Norman Finkelstein
speaker
305 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Mar 2024
last heard Mar 2024
Norman Finkelstein’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
Allocated to the Palestinians, yes. Thank you for the clarification. Now, about Arafat. Liked the mufti, never liked the guy. I think that was one of the only disagreements Muin and I had when Arafat passed. You were a little sentimental, I was not. Never liked the guy. But politics, you don't have to like the guy.
There was no question, nobody argues it, that whenever the negotiations started up, the Palestinians just kept saying the same things. No. No. They kept saying no. No. Professor Morris, with due respect, incorrect. They kept saying international legitimacy, international law, UN resolutions. They said, we already gave you what the law required.
We gave that in 1988, November 1988, and then ratified again at Oslo in 1993. And they said, now we want what was promised us under international law. And that was the one point where everybody on the other side agreed. Clinton, don't talk to me about international law. Livni during the Omar administration. She said, I studied international law. I don't believe in international law.
Every single member on the other side, they didn't want to hear from international law. And to my thinking, that that is the only reasonable baseline for trying to resolve the conflict.
That's why the Palestinians have to recognize Israel, because that's international law. But international law is meaningless. That was UN Resolution 242.
Professor Morris, for argument's sake—let's agree on that, strictly for argument's sake—what's the alternative? Dennis Ross said, we're going to decide who gets what on the basis of needs. So he says, Israel needs this, Israel needs that, Israel needs that. Dennis Ross decided to be the philosopher king. He's going to decide on the basis of needs.
Well, if you asked me, since Gaza is one of the densest places on earth, it needs a good chunk.
It needs a nice big chunk. Of Sinai. That's what it actually needs. Okay, I don't even want to go there. It needs a nice big chunk, but I have to accept international law says no. International law is irrelevant. Now, Benjamin says, I think the Israeli offer was reasonable. And he's a reasonable guy. You know that. Okay, I know I'm going to go there. I've debated him, and partly I agree with you.
But who decides what's reasonable? I think the international community in its political incarnation, the General Assembly, the Security Council, all those UN Security Council resolutions saying the settlements are illegal, annexation of East Jerusalem is null and void. and the International Court of Justice. That to me is a reasonable standard.
And by that standard, the Palestinians were asked to make concessions, which I consider unreasonable, or the international community considers unreasonable.
Half a million people are- Jerusalem, not settlements. I know that, but that's not what the law. The law calls it null and void.
Muin has an interesting point. I know you want to forget it, just like you want to forget the genocide charge. I know you want to forget that.
But here's the problem, and it's exactly the problem that Muin just brought up. Now, I read carefully your book, One State, Two States. With all due respect, absolutely a disgrace. Coming from you, coming from you. Most reviewers didn't agree with you. Yeah. Coming from you was like you wrote it in your sleep. It's nothing compared to what you wrote before. I don't know why you did it.
In my opinion, you ruined your reputation. Not totally, but you undermined it with that book. But let's get to the issue that Muin wrote. Here's what you said. You said formally, you said, yes, it's true. The Palestinians recognize Israel. But then you said viscerally in their hearts, they didn't really recognize Israel.
So I thought to myself, how does Professor Morrison know what's in the hearts of Palestinians? I don't know. I was surprised as a historian you would be talking about what's lurking in the hearts of Palestinians. But then you said something which was really interesting.
You said, even if in their hearts they accepted Israel, you said, quote, rationally, they could never accept Israel because they got nothing. They had this beautiful Palestine, and now they're reduced to just a few pieces, a few parcels of land. So they will never accept it. Yes. This is true. There's no way they can accept it.
The two-state solution, as proposed, doesn't make any sense. Exactly as Muin said, you keep moving the goalposts until we reach the point where we realize, according to Benny Morris, there can't be a solution. So why don't you just say that outright? Why don't you say it outright? According to you, the Palestinians can never be reasonable. Because according to you... They want all of Palestine.
According to you, they couldn't possibly agree to a two-state settlement because it's such a lousy settlement. Because they want all of Palestine. But you said rationally they couldn't accept it. Not their feelings. It's voting. You said rational. You went from formally, viscerally, rationally. So now we're reaching the point where, according to Benny Morris...
The Palestinians can't be reasonable because reasonably they have to reject two states. They want all of Palestine. Nui is absolutely correct. There's no way to resolve the problem according to your logic.
That's what he's saying.
Showing 221–240 of 305 · page 12 of 16
← Previous
Next →