you're saying that Palestinians have a right to kill civilians because- No, that's not the same thing. It's obviously not the same thing. In fact, Palestinians have a stronger argument because they're the ones who are occupied. So if anything, my only mistake is I had too much parody in that tweet. There's two parts to what you're saying. Let's take them one at a time. Okay. The targeting of, let's just

say, 250 people at a concert is not the same thing as innocent civilians dying in a war as, as they say, collateral damage. Now,

the second part is more interesting, but they're not, if Israel went in and murdered and grounded up 250 people and killed them in a pen or something, then I'd say that's the same thing. But obviously, if Israel is attempting to root out Hamas, you might think they had no justification for doing that, but it's not the same thing. No, but the problem is— Am I wrong? Yes, your point presumes parity, is that these are two equal sides. No, I'm not presuming parity.

One side is occupied. I'm not presuming parity. I'm saying that the targeting of—well, then maybe you do support Finkelstein's position. I support the premise that Palestinians have the right to resist military occupation and that Israel has no right to fire a single bullet into Gaza. Their only obligation is to stop occupying it. So if they're the same thing, then what you're saying is that if Israel kills 250 civilians on purpose or kills 250 Hamas fighters on purpose, that's the same thing? If we're talking about October 7th. Wait, purpose, that's the same thing? If we're talking about October 7th...

Wait, wait, is that the same... No, hold on a second. No, no, no. I'll answer anything you want, but you have to answer me first. Are you saying that's the same thing? Okay, is it the same for Israel to kill Hamas militants as it is for Palestine?

Because I'm saying it's not the same thing to kill... When Hamas kills 250 people at a concert, that's not the same thing as when Israel has collateral damage of 250 people. You're saying it is the same thing. I say when Hamas kills 250 people at a concert, that's not the same thing as when Israel has collateral damage of 250 people. You're saying it is the same thing. I say, well, okay, then does it matter who Israel kills? It depends what date we're on. If we're on October

7th and Israel is killing the militants that are attacking its civilians, they have every right to do that. They have every right to do that. But we're not talking about October 7th anymore. It's more than a month later. Israel's killed at this point more than 11,000 people. On October 8th, if Israel wants to go in... They have no right to do that. They only have the obligation and

their occupation. So hold on. Let's explore that. Occupiers don't have the right to defend themselves because what they're doing there is defending their occupation. So then what if October 8th, Hamas comes in again? They have every right to shoot back against Hamas. Absolutely. And what if they kill another 1,200?

If Hamas kills another 12, well, then that's on Israel for not ending its occupation. But how do they end the occupation? Hamas is not interested in ending the occupation. Well, Hamas has been

interested in ending the occupation. Hamas has never accepted a two-state solution. Yes, they have. No, they have not. They even rejected the Saudi proposal.

They initially did, certainly. No. Should we go through the history? Recently, they rejected. Should we go through the history? In about 2007, I may have the dates wrong, but around then, the leadership of, and there is a split inside Hamas. So, yes, there are people in Hamas who will never accept Israel at all. Well, there you go. Hold on. No, let's take this.

I want to understand your position about international law. No, I'm sorry. I I want to understand your position about international law. No, no, I'm sorry. I will. We're on the two-state thing. Hamas in 2007. But I don't want to get off this because I don't want to let you off because I think what you're saying is not defensible. Hamas leaders in 2007 started saying we would accept a two-state solution.

And then in 2017 in their charter, they even put we would accept a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Now, they also said we'll never recognize Israel. This was immediately prefaced by Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights. But if you're accepting a state within the borders of 1967, which is a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, you're tacitly then recognizing the Israeli borders outside of it. Israel, because it's run by extremists, has never accepted those borders, and they've refused to accept a Palestinian state

because they want to carve up the West Bank to take the settlement and the water there. So let's examine your theory of the law. So let's presume for the sake of argument, because it has been true at certain times, that Hamas is not going to accept a two-state solution. Can Israel then defend itself? No, because they're still the occupying power and they've never offered a reasonable... So every day Israel has to have people come in there, kill their civilians, and they cannot fight back. If you're making the choice to be an occupier... They're not making

the choice. They've made that choice for more than 50... How did they become an occupier? In 1967... Jordan attacked. No, they did not. No. Okay. The official story of 67, Israel claims that they were going to attack. Israel fired the first shots. Now, if you want to claim that, if you want to accept the Israeli position that that was being preemptive, then you can accept that. But there are plenty of people like Moshe Dayan, who was an Israeli general, said, I know how this started. We were firing into Syria trying to start a provocation, which Israel has always done. They did the same thing in Lebanon in 82. So Israel claims that they acted to defend themselves, but nobody disputes that Israel fired the first shots.

Israel started that war. I believe they started it by bombing Egypt first. And they ended up... Aaron. Hold on a second. I'm shocked that you're saying something so wrong. One more sentence. They ended up seizing in that war the Sinai,

the Golan Heights from Egypt, the Golan Heights, so the Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, as well as Gaza and the West Bank. How many defensive wars end with countries acquiring all this territory that they've long coveted? You're incorrect. Okay. Let's hear it. You're right that Israel fired the

first shots with Egypt. Thank you. Okay. Yes. But Jordan attacked Israel. Okay. Hold on. And as a matter of fact... Before or after Israel attacked Egypt? After. Thank you. So Israel started that war.

With Egypt. Okay, and that was... That doesn't mean that every other country in the world... While they were also shelling... Hold on. While Israel was also shelling... I'm going to read you from King Hussein's book now. Hold on.

While Israel was also shelling before June 67 into Syria, trying to start a provocation there too. Hold on. These are different countries. Yeah, and Israel wanted to take all their territory. No, Israel sent a message to King Hussein of Jordan, and you certainly know this, that said, don't invade us. We have no problem with you. This was delivered to the King of Jordan, and he attacked anyway. Well, because he was in alliance with other Arab states.

That's his problem. That's his problem. I'm sorry. He had already seen what Israel did in 1948, and they're all together. And Israel's bombing Egypt, shelling Syria. No matter how you want to slice it, the territory was occupied because Israel was attacked, not because they attacked. No matter how you slice it.

If you want me to free, okay, listen. The Egyptian one. Now, let me read you from King Hussein's book about the war. I believe he's a good source. So King Hussein's memoirs is him, and then he has some other people I guess he had write for him. I don't know. So when Nasser closed the Straits of Tehran, this is what happened.

Nasser closed the Straits of Tehran and stopped all shipping, which was a cause of Bel-Aid. Blockades are considered acts of war. And he removed the UN peacekeepers and he mobilized 100,000 troops, I believe, in the Sinai. So Israel was... Well, he couldn't immobilize in the Sinai. So Israel was...

Well, he couldn't immobilize... The Sinai is Egypt. Yes, he immobilized in his land on the border with Israel. But not in the Sinai, because Jordan didn't have the Sinai. No, not Jordan. Nasser was... Nasser, okay, got it. Nasser was ahead of Egypt.

Got it. Okay, yeah. When Nasser closed the straits, the king, the King realizes this is King Hussein, that war was inevitable as a withdrawal of the UN emergency force. Jordan was neither consulted nor warned. It was from the Cairo radio that we picked up on these two fairly important bits of information, as did the rest of the Arab world and the Soviets,

which who complained bitterly. This is how it all happened. On the morning of Monday, May 22nd, I was at my desk in the palace as usual. And I received a telephone call from Radio Oman informing me that Radio Cairo had just announced the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba. At 1 p.m., the king arrived in his office. He called me in. He'd already heard the news.

He was deeply troubled. This is very serious, he said. I think war is inevitable now. That was the guy who worked with King Hussein is in his book. Then King Hussein writes in his own words. Let me not, he says, here it is. After the Arab-Israeli conflict, there was a great deal. This is King Hussein's own words.

After the Arab-Israeli conflict, there was a great deal of controversy over who should bear the responsibility for starting hostilities. Does an act of aggression necessarily involve the use of arms? Might not closing the straits of Tehran be considered an act of aggression? What in fact is an act of aggression? Basically, Tehran was only one of several weapons used in the atmosphere of hostility, which ever since the partition of 1947 plunged the Middle East into this tragedy we all suffer. Yes, Tehran was the trigger in a series of aggressive acts and reciprocal threats dating from 1948. That does not take away from the fact that Tehran was a mistake. I am well aware of it. Without question, we could have acted differently. Okay, wait, so is the argument—

Did you hear what—that is the king of Jordan, who you have a more extreme position— Yes, I do. —on the Six-Day War than the man who fought the war. I have an idea. I have an idea. Hold on a second. Are you saying that because— I'm not saying. He's saying. That's the king. He fought the war. Is your argument that because the king said that the closure of the strait, it was a provocation, that that justifies Israel taking Palestinian territory and occupying them since 67?

And also, also, also. Yes, I am. I'll tell you why. I will tell you why. By the way, by the way, just as a historical aside, and we're getting way too in the weeds. This is not the weeds. This is the fundamental part of the conflict. Okay.

Also, Israel was barely impacted by that closure. You can read about that in Finkelstein's work. There's a book called The Iron Wall by Avi Schleim, who's an Israeli historian. He's at Oxford, I believe. You can read all about this history there. Finkelstein has said that he thinks Israel was barely impacted. But around the world, everybody thought this was an accident. No, but it's no reason to start a war.

No. Because someone closed off. No, the reason to start the war was there were 100,000 troops on the border. No. Listen, listen. After a series of Israeli provocations. Aaron, Aaron, Aaron. There was Israeli attacks going on inside Jordan for a very, very long time.

Aaron, Aaron. This is all part of the history. It's very easy for you to say. No, but it's true. No, it's not true. And I learned this from actually mostly from reading Israeli historians like Avi Schleim. Okay. There's a book called The Iron Wall. It's all about this period of 67. Hold on, hold on. Regardless, even if you're right, one more point. How does

it justify a, whatever, 56-year military occupation? I'm gonna answer you. You asked that three times. So it's like, okay, let's say in 67 all the Arab states were wrong. Let me answer it for you. Okay, go ahead. So, first of all, a few things. First of all, for instance, Norman Finkelstein. Actually, this is a good thing to play. Before you say it, can I say something in 1967? In 1967, since I'm the only Egyptian actually guy here, you forgot a very major point that the UN and the US said whoever is going to attack first in 1967, they're going to be against.

And Israel attacked Egypt first, and nobody was against. The UN has nothing to do with this. Okay, so listen. I want to make the point to you that it's very easy to expect others to take chances with their lives. But as we know, these things sometimes come out famously wrong. For instance, what happened in Gaza. Now, play the video that I just queued up.

This was Norman Finkelstein a few years ago, maybe on your show, I forget what show it is, saying that Israel shouldn't worry about the tunnels. Let's be clear about the facts. They were not terror tunnels. They were about, according to Israel, there were about 12 to 14 tunnels that were built beneath the border separating Gaza from Israel.

Now here are the facts. And the facts are not trivial. Number one, the UN Human Rights Council report found and respected Israeli journalists, Israeli military people, they all said the same thing. The tunnels did not target civilians. Every time Hamas militants emerged from the tunnels, they had firefights with Israeli soldiers. They never went to the kibbutzim. They never targeted civilians. They were in terror tunnels. So this is where a tiny country like Israel, very tiny at the time, when 100,000 troops mass on its border, it says, you know, we're not going to wait for this to happen.

It's pretty clear to us what's going on here. And if you don't mean war, then you shouldn't act exactly like a country that means war. And it's easy to judge, but people get it wrong. So Israel took out the Egyptian Air Force and took the Sinai, occupied the Sinai. And they took Gaza. But what they did not do is attack Jordan or make a move towards what are now called the occupied territories. That happened in response to a Jordanian attack. And now this is one of the mistakes that Israel did make, because Israel has made mistakes. Ben-Gurion, of all people, Ben-Gurion, who you, this is why when you quote these things,

it's such a cherry pick. Ben-Gurion was the one Israeli voice right after 67 who recommended Israel give it all back. Give it all back. He was a lone voice should give it back in return for an agreement for a peace treaty. And as you know, in Khartoum in Sudan, right after that, there were three no's. No peace, no recognition. And then the dance started. But that's how the occupation started.

No. And then, I'll continue. And then Finkelstein made a good point. Then when Nasser died, Sadat took over, and he was not taken that seriously at first, considered to be lightweight, and there was this gunner jarring, I think, there was this proposal by this UN guy jarring

that Israel didn't really take that seriously. And then Sadat started the 73 War, which actually led to peace, ironically. But there was no progress on the West Bank. Of course, Jordan didn't want the land back. It would be perfectly natural to give it back to Jordan, right? Jordan didn't even want it back. And ever since then, Israel has been on and off again trying to give it back. And this will bring us to where I feel that you were not acting as a journalist,

if you want me to go there. Okay, but can I say a few things first? First of all, I don't accept the premise of your argument, which is that somehow Egypt putting forces on its borders justifies the Israeli war of conquest. Well, I don't accept your premise that if Egypt gets in a war with Israel that Jordan can attack. Well, Israel was attacking all these places. No.

There have been Israeli operations inside Jordan for years after 1948. Jordan attacked because at the last minute, like I think a week, two weeks before, it signed a treaty with Egypt. Yeah, okay. Which Israel knew. So Israel, by attacking Egypt, knew exactly what it was getting into.

Because Nasser wanted to... But don't you see, from Israel's point of view, they did everything they could do to make it look like a war was going to start. Can I make my point? Why right before... Can I make my point? Egypt puts 100,000 troops there, then they go to Jordan to sign a treaty. How many Israeli troops were there? Listen,

like, listen, if you had told me that you wanted to talk about the 1967 war, what I would have done is reread the relevance. Hold on a second. Reread the relevant sections of books like Avi Schleim's Iron Wall so I could get it. It's been a long time. What I do know is that Israel was shelling Syria before 67. And vice versa. Moshe Dayan said 80% of the shelling came from us. Okay. This is true, but from the same source, there is much more including, but in conversations with Mr. Tal, General Dayan raised another consideration. What he told me is that he understood even in the time of war, that we would be compelled to return most of the territories that we won if we wanted peace with the Arabs. Because they were trying to provoke a war.

Because Zionist leaders from Ben-Gurion to Menachem Begin all said, we'll never accept partition. Syria is not part of this story now. Well, Syria is 67. They took it over and they still have it.

It's still occupied. And so somehow, magically, you want me to believe that, A, Israel launched this defensive war in which they happen to end up with all this territory that they've coveted, and then they don't give it back because they're doing their best to give it back, but these stubborn Arabs won't take it back. That's the premise here. Israel, hold on a second, one more point. After Israel takes the West Bank and Gaza, Moshe Dayan, the famed Israeli general, who was actually considered a dove on the Israeli spectrum, he said basically that the way it's going to work in the territories is, quote,

you will live like dogs and anybody who wants to leave can leave. That's Moshe Dayan talking about the Palestinians. And they proceeded to build up these massive Israeli settlements after 67, which is not a sign of wanting to give it back. That's a sign of colonization. How do you explain the fact that you have these huge settlements that make life in the West Bank for Palestinians impossible, that cut the West Bank in half, that steal their water? How is that possibly a part of an effort to give the land back? And every time there's been a reasonable proposal on the table, which, by the way, is a huge compromise for Palestinians, I have a hard time trying to sell a Palestinian on a

two-state solution because you're asking them to give up, to accept a state in 22% of their land. So it's a big compromise. Israel won't even give them that. And they've never... 22% of land, including Jordan? Not including Jordan. 22% of historic Palestine.

Is Jordan part of historic Palestine? No. So I want to say two things. First, I think we should move forward because we want to go to the current events. I'm asking that. So first of all, a lot of that is desert. Anyway, so this is why I didn't want to do it because we got off it. So you're saying that even if Hamas rejects the two-state solution, even if Hamas wants Palestine

from the river to the sea, that Israel has no right to ever go to war with Hamas? Not ever, but the point is they don't have the right to attack Gaza so long as they're occupying it. No, that's what I mean. Occupiers don't have self-defense rights. They only

have the obligation to leave. On October 7th, if Hamas is inside of Israel and they're occupying it. No, that's what I mean. Occupiers don't have self-defense rights. They only have the obligation to leave. But even if... On October 7th, if Hamas is inside of Israel and they're attacking people, yes, you fight back. You defend yourself. But on October 6th,

there shouldn't have been an occupation. On October 8th, there shouldn't have been. So by that logic, you're saying that even though Hezbollah, who is not Palestinian, is sending rockets into Israel and north, Israel has an

occupation, has an obligation to leave the Golan Heights and cede that ground to these Hezbollah that's what you're saying. No, I'm not saying that. Yes. Golan Heights is occupied, right? But Golan Heights is Syrian territory. It's occupied by Israel. Yes. So by exactly the same

thing you're saying, what do you mean no? Hezbollah's inside Lebanon. Hezbollah is in Syria and Lebanon. Yeah. In Syria and Lebanon. Hezbollah is not launching rockets from Syria. They're only launching rockets from Lebanon.

Now, Israel's obligation to leave, it's called the, there is a small part of Lebanese territory that Israel still has. The point is that if Israel gives up the Golan Heights, then these heights, why do they annex the Golan Heights? Because these heights look over their population. And they have no right to it.

Right, so you're saying that even if Hezbollah is there, They're not in the Golan Heights. Hezbollah is in Lebanon. And Hezbollah was created by the- And Syria. And as soon as- No, I'm sorry. Hezbollah is not firing on Israel from Syria.

They're not. As soon as Israel leaves, if Israel were to leave the... Well, that's why you make a peace treaty. With Hezbollah? Sure. But what if these people say, we'll never make peace with you?

Well, then you at least have to try. And when has Israel ever tried? Hezbollah is going to make peace with Israel? Isn't Hezbollah in the arm of Iran? Iran doesn't even recognize Israel. Sure, but Iran has also said... They don't even recognize Israel. Iran has a more accommodating position on the question of peace than Israel does.

Can I say something? Iran has said we would accept the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, which is Israel withdraws from all the occupied territories in exchange for full normal... Including the Wailing Wall, including giving back to Israel. And you have Palestinian sovereignty. You have an international resolution to Jerusalem and you give Palestinians Eastern and the right of return. A just resolution to the right of return, not the full, not a full up, right.

Just right. Which is fair. Yeah, but don't you have the right to return? Hold on. So a just resolution. So Iran said they support that. No, no, no, no. Yes, they did.

No, no. Which means they're more accommodating than Israel is. Immediately following the October 7th attacks, the Ayatollah Khomeini tweeted, God willing, the cancer of the usurper Zionist regime will be eradicated at the hands of the Palestinian people and the resistance forces throughout the region. Hashtag Al-Aqsa Storm. Stop for a second. I'm not saying Iran didn't support it. I don't know if Iran supported it. I can show you the reference. When you have a peace plan which says, and a just resolution, if it says that, I think you understand that means that you could have years of squabbling.

That's better than the status quo of occupying and bombing people. But it means that Israel can't just pull out. Yes, they must immediately engage in good faith negotiations. Right. They've never, ever done. They've never had good faith negotiations. No, never. Okay, so let's say they were having good faith negotiations. The one, never. Okay, so let's say they were having good faith negotiations.

The one time they— Hold on. Let's say they were having good faith negotiations and Hamas attacked. At that point, could Israel bomb Hamas? Yes, if you have good faith negotiations. So international law has a good faith negotiations exception? Yes, because as an occupying— I never heard that.

So as an occupying power, you have the obligation to end your occupation, and if there are extenuating circumstances, then okay, fine. Obviously, then if Israel's being attacked as they're trying to give all this land they've stolen back, fair enough. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a belligerent occupier that's never given its land back. The one time they engage in an actual

peace process called the Oslo Peace Process, do you want to know what Shlomo Ben-Ami, who's a former Israeli foreign minister, called it? I'm so happy you're saying that. I was about to read it. You're about to tell a lie. He called it a neocolonial project, Oslo, the peace process. You said that Ben-Ami said of the

peace process. If I were Palestinian, I would have rejected it as well. He said of the July 2000 Camp David offer, which was brokered by Clinton. Of the July 2000, I would have... Ehud Barak offered a quote-unquote Palestinian state to Arafat. So let me read the whole tweet. I'll read your tweet verbatim.

The claim that Palestinians have been offered a state independent of Israel, but they turned it down is a lie used to justify the violence and occupation. Shlomo Ben-Ami said of Israel's 2000 Camp David offer, which Hillary cites, if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well. Yes, he said that. That's because the Palestinians

had never been offered an actual state. Yes. Just West Bank cantons. Yes. Now, I did so much research on this. Okay. In good faith. I tried desperately to find,

and I'll give you the computer, to find anybody who can point to this Canton map. There are two maps that are available. One of them is from Benny Morris' book, and one is from, I think, Al Jazeera. It was the Olmert map. These are their versions of the last maps. The one on the left is the later ones, so it's slightly more...

Olmert agreed to pull out a hundred settlements, I believe. Okay, now we're talking about Ehud Olmert, which is not Shlomo Ben-Ami. He's talking about Ehud Barak in 2000. So the one on the right is 2000. Barak offered to give Arabs sovereignty over the Temple on the right is 2000. Okay. Barack offered to give Israel, give Arabs,

uh, uh, sovereignty over the temple Mount. This came out. No, wait, all merit or Barack, because Barack,

Barack, no, he did not. Yes, he did. No, he did not. No,

he did not. No, he did not. No, he didn't. No, he didn't. No,

he didn't. And that's why Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was there negotiating on behalf of Israel, even later said, if I were Palestinian, I would have rejected it. That's what he said, because he's honest enough to admit that Ehud Barak— This is where you're dishonest. You're referring to an earlier offer.

I'm referring to July 2000. That's what you quoted me on, Camp David. If you want to talk about what Ehud Olmeir offered years later, that's fine. But we're talking about July 2000. It says, times it. Israel agreed to give up sovereignty and part of Jerusalem, an old city, in 2000. Newly classified documents respond to Clinton peace proposal— We're talking about July 2000. It says, Israel agreed to give up sovereignty and part of Jerusalem, an old city in 2000. Newly classified documents respond to Clinton peace proposal.

Clinton proposal under Prime Minister Ehud Barak shows Jerusalem was willing to accept Palestinian sovereignty in much of the Temple Mount as a basis for the peace talks. This came out. I can't believe you don't know this. Okay, well send that to me.

What I understand of the Israeli offer is that they were not offering Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, which is the center of Palestinian life, and I would bet anything on this. They were offering Palestinians to have a place called Abu Dais, I believe it's called, and they could rename that al-Quds Jerusalem if they wanted to, which is just a joke. Can you play—

That was the Ehud Barak offering. So Ben Am—so Finkelstein makes exactly the same accusation as you do. Can you play the Ben Ami thing? And this is why I got so upset. You guys attack him for saying something about an earlier proposal. I'm not attacking him. I'm endorsing what he's saying. But in the same video, he specifically says

yes, but that was the earlier proposal. July 2000. But December 2000. There was no offer in December 2000. Oh my God. Anybody at home, just Google it. There was continued talks in Taba, Egypt, but no formal offer. Yes. The only formal

offer at this point is Camp David, July 2000. And Clinton blamed Arafat for rejecting it and said that they were offered this great Palestinian state and these greedy Arabs wouldn't take it. And then the Antifata broke out and it's all their fault. That's what Clinton said, basically. Here's Shlomo Ben-Ami saying, if I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected that offer as well.

Because he was there. He knows exactly what was offered. It was a joke. Play what he said. If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well. This is something I put in the book. The Clinton parameters are the problem. Because the Clinton parameters, in my view, view well the Clinton parameters say the following

they say that on the territorial issue the Palestinians will get 100 percent of Gaza 97 percent of the West Bank plus a safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank to make the state viable. There will be a land swap. The 97%, which I mentioned, takes into account the land swap, where they will get 3% on this side within the state of Israel. So we will have the blocks of settlements and they will be able to settle refugees on this side of the border. About Jerusalem, it says what is Jewish is Israeli, and what is Arab is Palestinian.

It includes full-fledged sovereignty for the Palestinians on Temple Mount, on the Haram al-Sharif. No sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, no sovereignty, no Jewish sovereignty on the Haram al-Sharif, which was at the time and continues to be a major, major problem for Israelis and Jews that these things mean to them. I think that's enough of that. So I was so upset with you for leaving, for making it seem like what he had said was that they had never been offered a stay. Now, let me read.

No, I was quoting him talking about July 2000 at Camp David. Right, but you make it sound. No, you weren't just quoting. Hillary said they'd never been offered a stay. Okay. Yes, they were not. But he says we did offer a stay. No, we didn't.

No, no, because now he's referring to the Clinton parameters, which were then used. Yeah, I offered to buy his car for $100. Okay, listen. And then I offered him $500. There was no offer, though. And he said, you never offered me. I turned it down for $100. Yeah, listen. And then I offered him $500. There was no offer, though. And he said, you never offered me. I turned it down for $100. Yeah, but you also turned it down for $500.

There was an offer in July 2000. Arafat turned that down. As Shlomo Ben-Ami, he should have, because he would have rejected it as well if he were Palestinian. Then you have more talks going on in Taba in Egypt in early 2001. I believe it was in Camp David, and then it moved to Taba. Okay, okay. But there's no offer there.

There is some progress made, and it shows, actually. That's just more proof that the offer at Camp David was a joke. Aaron, I'm going to win you over. I believe you're actually uninformed, and that's why you said this stuff. And then there's no offer. I think we're going to come to an agreement here. There's no offer in Taba. There's progress.

But the problem is Israel ends those talks, walks away. Israel, yes, they did. And then Ariel Sharon is elected prime minister. That's true. And all that stuff. So let me read you a bunch of things. There's no offer. I spent a few hundred dollars getting the books

by everybody who was in the room. Okay, Dennis Ross. Yes, a lifelong Israeli apologist. Yeah, Dennis Ross. Fair enough, but he was also in the room. Robert Malley was also in the room. Uh-huh. Robert Malley was also in the room on the U.S. side. Malley contradicts Dennis Ross. Malley contradicts.

Malley talks about the thing you're talking about, the earlier Camp David. Camp David, yes. Malley does not talk about the Clinton parameters. I read, I had to subscribe to the New York Review. What is Dennis Ross? I had to subscribe to the New York Review of Books to read the Malley thing from August. Yes, that's an important article. Okay, so here's a few things I was going to read.

Okay. Dennis Ross. Arafat's reservations were deal killers involving his actual rejection of the Western Wall, part of the formula on the Haram, that's the Temple Mount. His rejection of the most basic elements of Israeli security needs and his dismissal of our refugee formula all were deal killers. Prince Bandar. Let me respond to Ross first.

No, because Ross is the lead. You know what? I'm going to stipulate Ross is an apologist. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia said, since 1948, every time we've had something on the table, we say no. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we say yes?

If we lose this opportunity, it's not going to be a tragedy. It's going to be a crime. Martin Indyk. Bandar Bush, by the way. That's his nickname because he was so tight with... Martin Indyk. Arafat, in turn, would have had to possess the courage that Sadat showed for which he paid for lies. Arafat had none of that stuff. He repeated his reference to

fear of assassination. Show how his survival, rather than the idea of putting... To clarify, people, he's a former U.S. official, also an apologist. Martin Indyk is the guy that Peter Bein a former U.S. official, also an apologist. But Martin Indyk is the guy that Peter Beinart cites as his source that he trusts. Given the broader circumstances of personality This is his personal opinion, by the way.

But it's their opinion. I care about facts. Okay, I'll give you facts. I got the coup de grace. You're going to wait for it. Clinton, I'm going to skip some. Indyk says, RFI went to Camp David to avoid a trap, not to make a deal. Clinton said both the Saudis and the Egyptian ambassadors in Washington,

Bandar bin Salton, Nabil Fahmy, came to encourage Arafat in the name of respective governments to accept the... Did I skip a page here? To accept the... So, translation, lackey U.S. regime, Gulf regime, encouraged Arafat to become a lackey as well. Arafat immediately began to ask for clarifications.

Barack... Silly Arafat asking for clarifications. Hold on. He said, can I see a map? Because they wouldn't even let him see a map. No, that was... In July 2000, Camp David. I'm talking about Clinton parameters in December. Barack's cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations,

but all their reservations were within the parameters of the Air Force. That's a lie. That's cabinet endorsed the parameters with reservations, but all their reservations were within the parameters of the Air Force. That's a lie. That's a lie. And we know that because they recently got declassified. I looked at that and it doesn't prove it. He wrote about it, but he's wrong. Okay. Clint, I called several Arab leaders for help. King Abdullah and the President bin Ali of Tunisia

tried to encourage Arafat. They told me he was afraid to make compromises. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, he was said to be shocked that Arafat had wasted told me he was afraid to make compromises. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, he was said to be shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity. Yes. And he lied about

the president's offer on Jerusalem. Arafat's rejection of the peace parameters was a crime, he said, not against the Palestinians. He never rejected them. Okay, but here... Both sides had reservations.

Okay, here is the coup de grace. Both sides had reservations and Israel's reservations, by the way, were outside of the Clinton parameters. Here's the coup de grace and I ran this by Khalidi. Okay.

Nabil Amr, you know about this? Who was part of the— He's a Peel negotiator? Part of the negotiator. Wrote a letter, and the letter said the following to Arafat. Didn't we throw mud in the face of Bill Clinton, who dared to propose a state with some adjustments, wrote Amron a letter.

Were we honest about what we did? Were we right in what we did? No, we were not. After two years of violence, we are now calling for what we rejected. What have we done with the Palestinian Legislative Council? What have we done with the judiciary system? What have we done with the money?

What have we done with the bureaucracy? So it goes on. the money what have we done with the bureaucracy so it goes on he's calling out that the plo is so this is the guy on arafat's side uh-huh saying yeah we were dishonest we should have taken it but aaron mate uh-huh has it has it has a reason to dismiss he should have taken what he was never offered anything aé, well, he seems to think they were Prisbandar things. King Hussein seems to think every Aaron. Can I talk now? Martin Indyk. What it sounds like he's saying is we should have

not had any reservations about the Clinton parameters. But basically, the position Palestine took is no different than what Israel took because Israel also had reservations, too. So the same thing could be said about Israel as well, at best. All right. Well, these guys— And the compromise already is a two-state solution,

because you're asking Palestinians to accept the theft of a lot of their land and a state within 22% of it. I'm not going to get into that with you. That's the compromise. If it is or it isn't, that's the compromise. Period. Hold on. Have you ever been sued?

No. You've been in a legal action? No, thank God, no. You know, I'm never settling... People settle because... Okay, this was a settlement. I said this to Finkelstein, too. 22% is a settlement.

And this is really what I would really fault more than anything the Palestinians here for. There is a moral obligation to take what's practical. There are so many people dying over these minor points, whatever it is that they were arguing. They had agreed to take out 100 settlements. Bring the maps up again. No, there's no offer. There's no offer they've ever... Khalidi said the reason they turned it down was because Israel was going to keep the Jordan Valley. That's not true. Israel wanted the Jordan Valley for three years or six

years until such time as they could be sure of security. Israel does have real security. Well, first of all, this is why Israel has real security threats. Because in 1948, they were attacked. In 1967— No, I'm sorry. They attacked in 1947, expelled hundreds of thousands of people. No, in 1947 they were attacked. No, I'm sorry. They did not attack in 1947.

Yes, they did. The ethnic cleansing began in 1947. Read about it in Benny Morris' book. Hold on a second. Let me talk now. No, no, no. What you claim is that the cleansing started in 1947, but they were not attacked. I mean, Israel was attacked.

No, I'm sorry. Israel was not attacked in 47. Israel accepted the partition. Yes, and privately said we'll never accept it. They did not. Ben-Gurion wrote that. But they did not attack. Yes, they started.

No, no, they didn't. Read about it in Benny Morris. They started ethnic cleansing in 47. I just read you, Benny Morris, where he says they were attacked. Hundreds of thousands of people. I just read you, Benny Morris. By the time the Arab states intervened in May 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had already been you benny morris by the time the arab states intervened in may 1948 hundreds of thousands of palestinians have already been expelled including massacres okay so the arab states intervened to stop that can i attack israel

that's intervention to stop a massacre i'll be i'll be okay so so 67 anyway yeah this is this is what i want uh i think that we spoke about history a lot and if every great deal was ever rejected is everything would ever happen does not justify what's going on right now hamas attack was horrible did not justify killing the people now so i want to talk about a little bit about right now you know hamas yes because somebody rejected the deal then people can a lot of civilians and babies and stuff should be dying? That's not, shouldn't be it. So history, those who are involved, they're going to be rejected, but, you know,

right now. But his position is that it doesn't matter what Hamas does. Israel has no right to defend itself, except perhaps to defend itself against people who come over the border, but that even if Hamas were to do it every single day, every day...

So long as Israel's not making a good faith effort to end the occupation. Yes. Occupiers don't have rights. I'm sorry. They have obligations. This is what I want to say. Get out. So hold on for a second.

Get out of Gaza and the West Bank. Remove all the... Yes. Get out under what terms? Under a peace deal. But the peace deal that they proposed... First of all, Hamas doesn't accept the peace deal. So Hamas does not represent the...

They're going in circles. But they don't. Do you accept or not that Hamas has said we'd accept a state within 67? There was one interview where... There's a few. There's one interview in the San Francisco paper where the guy...

I forget his name. Sorry. No offense, Hatem. the guy, I forget his name. Sorry. No offense, Hot Temp. I forget his name. And he said something about accepting the Saudi initiative. There's a lot more than one interview. And then they tried to confirm it with the other leadership, and they could get no response. And the reporter finally concludes, you can look it up.

So here's this. look it up. The reporter finally concludes that they suspect that this might have been a way to prevent what seemed to be an imminent Israeli reprisal. Other than that, I have it all here. Right now, it's in their 2017 charter that they'd accept

the state within the occupied territories. That's a tacit recognition of Israel. It's not a full recognition. It's not perfect, but it's better than the status quo. And it's better than Israel, which says, yeah, we'll accept the Palestinian state, but only within the land that we'll let them have, which is basically scraps. Right, but when you're attacked, for whatever reason, whether you're attacked because you signed a dumb mutual defense treaty for whatever reason you're attacked. No, I'm sorry. Jordan's involvement in the 6-7 war doesn't justify Israel occupying for more than five decades

and also not just attacking, also attacking Lebanon too. I just read you all the... And killing 10 people. And by the way, we didn't even get to Ulmer who wrote that the day he was going to withdraw from Jerusalem was the hardest day of his life. It was up to 99%.

On a napkin. You know what? Let me tell you something. His map was on a literal napkin, which he showed to... Abbas doesn't deny the map. Abbas has... It was on a napkin.

It was a joke. No, Abbas has acknowledged the map. It was on a napkin, and Abbas couldn't take it with him. He had to memorize what Omer put on a napkin. Memorize. These people... It was literally on a napkin, and Abbas couldn't take it with him. He had to memorize what Omer put on a napkin. Memorize. These people, they think that— It was literally on a napkin, and then Omer was also—

Aaron, come on now. He was a lame duck and indicted, and he was gone anyway. So that was a joke. I'm not sure of that timeline. It's true. I'm not sure if he was a lame duck when this happened, but I don't think he was a lame duck when that happened. He was a lame duck, and he was indicted. He was indicted, yes.

Netanyahu was indicted. He was indicted, yes. Netanyahu was indicted. He's still in charge. The differences between the Clinton map, which Abbas knew very well, and what Olmert drew on the napkin were slight. Olmert's memoir is interesting. Quote, I spoke for half an hour without taking a breath. Abbas took notes. When I was done, he asked if he could hold on to the map. Mr. President, I said, I can certainly give you a copy of this map on one

condition, that you initial it and I keep the signed copy. I'm frankly worried that if I give you a copy of it without proof of your approval, there will come a time in the future when you want to restart talks and you'll use the map as the starting point of negotiation. The map is mine, I added, and it's my final offer. If you want it, sign it. So I proposed that we both sign, and then go straight to a special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York to present it. I had no doubt that such a dramatic presentation would win the unanimous support of the council. I told him that the next step after that would be a session of the UN General Assembly, which was already scheduled to meet in New York, present the deal there,

and get the support from the majority of the nations on earth. Then we could present it together before a joint session of Congress and then at the European Parliament. And later on, he says, 13 years have passed and Abbas still hasn't gotten back to us. I have no doubt that if the next prime minister had been determined to follow the trail I had blazed, Abbas would have signed. He might have haggled a bit more, but he would have signed. But that's not what happened. The man who followed me in office was much more of a talker than a doer. He followed a single principle, survival. Israel's survival

in its present format, but mostly his own political survival. Two extra percent. Abbas didn't need the napkin to know what the differences were. I imagine, though I don't know this, Abbas didn't want to give the map because he didn't want it to be leaked. Ulmer didn't want to give the map. Ulmer didn't want to, sorry, Ulmer didn't want to give the map because he didn't want it to be leaked. Ulmer didn't want to give the map. Ulmer didn't want to, sorry, Ulmer didn't want to give the map because he didn't want to, didn't know where it would end up. So he said, initial it. And this is the basis for our negotiation. On a napkin.

Abbas never complained about the napkin. Abbas acknowledged. Abbas is a sellout to begin with. But anyway. All right. So you got to answer for everything. No, but it's true. But, you know, but the point is, it's not serious.

Scrawling on a napkin is not a serious negotiation. And it's important for Palestinians because the map is everything because they're surrounded by these huge West Bank settlements. And Almer, I know this because this was in The New York Times. He wanted to keep big settlements like Ma'al Abdu'min, which basically cuts the West Bank in half. Bring the map up again. And also half. Bring the map up again. And also Ariel. Bring the map up again. And also Ariel, which is deep in the West Bank

and very far from Israel. Nicole, you're going to bring it up again? You see anything cut in half there? Well, that's not a fair map then. That's the napkin map. The one on the left. Okay, if that is a fair approximation. No one's disputed it.

It's been reported widely I don't see the West Bank cutting it It's a napkin drawing You need something more precise than that It's pretty hard to be exact on a napkin That's my point The napkin was irrelevant They discussed

They know the geography It's like I said, listen I'm going to pull out from 104th Street to 175th Street And we do a map We don't need the map We understand what we're talking about geography. It's like I said, listen, I'm going to pull out from 104th Street to 175th Street, and we do a map. We don't need the map. We understand what we're talking about. Look at that map right there. That's supposed to be this tiny Palestinian state, and still, even that,

and I'm not even saying that that map is accurate, has these massive West Bank... Does that look like 22% to you of the total? That does not look like... That is 22% of historic Palestine. That includes Jordan. It does not include Jordan. Well, then look at that. Is that 22%? You could fit five of those into the other? That plus Gaza is 22% of historic Palestine. That includes Jordan. It does not include Jordan. Well, then look at that. Is that 22%? You could fit five of those into the other? That plus Gaza is 22% of historic Palestine.

Look at that. We're looking at it ourselves. Is that 22%? Sorry, can I say something? Yeah. Go ahead. What do you mean historic Palestine? You might as well say the historic Middle East.

It was a loosely defined region. Take the mic again. Part of which has been defined as being in Jordan. It's a very loosely defined region. Why don't you say... How about... Come here. No, no, no.

You might have to say historic holy land. There was an entity... Historic Southern Levant. Historic... No. Historic... Before 1948. The Middle East.

You're talking about a geographic region with no political implications. Okay. With a loosely defined border. No, okay, I'm sorry. Before 1948. I sent you a definition for botanic of Palestine. I texted you. Dan, what are you doing?

Before 1948, Dan. He's talking about 22% of historic Palestine. Okay. Can I answer now? Which is a loosely defined geographical area. Okay. No political import. Before 1948, there was a land

called Palestine. They had currency. Are you serious? Currency was British minted currency. Dan, stop. Stop. It was defined as... It was defined as Palestine. There was a land called Palestine.

I may be wrong about the Jordan. There was something called Jordan 2. British minted currency with Hebrew, Arabic, and English on it? I'm sorry. I think you should say that Israel's tried in good faith. I want to say two points. I'm not saying it. All the Arab leaders said it.

I want to say two points. First is what happened on October 7th. As I said, it should not be starting. Everybody say it's horrible. I send you a lot of videos of the biggest journalists and leaders in the Arabic world. what happened on October 7th. As I said, it should not be starting, everybody say it's horrible. I send you a lot of videos of the biggest journalists and leaders in the Arabic world and Muslim-Arabian condolence and everybody's against it. And what happened against civilians is wrong.

But again, you cannot start from the 7th. Why Hamas was created? Who gave them money? Who helped them being there? Who's negotiating with them right now? Who made them the spokesperson? Hamas is worse for the Palestinian people just like they're bad for the israeli so why keep them in power i said that over and over and over and everything is happening does not justify right

now the killing of innocent people there need to be ceasefire right now and you need to stop and you need to surrender and get haas, maybe the leader in Qatar. How about that? We spoke about that a lot. Maybe Sinai is part of historic Palestine. Something's not right. No. If you're going to quote this stuff, you should know.

It's true. Again, all this, the history, the rejection of Arafat, everything is not justifying babies in the hospital dying. This is the end of it. So whatever happened in the past, whoever is right, whoever is wrong, it doesn't matter. What should Israel do? Right now? First of all... What should they have done on October 8th? What should they have done on October... I told you

before, they should have surrounded Gaza, get the leaders of Hamas from Qatar. They can't do that. You can't make that happen. Well, you can... Start a world war. Well, you can go from all the diplomatic relations up until they get. U.S. can get them. They have to surrender.

You go around. That's just the leader. Okay. And Munich, the leader. Let me ask you a question. If America does something, let's say that, and then the people that we do it to take your solution. So they kill Joe Biden. What happens? No, I didn't say take the leader only i said

take the person that went on the video i said yeah i planned this and did this instead taking people innocent people in the hospital and stuff like that what i'm saying is this is what you should have done yes you have the right to defend yourself 100 but against whom this is the main thing there's palestinians and there is There's Hamas. There's two different people. Two different groups of people. And I send you videos over and over and over about how many people don't. Hamas is not... By the way, I just found something else.

I didn't know this. Did you know that Al-Shifa, Amnesty International, had reported on the fact that Al-Shifa had been a Hamas base years ago? Well, I know that Israel built a base underneath there 40 years ago? Well, I know that Israel built a base underneath there 40 years ago.

So I know that Israel built a base. We had an international... And I also know that today... We have an international law lawyer and crime warden. We should play that. And he said that if you play,

if you put children, if you go to a hospital, children, that's a war crime against Hamas. But if Israel attack it, it's also a war crime against Israel. So it's a war crime for both. No, he didn't say that. Yeah, he did that. I read this in Amnesty International. It's about Al-Shifa. Hamas forces uses the abandoned...

This is Amnesty International. This is what people like Finkelstein always throw at Israel. Hamas forces uses the abandoned areas of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, including the outpatient clinics, to detain, interrogate, torture, and otherwise ill-treat suspects, even as other parts of the hospital continue to function as a medical center. The report describes other cases in which Hamas forces abducted, tortured, assaulted perceived opponents, particularly members of the rival Fatah party,

in some cases causing their deaths. These abuses, too, were committed with impunity. Many of the arrests looked like abductions with armed men in civilian clothes, sometimes masks, who did not present identification, forcing the suspects into a car. The suspects would be beaten in the car, and the beatings would continue at the place of detention and during the interrogation. In every case Amnesty International has documented, it has uncovered evidence of Hamas forces using torture during interrogation with the apparent aim of extracting a confession.

The testimonies indicate that the victims of torture were beaten with truncheons, gun butts, hoses, wires, and fists. Some were also burnt with fire, hot metal, or acid. In several cases, family members of the victims described to Amnesty International various injuries inflicted, strangling neck abductions, torture and summary killings of Palestinians by Hamas forces during 2014 and 2015. On the detainees, such as broken bones,

including of the spine and neck, bones, trauma to the eyes, as well as damage, punctures and burns to the skin. They quote one son. My father had been tortured beyond belief. It was horrible. This was happening in the hospital. So this is Palestinian getting tortured, correct? His arms were...

And the point here is what? This justifies attacking a hospital now? No, the point here is that when Israel was accused of the earlier hospital bombing, many people said, of course you believe it because they've done it in the past. And I'm asking you now, since you know that they've done it in the past, use the hospital, aren't you now beholden to say, yeah, I guess it is possible? So I want to tell you two things. I've never said it's not possible that they don't have a—

Well, American intelligence says it. I want to say two things to that point. American intelligence said that Iraq had WMDs. And today, look, we're seeing the results. Israel has nothing. They went in there. There's no command center. Now they're even changing their story.

They're saying, yeah, we found some tunnels under there. Can you play Hamas leader interview? An Israeli official said that actually, yeah, the whole point was this was a symbol to show that we can reach anywhere inside of Gaza. That's not all he said. That's what he said. I have two important points that I want to make quickly. That's not fair. That was one little blurb on a readout.

That's what he said. It was like a ticker. They're changing their story. And even if there was— They asked him a quick—go ahead. That's ridiculous. Hold on. I need to say two things.

That's ridiculous. Two things really important. One is— It's shameful to attack the hospital. —is just the fact that he said that Palestinians were tortured in this hospital and stuff like that. That shows us that Hamas, when we see elected and represented people, that's not right. But this is the important point. And I want you to...

I ask you both that question. Everybody's listening. I want you to understand and think about the answer and then you know the difference between the Palestinian life and Israeli life. If Hamas was hiding in an Israeli hospital, would they attack it? In an Israeli hospital, where there's Israeli babies, Israeli civilians, and Hamas is right there. Would they attack it? That leader, everybody that they want, they were inside Israel. They haven't attacked the hospital.

No, I'm saying, my question is this. Israel attacked a hospital, say Hamas was there. What did Israel do to the hospital? They didn't blow up the hospital, they didn't attack the hospital. They didn't Israel attacked a hospital. Hamas was there. What did Israel do to the hospital? They didn't blow up the hospital. They didn't attack the hospital. They didn't blow up the hospital. They shelled it. Which one?

The earlier one? Hold on. Just answer the question. Al-Shefa hasn't been shelled, has it? If there is a hospital in Israel with Israeli... Hold on. If there is Israeli hospital, would it even be raided? If there's Israeli kids and children and babies,

and would it be on Hamas, everybody from Hamas inside? I think it's a great point. Would they attack it? Yeah, of course Israel wouldn't, but because they don't value Palestinian lives. That's sum it up. I think Israel life, I think this is the major thing we need to think of that all lives.

Put that up, Nicole. I don't understand. Nicole liked my point. I actually don't understand. Let me read from the Times because this is important. I hope that the state of war with Israel... This was an interview with the Hamas leader. Can you move your head?

I'm sorry. I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us. Tahir, how do you pronounce his name? Tahir? Where? Tahir El Nunu? Tahir El Nunu.

Thank you. A Hamas media advisor told the Times, Israeli airstrikes have reduced Palestinian neighbors to expanses of rubble while doctors treat screaming children in darkened hospitals with no anesthesia. Across the Middle East, fear has spread over the possible outbreak of a broader regional war. But in the bloody arithmetic of Hamas's leader, the carnage is not the regrettable outcome of a big miscalculation. Quite the opposite, they say.

It is the necessary cost of a great accomplishment. The shattering of the status quo, and the opening of a new, more volatile chapter in their fight against Israel. Meaning, says to me, is that this is their intention. But this is, again, Hamas. But do you agree it's their intention? Yes, this is Hamas.

I sent you videos of the Egyptian guy who said Hamas built... Do you agree it's their intention? I think in some people in Hamas, yes. I do think Hamas is not a monolith. Whoever is receiving the money, yes. The armed wing made a decision, I think, outside of the political leadership. But yes, there are people inside Hamas who certainly do want this. But if that's what they want, then of course they're using human shields.

Because how are they going to get it without it? Well, okay. What do you mean're using human shields because how are they going to get it without it? Well, okay. What do you mean by using human shields? I'm saying... There are people living in this densely packed... Can you bring up the Gaza statistics? But hold on. That means that Hamas does not represent the people.

That means Hamas is the problem. So why did Netanyahu give them the money? Let's not jump over it. We can talk, but let's not jump over it. Okay, but you never answered my question about the hospital. I don't understand it. I literally don't understand it. Would Israel attack its own hospital?

Yeah, if there is a hospital with children, Israeli babies and children, and everybody in Hamas inside, would Israel attack it? Israel offered to take all the patients out. Israel offered to take the babies who were in incubators out, and they were turned down. By whom?

By Hamas. No, no. Yes, isn't it? You can't Google it. Okay, well, the only thing that's in there, I said that after that, that like we offered that we... But they have, as far as I understand it, I hope I don't make a schmuck out of myself,

they have not bombed al-Shifa. They have raided al-Shifa. The patients are still there. They've shelled floors of it, and snipers attacked it, and they raided it. The point... You know what? I don't want to say something that's incorrect. Can you bring up the Gaza population

one, Nicole? Just for the record. They always talk about how dense Gaza is. Do you mind bringing the children percentage as well, please, in Gaza? We know. We can stipulate.

It's about 50%. We know this. I think a little bit more than that. All right. Can you make it full screen? So Gaza population density is 36,000, I'm going to round it off, people per square mile. Manhattan is 72,000. Half that. Double that. Manhattan during the day

is 130,000. So it's almost four times that. Gaza Strip in total is 14,000. Much less. New York City is 29,000. And by the way, CNN,

I could have I could have, Wait, wait, wait. I could have, I could have, I'll think of something, just taking the best statistic for me, but actually, hold on. CNN.

This justifies what? This proves what? I'm answering your, you brought up the density. Yes, it's very dense. Hold on, I have one. So CNN says that Jerusalem is more dense than Gaza City. And the point is?

No, I'm asking you, so from that overview, we all live in Manhattan. We've all been to Jerusalem. How does the density figure into this? I'll tell you how. Because these people are packed into a tiny strip of land. They're not packed into a tiny strip of land. Well, let me explain to you how. How long would it take?

You'd drop 2,000 pound bombs on buildings. How tiny is Gaza? It's at least 25 miles and then 5 miles across. It's as big as Manhattan plus Bronx. Plus Hoboken. It's as far away... If Hamas came and dropped 2,000 bombs on New York City,

it'd be okay because... I know people who lived their whole lives and barely ever left Manhattan and the Bronx. Hold on. I want to be very clear. This is what I was afraid of. But what's the point? The life in Gaza is miserable.

Yeah. But not for the reasons of density. It has nothing to do with the density. Okay, well, the density is a background music. Cue the music. It's a fact. It's just a fact. But it's an irrelevant fact.

The misery comes from the blockade of the occupation. The misery comes from other things. From the blockade of the occupation. The misery comes from other things. From the blockade of the occupation, yes. So never mention the density again, because the density... No, it's not... It has... Unless you can illustrate to me

why the density matters. It shows how when you bomb a place, civilians are going to die no matter what. No, hold on. Please. On the contrary. If they're really all packed in shoulder to shoulder... They are.

Then to have so few people dying requires very, very careful bombing. This is not careful. You have two million people there shoulder to shoulder. How do you only kill? By the way, the reason it's even more dense is because not every- How many civilians died in Gaza? Hold on a second. Not every building is inhabited because so many buildings have been destroyed in previous Israeli massacres.

That doesn't make it dense. In previous Israeli massacres, which means you have generations of families living inside these little structures. How many civilians have died? In this current round of Israeli killings? Well, the official toll, as we're speaking, I'm sure it's outdated now, is over 11,000. Civilians?

Well, the health ministry does not distinguish. Why don't they distinguish? Because they treat everyone as equal being a part of Gaza because they all live there. Do you really buy that? If you look at the list— You really think that's the reason? You're a journalist. You're a journalist.

You believe that's the reason. Have you looked at the list? Answer me. You believe that's— You know that's not the reason. These are— Okay, listen. Come on.

Are you a journalist or not? Are you trying to imply that they're trying to hide the real number of militants who have been killed? Is that what you're saying? Of course. Okay. They don't want to distinguish. Okay.

Well, when I look at the list. Unless you have another reason. It's definitely not because they're egalitarian. What I have is a fact. The majority of people on that list are women and children. And so when I look at that list and you just look at it, you can scroll for it forever until you're. What percentage would you say are of civilians deaths? Okay.

Well, I haven't done a forensic account. We have no idea. Does it matter? What I've seen is countless videos of babies, infants, women and children, men being slaughtered in their homes. And it makes sense because these are civilians that Israel is attacking. And Gaza can't fight back.

They're a defenseless population being slaughtered. I think this would be a good time to say something. This would be a good time to say something to you. On October 9th, Dan was here, or 10th, I said to Brett Stevens, if Israel did nothing as a reprisal here, I would not say it was a bad idea. What's happening to the people of Gaza is, and we said at the beginning, but I just want to emphasize it because it can get lost in this conversation. I do not mean to minimize. I mean, every day I think about it, what if it was my family?

I get that. But like you want to correct the baby heads, and I respect that, I'm correcting the density stuff. It's the same thing. I'm saying, yes, I'm not saying, some people are saying the baby heads are actually saying it's a false flag. But many people are saying, listen, I'm not saying it's not terrible.

No, I don't understand your fixation with the density. Even if Gaza had the land mass of Canada, it wouldn't justify killing all these civilians. That's fine. I didn't bring up the density. Well, you did bring up the density. Hold on. Can I say something about the density? Hold on. You're up the density. Hold on. Can I say something about the density?

You're making an issue. Hold on. You know, when you compare Gaza to Manhattan or stuff like that, you understand that because of the air laws, they cannot build a building more than five floors versus you have here. How big is that?

So how many families can you put in one building? It's not what you think. It's not like they have 20 floors building. It doesn't happen. We could go around and around with various cities. Yeah, but I'm saying just when you say- It's 15,000 people per mile as opposed to Manhattan. Let's move on from the density.

Let's move on from the density. Now, can we bring up the Columbia Professor of International Law? Because I learned something from this. Is that from last episode? This is from, yeah. I look so good. Give me a second. All right.

So, look. Can we talk about Dan's meltdown for a second? It's a war. And in my opinion, it can... I've said this all along. You don't know that. I'm not signing on the dotted line for what Israel is doing. I don't know.

Nor will I rule out, because we've seen it on our own country, that certainly— Are you for certain soldiers may do things out of rage that will be a shame on the people? However, I don't see, I think, respectfully, I think the notion that because it's an occupying power or a blockading power, whatever you want to call it, I'm not trying to get cute, that Israel has to just sit and take it. Obviously, they don't. No, they don't. They can immediately end the occupation

and engage in good faith negotiations. They can engage in good... They can say, you know what? We've been occupying these people for more than 50 years. But people disagree about... And that's what I will not compromise on. We disagree about what...

There's no legal standard of good faith. Point is that everybody has an obligation to... Hold on a second. Let me get my statement out. One more point. Let me get my statement out. One more point, though. If Israeli leaders admit that the Oslo peace process

was founded on a neocolonial basis, if Yitzhak Rabin, who founded the Oslo peace process, said that he never wanted a Palestinian state, that's not good faith. It's not good faith. Okay. Barak certainly wanted it. When Barack... You can read about

the history. Barack left dejected from the... And Clinton left dejected. I have no sympathy for these people. It's their fault. And the Israeli people were dejected. Yeah, it's their fault. And Arafat was cheered. Yeah, he was cheered because

he turned down a sellout offer. After he sold out his people... And they began... Arafat was cheered. Yeah, he was cheered because he turned down a sellout offer. They didn't know what he turned down. After he sold out his people. And they began. Arafat is a sellout, but the one good thing he did was turning down camp David. And to your point about the potential for this to backfire, the pivotal event in modern Israeli history was the Second Intifada, which followed the end of the peace negotiations.

Second Intifada, as I've said, was really just a slow-rolling version. It went on for a number of years, a slow-rolling version of the same atrocity that Hamas committed here. And it's 100% Israel's fault. Whatever it is, I'm adjusting your point about backfiring.

You said that that is when Israel turned to the right. Yep. Well, even more to the right, yes. No, prior to that, you may be too young to understand, to know this, prior to that, 100,000 people turned out into Tel Aviv Square to support peace now. Yeah. So the country was completely different. I also lived through the Sadat chapter when hardline Israelis, and my father was one of them, burst into to renounce violence and try to live in a different way and approach Israel, listen. Why can't Israel renounce violence? Israel will not attack. Why do we demand Palestinians renounce violence but not Israel is occupying them? If you're being occupied, why should you renounce violence? Listen, and when they've tried, by the way, to be nonviolent, they get slaughtered.

Like the Great March of Return of Gaza in March 2018, which began then. Thousands of Palestinians demonstrating in Gaza. They got butchered. Nobody cared. When I was young, there were no checkpoints in the West Bank. All the checkpoints, or maybe virtually none. Yes. Everything changed when suicide bombing started.

No, not true. No, no, that is true. I lived through it. The checkpoints really began with the Oslo peace process, which was basically turning youth to PLO, who sold out their own people. But I'm going to grant you this. I'm going to grant you this.

It's much worse now, worse than it's ever been, because of the high reproductive rates and the outsized influence because of the Israeli system that the ultra-right religious people have. This is a terrible, this is where you and I will see eye to eye. And it's the inevitable result of trying to create an ethno-state. It is. I want to ask you two questions. Let's play this.

Play that, Nicole, if you don't mind. Let's basically talk about illegitimate, and I'll define what that means because I'm a lawyer, but illegitimate targets or means of attack. And so illegitimate targets, the quintessential illegitimate target is what is technically called a noncombatant, but we would just call a civilian.

So if you are deliberately attempting to kill civilians, to target civilians, to target civilians, to destroy civilian homes, to destroy civilian infrastructure, to do anything else to civilians, then you are committing a war crime. That does not mean that civilians and their property are immune from the dangers of war. That comes down to what's called a question of proportionality. And so that if the military is attempting to attack something that is a legitimate military target, right, so a weapons depot, a barracks, a military rallying point, are civilians nearby, those civilian, you don't have to not target that military target simply because civilians will be hurt in the process. That is euphemistically and I think unfortunately called collateral damage. But what that ultimately gets down to is the basic acceptance under international law that you know war is dangerous for all people and the

job of a military responsible military is to do their best to mitigate the dangers to civilians and so that comes down into what's called uh proportionality is the legal term for it and there the assessment is is the object is the military gain that we're going to have is this weapons cash is this barracks etc is destroying that does that outweigh the risk and to harm to people who are non-combatants to civilians that will result if we attack it and that's an incredibly subjective judgment to be perfectly frank it's a very difficult judgment it's a lot like asking whether or not this rock is as heavy as that rope is long right these are incommensurable questions civilian lives versus military advantages um i can tell you

just from having worked in the space for a long time israel historically is actually pretty conservative when it comes to civilian casualties and proportionalities they have a lot of process in this place as a joke using um military lawyers from the idf to evaluate every target that's such a joke process in this place as a joke using um military lawyers from the IDF to evaluate every Target that's attacked they use various um they're frankly much more conservative about civilian casualties than the United States is uh in similar um in similar particular uses of air power um the Israelis take all sorts of precautions that the United States does not use particularly something called um called roof knocking, where they'll drop essentially like a hand grenade on top of a roof of a building that's about to be bombed as kind of a warning to those inside to evacuate. And then they'll attack within an hour, essentially, after people have the opportunity to evacuate. of it so traditionally israel israel in these idf the israeli military um takes these proportionality

questions really quite seriously and has a very careful um at least process in place whether or not you like the outcome of that process or think that's weighed accurately or justly is i think a different question but to the extent that we're concerned about the law, the IDF is probably one of the most legalistic militaries in the world. And they're supervised. The lawyers in the military are actually even supervised by civilian parts of the government, including the Ministry of Justice. So they're actually outside the military chain of command. So they have this very robust tradition of taking international law very seriously, whether again again whether or not but historically one of the things israel does is after every strike they have essentially a separate audit of the strike uh by people who are essentially independent okay i can't account for whether that's yeah i think it's full of shit but he's but he's not a particularly pro-israel guy okay i don't care what is uh who he is full

of shit is not an argument okay well you know we should hold a second no one sentence go ahead he hasn't heard of the dahiya doctrine okayrine, okay, which was employed in Lebanon. It was described by IDF Commander Gadi Eisenkot as follows. We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective, these are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized. And that's what they did in Lebanon

where they just destroyed big parts of it because they couldn't defeat Hezbollah. So they took it out on the civilian population. That's what they've done their entire existence, massacring civilians. So everything he said there is false. It's a joke. It's an apologetic for mass murder.

I can't deny it because I don't know what you're referring to. I'll have to research it. But we should probably because we have to wrap it up soon. We should probably identify, you know, how they say you're not entitled to your own facts on your own opinions. We should try to get the same set of facts and then have a round two because it's not constructive if I say, you know, this happened. And that's why I try to say I've tried to reduce things. Let's take it for the sake of argument because once we agree on what we agree on for the sake of argument, then we say, aha, well, you said, like now, depending if, I believe, you don't care what they find in the hospital.

You think it's unjust because Israel has no business in there anyway. Well, yes, that is my opinion. Let's presume. And what I also know is they haven't found anything in the hospital. And what they put out was a joke. They've had to delete tweets. They claim there was a command center. Now they're changing their story.

By the time we meet again, that will be nailed down. But if Israel had the right, if this issue of occupation was not the issue, if this was just a hostile country on Israel's border, then am I reading you to say that you might support what Israel is doing now? Well, you... By the way, don't you support Russia

for similar grounds? No, I do not. No? Okay, I take that back. My argument on Russia is Russia had to exhaust all diplomatic options to avoid that invasion. Okay, fair enough. And I think Russia made an effort, but I don't think they've fully proven that they did everything they could to avoid military conflict. Because they were in a position where their allies inside Ukraine were being attacked for eight years, and Ukraine, with U.S. support, was refusing to implement the Minsk Accords.

You know what? I see this in you. You said they had to exhaust diplomatic options. It reminds me of they have to engage in good faith negotiations. The problem is, even if you exhaust diplomatic options or engage in good faith negotiations, that's not a guarantee you'll come to a deal. It's not a guarantee, but at least you can show that you tried.

And then at that point, if there are no options left, then you can say, okay, we have to use military force. But by the way, even if there were no, I do not support massacring civilians as Israel is doing.

Even if it were attacked by a military. But we don't really know how many civilians are being massacred. It's a lot of civilians. We know civilians are dying, but we don't know if this is more or less than a typical war. This isn't a war. This is a military. But we don't really know how many civilians are being massacred. It's a lot of civilians. We know civilians are dying, but we don't know if this is more or less than a typical war.

This is a massacre. Hamas isn't dropping bombs on Israel. They don't have an air force. They don't even really have air defense. They have nothing. Well, they built a city.

You've said that you believe that blood is their strategy here. In some members of Hamas, yes. I think they're criminally stupid. Right, but if you believe that, then you at least have to discount

what you're saying by the fact that if that's their strategy, then they are getting Israel to do this. Yes. But Israel is still making the choice to do it. You can't have it both ways. Yes, you can. Even though some people in Hamas might think it's to their benefit,

Israel still has a responsibility to obey the laws of war. And actually, he said that in the show as well, is like the fact that Israel is supposed to hold itself not to Hamas. I think we should all be charitable enough to say that if you are in a pretty unique position as a country fighting a war. Not a war. Just allow me. Fighting a war against a country whose goal is to have their civilians die.

Not the country. Hamas. Whatever. A little militia force. If you're fighting a militia. In you are fighting, I was taking for the sake of argument, presuming it was a hostile country on your board. Okay. Whatever it is, if you find yourself in a battle with a people who are in charge, whose goal is, which is unlike basically any war I've ever heard of, they're fighting a war with with decision makers who want

them to kill as many of their own people as possible. That is a pretty difficult position to be in as a nation. But I tell you one thing, why this argument is not correct. You don't see any logic in what I'm saying. I tell you why. But neither of you see any?

They're both the same. That's amazing. Listen to what I'm trying to say. Whatever Israel is doing right now is not working. Am I wrong? I don't know if it's working or it's not working. I mean, look how many people are dying and how many, like, it's not, you're not getting I don't know if it'll work or it won't work. First of all, the whole, you know,

What they were doing before wasn't working, was it? Well, definitely wasn't working when they were like allowing Hamas to get the money. But, you know, Let's put it this they were like allowing Hamas to get the money. Let's put it this way. What Hamas is doing is not working. The motives of Hamas are irrelevant to the requirements of Israel. And it has no right to bomb civilians for the sake of... No matter what Hamas wants. Do they have a right to bomb military

targets even if civilians get killed? No, they do not. Well, that's incorrect. No, they do not. They would if they were actually being attacked as was happening on October 7th. So we had no right to bomb Japan after Pearl Harbor. I don't, to drop an atomic bomb.

Not an atomic bomb. To, yes, to, yes, because that's a nation state. Yes. So this all comes down to,

the U.S. wasn't occupying Japan. But I asked, my question was to you, my question to you was, if Hamas was an independent nation, would you support what Israel's doing? I would not support them massacring civilians as they're doing. I would support them going after military—

Would you support us going to Japan? Do you really believe we killed fewer civilians in Japan than Israel's killing in— I never said that. But I'm saying, why would you support Japan? Okay, hold on a second. Why would you support retaliation in Japan? I don't want to debate World War II. No, we're not debating World War II. I'm making an analogy.

There were alternatives to the U.S. dropping an atomic bomb. I'm not talking about the atom bomb. I'm talking about the retaliation. If the U.S. is attacked by Japan, the U.S. has every right to strike Japan back. And Israel? And if Israel was attacked by, let's say, I don't know, Jordan right now. Hamas.

Hamas, if Gaza was a separate country. Because in the moment when Hamas is attacking, Israel has a right to defend its civilians. After that operation is put down, which it was, Israel has no right to attack territory it's occupying. Fair enough. Dude. Zilch.

We're as close to Brooklyn as Israel is to Gaza. Japan was fucking on the other side of the world. Uh-huh. Yeah. We felt it was necessary for, and you support. The U.S. wasn't occupying Japan. Right, but we were taking it for the sake of, Aaron.

I'm sorry. We were having a conversation. That's my argument, the occupation. We had accepted for the sake of argument that Gaza was a separate country, that there was no occupation. Okay. I was asking you. In that case, fine, yes.

So you would support Israel if not for the occupation? I would support their right to obey the laws of war, which they're not doing. Yes, but they would have the right to self-defense. Yes, they would. And they would, including killing civilians by trying to get the tunnels? If laws of war allow— Of course the law of war is a war attack. Allow for some quote-unquote collateral damage, yes, but this isn't collateral damage.

This is a massacre. You think they're targeting civilians? Yes. Do you have any evidence for that? Well, I'm not in the control room. But you're a journalist. You're saying it. If Israel repeatedly— You're a journalist and you're saying it.

Yes, I am saying it. Based on what? Based on the preponderance of dead bodies who are piling up every single day. In a country of two million people piled on top of each other, it's pretty few bodies for indiscriminate bombing, isn't it? How do you target civilians that only kill 10,000 in total, including the terrorists? The official toll is 11,000.

We drop more bombs on Gaza than we dropped in Afghanistan. Israel got more bombs, not we. Israel dropped more bombs in Gaza than we dropped in Afghanistan. We've killed 11,000 people, some percentage of those civilians. We're not counting the... In the densest place there is.

We're not counting the people buried under the rubble. And you think they're targeting civilians? Absolutely. They're terrible targets. I think if Israel targets civilians, there'll be hundreds of thousands of dead. No? Can I talk now? We're not counting the people under the rubble, first of all. Second of all, Israel has bombed power infrastructure, power plants, sewage plants. That's going after

the civilian population, trying to make their life miserable. Well, it is. They're trying to inflict damage on the civilian population, which they've always done. And, yes. You're changing the subject. I'm sure in the targeting room they say to themselves, okay, yeah, here there might be a Hamas militant in the Jabali refugee camp. There's one guy. Yes, there's all these other civilians there.

I think it's evil. And everybody signs off on it, including the lawyers. They say it's okay. Yes. Wink, wink. Yes. And the signs off on it, including the lawyers. They say it's okay. Yes. Wink, wink. Yes. And the U.S. is, you know. You think they just want to kill Arabs.

Yes, and they say it. These Israeli officials talking about let's cause a second Nakba. These people are human animals. There's no distinction between civilians and Hamas. This is stuff they've all said. It's from their mouth. I mean, these are sadistic monsters. Gideon Levy used the term human animals. Okay, well, that's Gideon Levy. He was talking about Hamas. This is stuff they've all said. It's from their mouth. These are sadistic monsters. Gideon Levy used the term human animals.

He was talking about Hamas. Gallant had two quotes. One time he said, we're fighting animals. And one time he said, we're fighting animals, Hamas. There are outrageously disgusting people out there, like we have in our country,

like we certainly have in our country, like we certainly have in other countries, who say horrible things. I could play you now 20 minutes of Arab leaders saying the most disgusting things. I could play you just from a few months ago when Abbas said that Hitler killed the Jews because they were charging interest. Yeah. Abbas doesn't have one of the most powerful armies in the world. I don't care, you know. Sure. We can cherry pick a quote here and there

or somebody who says something to be ashamed of. Israel has weapons to actually make their genocide a rhetoric. Yeah, I have two questions before we go quickly, and then we can go. We're going to go to our facts, and we'll do it again. All right. For both. And no fair.

He's been getting outside help. That's not true. Yeah, I don't lie. I've been using Google. I've been using Google on my phone. I would have given you my laptop. I He's been getting outside help. That's not true. Yeah, don't lie. I've been using Google. I've been using Google on my phone. I would have given you my laptop. I'd love to have outside help. You could have given me my laptop.

I'll bring it next time. Yeah. I'll promote you. Let's do a round. I wish I'd known you wanted to talk about 1967. I would have cared. Well, you tweeted about it yesterday. I guarantee you the next time we're not going to talk about 1997.

We're going to talk about it right now. But here's two things for you, Norm, questions. Okay. I promise I will let you do it. Sure. But it's funny you say that because in the end, your whole argument actually rests on 1967 because you see the occupation

as probably the critical difference in what Israel is doing and what they could do, and that all comes down to 67. 67 plus the ethnic cleansing of 48. Well, that's not the occupation. That's the ethnic cleansing, yes. Yeah, but you think the occupation is of paramount legal matters. Absolutely, yes.

So that comes down to 67. And if Israel might, if one were to argue that Israel was the victim in 67, rather than the aggressor. If you wanted to apologize for them taking over territory, yes, you would say that. Then, so it is... And even if they were the victim, why do they still have that land? We're talking about 56 years ago.

No, all I'm saying is that when you said, I know we're talking about 67, I'm like, well, 67 is actually at the heart of your argument. Okay, yes, it is. So we're going to have to resolve the issue of whose forces

were on the Egyptian border first, which we'll do next. But it still wouldn't justify Israel holding on to that land. I bought so many books on this, I'm going to lend them all to you. I'm going to give you my answer. Okay, and I'm going to give you the...

I won't read it. The Iron Wall, but it's a promise. I won't read it. Yeah, just guys, when you CC each other in email, don't CC me. So, you know, again, everything that's happening, you know, in the past or whatever, even if it's the worst people ever,

does not justify what's going on now. Two questions for you quickly. One, I haven't heard you saying anything about Israeli responsibility for leaving Hamas, giving them power, all that. There's no blame at all at that part because obviously Hamas caused this for the Palestinian and Israeli.

It's almost like it's their own interest to keep Hamas. And the other question, so you can answer both, are you for ceasefire or no? Because I think right now nothing is working. Okay, so question one. I did. And the other question, so you can answer both, are you for ceasefire or no? Because I think right now, nothing is working. Okay, so question one. I did an interview the other day with a guy named Spire, I think his name is Jonathan Spire, who has written a lot about

this Netanyahu quote. It's not a confirmed quote, but I don't doubt he said something like that. And this whole issue of Hamas propping up about—Jesus Christ, I can't even focus—of Netanyahu propping up Gaza and propping up Hamas is very complex. He was criticized both from the left and the right in Israel for it, for different reasons. The idea of giving money to a hostile power to keep them calm is a strategy kind of like the Iran deal.

You know, it's a strategy which left-wing people often imagine. The idea of Netanyahu doing it to avoid a two-state solution is also certainly possible that Netanyahu wants to avoid a two-state solution forever it's possible that Netanyahu is so skeptical of any chances for a two-state solution given what his read is on the Arab world and his quotes about him on this that he doesn't want to get sucked into that and he thinks it's better. Or there's another option that he was just,

wants to prop up, prop up. He wanted to give money to Hamas to keep them calm and was justifying it to his far right base in terms of throwing them red meat. In other words, saying, listen, are you really going to oppose me on this? Don't you know, you never want a two-state solution this? Don't you know you never want a two-state solution? Don't you know you'll never have a two-state solution

so long as Hamas is there? So where the truth lies on that, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea. I had John Putt-Hartson here years ago, and I asked him, because he kind of, I think... But just the fact that he allowed Hamas to exist there, knowing everything that you bring out. Well, he can't stop Hamas from existing.

This is what it looks like to stop Hamas from existing. Yeah, and also, but it is true that from Hamas' inception, Israel recognized that propping up Hamas would undermine the PLO and undermine their calls for a Palestinian state. Well, there's no PLO anymore, but why do you feel that? But what I'm saying is from the start of Hamas, which is 1988, Israel adopted a strategy of propping up. I've been talking for four hours. What was the second question? Ceasefire. Because I think, as I said, right now nothing is working,

and this is bad for everybody. I take the Bernie Sanders position. No ceasefire. No, I think anything for humanitarian reasons, why would I not support that? I don't know to what extent humanitarian pauses are still needed, and more so now that Israel is in charge. They say Gaza's collapsed in the north.

Now that Israel's supposedly in charge of the north, I think Israel should immediately let out the stops on help for these poor, suffering people. A ceasefire, meaning what? It meant to negotiate with Hamas for what? Hamas has to go. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one side, you're saying, Hamas should have never been there to begin with.

And now you're saying, we should have a ceasefire, which means Hamas will stay. Well, a ceasefire really means there's one side that's really firing. But if it's a ceasefire, which means Hamas will stay. Well, ceasefire really means there's one side is really firing. But if it's a ceasefire, it means Hamas will stay. But you just finished telling us that Hamas should go. Hamas is not going to go voluntarily. No, I know they should go. How are they going to go?

Well, Munich style. I said that before. How is Hamas going to go? They're going to go through a war or whatever, a military action, whatever you want to call it. You're literally speaking from both sides of your mouth. No, no, I'm not. First of action, whatever you want to call it. Well, you're speaking, you're literally speaking from both sides of your mouth. No, no, I'm not. First of all,

ceasefire meaning all the fire, one side have a lot of fire that's firing. One side, we see the damage here, we see the damage. What happens after a ceasefire?

Come on. How does Hamas go? Israel has to go too because Israel, yes, because Israel's the occupying power. Israel's got to go. What has to happen

is the occupation has to, the occupation has to end. First of all, there has to be a negotiation over release of hostages, captives, free all the civilians who are being held by Hamas, free all the civilians who are being held by Israel. Aaron, I'm going to give you the last word to make a three-minute thing, whatever you want to say, without interrupting you, because I interrupted you a lot.

So go ahead. Okay. Well, thanks, Norman. Listen. Nicole, are we off. Well, thanks, Norman. Listen. Nicole, are we off air? I'm just joking. They don't know him too well. I'm not going to take three minutes.

I appreciate being here. It's been a good discussion. The fundamental problem to me is the occupation. Occupiers don't have the right to defend themselves. They have the right, the obligation to end their occupation. And this is a massacre and it needs to stop now. And it could stop if the U.S. changes position rather than apologizing for Israel, rather than abetting it, rather than

arming it. Joe Biden could use the huge leverage that the U.S. has over Israel and demand that it stop. And then from there, demand that Israel give up its occupation. And as for Hamas, I'm sure the leadership would be happy to negotiate their way into exile if that would ever be possible. But regardless, I'm not concerned with... My fundamental problem is not with how people resist occupation. It's on how occupiers act. And this occupier Israel has to stop.

They're a danger to themselves. They're a danger to everybody else. The biggest threat to Israel's long-term security is Israel itself and its expansionist occupation. And until they give that up, they're going to face more death and destruction for themselves and for everybody else. And it has to end. And already you're asking Palestinians to accept a major compromise in 22% of their land, which some Palestinians have accepted, some haven't. But the minimum Israel could do is accept that compromise because, by the way, it's also what the rest of the world supports. The world consensus is a two-state solution on the 1967 borders.

That's what the Arab states have offered Israel. That's what Iran endorsed. That's what Hamas even once endorsed. That could still be possibly revived. And even that would be unjust because you would still perpetuate this ethno-supremacist state where Jews have more rights than everybody else. And that's not something I believe in. But to me, that's the compromise position to allow that. Would you make any allowances to Israel for security, given the fact that jihadi groups are out there? Yeah, they'd have security guarantees.

That would have to be part of any treaty. Guaranteed. Israel doesn't recognize its own borders. Netanyahu said that we claim the land of all of Israel, which he means is the West Bank and Gaza. So Israel has to

recognize its own borders, which is the borders the world recognizes and Gaza. So Israel has to recognize its own borders, which is the borders the world recognizes, not the occupied territories. And then from there it can have true security. Aaron, I have some common ground with you, but there's just, we have to end, but there's two problems. One is that jihad, people like Iran.

Do you think if... The worst jihadists are in Tel Aviv. I can't believe I didn't ask you this earlier. If Hamas had had a dirty bomb, do you think they... The worst jihadists are in Tel Aviv. I can't believe I didn't ask you this earlier. If Hamas had had a dirty bomb, do you think they would have used it? Against Israel? Yeah. What's the point of this hypothetical? Well, the point of the hypothetical is that

so long as Iran exists and is developing nuclear... They're not developing nuclear weapons. No, and they're developing nuclear materials. Yeah. You don't need a nuclear bomb to have a dirty bomb. And so long as the jihadi fever exists in the world. What about the Zionist fever? Fair enough. So long as that exists, any deal that Israel makes with a leader, a dictator, these are dictators, is only worth the piece of paper that it's written on.

Because if he's assassinated tomorrow and Hamas takes over, then everything resets except now Israel is this narrow. And now you have a sovereign nation. Hold on. Now you have a sovereign nation allied with Iran who's developing nuclear energy and with the capacity possibly if they kept going for nuclear weapons, which they don't have now. Well, listen, jihad, you recognize that jihad has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Arab world over the last 10 years, maybe a million. Well, yeah, with the support of us and also Israel. But I'm saying so Israel supported jihad in Syria.

But I'm saying that they still have the appetite for, I think it's a million deaths. 50,000 terrorist attacks, something crazy like that over the last 10 years. In the Arab world. And we did the Iraq War, which killed over a million people.

We did Libya, we did Syria. But at which killed over a million people. We did Libya. We did Syria. We didn't kill over a million people in the Iraq War. But at some point, I'm just wondering if you understand that no matter how firmly you believe that the history of Israel is one of oppression and conquest, however you want to put it, no matter how Israel got here, Israel's enemies are dangerous to it. And... Israel is dangerous to it.

You can't actually expect them to just put their head on a guillotine and hold that... Okay, we have to go. Hold on, hold on. Israel bombed Syria. Israel's invaded Lebanon. We have to go.

Israel is a threat. Israel is a threat. Let me end 30 seconds, and then we're going to end. One, stop making jihadis by killing all these people. They become jihadis. I think jihad existed outside of Israel. Because there always was.

We created bin Laden. Yes, you did, actually. Israel? Not Israel. Not Israel. But anyway, life in America, this is the best thing I like about debate. Nobody ever say, yeah, you're right. It doesn't happen.

He said I was right. So maybe around too soon. Aaron said I was right, I heard. Live from America podcast. Thank you.