Norman Finkelstein

because the Arab population rationally feared territorial displacement and dispossession, it of course opposed Zionism. That's as normal as Native Americans opposing the Euro-American manifest destiny in the history of our own country, because they understood it would be at their expense It was inbuilt and inevitable.

And so now for you to come along and say that it all happened just because of the war, that otherwise the Zionists made all these plans for a happy minority to live there, That simply does not gel. It does not cohere. It is not reconcilable with what you yourself have written. It was inevitable and inbuilt. Now, in other situations you've said, that's true, but I think it was a greater good.

And so now for you to come along and say that it all happened just because of the war, that otherwise the Zionists made all these plans for a happy minority to live there, That simply does not gel. It does not cohere. It is not reconcilable with what you yourself have written. It was inevitable and inbuilt. Now, in other situations you've said, that's true, but I think it was a greater good.

And so now for you to come along and say that it all happened just because of the war, that otherwise the Zionists made all these plans for a happy minority to live there, That simply does not gel. It does not cohere. It is not reconcilable with what you yourself have written. It was inevitable and inbuilt. Now, in other situations you've said, that's true, but I think it was a greater good.

to establish a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. That's another kind of argument. That was Theodore Roosevelt's argument in our own country. He said, we don't want the whole of North America to remain a squalid refuge for these wigwams and teepees. We have to get rid of them and make this a great country. But he didn't deny it. that it was inbuilt and inevitable.

to establish a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. That's another kind of argument. That was Theodore Roosevelt's argument in our own country. He said, we don't want the whole of North America to remain a squalid refuge for these wigwams and teepees. We have to get rid of them and make this a great country. But he didn't deny it. that it was inbuilt and inevitable.

to establish a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous population. That's another kind of argument. That was Theodore Roosevelt's argument in our own country. He said, we don't want the whole of North America to remain a squalid refuge for these wigwams and teepees. We have to get rid of them and make this a great country. But he didn't deny it. that it was inbuilt and inevitable.

There's some misunderstandings here. So let's try to clarify that. Number one, it was the old historians who would point to the fact, in Professor Morris's terminology, the old historians, what he called not real historians, he called them chroniclers, not real historians. It was the old Israeli historians who denied the centrality of transfer in Zionist thinking.

There's some misunderstandings here. So let's try to clarify that. Number one, it was the old historians who would point to the fact, in Professor Morris's terminology, the old historians, what he called not real historians, he called them chroniclers, not real historians. It was the old Israeli historians who denied the centrality of transfer in Zionist thinking.

There's some misunderstandings here. So let's try to clarify that. Number one, it was the old historians who would point to the fact, in Professor Morris's terminology, the old historians, what he called not real historians, he called them chroniclers, not real historians. It was the old Israeli historians who denied the centrality of transfer in Zionist thinking.

It was then Professor Morris who, contrary to Israel's historian establishment, who said, now you remind me it's four pages, but it came at the end of the book. It was- No, no, it's at the beginning of the book. Transfer. Yes, transfer is dealt with in four pages at the beginning of my first book on the Palestinian refugee problem. It's a fault of my memory, but the point still stands.

It was then Professor Morris who, contrary to Israel's historian establishment, who said, now you remind me it's four pages, but it came at the end of the book. It was- No, no, it's at the beginning of the book. Transfer. Yes, transfer is dealt with in four pages at the beginning of my first book on the Palestinian refugee problem. It's a fault of my memory, but the point still stands.

It was then Professor Morris who, contrary to Israel's historian establishment, who said, now you remind me it's four pages, but it came at the end of the book. It was- No, no, it's at the beginning of the book. Transfer. Yes, transfer is dealt with in four pages at the beginning of my first book on the Palestinian refugee problem. It's a fault of my memory, but the point still stands.

It was Professor Morris who introduced this idea in what you might call a big way.

It was Professor Morris who introduced this idea in what you might call a big way.

It was Professor Morris who introduced this idea in what you might call a big way.

I'm not quoting a part, I'm quoting 25 pages where Professor Morris was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. You say it never became part of the official Zionist platform. It never became part of policy.

I'm not quoting a part, I'm quoting 25 pages where Professor Morris was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. You say it never became part of the official Zionist platform. It never became part of policy.

I'm not quoting a part, I'm quoting 25 pages where Professor Morris was at great pains to document the claim that appeared in those early four pages of his book. You say it never became part of the official Zionist platform. It never became part of policy.

We're also asked, well, if this is true, why did that happen? Why did that happen? It's because it's a very simple fact, which everybody understands. Ideology doesn't operate in a vacuum. There are real-world practical problems. You can't just take an ideology and superimpose it on a political reality and turn it into a fact. It was the British mandate.