Benjamin Moser - Interview Transcript

Title: Anti-Zionism: Does the History Hold Up? | Benjamin Moser | Live From the Table
 
(0:00) Fasten your seat belts, everybody. I'm
 
(0:02) about to play you the interview I just
 
(0:04) did with Benjamin Moser, the author of
 
(0:06) the new book Anti-Zionism.
 
(0:10) This interview did not go as I hoped it
 
(0:13) would. The book is not a book about the
 
(0:16) Gaza War or about the quote unquote
 
(0:18) genocide. It's a book about Zionism. It
 
(0:22) contains, I think, 12 different chapters
 
(0:24) of vignettes. Each one depicts a famous
 
(0:28) or important Zionist, anti-ionist, or a
 
(0:32) portion of Zionist history.
 
(0:35) And
 
(0:37) I did research on every one of these
 
(0:39) chapters. I found that the book was
 
(0:41) filled with what I consider to be um
 
(0:44) significant mistakes. And I took them up
 
(0:47) with him and then the the thing kind of
 
(0:50) went off the rails. Um, in my opinion,
 
(0:55) if you do a scholarly book and you're
 
(0:57) trying to make an important case,
 
(0:59) especially at a time like this, it's
 
(1:01) fine to argue whatever you want, but it
 
(1:04) has to be based on reliable and true
 
(1:06) facts. And you can watch the interview
 
(1:09) and decide whether or not his book is
 
(1:12) based on reliable and true facts. I know
 
(1:17) quite often I'm accused of nitpicking.
 
(1:21) I have a certain way of looking at
 
(1:22) things and a certain uh importance that
 
(1:24) I attach to important facts. Not every
 
(1:28) fact, but important facts being true.
 
(1:32) Obviously, some people can disagree, but
 
(1:34) in this case, I just want to emphasize
 
(1:35) again, this is not a book about the Gaza
 
(1:38) war. Anybody who watches my show knows I
 
(1:40) am not afraid to debate the Gaza war.
 
(1:43) This is a book about anti-ionists
 
(1:46) mostly. and I questioned him on his
 
(1:50) depictions of them. And by the way, if
 
(1:52) you take the time to watch any of his
 
(1:55) other interviews, you will see that the
 
(1:57) main things he talks about on those
 
(1:59) other interviews are the very same
 
(2:02) subjects that I question him about.
 
(2:04) Having said that, please let me know
 
(2:06) what you think. Without further ado, as
 
(2:09) they say, here is my interview with
 
(2:11) Benjamin Moser.
 
(2:15) And now this is live from the table, the
 
(2:19) official podcast of the world famous
 
(2:20) comedy seller. Dan Natman is back
 
(2:24) and I have with me Nome Dorman, owner of
 
(2:27) the world famous comedy seller. Perry
 
(2:30) Ashenbrand is also with us in studio and
 
(2:33) via Zoom. All the way from where you
 
(2:36) from? England.
 
(2:37) >> Portugal.
 
(2:38) >> You're in Portugal. All the way.
 
(2:40) >> All the way from Portugal. We have with
 
(2:43) us Benjamin Moser. Pulitzer prize winner
 
(2:46) for his biography uh sag her life and
 
(2:49) work uh also author of the upside down
 
(2:52) world meetings with the Dutch masters.
 
(2:54) His latest book Anti-Zionism a Jewish
 
(2:56) history is causing uh causing some
 
(2:59) controversy. We have him here with us
 
(3:01) and I hope you weren't expecting a light
 
(3:03) and fluffy interview because Noom if you
 
(3:05) know anything about him is something of
 
(3:07) a pitbull. But it's all in the spirit of
 
(3:09) debate and uh and and amicality, if
 
(3:13) that's a word.
 
(3:14) >> Amicability.
 
(3:15) >> Amicability.
 
(3:16) >> Something like that. All right. Welcome
 
(3:18) to the show. Uh Benjamin Moser.
 
(3:21) >> Thank you. Thanks for having me.
 
(3:22) >> All right. This this interview has given
 
(3:24) me a lot of uh uh nerves. I get a lot of
 
(3:26) nerves. I I was telling him it's like
 
(3:27) having to take an exam in school. But
 
(3:29) this this issue is so important to me.
 
(3:31) And I read your book and I didn't really
 
(3:32) know how to approach the interview. And
 
(3:35) uh so you know I I do my best thinking
 
(3:37) in the shower. I talk about this. I
 
(3:39) don't know if if I'm the only one.
 
(3:41) >> Well, I do what I think is my best
 
(3:42) thinking in the shower. And then once
 
(3:43) I'm all dry, I'm like that was stupid.
 
(3:46) >> But then so then I I I I got out of the
 
(3:49) shower and I wrote some notes to myself.
 
(3:51) And actually this morning as I looking
 
(3:53) at them, I said, you know, maybe I
 
(3:55) should just read the notes. It's it's
 
(3:56) probably like three four minutes that
 
(3:58) you're going to have to take. It's going
 
(3:59) to sting. I want to warn you now. But
 
(4:00) then you're going to have every chance
 
(4:01) to to rebut and disabuse me. All right,
 
(4:05) >> I'm ready.
 
(4:06) >> This is what I wrote.
 
(4:07) >> I read much of your book and it took a
 
(4:09) while for me to figure out how I wanted
 
(4:11) to proceed with this interview. The
 
(4:12) book, in my humble opinion, I wrote
 
(4:14) IMHO, but I'll get your response
 
(4:17) contains many errors and half-truths.
 
(4:19) And yet, what would I accomplish with an
 
(4:21) interview pointing out simply errors?
 
(4:24) What you attempt to do here is to tear
 
(4:26) down all the pillars of the Zionist
 
(4:29) story and to essentially make the case
 
(4:31) that the founders of Zionism like Herzel
 
(4:34) were repulsive anti-semmites
 
(4:36) and that the people we thought were our
 
(4:38) instrumental heroes like Lord Balffor
 
(4:41) also repulsive anti-semites
 
(4:44) and that Israel has been nothing but a
 
(4:45) duplicitous wararmongering state from
 
(4:47) its inception. You present Zionism as
 
(4:49) the fruit of a poisonous tree and
 
(4:53) conclude I think that that tree needs to
 
(4:54) be chopped down.
 
(4:55) >> And the word again is amicability.
 
(4:59) >> He's he's right about all of this so
 
(5:01) far.
 
(5:04) >> And then it hit me what approach I want
 
(5:06) to take. I want to plead in the
 
(5:08) alternative in that's legal jargon that
 
(5:12) is it's not true and to the extent it is
 
(5:15) true why is it important? Since it is
 
(5:18) true, it doesn't matter anyway. We're
 
(5:19) still not guilty. And let me give you an
 
(5:21) example.
 
(5:23) The beloved 1619 project attacked
 
(5:26) Abraham Lincoln right between the eyes.
 
(5:28) And we all know that Lincoln can be
 
(5:30) quoted saying many racist things. It's
 
(5:33) true. But why is it important?
 
(5:37) The wiser student of history understands
 
(5:40) that people must be judged within their
 
(5:41) own times. Black Americans at that time
 
(5:44) mourned Lincoln's death.
 
(5:47) Just as Jews deeply involved in the
 
(5:49) Zionist cause who knew him in detail
 
(5:51) warmly admired Balffor
 
(5:54) both Lincoln and Balffor shared many of
 
(5:56) the widespread prejudices of their day.
 
(5:59) The genius the visionary stands on
 
(6:01) tiptoe and sees only a bit above the
 
(6:04) heads of his peers. And that's what
 
(6:06) makes him great and that's what moves
 
(6:08) history. Should we demand and expect
 
(6:11) Lincoln or Balffor to have been
 
(6:12) impervious to the attitudes around them?
 
(6:15) It's meaningless to reduce them to what
 
(6:17) made them ordinary. What should occupy
 
(6:20) us is what made them extraordinary.
 
(6:23) Moserism,
 
(6:25) I coined a phrase in in your honor. I've
 
(6:27) concluded from your book is the belief
 
(6:29) that the people who did right by us, the
 
(6:31) Jewish people, Balffor and even Herzel,
 
(6:35) you don't mention Truman, but I can
 
(6:36) imagine Truman will be on your list, are
 
(6:38) the actual anti-semmites,
 
(6:41) while Arab hostility towards the Jews is
 
(6:43) simply a reasonable response to
 
(6:45) provocation.
 
(6:47) In the Mosarian view, the men who helped
 
(6:50) us must be judged not by their actions,
 
(6:52) but by their prejudices.
 
(6:54) But those who attacked us had their good
 
(6:57) reasons. And sometimes we should even be
 
(6:59) grateful they didn't do worse.
 
(7:01) As I was formulating all this, it
 
(7:03) occurred to me, it's like a flash, like
 
(7:06) I'm so happy. It occurred to me to look
 
(7:08) up Frederick Frederick Douglas's opinion
 
(7:11) of Abraham Lincoln. He was a
 
(7:12) contemporary. And lo and behold, this is
 
(7:15) what I found. I quote here from his 1876
 
(7:18) memorial address for Lincoln. And then
 
(7:20) I'm winding up.
 
(7:23) Lincoln Douglas said he was preeminently
 
(7:26) the white man's president entirely
 
(7:28) devoted to the welfare of white men.
 
(7:30) Though link though Mr. Lincoln shared
 
(7:32) the prejudices of his white fellow
 
(7:34) countrymen against the negro. It is
 
(7:36) hardly necessary to say that in his
 
(7:38) heart of hearts he loathed and hated
 
(7:40) slavery.
 
(7:42) The man who could say fondly do we hope
 
(7:45) fervently do we pray that this mighty
 
(7:47) scourge of war shall soon pass away. Yet
 
(7:49) if God wills it continue till all the
 
(7:52) wealth piled up by 200 years of bondage
 
(7:54) shall have been wasted and each drop of
 
(7:56) blood drawn by the lash shall have been
 
(7:58) paid for by one drawn by the sword. The
 
(8:01) judgments of the Lord are true and
 
(8:02) righteous altogether.
 
(8:05) This gives us all the needed proof of
 
(8:07) his feeling on the subject of slavery.
 
(8:10) And yet, Douglas concluded, infinite
 
(8:12) wisdom has seldom sent any man into the
 
(8:16) world better fitted for his mission than
 
(8:18) Abraham Lincoln. So, in this interview,
 
(8:21) I want to focus both on what's true,
 
(8:23) what these people actually believed, but
 
(8:25) also much more importantly, why does it
 
(8:28) matter to us today?
 
(8:31) So, I I spoke a long time. I'll let you
 
(8:33) respond to that opening salvo, and then
 
(8:35) we can get into the into the weeds.
 
(8:37) Well, it's hard to know where to begin.
 
(8:40) Um, as I think you probably had a hard
 
(8:42) time knowing where to begin when you
 
(8:44) were in the shower. Um, first of all,
 
(8:46) >> I usually begin with the uh with the
 
(8:48) underarms.
 
(8:50) >> Right. It's good. Yeah. Lather yourself
 
(8:52) up. I'm not very lthered right now, but
 
(8:55) I will I will work myself into a bit of
 
(8:57) a lather to compare uh at the comparison
 
(9:00) of Abraham Lincoln. And I'm not sure
 
(9:02) whom you are comparing him to. Are you
 
(9:04) comparing him to Balffor or to Herzel?
 
(9:07) I'm comparing him to nobody in
 
(9:09) particular. I'm saying that Lincoln said
 
(9:11) horrifying things about black people.
 
(9:14) >> Well, Lincoln didn't really say that
 
(9:16) many horrible things about black people.
 
(9:17) I mean, 1619 1619 felt he
 
(9:21) >> but that's Go ahead.
 
(9:23) >> I'm not a 16 I'm not a woke person and
 
(9:26) you know I don't I I think that you can
 
(9:28) you can indeed hold two truths in your
 
(9:31) head. Um, but I think that the examples
 
(9:33) you're choosing are not the right
 
(9:35) examples for your own case, not for my
 
(9:37) case. Balffor was electrically
 
(9:41) anti-semitic. Um, he thought the Jews
 
(9:44) were revolting. He wanted to get rid of
 
(9:46) them. Um, his solution that he proposed,
 
(9:50) which was giving the Jews a country that
 
(9:53) was not his to give and was not a Jewish
 
(9:56) country. it was 95 to 97% non-Jewish at
 
(9:59) the time that Zionist colonization
 
(10:01) begins. Um, and to create a regime that
 
(10:07) inevitably and explicitly would lead to
 
(10:10) the ethnic cleansing of the uh natural,
 
(10:13) you know, the the indigenous population
 
(10:15) is
 
(10:17) also unfortunate to be compared to
 
(10:20) Lincoln. um his statements about the
 
(10:23) place of black people in South Africa,
 
(10:25) saying that, you know, that black and
 
(10:27) white people are not born with equal
 
(10:29) capacities. Um his advocacy of
 
(10:34) subjecting the Arabs in Egypt to British
 
(10:37) imperial rule, his, you know, etc., etc.
 
(10:40) You can go on to the statements about
 
(10:42) India. I don't think he's really the
 
(10:43) person you're looking for if you're
 
(10:45) trying to make a case for Zionism. And I
 
(10:47) also don't think if you're just looking
 
(10:49) Just let me just
 
(10:50) >> go ahead. Go ahead.
 
(10:51) >> Good.
 
(10:52) >> I just want to finish. If you're you use
 
(10:54) the words our and benefactors, both of
 
(10:57) which are words that I would challenge.
 
(10:58) I am not a Zionist. I'm not a colonist.
 
(11:03) I don't live in Israel. Um I'm American.
 
(11:06) And so I don't like being conflated with
 
(11:10) Jews in Israel. Even if I were not
 
(11:12) concerned about Palestinians, which I
 
(11:14) am, I think that that conflation is very
 
(11:16) dangerous because I think that it puts
 
(11:18) Jews in danger. Which leads me to my
 
(11:20) next point about benefactors.
 
(11:22) >> I didn't say benefactors. You can say
 
(11:24) >> has been I thought you did say our
 
(11:26) benefactors at some point. Not a word.
 
(11:27) Did I get that wrong?
 
(11:28) >> Yeah, it doesn't matter. But you know
 
(11:30) the intent.
 
(11:30) >> Okay. Well, our friends or our Okay. Um
 
(11:33) and and that these were people who might
 
(11:36) have been imperfect but ultimately did
 
(11:38) do things that accred to the benefit of
 
(11:39) the Jewish people. I think that's the
 
(11:41) drift of what you were saying and
 
(11:42) comparing Frederick Douglas's statement
 
(11:43) to Lincoln might not have been perfect
 
(11:45) but he did a lot for
 
(11:46) >> I just want to get in there somewhere
 
(11:47) though. I just looked it up while you're
 
(11:48) talking that Lincoln h believed in the
 
(11:50) natural hierarch hierarchy of the white
 
(11:53) race and superior to the black race. So,
 
(11:56) you know, that's that's I think that's
 
(11:59) comparable to
 
(12:00) >> that's that's controversial and that's
 
(12:02) at the beginning of of Lincoln's career.
 
(12:04) That's the beginning of Lincoln career.
 
(12:06) I mean, no, but I mean I think
 
(12:07) >> that was that was in the Lincoln Douglas
 
(12:09) debates. Yeah. Go ahead.
 
(12:11) >> Right. That's that's early. That's not
 
(12:12) in the Civil War and that's not what
 
(12:14) leads to emancipation. And so the ideas
 
(12:17) that that Herzel and that Balffor did
 
(12:21) anything actually for the Jews is what
 
(12:24) they did is they created unremitting
 
(12:26) hostility to the Jews. They created a
 
(12:28) state that is by far since 1945 the most
 
(12:32) dangerous place in the world for Jews to
 
(12:33) live.
 
(12:34) >> Okay,
 
(12:35) >> Benjamin, I'm sorry. Let's not get I
 
(12:36) want to I mean you can say whatever you
 
(12:38) want and I'll let you. I'm not going to
 
(12:39) but but I would I feel like we're
 
(12:40) walking off into talking points now as
 
(12:42) opposed to having a conversation.
 
(12:43) >> These are facts. Right. Right. But but
 
(12:45) they're not they're not like really what
 
(12:47) I asked about. We can like we can get
 
(12:48) there.
 
(12:49) >> You didn't ask anything. You you read a
 
(12:51) statement. So I'm trying to respond.
 
(12:52) Ask.
 
(12:52) >> Right. But the state my statement was
 
(12:53) about the idea of like what do how do we
 
(12:56) deal with people in the past who are
 
(12:57) prejudice and is it fair to to judge him
 
(13:00) by those prejudices.
 
(13:02) We we can go off we can we can go off on
 
(13:04) on anything but I I mean well can can we
 
(13:06) get to Herzel? Can we start let's should
 
(13:07) we start at Herzel? But wait, let me
 
(13:09) ask, can I just ask the question you
 
(13:11) just asked, which is how do we deal with
 
(13:12) people in the past who are pre
 
(13:14) prejudice?
 
(13:14) >> We're going to run out of time. Will you
 
(13:15) stay will you stay? Are you are you
 
(13:17) flexible with time?
 
(13:18) >> Sure. I feel like we were doing an hour.
 
(13:20) How long?
 
(13:20) >> I'm just afraid I'm afraid we might go
 
(13:22) like an hour and 10, hour and 15 if if
 
(13:24) we if we if we let out all the stops. So
 
(13:25) go ahead. Go ahead.
 
(13:28) >> Well, I I I don't have a condemnatory
 
(13:31) approach to people who said things in
 
(13:33) the 19th century that I wouldn't agree
 
(13:34) with now. Um but you know and and that
 
(13:37) includes people like Lincoln. Um it it's
 
(13:40) not true though to say that everybody in
 
(13:42) the 19th century or at the time that
 
(13:44) Zionism was getting started that
 
(13:46) everybody was racist and that everybody
 
(13:48) was imperialist. I mean, if you come
 
(13:50) out, if you look at America and you come
 
(13:51) out of the Civil War and the discourse
 
(13:53) that leads to the Civil War, which is
 
(13:54) quite an old discourse, it's at least a
 
(13:56) century early uh about equality and
 
(13:59) about anti-racism, you see that that
 
(14:01) that discourse leads, of course,
 
(14:03) eventually to emancipation. And the same
 
(14:06) thing goes for imperialism and for
 
(14:08) anti-semitism. It's just not true that
 
(14:10) everybody in the 19th century was
 
(14:12) anti-semitic or was racist. A lot of
 
(14:14) people weren't. A lot of people were not
 
(14:16) sexist. a lot of people were agitating
 
(14:18) for for women's suffrage and for all
 
(14:20) these other causes that we would think
 
(14:21) of as more contemporary. So I I think
 
(14:25) that you can use I don't I'm not in
 
(14:27) favor of condemning everybody in the
 
(14:29) past for certain attitudes uh that may
 
(14:32) be expressed in a way that I don't like
 
(14:34) or that I wouldn't use myself. But
 
(14:37) nevertheless, when you're talking about
 
(14:39) Zionism, you're talking about Herzel,
 
(14:41) you're talking about Balffor, you're
 
(14:43) talking about people who at the time,
 
(14:46) and that's what my book is about, at the
 
(14:48) time were considered by many people to
 
(14:51) be outliers and to be quite
 
(14:54) exceptionally prejudiced. So let let's
 
(14:55) go down the list of why Herzel is an
 
(14:57) anti-semite, while Balffor is an
 
(14:59) anti-semite, why all these people that
 
(15:01) we think I'm sorry to say we that Jews
 
(15:05) like me uh uh think we're friends of our
 
(15:10) of of our people were actually haters of
 
(15:13) our people, which I think that's what
 
(15:14) anti-semitism means. Okay. Um so now the
 
(15:18) first thing I have on my list here, it's
 
(15:20) it's it's bizarre to me. You're right
 
(15:23) that uh about Herzel. So you say that
 
(15:26) Herzel was obsessed with his genitals
 
(15:28) which now first of all I just want to
 
(15:30) say I feel like that's a
 
(15:33) an attempt to this why I use the word uh
 
(15:36) repulsive. This is an attempt to create
 
(15:38) like a Pavlovian like to make him seem
 
(15:43) uh pathetic in some way. So, like I
 
(15:46) don't want to say this out loud, but
 
(15:47) it's true. Like, like Glenn Greenwald,
 
(15:49) you know, he had this scandal with his
 
(15:50) sexuality and we all think that,
 
(15:53) including me, of course, think that,
 
(15:55) well, this is just not something that's
 
(15:57) relevant to to a person, right? But
 
(15:59) you're bringing up his obsession with
 
(16:02) his generals. However, your your your
 
(16:04) example here is that um you write uh one
 
(16:07) of his plays, The New Ghetto, is full of
 
(16:10) ugly stereotypes. Jewish men is shady
 
(16:12) financial speculators. Jewish women is
 
(16:13) obnoxious loudmouth harodans. I don't
 
(16:15) know that word. As he was writing the
 
(16:17) play, he confided to his diary. In the
 
(16:20) special instance of this play, I want to
 
(16:22) hide my genitals more than at any other
 
(16:25) time. This obsession recurs. He did not
 
(16:27) have his son circumcised. So, you say
 
(16:29) he's obsessed and is obsess and not
 
(16:31) wanting to have his son uh circumcised
 
(16:34) as part of this obsession. Now, first of
 
(16:35) all, you know that that's not correct.
 
(16:36) You must somebody must have pointed out
 
(16:38) to you by now that that wasn't in his
 
(16:40) diary. That was in a letter to his
 
(16:43) friend and the reference to wanting to
 
(16:46) keep his genitals uh what's the phrase
 
(16:49) exactly? I want to to uh hide his
 
(16:52) genitals meanings that he wanted his
 
(16:55) identity as a Jew to be anonymized. And
 
(17:00) this was like I don't want to show my
 
(17:01) ass. I you know the reference to his
 
(17:03) dick means like well they'll see I'm
 
(17:04) circumcised. Um, this is 100% I mean uh
 
(17:09) Derek Penslar who was your main source
 
(17:12) on Perzel and I have the diary entry. I
 
(17:14) mean I have the letter
 
(17:15) >> is that source for that that story?
 
(17:17) >> No, I I have the letter the letter to
 
(17:19) Arthur Schnitler dated April November
 
(17:21) 8th 1894. It's in it's in your in your
 
(17:25) notes. It it actually your your
 
(17:28) citations actually are to the letter but
 
(17:31) your book says it's his diary.
 
(17:33) >> Ah, okay.
 
(17:34) >> That's that's where I got it. And it
 
(17:35) says uh I therefore do not want to be
 
(17:38) and it says in the translation you'd
 
(17:40) left this out. I therefore do not want
 
(17:41) to be known as the author. Pensler
 
(17:44) explicitly connects the anatomical
 
(17:46) metaphor with circumcision. And as far
 
(17:48) as the not wanting to have his child
 
(17:51) circumcised, if you read about it for
 
(17:53) two seconds, is because his wife was
 
(17:55) against it and he didn't think it was
 
(17:57) that important. So,
 
(18:00) >> and by the way, anything anything I say
 
(18:01) here after this interview, if you if I'm
 
(18:03) wrong, I will correct it on the thing.
 
(18:05) But so, so you start with this obsession
 
(18:08) with his genitals,
 
(18:10) which is which is just not true. And
 
(18:13) >> well, there's quite a lot of examples of
 
(18:15) this.
 
(18:16) >> Well, these are the examples in your
 
(18:17) book.
 
(18:17) >> These are the examples in my book, but I
 
(18:19) wouldn't have said that based on two
 
(18:20) examples. This is a very much a
 
(18:22) recurring theme in his writings, in his
 
(18:23) diaries, and in his letters, and
 
(18:25) wherever you get it. The point of it
 
(18:27) assume I assume you chose the best
 
(18:29) examples for the book.
 
(18:31) >> No.
 
(18:32) >> All right. Well,
 
(18:33) >> I actually tried very carefully not to
 
(18:35) select the most ads with his
 
(18:36) anti-semitism.
 
(18:38) >> There is a lot more that you could put
 
(18:39) in there. But if I may just uh
 
(18:42) >> you want to send me one over at when we
 
(18:44) finish I'll put it in his obsession with
 
(18:46) his genitals.
 
(18:47) >> Well, let me address the obsession with
 
(18:49) the genitals. The point of this that I'm
 
(18:53) trying to make here and the point that
 
(18:54) you could make with dozens and dozens of
 
(18:56) examples is that Herzel thinks that the
 
(18:59) Jews are not masculine. He thinks that
 
(19:00) they're not warlike. He thinks that
 
(19:02) they're not they're not engaging in
 
(19:04) duels. They're not engaging in armies.
 
(19:07) They are weaklings. They're hunched over
 
(19:10) their books. They are not going along
 
(19:12) with what he sees as the great trend of
 
(19:15) the 19th century, which is racial
 
(19:18) nationalism, basically. And those two
 
(19:21) things are not the same thing. Wanting
 
(19:22) the Jews to be more muscular, not having
 
(19:24) Kishnavv type uh uh abuse of them, you
 
(19:28) know, this is not exactly limited to
 
(19:29) Herzel that the Jews needed to be more
 
(19:32) strong as that's not that's not racial
 
(19:35) that's not racial nationalism. Those are
 
(19:37) two unrelational,
 
(19:39) >> right? But your sentence went from they
 
(19:42) wanting the Jews to be more muscular.
 
(19:43) We're talking about his sexual obsession
 
(19:45) now to racial nationalism. You
 
(19:47) connected. This is very this is this is
 
(19:50) very clearly connected and it's very
 
(19:52) obvious. It's what
 
(19:54) >> well I he wants to remake the Jews into
 
(19:57) these warlike ancient Hebrews. Is that
 
(19:59) true or false? I I
 
(20:00) >> I don't know. I'll take your word for
 
(20:01) it. That's not something I came across
 
(20:03) in in researching the book. I mean, I
 
(20:06) know this this strand of feeling within
 
(20:11) at that time among a lot of Jews exists,
 
(20:14) but I don't to connect that to some sort
 
(20:16) of weird sexual obsession of his. No, I
 
(20:19) I can't. I'm not saying I'm not even
 
(20:20) saying it's not true. You can send me
 
(20:21) any evidence. I'm saying what the
 
(20:22) evidence in your book is not correct.
 
(20:26) The evidence in my book is absolutely
 
(20:27) correct. There's a lot of this stuff and
 
(20:29) what you mean I don't know what you're
 
(20:31) trying to disprove or prove about this
 
(20:34) because this seems quite
 
(20:35) uncontroversial. I mean Zionism was very
 
(20:37) very militaristic from the very
 
(20:39) beginning. The muscular Jews was not
 
(20:41) about responding to poggrams. First of
 
(20:43) all that's a completely I mean the kishf
 
(20:46) pogs is after Herzel anyway it's 1905.
 
(20:48) He dies in 1904. So this is something
 
(20:50) that's totally irrelevant to Herzel.
 
(20:52) >> Are you sure about that?
 
(20:54) >> You can look it up.
 
(20:54) >> Yeah I will. Go ahead. Um I believe it's
 
(20:57) 1905.
 
(20:59) Um he certainly dies in 1904. The but
 
(21:02) the question is not how should Jews
 
(21:05) respond to violence and to prejudice and
 
(21:07) to exclusion because those were not new
 
(21:10) things. Those were old things and those
 
(21:13) were things that Jewish thinkers had
 
(21:14) been contemplating for centuries. You
 
(21:16) have a
 
(21:18) >> I'm sorry that's incorrect. Theodore
 
(21:19) Herszel responded directly and
 
(21:21) extensively to the 1903 Kishna pgram
 
(21:24) through public statements high level
 
(21:26) diplomacy and contra I mean this is just
 
(21:28) not true but go ahead
 
(21:30) >> okay but there's always been pogrs this
 
(21:31) is what I'm trying to say so the year I
 
(21:33) get the year off in in what I just said
 
(21:36) um the the point is that people had
 
(21:39) theorized how do you respond to
 
(21:41) exclusion how do you respond to
 
(21:42) anti-semitism how do you respond to all
 
(21:44) of these terrible things that had been
 
(21:45) happening and there were lots of
 
(21:47) different responses to this. The
 
(21:49) religious response is that God sends
 
(21:52) these punishments for disobeying the
 
(21:54) laws and the commandments. The um the
 
(21:58) more you know the socialist response,
 
(22:00) for example, is you make common cause
 
(22:02) with the working class of every nation.
 
(22:04) Some people chose immigration to more
 
(22:08) liberal countries, especially the United
 
(22:10) States, and they thought that they
 
(22:12) should also work for for equality in
 
(22:15) every country. And this was something
 
(22:16) that had advanced quite significantly in
 
(22:18) the 19th century in the west, not in the
 
(22:21) east as I point out. And so this wasn't
 
(22:24) Herzil's militarism. I'm I'm a bit
 
(22:26) puzzled why you would question that
 
(22:27) because that's sort of the whole point
 
(22:29) of Herzil is that you want to remake
 
(22:31) this people and a lot of people were
 
(22:33) sympathetic to this because a lot of
 
(22:35) Jews wanted to come to the modern world.
 
(22:37) >> One more thing D. So okay so um just you
 
(22:42) also say that there's this famous famous
 
(22:44) chapter of Herzil in his diary in his
 
(22:48) diary saying that he wanted to uh
 
(22:51) convert all the uh the Jews of the
 
(22:54) Austrian Empire bring them all to the
 
(22:56) pope um and he he ran it by some
 
(22:59) newspaper publishers um and I'll just
 
(23:01) read your writing there for example his
 
(23:03) fantasy of mass conversion which
 
(23:04) appeared only three years before the
 
(23:06) judat was not realistic in the world of
 
(23:09) men and women. It was however realistic
 
(23:10) as a reflection of the mind that
 
(23:12) fantasized about it. The fantasy is that
 
(23:14) the Jews will disappear, will cease to
 
(23:16) exist as Jews, will sacrifice anything
 
(23:18) unique about themselves, anything about
 
(23:20) their culture or tradition that they
 
(23:22) might have wished to hand down to their
 
(23:23) children. So he in your opinion he
 
(23:27) wanted the Jewish people to disappear at
 
(23:29) that time. Now this is based on this guy
 
(23:32) Penslar's book uh uh this is like you
 
(23:35) know like twothirds of your references
 
(23:37) about Herzel are from this book by
 
(23:39) Pensar. So I did some research into
 
(23:42) Pensar and uh I'll play you his
 
(23:46) he he he 100% disputes what you're
 
(23:49) saying. Uh Stephen, will you play the
 
(23:51) number six? Yeah,
 
(23:54) >> this is this is the author of that book
 
(23:56) writing about what the conversion
 
(23:59) episode.
 
(24:01) >> I I I pause with the period.
 
(24:04) >> Yeah, go ahead.
 
(24:05) >> Make sure you can hear it.
 
(24:06) >> Beeled by anti-semitism, he seriously
 
(24:09) considered ma ba mass baptism for the
 
(24:11) Jews and even raised the idea with his
 
(24:14) superiors at the Noa Frya.
 
(24:16) >> All right. So already he starts off he's
 
(24:18) he does it because he's bedeled by
 
(24:20) anti-semitism not because he is feeling
 
(24:22) anti-semitic but because he's bedeled by
 
(24:24) it looking for a way to respond to it
 
(24:26) and ask that the pope be solicited to
 
(24:29) launch an anti-anti-semitic campaign in
 
(24:32) return for Jewish mass conversion.
 
(24:35) Now Harrisil's fantasies of ma mass
 
(24:37) baptism of the Jews at the Stefans
 
(24:39) Kirisha in Vienna is often invoked as
 
(24:41) evidence of Herisil's self-hatred and
 
(24:43) even mental imbalance. That's what
 
(24:46) you're saying.
 
(24:47) >> Mad as it may have been, it was not a
 
(24:49) product of self-hatred or of Jewish
 
(24:51) anti-semitism because Heritzil himself
 
(24:54) vows not to convert. He says he would
 
(24:57) remain Jewish out of filio loyalty and
 
(25:00) manly pride. He was not truly
 
(25:02) assimilationist in that unlike earlier
 
(25:05) offers or acts of conversion by famous
 
(25:07) Jews in the Germanspeaking world like W.
 
(25:10) Freedellander or Hainer Hina Herzel
 
(25:12) proposed a conversion that would
 
(25:14) preserve Jewishness as this would be a
 
(25:16) willful act of masses of Jews whose
 
(25:19) identities could not help but be
 
(25:21) preserved despite the nom the nominal
 
(25:24) change of faith.
 
(25:26) >> Meaning that if they if they all do it
 
(25:28) on mass, it's just the same people, same
 
(25:30) bunch of Jews, you know, Chris
 
(25:35) Jews converting on mass to Christianity
 
(25:37) because then they become Jewish
 
(25:38) converts. They don't be they they become
 
(25:41) conversos. They're not simply
 
(25:43) Christians. And uh it it's an act. It's
 
(25:47) a theatrical act that he is envisioning.
 
(25:50) >> Theatrical act.
 
(25:51) >> And he brought this idea to his
 
(25:53) newspaper editors who were both Jewish
 
(25:55) and they looked at him with horror like
 
(25:58) what are you talking about? And he
 
(25:59) dropped the idea. But it just shows you
 
(26:01) in a way how desperate he was, how much
 
(26:04) anti-semitism bothered him. It shows you
 
(26:06) how his theatricality
 
(26:09) could manifest itself in political
 
(26:11) activity which the Zionist movement was
 
(26:13) filled with the symbols of Zionism that
 
(26:15) he created. It shows you that he was a
 
(26:17) man striving to solve the Jewish problem
 
(26:20) any way he could and he came up with all
 
(26:23) kinds of hairbrain schemes and then he
 
(26:25) came upon Zionism which many Jews also
 
(26:28) viewed as a hairbrain scheme but it did
 
(26:30) bring him what he was looking for. So,
 
(26:33) so there you have that's your chosen
 
(26:35) Herzel expert, the world, and he's
 
(26:38) saying, "No,
 
(26:39) >> the reason I chose him is because he's a
 
(26:40) scientist, by the way."
 
(26:42) >> Well, whatever reason you chose him, I
 
(26:44) hope you chose him. Chose him because
 
(26:46) you believed he was credible.
 
(26:49) >> That's his interpretation of this. I
 
(26:51) have a different interpretation even
 
(26:53) based on what he's just saying now.
 
(26:54) >> But I just have to say I just have to
 
(26:55) say one more. I know. I'm going to
 
(26:57) interrupt you one last I'm going to
 
(26:58) interrupt you one last time. I'm going
 
(27:00) to interrupt you one last time. I'm
 
(27:01) going to interrupt you.
 
(27:01) >> You're not going to interrupt me one
 
(27:02) last time. You're going to let me say
 
(27:04) something. No, I'm going to speak
 
(27:06) because you're throwing all this stuff
 
(27:08) at me. You're trying to say I don't know
 
(27:09) what I'm talking about and then you talk
 
(27:11) over me when I try to respond, which is
 
(27:13) impolite. So, I'm going to tell you that
 
(27:16) what you are showing me here
 
(27:18) >> I you can say that and he can say that.
 
(27:21) He can say that he was driven to this
 
(27:23) out of despair
 
(27:25) about anti-semitism, which is certainly
 
(27:27) understandable. But it is a cockami
 
(27:30) scheme and whether he thinks it's
 
(27:32) theatrical and as I write in the book,
 
(27:35) you know, he's very concerned with these
 
(27:36) sorts of gold buttons and and tooting
 
(27:40) horns and all this kind of stuff that
 
(27:41) recurs in all of his writings. And I I
 
(27:44) mean, I don't know what would this
 
(27:46) accomplish even if it's exactly as
 
(27:49) Pensar and he presented. Is this really
 
(27:52) a solution to anti-semitism? Or is this
 
(27:54) a kind of weird thing that would in fact
 
(27:58) get rid of Jews as a religious people?
 
(28:00) And this is when you say that they were
 
(28:02) trying to he was anti-semitic and that
 
(28:04) he was anti-Judaic in the religious
 
(28:05) sense. What you're saying is he really
 
(28:08) is trying to get rid of the Jews as a
 
(28:10) separate religious people, which is the
 
(28:12) traditional definition of the Jews. Now,
 
(28:14) if you want to replace that definition
 
(28:15) with a racial definition, which is very
 
(28:17) clear that he did and that the early
 
(28:19) Zionists wanted to do, then you're
 
(28:21) talking about something else. But when
 
(28:22) you're talking about a mass conversion
 
(28:24) to Catholicism led by the Pope, I mean,
 
(28:26) I don't I I you can spin that as however
 
(28:29) you want. That's not something that I'm
 
(28:32) going to volunteer to do.
 
(28:34) >> All right. So, first of all, I'm going
 
(28:36) to find you the quote, but he says in
 
(28:38) his diaries
 
(28:41) that many of the things he wrote about
 
(28:43) were fantastical and that he did not
 
(28:46) want to um you know, I'm going to go
 
(28:49) find the quote, but let me just uh you
 
(28:52) know, it it seems to me perfectly
 
(28:55) understandable that a man
 
(29:00) flailing about and by the way, you I
 
(29:02) think you wrote this in your book that
 
(29:04) part of at conversions that the pope
 
(29:05) would agree to end anti-semitism. Right?
 
(29:08) That was it was it was a it was so
 
(29:10) >> that's very important because it brings
 
(29:13) out the fact that this was a
 
(29:15) transaction. We will all say the magic
 
(29:18) words but you have to stop hating us and
 
(29:21) this speaks
 
(29:22) >> but is that a practical scheme? So this
 
(29:24) is what we're advanced the conversation.
 
(29:27) >> Okay. Well practical is is another
 
(29:28) issue. It it turns out to have been
 
(29:30) practical. I mean uh he Herzel finally
 
(29:33) published work turned out been practical
 
(29:35) because he didn't this was his diary but
 
(29:37) Zionism he published and and there was a
 
(29:39) state of Israel today he he floated it
 
(29:42) it was impractical but this is not a
 
(29:44) desire to end the Jewish people now
 
(29:46) that's from his diaries god forbid
 
(29:48) anybody saw what might be in my diaries
 
(29:50) in my
 
(29:51) >> there's nothing like that in my diaries
 
(29:53) >> well okay but when he finally released
 
(29:56) his considered work he wrote
 
(30:00) Um,
 
(30:02) did I lose it? Uh, he wrote here
 
(30:08) I referred previously to our
 
(30:09) assimilation. I do not for a moment wish
 
(30:12) to imply that I desire such an end. Our
 
(30:15) national character is too historically
 
(30:17) famous and in spite of every degradation
 
(30:19) too fine to make its annihilation
 
(30:21) desirable. We might perhaps be able to
 
(30:24) merge ourselves entirely into
 
(30:26) surrounding areas if the if they were to
 
(30:28) leave us alone and in peace for a period
 
(30:29) of two generations, but they will not
 
(30:31) leave us in peace. For a little period,
 
(30:33) they managed to tolerate us and then
 
(30:35) their hostility breaks out again and
 
(30:36) again. The world is provoked somehow by
 
(30:38) our prosperity because has for many
 
(30:40) centuries been accustomed to consider us
 
(30:42) as the most contemptable among the
 
(30:43) povertystricken. It is ignorance and
 
(30:45) narrowness of heart. It fails to observe
 
(30:48) the prosperity weakens our Judaism and
 
(30:50) extinguishes our peculiarities.
 
(30:52) It is only pressure that forces us back
 
(30:54) to the parent stem. So you you're making
 
(30:56) a case that person who wanted the end of
 
(30:58) the Jewish people. I can't find
 
(31:00) something. Damn.
 
(31:01) >> I just want to say we only have a
 
(31:02) limited time and is just somebody who's
 
(31:04) just a little less versed on on uh
 
(31:07) Herzel's life. I think the main point is
 
(31:10) whether Herzel was obsessed with his
 
(31:12) penis, whether he was a closet
 
(31:14) anti-semite, shouldn't we be talking
 
(31:16) about the rightness or the wrongness of
 
(31:18) Zionism? And
 
(31:20) >> well that's what I appreciate that
 
(31:21) that's that's absolutely important. The
 
(31:24) the question of the rightness and
 
(31:25) wrongness of Zionism as I say in the
 
(31:27) book is did the European Jews have the
 
(31:29) right to come to Palestine which was 97%
 
(31:31) non-Jewish and colonize this country
 
(31:35) ethnically cleanse these people who had
 
(31:37) never harmed the Jews on more than one
 
(31:39) occasion leading to the current genocide
 
(31:41) that we're seeing. And even if you don't
 
(31:44) care about the Palestinians,
 
(31:46) did this help the Jews? Did this help
 
(31:48) anyone? or has this been an evil and
 
(31:50) iniquitous plan from the very beginning?
 
(31:52) And that's what I say and I'm quite
 
(31:54) clear about it. And I think that all
 
(31:56) this intrajeweish,
 
(31:58) you know, tustling that that that about
 
(32:01) what Herzel said, was it in his letter
 
(32:02) or was it in his diary? All this stuff
 
(32:05) doesn't matter to these people that
 
(32:06) we're seeing in Gaza in these tents
 
(32:08) right now. It doesn't matter to the
 
(32:09) millions and millions of Palestinian
 
(32:11) refugees who haven't been allowed to
 
(32:13) return to their homes in almost 80
 
(32:15) years. I mean, I think that it's very
 
(32:17) easy. Like, I don't know what is being
 
(32:20) defended in this discourse. I mean,
 
(32:21) you're reading me these great swaths of
 
(32:23) things and you're putting all these
 
(32:24) videos on and you're hardly letting me
 
(32:26) respond. I do have answers for all these
 
(32:28) things if you'd like to listen to them.
 
(32:30) But if you're not, then why don't you
 
(32:32) why don't I ask you questions? I mean,
 
(32:34) do you think that Zionism has either
 
(32:37) helped the Jews or helped the
 
(32:39) Palestinians, or do you think to the
 
(32:41) contrary that it has committed
 
(32:43) incredible
 
(32:44) crimes that we're seeing every single
 
(32:47) day in the name of the Jews?
 
(32:49) >> Look, I'm h I'm happy to speak to you at
 
(32:51) length about my thoughts about Israel.
 
(32:53) Obviously, this is a conversation about
 
(32:55) your book and I'm going through the
 
(32:58) first chapter of it. The
 
(33:00) >> But it's not We've hardly touched my
 
(33:02) book. Well, I this is you build your
 
(33:06) case.
 
(33:07) For some reason, you include this stuff
 
(33:09) about Herzel that I'm taking you on.
 
(33:11) It's it's presumed to be relevant to
 
(33:13) your argument. Now, if if you want to
 
(33:15) say none of that is relevant, it's just
 
(33:17) about what Israel does today.
 
(33:19) >> It's very relevant.
 
(33:20) >> All right. Well, if it's very relevant,
 
(33:21) if it's very relevant, then I have the
 
(33:22) right to challenge you on it. Then,
 
(33:23) logically, if
 
(33:24) >> Okay. Well, let me explain. Let me
 
(33:26) explain what I think about it and why
 
(33:27) it's important. the personality, the
 
(33:29) masculinity, the militarism, the many,
 
(33:31) many anti-semitic statements because I
 
(33:34) believe that Zionism started off as a
 
(33:36) terrible idea. I do think that Herzel
 
(33:40) gives a lot of evidence of mental
 
(33:42) illness. You can read a book by a
 
(33:43) Zionist guy named Josh Cohen. It's
 
(33:45) called Dead Herzels. I don't know, it
 
(33:47) just came out or it's coming out soon.
 
(33:49) And it's about the mental illness in his
 
(33:50) family. So, this is not something that
 
(33:52) is particularly my invention. And I
 
(33:55) think that it has appealed to people who
 
(33:59) have these grandiose fantasies who are
 
(34:01) not willing to look at the reality of
 
(34:03) what Zionism has meant on the ground.
 
(34:05) It's meant the absolute destruction of
 
(34:06) an entire nation, the Palestinians. And
 
(34:09) it hasn't, as far as I can tell, helped
 
(34:11) the Jews. I mean, if you see the
 
(34:13) explosion of anti-semitism now, you see
 
(34:16) that whatever Jonathan Greenblat says
 
(34:18) and whatever the ADL says, this is
 
(34:20) mainly generated by Zionism and by
 
(34:24) Israel's crimes that we are all watching
 
(34:26) on our phones right now. So, that's the
 
(34:28) conversation I'm wanting to have and I
 
(34:30) do root it historically because I think
 
(34:32) that if you look at the history of
 
(34:34) Zionism, you see a cruelty and a racism
 
(34:37) and a militarism that has no parallels
 
(34:40) in Jewish tradition. It has no roots in
 
(34:42) our religion and it's something that
 
(34:44) people like me have been trying to shout
 
(34:48) from the rooftops
 
(34:50) is not something we want. It doesn't
 
(34:52) represent us. We don't like it.
 
(34:54) >> Okay.
 
(34:55) >> And we
 
(34:56) >> Yeah.
 
(34:56) >> Go ahead. So, so um
 
(35:01) whether it's mental illness or not, um
 
(35:03) he he obviously and it's pretty it's
 
(35:05) pretty uh uh widely accepted that he was
 
(35:09) manic in some way as by the way
 
(35:13) do they say that Churchill was.
 
(35:16) And funny you since we we're off on a
 
(35:19) bad foot here, but I I wanted to play
 
(35:20) you something because it's pretty
 
(35:21) interesting. the head of like
 
(35:22) psychiatric blah blah blah Tus
 
(35:24) University did a lecture where he said
 
(35:27) actually
 
(35:28) these kinds of traits are uh very
 
(35:31) important for leadership.
 
(35:33) Actually I will play for you a second
 
(35:34) but and I also want to just put in the
 
(35:36) record that on the subject of his
 
(35:37) diaries Herzel wrote I know and knew
 
(35:40) throughout the whole tempestuous period
 
(35:41) of production that much of what I wrote
 
(35:43) was wild and fantastic but I made no
 
(35:45) self-criticism of any sort so as not to
 
(35:47) [ __ ] the sweep of these inspirations.
 
(35:49) So he was aware that he was putting
 
(35:51) stuff in his diaries which was a little
 
(35:53) wacky. But the answer to your question
 
(35:56) is whatever you think about what Zionism
 
(35:59) is or isn't. It's certainly not
 
(36:02) something that could have been known to
 
(36:04) Churchill. I mean to Churchill to to
 
(36:06) Herzel. All that Herzel knew and he was
 
(36:10) correct. Even Norman Finkelestein says
 
(36:12) he was correct was that the Jews were
 
(36:15) heading for a terrible fate in Europe.
 
(36:18) and he was flailing about trying to
 
(36:20) figure out what do we do about this? Do
 
(36:21) we give up our Judaism altogether? Do we
 
(36:24) go here? Do we go there?
 
(36:26) Maybe we should go to join
 
(36:30) whatever remnant there is of our
 
(36:32) existing Jewish community in Palestine.
 
(36:35) Of course, and I'm going to grant you in
 
(36:37) those days indigenous populations were
 
(36:40) not uh uh were not at the top of
 
(36:44) people's minds. Although Herzel did
 
(36:46) write about it in his in his novel, you
 
(36:48) know, wanting to have equal rights and
 
(36:49) blah blah blah blah blah. Um, he he
 
(36:52) wasn't guilty of of total indifference,
 
(36:54) but this was the way the world worked.
 
(36:57) >> He also mentioned Palestinians as
 
(36:59) subjects for removal, which is the word
 
(37:01) for ethnic cleansing that he uses.
 
(37:02) >> I didn't see that you sent me that. I I
 
(37:05) didn't see that, but but I
 
(37:06) >> this is Yeah.
 
(37:07) >> Yeah.
 
(37:07) >> He does. And this is not um this is not
 
(37:10) a controversy to me. This is a fact. And
 
(37:12) I think that some of the stuff I think
 
(37:14) that a lot of people and what my book is
 
(37:17) about is about the other Jewish figures
 
(37:19) who looked at the same realities and the
 
(37:21) same problems and came up with very
 
(37:24) different solutions. And that is
 
(37:26) something that in the sweep of Zionism,
 
(37:29) I think in the tsunami of Zionism that
 
(37:31) took over the Jewish world, especially
 
(37:34) after the Second World War, these
 
(37:36) alternative voices and these alternative
 
(37:38) solutions have not been given due due
 
(37:42) attention even though all of their
 
(37:44) predictions of what Zionism was going to
 
(37:46) lead to because nobody had any question
 
(37:48) that there were problems in
 
(37:49) >> rightism.
 
(37:52) Let me finish because you started with
 
(37:53) Lincoln. Go ahead. There were also ideas
 
(37:56) which happened. Liberia happened. So
 
(37:59) when you're talking about Lincoln and
 
(38:00) you're talking about African-Americans,
 
(38:02) there were subjects of removal. I mean,
 
(38:05) there were their ideas that
 
(38:06) African-Americans were basically not at
 
(38:08) home in their own country, that they
 
(38:09) should be sent back to Africa. And this
 
(38:12) did happen in some cases. And the
 
(38:13) Republic of Liberia was founded, which
 
(38:15) in many ways is quite similar to Israel
 
(38:17) in that they come in as as as westerners
 
(38:20) basically because they're westernized.
 
(38:21) They're Americans. They've lived in
 
(38:22) America for centuries. by the time they
 
(38:24) get there and they take over this native
 
(38:26) population and that goes absolutely
 
(38:28) pear-shaped in in a in a way that we
 
(38:31) know from all these other examples was
 
(38:33) inevitable. Um so it's not exactly true
 
(38:38) that I mean a lot of people were pained
 
(38:40) and are pained by anti-semitism. The
 
(38:42) question isn't that the question is is
 
(38:44) Zionism
 
(38:46) is the forced colonization and ethnic
 
(38:48) cleansing of a foreign country the
 
(38:51) proper solution? You're referring to the
 
(38:53) Nagba when you say that
 
(38:55) >> the ethnic cleansing.
 
(38:57) >> Well, there's multiple ethnic
 
(38:58) cleansings. I mean, the Nagba is the
 
(38:59) first, but you know, there's a major
 
(39:02) ethnic cleansing in 1967 that people
 
(39:04) don't
 
(39:04) >> Okay, let's let's refer to that and then
 
(39:05) we'll go to 67. So, and then I want to
 
(39:07) get to Bor. Well,
 
(39:09) it it's just not it just doesn't it's
 
(39:11) not um convincing to me because
 
(39:16) um
 
(39:18) there was a there was a partition plan
 
(39:20) you know in in in
 
(39:23) 37 I guess whenever the appeal
 
(39:24) commission and then there was one in 47
 
(39:26) and they could have accepted it like
 
(39:29) like every
 
(39:30) >> Why should they have?
 
(39:31) >> No, that's a different that's a
 
(39:32) different thing. I mean, the we we we
 
(39:34) took like 35% of Mexico and also
 
(39:37) expelled some Mexicans and they accepted
 
(39:39) it. There's there's many examples of of
 
(39:41) of of land that's been taken in in
 
(39:44) different circumstances.
 
(39:47) It was not inevitable
 
(39:49) if you want to go back to Herzel that he
 
(39:51) could have predicted and then it's this
 
(39:53) is going to happen like Nostradamus and
 
(39:55) then they shall reject it and then they
 
(39:58) shall attack and then in ' 67 they shall
 
(40:02) attack again and then they shall lose
 
(40:04) and they will be occupi like this none
 
(40:06) of this was inevitable. they they could
 
(40:08) have accepted it because um
 
(40:12) >> it was practical to accept it and
 
(40:14) because rather than accept it they
 
(40:15) bought themselves you know going on 80
 
(40:18) something whatever number it is
 
(40:20) >> but at the time of the bow for
 
(40:22) declaration so in the beginning of
 
(40:24) Zionist
 
(40:25) yeah
 
(40:26) >> let me go back a little bit more to the
 
(40:28) late 19th century when the first Zionist
 
(40:30) settlement of Palestine begins again
 
(40:32) it's between 3 and 5% of the population
 
(40:34) who are native Palestinian Jews and I
 
(40:36) write about them and what happens to
 
(40:37) them and it's not great what happens to
 
(40:39) them.
 
(40:40) >> Uh 95 to 97% non-Jews by the time of the
 
(40:43) Balfur declaration which is 1917 which
 
(40:46) is almost 40 years later the number of
 
(40:49) Jews in Palestine is about between 9 to
 
(40:52) 10% and they own 2% of the land. So if
 
(40:56) you're a Palestinian looking at that and
 
(40:58) the Palestinians never oppose Jewish
 
(41:00) immigration as Jews. They did oppose
 
(41:02) Jewish immigration as conquerors which
 
(41:04) is a very big distinction. It's a small
 
(41:06) country. So why should they then say in
 
(41:08) 1937 to these people who've been there
 
(41:11) for 20 or 30 years who are foreign
 
(41:14) European white people basically?
 
(41:17) >> Why would they why should they hand over
 
(41:19) half of their country to these people?
 
(41:21) >> Can I just answer that because it really
 
(41:23) wasn't their country. There was no
 
(41:25) country. There was a a region. They the
 
(41:28) Palestinian people that we call
 
(41:30) Palestinians today owned some of it.
 
(41:32) Most of it I think was empty. and and
 
(41:35) and the proof of that is that most of
 
(41:37) it's still empty. The negv desert is
 
(41:39) mostly empty. So they didn't
 
(41:42) live there for thousands still the negv
 
(41:44) is still mostly empty to this day. Um
 
(41:47) the Palestinians as a people lived there
 
(41:50) people came in and out of that region
 
(41:52) over the centuries. Um
 
(41:54) >> no no the Palestinians are genetically
 
(41:56) you can trace
 
(41:57) >> as as are the Jews genetically. We do
 
(42:00) have more European ad mixture. uh
 
(42:03) Palestinians have ad mixture also from
 
(42:05) elsewhere including uh the Arabian
 
(42:08) Peninsula and including even in some
 
(42:10) cases Europe because there were Bosnians
 
(42:12) that immigrated there. But the question
 
(42:14) is why should they accept it? Should
 
(42:16) should the Jews have been allowed to at
 
(42:17) least keep Tel Aviv which was empty sand
 
(42:19) dunes that they purchased legally? Could
 
(42:21) they have at least kept that?
 
(42:22) >> I think you should. Have you visited
 
(42:24) Jaffa?
 
(42:25) >> Yes. I'm talking about Tel Aviv. I'm
 
(42:26) talking about Tel Aviv which is next Tel
 
(42:28) Aviv. Tel Aviv was empty. It was never
 
(42:31) empty. Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv was Java was
 
(42:34) not.
 
(42:34) >> Look Ben. Yeah. Dan, very good, Dan.
 
(42:37) Look,
 
(42:38) >> um I've made this argument before. At
 
(42:41) any given time in history, there are
 
(42:44) institutions and authorities
 
(42:47) that define and delineate what is legal
 
(42:50) and what's not, what's allowable and
 
(42:52) what's not. Whether we like what the
 
(42:56) world was like in the 19th and early
 
(42:58) 20th century,
 
(43:00) the Ottomans were in charge. There were
 
(43:03) rules.
 
(43:04) Overwhelmingly, it was if when my
 
(43:07) grandparents said getting the [ __ ]
 
(43:10) kicked out of them intles said, "I have
 
(43:12) an idea. You know, we need to get the
 
(43:14) hell out of here if we're going to
 
(43:15) survive. Let's go join the existing
 
(43:18) Jewish populations in Israel, in
 
(43:21) Palestine." And of course, you know, um,
 
(43:24) Jerusalem was was, uh, at certain times
 
(43:26) already majority Jewish.
 
(43:29) Nobody in the world could have said to
 
(43:32) them or would have said to them, "You
 
(43:33) can't do that. How dare you? That's not
 
(43:36) proper. That's immoral." They say, "What
 
(43:37) do you mean? I can go there and the
 
(43:39) people who are in charge
 
(43:42) allow me to buy the land and they allow
 
(43:45) me to go there."
 
(43:47) >> Now,
 
(43:48) >> well, that was never the question. The
 
(43:49) Jews were always welcomed in Palestine.
 
(43:51) my question and and then
 
(43:54) at some point
 
(43:56) when the populations
 
(43:58) clearly can't live together and I and
 
(44:01) you can make the case and I and I will I
 
(44:04) I believe it's true that they went over
 
(44:06) there and they were arrogant and they
 
(44:07) offended the I'm sure the Arabs have
 
(44:10) many many uh I'm not trying
 
(44:12) >> they also introduced terrorism into
 
(44:13) Palestine don't forget
 
(44:16) >> the people my grandparents didn't okay
 
(44:18) and I'm saying that that there was
 
(44:20) friction between peoples. Now, friction
 
(44:22) between peoples
 
(44:24) is not something unique to Jews and
 
(44:27) Arabs. There's carnage. Let me finish.
 
(44:30) Let me finish. Let me No, no, you didn't
 
(44:32) let me interrupt. There's there's
 
(44:33) carnage all over the Middle East to this
 
(44:35) day between Sunni and Shiite, millions
 
(44:38) of people. There there is the frictions
 
(44:41) between people in Canada. It came down
 
(44:43) to one percentage point. The French
 
(44:45) Canadians want to secede from
 
(44:46) >> You're comparing Palestine to Canada.
 
(44:48) >> Yes, absolutely I am. I'm saying that e
 
(44:51) that even in even when things are
 
(44:54) prosperous and uh same religion same
 
(44:59) culture even then people's don't
 
(45:02) necessarily want to be bound together
 
(45:04) politically
 
(45:05) and at some point this is still the
 
(45:08) Ottomans in charge it is it was I mean
 
(45:10) retrospect very predictable but not a
 
(45:12) knock on the Palestinians or the Jews
 
(45:14) because it's so ordinary it would be so
 
(45:16) out Singapore Malaysia countries split
 
(45:19) up. Czech Czechoslovakia is split into
 
(45:22) countries. They're the same religion,
 
(45:23) same language. Yugoslavia is split up.
 
(45:25) I'm pointing out that
 
(45:26) >> you're not talking about foreign
 
(45:28) colonists. You're not talking about
 
(45:29) Europeans coming in at the tips of
 
(45:32) bayonets
 
(45:33) >> escorted there by the British Empire.
 
(45:37) >> In in in our in our conflicts with
 
(45:38) Mexico, I am. But be that as it may, my
 
(45:42) point is that the the fact that the two
 
(45:45) populations,
 
(45:48) one population has a religion that views
 
(45:50) the other population as second class
 
(45:52) that these populations had friction
 
(45:56) >> and hatred and
 
(45:59) you're talking you invited me on your
 
(46:00) podcast. You invited me to come here.
 
(46:02) You're talking over me. You're throwing
 
(46:04) thousands of facts quote unquote that
 
(46:06) are not accurate.
 
(46:07) >> Answer answer. Not true. I said
 
(46:08) something that wasn't true.
 
(46:11) >> Yes, you're making these comparison.
 
(46:12) You're comparing the Zionist
 
(46:13) colonization of Palestine to Canada. I
 
(46:16) mean, this is something that I have to
 
(46:17) sit here and listen to, and I'm not
 
(46:19) really sure how to respond to it because
 
(46:21) I feel like I do believe you I I do
 
(46:24) believe you your point is that there are
 
(46:25) friction in every society, which nobody
 
(46:27) disagrees with, that other societies are
 
(46:29) multi-thnic. That is true. Nobody
 
(46:31) disagrees with that. What we're talking
 
(46:33) about in Zionism in Palestine is a
 
(46:35) system of Jewish supremacy that is
 
(46:37) imported from Europe and that is
 
(46:39) enforced there through the British
 
(46:40) Empire and later through other empires,
 
(46:43) particularly our own in order to create
 
(46:46) a foreign settler colony in this place.
 
(46:48) That again was not a Jewish country. It
 
(46:51) was an Arab country. And you can argue
 
(46:54) about when the Arabs got there, when
 
(46:55) they didn't get there. I mean, there's
 
(46:56) lots of evidence of this. Nobody thinks
 
(46:58) that the Jews weren't always there. I
 
(47:00) mean, the Jews were all over the place
 
(47:01) forever. The Jews are a very old people.
 
(47:03) They've lived all through the
 
(47:04) Mediterranean, all through the Arab
 
(47:06) world, and all through Europe for many,
 
(47:07) many millennia. So, that's not the
 
(47:09) question. The question is, did they have
 
(47:10) the right to come in there and
 
(47:12) ethnically cleanse these people and take
 
(47:13) over their country and do what we are
 
(47:16) seeing now on our phones, what Nan
 
(47:18) Golden calls the Holocaust on our phones
 
(47:20) when we are being coralled into this
 
(47:24) unbelievable cruelty that whatever you
 
(47:26) think and whatever you think about the
 
(47:28) Balfford Declaration or about the Peel
 
(47:29) Commission or all these other things
 
(47:30) about what happens in 1967. I mean,
 
(47:32) that's that is history. I agree that
 
(47:34) that's history and I agree that you
 
(47:36) don't have to over litigate everything
 
(47:38) that ever happened from the past, but
 
(47:41) we're talking about something that's
 
(47:42) happening now and I think it's very
 
(47:43) important to say what's happening now
 
(47:45) and what's happening now is an outgrowth
 
(47:47) of this movement. So if you want to go
 
(47:49) back to Herz and you do want to go back
 
(47:50) to Balfur and you want to go back to
 
(47:51) these other things, that's fine. But I
 
(47:53) feel like if you read my book, you'll
 
(47:56) understand that this is something that
 
(47:58) this was not an inevitable disaster in
 
(48:01) the sense that it was always going to
 
(48:04) turn out this way, but it was going to
 
(48:06) turn out this way because this is
 
(48:08) something that's inherent to Zionist
 
(48:09) ideology. It's inherent to a racial
 
(48:12) nationalism that comes out of the 19th
 
(48:14) century, of which Herzil is a very
 
(48:16) prominent exponent, not the only one.
 
(48:18) And now we're in this situation. So my
 
(48:21) book is an attempt to say why are we in
 
(48:23) this situation and what why did people
 
(48:26) why did Jewish people always say this is
 
(48:28) inevitably the situation we were going
 
(48:30) to get in.
 
(48:30) >> All right. So um I was only trying to
 
(48:33) make the point of how ordinary it is
 
(48:37) that people of especially of different
 
(48:39) religions
 
(48:40) uh descend into violence. And all you
 
(48:42) have to do is look at India and Pakistan
 
(48:45) >> also created by the British Empire.
 
(48:49) India and Gandhi didn't want the
 
(48:51) partition. I don't know the history.
 
(48:54) >> Well, the British Empire partitioned
 
(48:56) India into Muslim and into and Hindu.
 
(48:58) >> Yeah, but against their will. They they
 
(49:00) prefer I mean, nobody's stopping them.
 
(49:01) >> Against many's will. Well, certainly
 
(49:03) >> nobody's stop nobody's stopping them
 
(49:05) from rejoining.
 
(49:06) >> But these the point about Indian
 
(49:08) population.
 
(49:08) >> Let me just make my point. Let me just
 
(49:09) make my point. No, no, no. Now you're
 
(49:11) really interrupting me. I I didn't get
 
(49:13) my not foreign settler populations.
 
(49:15) These were existing populations. You are
 
(49:17) right. You are right about that. I'm not
 
(49:19) making that point, but I will grant you
 
(49:20) that point. I'm making a point about
 
(49:22) human nature, which is that these are
 
(49:25) the same people, the same people, and
 
(49:28) yet the difference between Hinduism and
 
(49:31) Islam descended into horrible violence.
 
(49:35) Millions of people killed, millions of
 
(49:36) people expelled. And to think to imagine
 
(49:40) that the Muslims and the Jews of all
 
(49:44) people were going to live together in
 
(49:47) peace. Hey, maybe
 
(49:48) >> they always had. They always had. No,
 
(49:50) they had
 
(49:51) >> the Muslims and the Jews. No,
 
(49:52) anti-semitism is a European. Why did
 
(49:55) they What about you? You talk about
 
(49:57) Schlamee. Why were all the Jew Why did
 
(49:58) all the Jews leave Iraq?
 
(50:01) >> Well, did you read my book?
 
(50:02) >> Yes, I read I also read Schlame's book,
 
(50:03) though, too. And your your book doesn't
 
(50:05) say the same thing as his, but go ahead.
 
(50:06) But what's your what's your position?
 
(50:08) >> Well, he read my chapter and and thought
 
(50:10) I represented his position very well.
 
(50:12) The position was that the Jews had lived
 
(50:13) in Iraq for 2500 years. It was the
 
(50:16) oldest Jewish community in the world.
 
(50:18) They had had moments of not great things
 
(50:20) because everybody has that in 2500
 
(50:22) years. But the Farhood, which was the
 
(50:24) the riot, the the pogram that happens in
 
(50:26) Iraq in 1940, uh was something that he
 
(50:30) says in his book had not happened in
 
(50:32) many centuries. So, and he says also
 
(50:35) that anti-semitism was a European
 
(50:37) problem that was exported into the Arab
 
(50:39) world and then the Arabs and the Muslims
 
(50:41) got blamed for it. So, to say that
 
(50:42) Muslims and Arabs can't live to Muslims
 
(50:44) and Jews can't live together, it's just
 
(50:45) not true. I mean,
 
(50:46) >> why did they leave? Why did they leave
 
(50:48) Iraq?
 
(50:49) >> Well, why did they leave Iraq?
 
(50:51) >> The Jew the Jews in Iraq didn't do
 
(50:53) anything wrong, right? Why would they
 
(50:54) why why do they feel they have to
 
(50:55) >> Well, part of the story that that Avi
 
(50:57) explains in the book is that Zionist
 
(50:59) agents blew up Jewish targets in Baghdad
 
(51:02) in 1950 and 1951 and created a panic
 
(51:06) among the Jewish population at a time
 
(51:08) when people were absolutely shocked and
 
(51:10) terrified by what had happened in
 
(51:11) Europe,
 
(51:12) >> by what had happened in the Holocaust.
 
(51:14) >> So that's but but
 
(51:15) >> okay, let me let me answer that. Let me
 
(51:17) answer that one. Are you skipping over
 
(51:18) the fact that Zionist agents blew up
 
(51:20) synagogues in Baghdad? I'm not going to
 
(51:21) skip over. Well, I I will answer that.
 
(51:23) First of all, just for the record, I'm
 
(51:25) going to I'm going to accept it for the
 
(51:26) sake of argument, but just for the
 
(51:27) record, Benjamin uh Benny Morris, who
 
(51:31) Finkelestein just recently said is still
 
(51:34) the Encyclopedia Bratannica when it
 
(51:35) comes to facts, not politics, when it
 
(51:37) comes to facts on this conflict. Um he
 
(51:40) calls it obviously fantasy land. This
 
(51:42) was an article anybody can look up, but
 
(51:43) but let's assume that it's true.
 
(51:45) >> They have beef with each other for many
 
(51:47) years.
 
(51:47) >> Okay. I I will read you from Schlim's
 
(51:49) book, Three World.
 
(51:51) He says that the bombs contributed uh
 
(51:53) this is not the quote yet the bombs
 
(51:55) contributed to a feeling of insecurity
 
(51:56) that already existed and now the quote
 
(51:58) is but the real reason for leaving
 
(52:00) according to my mother's later account
 
(52:02) was that life in Iraq had become too
 
(52:04) dangerous by 1950 for the Jews in
 
(52:07) general and for our family in
 
(52:08) particular. Persecution of the Jews was
 
(52:11) intensifying and it assumed different
 
(52:13) forms. The government, the judiciary and
 
(52:16) the public became very hostile.
 
(52:17) Restrictions were placed on Jewish trade
 
(52:20) and commerce. Jews in the civil service
 
(52:22) were dismissed and the entire community
 
(52:24) was placed under surveillance. Young
 
(52:26) Jews were barred from admission to
 
(52:28) colleges and further education. The gets
 
(52:30) worse. The police arrested, tortured,
 
(52:33) imprisoned arbitrary fosed arbitrary
 
(52:36) fines and extracted money from innocent
 
(52:39) Jews in what looked like a government
 
(52:41) sanctioned campaign of harassment. And
 
(52:42) this is my beef with your book and I
 
(52:44) think it's significant.
 
(52:46) You pick one thing out and I don't mind
 
(52:50) any argument you want to make but to
 
(52:51) leave that kind of
 
(52:55) book.
 
(52:55) >> No, you don't say anything like this.
 
(52:57) >> No, but but but I I I I asked you here.
 
(53:00) I gave you the full chance to say why
 
(53:02) did the Jews leave Iraq? And I knew
 
(53:04) you'd say the bombing. I knew you'd say
 
(53:06) the bombing and I and I had and I had it
 
(53:08) ready. obvious.
 
(53:09) >> No, I just read you what he And by the
 
(53:11) way, there's four other interviews the
 
(53:12) guy did where he said I'm it is not part
 
(53:14) of my argument that the bombing is the
 
(53:15) reason that they left.
 
(53:17) >> My Zionist critics say uh some deny
 
(53:22) altogether. They say that I invented
 
(53:24) this story that Israel had no hand
 
(53:27) whatsoever in these bombings.
 
(53:30) Others say yes, they may have had a
 
(53:34) hand, but the Exodus happened not
 
(53:37) because of the bombs, but because of
 
(53:40) anti-semitism,
 
(53:42) because of official persecution of the
 
(53:44) Jews. This is what the dws drove the
 
(53:47) Jews out. Now, it's not part of my
 
(53:50) argument that the bombs were the
 
(53:54) critical factor in the Exodus. I accept
 
(53:58) that official persecution was the main
 
(54:01) reason for the exodus,
 
(54:04) but uh the bombs were a factor. They
 
(54:08) have to be taken into account. And if I
 
(54:10) knew for certain that not a single Iraqi
 
(54:14) Jew left Iraq to Israel because of the
 
(54:19) bombs, I would still say this is this
 
(54:22) operation, this false flag operation is
 
(54:25) a terrible indictment of the state of
 
(54:28) Israel. But it's a hell of a bombing to
 
(54:31) cause people to be tortured, arrested,
 
(54:33) can't go to college. That's that's quite
 
(54:35) a reaction of these Iraqi people who
 
(54:37) have nothing against the Jews. just
 
(54:39) instantly on a dime from from a people
 
(54:42) that they they didn't even consider them
 
(54:43) Jews with all the same people and within
 
(54:46) I don't know months they were torturing
 
(54:49) them and rounding them up and and there
 
(54:51) was no well of anti-semitism that that
 
(54:53) came from that actually sprung a new it
 
(54:56) didn't exist beforehand there somehow
 
(54:58) these people just I I'm not going to
 
(55:00) read it again this is obviously untrue
 
(55:03) which is not to say that you're wrong
 
(55:05) about things you want to say about
 
(55:06) Israel but this you're wrong about this
 
(55:09) is not a fair depiction of history or
 
(55:12) even logical uh uh reading of it. You're
 
(55:15) not even using your own sources.
 
(55:18) >> You're yelling at me. You're going on
 
(55:20) and on. You've been doing this since you
 
(55:21) walked in here and you started reading
 
(55:23) this long tirade at me. You're not
 
(55:25) allowing me to address this very
 
(55:27) complicated subject which I devotes 350
 
(55:31) 400 pages to in this book. It is a
 
(55:33) complicated story. But the question that
 
(55:35) he raises which you could also quote at
 
(55:38) length is he believes that first of all
 
(55:40) this was not only something that
 
(55:42) happened to the Jews in Iraq. It
 
(55:43) happened to the Assyrians. It happened
 
(55:44) to the Shiites. It happened to certain
 
(55:46) Christians and it happened to the Kurds
 
(55:48) in the north.
 
(55:49) >> Yes, that's my point about India and all
 
(55:51) this other stuff I was saying to you.
 
(55:52) That's typical.
 
(55:53) >> No, but nobody disagreed. It's not
 
(55:54) typical. This was a country that had not
 
(55:56) had sectarian violence. This violence,
 
(55:59) as he points out also in the book, was
 
(56:01) stirred up by the British as it was in
 
(56:04) India, as it was in Pakistan, as it was
 
(56:06) in South Africa, as it was in Ireland,
 
(56:08) as it was in Egypt. This is a very he
 
(56:12) thinks that this is a story about
 
(56:14) imperialism and about imperial
 
(56:16) interventions in the global south. And
 
(56:18) so that is the broader point that he's
 
(56:20) situating this in. So, of course, nobody
 
(56:22) denies any of this stuff that you're
 
(56:24) saying. The context is very important.
 
(56:27) The context is that this is a country
 
(56:29) under imperialist domination by the
 
(56:30) British who had given it quote unquote
 
(56:33) its independence in 1932 but still
 
(56:35) controlled every aspect of its life and
 
(56:38) had created this situation where all
 
(56:41) these minorities were turning on each
 
(56:43) other. And again, you know, Baghdad was
 
(56:45) 40% Jewish. It was basic, it was much
 
(56:48) more Jewish than New York at the time.
 
(56:50) And these were not people who had ever
 
(56:52) performed security. Got it.
 
(56:54) >> I I mean, New York's got, you know, but
 
(56:56) there's this there's this so so so
 
(56:58) there's a big explanation for why does
 
(57:00) this happen and how this happened and so
 
(57:02) you can reduce it to this story of
 
(57:04) anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is a part
 
(57:06) of it. But again, anti-semitism had
 
(57:08) never been a part of Iraqi culture. All
 
(57:10) of the Ottoman,
 
(57:11) >> come on. How could it not be part of
 
(57:12) Iraqi culture for them to so instantly
 
(57:14) turn to the description of things that I
 
(57:16) just told you? That's obviously latent
 
(57:19) anti-semitism. You can't tell me a
 
(57:21) people. This was a government that was
 
(57:24) not an independent government. This was
 
(57:25) a government that even though it was
 
(57:27) nominally independent, was still, as was
 
(57:29) Egypt, which I also discuss, in which
 
(57:31) the exact same guy blew up or tried to
 
(57:33) blow up things in Egypt, it didn't work
 
(57:35) in Egypt. They were caught. But this was
 
(57:37) a this was a story about imperialism.
 
(57:40) It's not a story about anti-semitism. I
 
(57:42) mean, it has an anti-semitic aspect to
 
(57:43) it. But I think one of the problems that
 
(57:45) I'm always talking about and that I say
 
(57:47) I describe as the solopypsism of the
 
(57:49) Jews is thinking that the Jews are the
 
(57:51) only people that anything bad has ever
 
(57:53) happened to. If you just look at Iraq,
 
(57:55) terrible things happen to lots of
 
(57:57) minorities in Iraq.
 
(57:59) >> We're on something else now. No,
 
(58:01) >> but why would Jews want to live there if
 
(58:03) what you're saying is true that that
 
(58:04) that the minorities are turning on each
 
(58:07) other? They don't get along. Maybe
 
(58:09) Israel
 
(58:09) >> they had always got along. They had
 
(58:11) always gotten along. The story is
 
(58:13) imperialism.
 
(58:14) >> All right. Look, obviously
 
(58:17) u many many Iraqi Jews don't see it that
 
(58:20) way. Schlame came from a very privileged
 
(58:21) background in Iraq. But I would invite
 
(58:23) anybody to I'll even send you the PDF. I
 
(58:26) don't think Mr. Morris will mind. Maybe
 
(58:28) he will uh read the chapter and verse
 
(58:30) depictions of how the Jews lived in the
 
(58:32) Arab world in in Ben Benny Morris's book
 
(58:35) 1948.
 
(58:36) Uh Encyclopedia Bratannica as um Norman
 
(58:40) Finkelestein has called him. Can we can
 
(58:42) we move on because we're going to run
 
(58:43) out of time. You you're right. Many
 
(58:44) people continue to believe the classic
 
(58:46) Zionist trope of Israeli wars as purely
 
(58:48) defensive. Many still do. Let's talk
 
(58:51) about the the only war here that really
 
(58:53) matters to this story. Uh uh where we
 
(58:56) are now. Let's talk about the 1967 war.
 
(58:58) Now, surely you believe or maybe maybe
 
(59:00) you don't that Israel was not looking
 
(59:02) for a war in ' 67.
 
(59:06) >> No, of course. Of course they were. They
 
(59:08) started the war. Who fired the first
 
(59:09) shots in 19767?
 
(59:12) >> The Jews did. That that's that's that's
 
(59:14) that that's an argument.
 
(59:16) >> They started the war. The idea that
 
(59:18) Nasser was about to invade Israel was
 
(59:20) was disproved by their own generals and
 
(59:22) by their own prime minister. I mean,
 
(59:23) this is something
 
(59:24) >> untrue.
 
(59:25) >> Well, okay. Listen, I mean, I I feel
 
(59:27) like the
 
(59:30) these are facts that we're talking about
 
(59:31) here. These aren't controversial and I
 
(59:33) feel like the prosecutotorial tone of
 
(59:35) this interview is unpleasant to me and I
 
(59:38) find it undignified at a time when so
 
(59:40) many people are dying in the name of
 
(59:43) this but if you're going to you're
 
(59:46) defending an immoral disgusting evil
 
(59:49) >> I'm really not defending anybody I asked
 
(59:50) you about the death tens of thousands of
 
(59:54) children you've been talking over me the
 
(59:56) whole time you're not respectful of me
 
(59:59) you have talked over me more than I've
 
(60:00) done thousands of interviews in my I've
 
(60:02) I've never been talked over quite as
 
(60:03) much as I have tonight, which is fine.
 
(60:05) I'm happy to talk to you. But, you know,
 
(60:07) when you say who started the war and I
 
(60:10) said who started who who fired the first
 
(60:12) shots and you say the Jews, by the way,
 
(60:14) you don't say the Israelis. It's a
 
(60:15) distinction I've been trying to make my
 
(60:16) entire life between Jews and Zionists.
 
(60:18) It's not the same.
 
(60:19) >> I was I was using the Arab I was using
 
(60:21) the Arabic the Arabic translation of of
 
(60:24) who they say started the wars because
 
(60:25) they say
 
(60:26) >> the Arabic translation of Israel is is
 
(60:28) >> No, but they say but they don't say
 
(60:30) that. They say the Jews. Okay, let me
 
(60:32) read you from Let me give you my
 
(60:33) argument. I I looked up I I I know I'm
 
(60:36) not the Puler Prize winning writer here,
 
(60:37) but I do a lot of research. I I got
 
(60:40) Anoir Sadat's autobiography.
 
(60:43) Anoir Sadat, he was Nasser's deputy, and
 
(60:46) he writes his depiction of what
 
(60:49) happened. Now, of course, for people
 
(60:51) know, uh there was a blockade against
 
(60:53) Israel. They they closed the straits of
 
(60:55) Tyran so Israel couldn't do any
 
(60:56) shipping. Now, yes, that's that's not
 
(60:59) the first shot, but it's obviously a a
 
(61:01) causes belli. They they they threw all
 
(61:04) the UN peacekeepers out of the Sinai and
 
(61:08) they amassed 100,000 troops on Israel's
 
(61:11) border. Now, Israel is a tiny country
 
(61:13) and they were a little nervous about it.
 
(61:15) As a matter of fact, I'll read you two
 
(61:16) things and I'll let you talk and I won't
 
(61:18) cut you off. Uh Schlim says,
 
(61:21) uh, the speed and scale Schlim is your
 
(61:23) favorite historian. The speed and scale
 
(61:24) of Israel's military victory led some
 
(61:26) observers suspect that Israel launched
 
(61:27) the war not in self-defense but in order
 
(61:29) to expand its territory. Arab observers
 
(61:31) in particular were inclined to believe
 
(61:33) that Israel deliberately pro provoked
 
(61:35) war six in the six- day war to fulfill
 
(61:37) his longstanding territorial ambitions.
 
(61:40) Schlim says this view is without
 
(61:42) foundation. The six- day war was a
 
(61:44) defensive war. Now maybe you know better
 
(61:46) than Schlim but that's what he says. Now
 
(61:48) >> has also now let me I said I said I
 
(61:50) wanted to read two things and I'll let
 
(61:51) you speak. Anoir Sadat what happened to
 
(61:54) um Sedat says this is from his book page
 
(61:58) 172
 
(62:00) at the time many Arab brothers
 
(62:01) criticized Egypt for leaving the Tran
 
(62:03) Strait at the Gulf of Akaba Israel's
 
(62:06) only outlet to the Red Sea open to
 
(62:08) international particularly Israeli
 
(62:09) navigation. Nasser convened a meeting of
 
(62:12) what he called a Supreme Executive
 
(62:13) Committee toward the end of May 1967.
 
(62:16) Nasser said, "Now without our
 
(62:18) concentrations in the Sinai, the chances
 
(62:20) of war are 50/50. But if we close the
 
(62:23) straight, war will be 100% certainty."
 
(62:27) Nasser, this is the head of Egypt, says
 
(62:28) this. Then turning to Ammer, he asked,
 
(62:30) "Are the armed forces ready?" Abdhakim
 
(62:32) Amir pointed to his neck and said, "I'm
 
(62:34) my own head. Be it boss. Everything's in
 
(62:36) tip-top shape." Sadkis Sulaman, the
 
(62:40) prime minister, pleaded with Nasser to
 
(62:42) show more patience. Nasser paid no
 
(62:44) attention to his objections. He was
 
(62:46) eager to close the straight so as to put
 
(62:49) an end to Arab maneuverings. Now, if
 
(62:50) that's not these are primary sources,
 
(62:53) I'm not interpreting anything. This is
 
(62:55) Anoir Sadat, the guy who was in the room
 
(62:57) saying they told Nasser, "If you do
 
(62:59) this, it's 100% chance of war." And he
 
(63:01) said, "Do it." I can also quote you from
 
(63:04) King Hussein's book where he says,
 
(63:06) "Yeah, we we messed up. We shouldn't
 
(63:08) have done it." I I know you don't want
 
(63:09) to hear it, but it's there. Now, if you
 
(63:12) just want to say this was Israel, but I
 
(63:15) have Schlame, King Hussein, and Sadat.
 
(63:16) So, what's your source?
 
(63:19) >> I don't write about this in my book.
 
(63:23) >> You don't need to.
 
(63:24) >> I mean, what do you want me to say?
 
(63:25) Israel as as I say and as AI says in
 
(63:29) other places, my I grew up thinking that
 
(63:32) Israel was an innocent little lamb
 
(63:36) surrounded by Arab wolves and that all
 
(63:38) of its wars had been defensive. All
 
(63:40) anybody wanted to do was pick oranges on
 
(63:43) the kabuts and live in peace. Shalom.
 
(63:46) Shalom. You know, this is my upbringing
 
(63:48) as an American Jewish child. And what I
 
(63:52) have learned and what as you admitted,
 
(63:56) Israel started the 1967 war. There were
 
(63:59) tensions. Now what I was would refer to
 
(64:02) you in Avi's work which is one of the
 
(64:04) great historiographical questions about
 
(64:06) Israel which is why did Israel never
 
(64:10) manage to make peace? You've had all
 
(64:12) these people, you've had all these
 
(64:13) governments, you've had all these
 
(64:14) generals, all these prime ministers.
 
(64:16) Decade after decade, Israel has gotten
 
(64:18) itself into a state of perpetual war.
 
(64:21) Now this is actually quite unusual if
 
(64:23) you look at other states. Why is this?
 
(64:26) Now, you've said that the Arabs were
 
(64:28) anti-Semitic and they hated the Jews.
 
(64:30) Well, that's not actually true. So, what
 
(64:33) is it about this state? And in A's later
 
(64:36) work, especially in the Iron Wall, he
 
(64:38) shows how Arab peace feelers from the
 
(64:41) very beginning,
 
(64:41) >> I was reading from the Iron Wall. Go
 
(64:43) ahead.
 
(64:43) >> Right. Well, you can keep reading
 
(64:44) because what he says is that these Arab
 
(64:47) peace feelers,
 
(64:49) generation after generation, the Arabs
 
(64:51) didn't want this war. They never wanted
 
(64:55) this this state in their midst that was
 
(64:57) perpetually bombing them, that had all
 
(64:59) the imperialist support and was much
 
(65:01) stronger militarily and economically
 
(65:03) than they were. They were constantly
 
(65:06) trying to make peace and constantly
 
(65:09) being rebuffed. To the contrary of the
 
(65:11) story that I always heard, they were
 
(65:13) being rebuffed by Israel and by Zionism.
 
(65:16) And so all these details that you're
 
(65:18) talking about, you know, the fact is
 
(65:20) Israel actually started the 67 war.
 
(65:23) Israel started all these wars. And
 
(65:25) Israel in 1956 invaded Egypt.
 
(65:28) >> There is one there is one key point.
 
(65:29) Egypt
 
(65:30) >> Israel didn't start it. A blockade is
 
(65:32) considered by all international law.
 
(65:34) >> There's no blockade.
 
(65:35) >> Yes, they they
 
(65:36) >> Egypt can't blockade Israel. Israel has
 
(65:38) a very long coastline. I mean,
 
(65:39) >> you're I don't mean a full blockade.
 
(65:40) Blockade of the straight with the
 
(65:42) shipping blockade of shipping. This is
 
(65:44) an act of war. Nobody disputes that. But
 
(65:47) um that's so and and 100 when if if we
 
(65:52) put a 100
 
(65:53) >> is trying to address this.
 
(65:54) >> Let me let me I'll let you speak. If we
 
(65:56) if any country
 
(65:58) >> listen we saw this in Russia not so long
 
(66:01) ago. Russia amassed its troops on the
 
(66:04) border of Ukraine.
 
(66:06) Now by way you view the world, if
 
(66:09) Ukraine had struck first, you would say
 
(66:11) Ukraine's the bad guy here. Ukraine
 
(66:13) Ukraine started the war. Ukraine is not
 
(66:15) a foreign settler colony. I'm not
 
(66:18) talking away from this. Now, I want to
 
(66:19) read you something else. Yes, we are.
 
(66:20) No, we are. That doesn't change. That
 
(66:22) does not change. You have to go. I do
 
(66:24) this for an hour and we're getting to an
 
(66:26) hour. You are not wanting to ask. Let me
 
(66:29) make one more. I'm not going to answer
 
(66:30) the question. No, no. I'm making the
 
(66:31) point and then I have to go.
 
(66:32) >> No, you No, don't don't go. Let me let
 
(66:33) me say my point. Let me read my If you
 
(66:35) have to go lastly, let me finish reading
 
(66:37) aim because you said that the person who
 
(66:39) shoots first starts the war. However,
 
(66:41) this is very important. Israel shot
 
(66:44) first at Egypt because they thought
 
(66:46) another holocaust was coming. Jordan
 
(66:48) attacked Israel first. Israel did not
 
(66:51) attack Jordan. This is from Abishim's
 
(66:54) book, The Iron Wall, that you recommend.
 
(66:55) The fighting on the Eastern Front was
 
(66:57) initiated by Jordan, not by Israel. King
 
(67:00) Hussein got carried along by powerful
 
(67:02) currents of Arab nationalism. Eshkol,
 
(67:04) the Israeli prime minister, decided to
 
(67:06) give King Hussein the benefit of the
 
(67:07) doubt through the UN General Abal, the
 
(67:10) Norwegian chief of staff of UNSO. He
 
(67:13) sent the following message on the
 
(67:14) morning of June 5th. We shall not
 
(67:16) initiate any action whatsoever against
 
(67:18) Jordan. However, should Jordan open
 
(67:21) hostilities, we shall react with all our
 
(67:23) might, and the king will have to bear
 
(67:24) the full responsibility for the
 
(67:26) consequences. Abisha says the king made
 
(67:29) the mistake of his life under Egyptian
 
(67:31) commands. the Jordanian forces
 
(67:33) intensified the shelling. Had King
 
(67:36) Hussein heeded Eshko's warning, he would
 
(67:38) have kept the old city of Jerusalem and
 
(67:40) the West Bank. Then we would have our
 
(67:42) two-state solution now. If only Jordan
 
(67:44) would let the Palestinians go. This is
 
(67:47) not inevitable.
 
(67:49) And it doesn't go back to some Herzel's
 
(67:51) dick uh obsession.
 
(67:54) These are a lot of actors in this story.
 
(67:57) And you I tried to limit myself to your
 
(67:59) sources to rebut you. Now say whatever
 
(68:02) you want. I know the sun's going to come
 
(68:04) out soon, so you probably have to go.
 
(68:05) But I I
 
(68:06) >> I don't think you're rebutting me. I
 
(68:07) think you're reading things that have,
 
(68:08) first of all, have nothing to do with my
 
(68:10) book. The question of whether Jordan
 
(68:11) entered the war in 1967, first or
 
(68:14) second, the war didn't start with
 
(68:15) Jordan. The war started with Egypt. So
 
(68:17) that's a bit of a secondary
 
(68:18) consideration. But the point is, let me
 
(68:21) say something.
 
(68:22) The question you are not wanting to
 
(68:24) answer is the question that I posed at
 
(68:27) the very beginning which was did the
 
(68:29) European Jews have the right to come to
 
(68:30) Palestine as settlers as conquerors take
 
(68:33) over these people's country ethnically
 
(68:35) cleanse them on multiple occasions and
 
(68:37) now commit genocide against it.
 
(68:39) Everything else to me we can talk about
 
(68:42) it but I don't think I think you're
 
(68:44) talking about what the Norwegian chief
 
(68:46) of staff said and all this because
 
(68:47) you're trying not to answer that
 
(68:48) question. the people in my book were
 
(68:50) trying to answer this question and
 
(68:52) that's what I'm trying to keep the focus
 
(68:53) on. So
 
(68:55) >> I hope that you will um
 
(68:57) >> yeah I I
 
(69:00) positions are
 
(69:01) >> I don't think that our positions are are
 
(69:02) are
 
(69:04) >> are compatible. I'm not a Zionist. I
 
(69:07) abhore Zionism. I think it was a
 
(69:09) horrible mistake that's caused, okay,
 
(69:11) >> immense misery to the lives of millions
 
(69:14) and millions of people, Palestinian,
 
(69:16) Jewish, Lebanese, Jordanian, Egyptian,
 
(69:18) the list goes on.
 
(69:19) >> I think they had every right to come
 
(69:20) over uh legally. That's almost uh
 
(69:24) self-evident that anybody can do
 
(69:25) something as legal
 
(69:26) >> as immigrants or as conquerors.
 
(69:28) >> I don't think they had a right to come
 
(69:29) over as conquerors. I don't know. These
 
(69:31) were Listen, I know these people
 
(69:33) conquerors. They they
 
(69:35) >> you you're looking at Israel, the IDF,
 
(69:38) what they do is they haven't conquered
 
(69:40) Palestine.
 
(69:41) >> You're talking about controversial. This
 
(69:43) is why I bring up post 67. Yes. In ' 67
 
(69:46) they conquered.
 
(69:47) >> But what about the Nagba of 1948? I
 
(69:49) mean, listen,
 
(69:50) >> the No, this even Norman Finkelstein
 
(69:52) accepts this that the Nagba was a war of
 
(69:54) self.
 
(69:56) >> Quick correction, I didn't remember this
 
(69:58) exactly, right? In a 2018 interview,
 
(70:00) Finkelstein quoted the Israeli scholar
 
(70:02) Zeve Ma and the line is with the
 
(70:05) possible exception of the 1948 war, none
 
(70:08) of the wars Israel has fought since 1948
 
(70:11) can be described as a nochoice war. So
 
(70:14) he does not say 1948 was a war of
 
(70:16) self-defense. He says it's the one
 
(70:18) possible exception. And Ma, the scholar
 
(70:21) he's quoting, writes that the Arabs
 
(70:23) rejected partition, threatened to invade
 
(70:26) and invaded, and that the Jewish
 
(70:28) commanders gave the state even odds of
 
(70:30) surviving. Everybody knows it was a war
 
(70:32) of self-defense. You make you rolling
 
(70:34) your eyes, but
 
(70:34) >> the Palestinians don't think that. You
 
(70:36) should talk to the the Pal a civil war
 
(70:39) broke out right after the partition and
 
(70:41) then five Arab armies attacked and then
 
(70:44) in closer to proximity to the Holocaust.
 
(70:46) I feel like I Hebrew school in Texas,
 
(70:48) Habibi. Yeah, let me
 
(70:49) >> I feel like you're reciting talking
 
(70:51) points at me that I have heard my entire
 
(70:53) life that are just not true.
 
(70:54) >> Okay. Well, you can tell me where
 
(70:55) they're not true after I get them out. I
 
(70:57) and I won't interrupt you. in in uh in a
 
(71:01) closer proximity of time than we are
 
(71:04) right now to COVID,
 
(71:06) Holocaust survivors
 
(71:08) were defending their lives again
 
(71:11) armies in a war that they did talk about
 
(71:14) [ __ ] [ __ ] driving the Jews into the
 
(71:17) sea. And in that
 
(71:19) >> who got driven into the sea.
 
(71:21) >> And in that war people were pushed out
 
(71:25) in various ways and they were pushed
 
(71:28) over the line not refugees but they were
 
(71:30) pushed over the line into the part of
 
(71:32) the land which was supposed to be theirs
 
(71:35) by the new partition. And I would say at
 
(71:39) that point given the reality on the
 
(71:43) ground and the moral obligation to the
 
(71:46) practical just like when we move people
 
(71:48) out of their homes in in this country
 
(71:52) for whatever reason at that point and so
 
(71:53) today they should be given money. They
 
(71:56) should be given reparations.
 
(71:58) The places that you want them to go back
 
(72:00) to don't exist anymore.
 
(72:03) nor do we really understand why they
 
(72:04) would want to come and live in a Jewish
 
(72:08) state with the crazy western ideas of
 
(72:11) civil rights and uh gay marriage and and
 
(72:15) uh they could I mean they the idea that
 
(72:17) >> is there gay marriage in Israel you
 
(72:18) might want to Google that one
 
(72:19) >> they recognize gay marriage the idea
 
(72:20) that the idea the idea they do the the
 
(72:24) idea that the
 
(72:25) >> come the idea that Ben Gavir the the
 
(72:28) idea that people like the idea that
 
(72:30) people like Ben Gavir and Smootric and
 
(72:32) all faright religious people in Israel
 
(72:35) and the secular middle are going to sit
 
(72:39) down and start a country with me I'm
 
(72:42) almost ready are going to sit down and
 
(72:44) start a country please are going to sit
 
(72:46) down let me finish my sentence are going
 
(72:48) to are going to finish your sentence
 
(72:50) your sentence is ridiculous are going to
 
(72:52) sit down genocide and ethnic you have no
 
(72:56) idea what I'm talking about finish
 
(72:58) because
 
(72:59) >> the idea the idea that they're going to
 
(73:01) thank you very much
 
(73:01) >> the idea that they're going to sit down
 
(73:03) with I'll finish anyway. The idea that
 
(73:05) they're going to sit down that the Ben
 
(73:07) Gavver and Smotresses and Netanyahu are
 
(73:09) going to sit down with the latest
 
(73:10) version of Sinoir and Yaser Arafat and
 
(73:15) form some side of some kind of
 
(73:16) multithnic country that's all going to
 
(73:18) work out is so bizarre.
 
(73:22) Well, I'm shocked he made it an hour.
 
(73:24) But, you know, there's an art to there's
 
(73:25) an art to debating but not Well, he did
 
(73:29) make it the whole hour. So, I guess I I
 
(73:30) got to I got to give it to you.
 
(73:32) >> It's hard It's hard in Zoom because in
 
(73:34) in a normal conversation, you somebody
 
(73:35) lets somebody in. You know, I I'm going
 
(73:38) to count up the minutes of that thing,
 
(73:40) but I don't I don't The problem is that
 
(73:44) and I and I'm sorry, I'm I have to plant
 
(73:47) this flag. When a guest or anybody
 
(73:50) starts off on something that has nothing
 
(73:53) to do with the question or doesn't even
 
(73:55) necessarily logically connected to what
 
(73:57) we're talking about, in other words,
 
(73:58) we're talking about 67. We're talking
 
(74:00) about hers. So the genocide in and well
 
(74:03) that's I say wait a second stop that
 
(74:06) because otherwise we didn't even have
 
(74:08) any rules of a conversation here. It's
 
(74:11) like you're jumping to that because you
 
(74:13) don't want to deal with if you had a
 
(74:16) really good answer to what I said
 
(74:17) believe me you would have h I would have
 
(74:20) heard it. Right. So you want to talk
 
(74:21) about the and I was happy to keep him on
 
(74:24) and talk about you know the Gaza war.
 
(74:28) Well, well, I I did want to hear your
 
(74:30) answer to his question.
 
(74:32) >> Go ahead. What's the question?
 
(74:32) >> The question being is that did did the
 
(74:34) Jews have a right to go to Palestine and
 
(74:36) conquer uh the territory?
 
(74:39) >> I did answer. They didn't conquer the
 
(74:41) territory.
 
(74:42) >> Well, you were getting there. You were
 
(74:43) getting to that.
 
(74:45) >> Was he referring to Was he referring to
 
(74:46) by He talked about the later wars.
 
(74:49) >> Well, I I think and when it was
 
(74:51) partitioned, that wasn't a conquering,
 
(74:54) >> right? I I well that would have been the
 
(74:56) conversation I wanted to see and I think
 
(74:57) a lot of listeners would want to have
 
(74:59) heard because that really is the crux of
 
(75:01) the matter. He believes that Israel the
 
(75:03) original sin is they don't belong there
 
(75:04) and everything flows from that. If you
 
(75:06) recall whenever you compared Israel to
 
(75:09) another country he said yes but they
 
(75:10) weren't settler colonist.
 
(75:12) >> He's right about that. So, so in his
 
(75:13) mind,
 
(75:15) uh, Israel has no right to exist in its
 
(75:19) current form and therefore basically all
 
(75:22) all everything is justified. Look,
 
(75:25) >> what you do to them is justified and
 
(75:26) what any defense that they offer is
 
(75:28) unjustified. It's like Finkelestein
 
(75:31) said, Israel has one right to pack up
 
(75:32) and leave, and that's his position. No,
 
(75:34) but that's his position.
 
(75:35) >> Yeah, but Finkelestein believes the
 
(75:36) partition was correct. Finkelestein
 
(75:38) believes in a two-state solution.
 
(75:40) Finkelstein actually opposed BDS because
 
(75:42) he thought it was a way to smuggle in
 
(75:44) the end of Israel. Finkelestein believes
 
(75:47) that he his points about Groiko's great
 
(75:49) speech. Now, I just want to point out
 
(75:50) something about this guy Moser since he
 
(75:53) uh he anybody that's that that one-sided
 
(75:56) might be right, but it's it's always a
 
(75:58) tell when somebody has
 
(76:01) to him everything Israel has ever done
 
(76:04) is bad. And um and he offers no uh no
 
(76:09) examples of what he thinks went on on
 
(76:11) the other side. That's bad. And I think
 
(76:14) that's sort of indicative of of somebody
 
(76:17) I got to find just one thing.
 
(76:19) >> That's not a that's not a um you know a
 
(76:21) good faith uh debater.
 
(76:23) >> I found it. Okay.
 
(76:24) >> Okay.
 
(76:25) >> So from his Substack
 
(76:30) he writes the following.
 
(76:32) And by the way,
 
(76:36) it's absolutely correct if somebody's
 
(76:39) building an intellectual point
 
(76:42) based on brick after brick after brick
 
(76:45) to point out that I and you have to
 
(76:46) understand the frequency with which
 
(76:49) things in this book don't survive
 
(76:52) scrutiny.
 
(76:54) But this is from his substack and and so
 
(76:55) much of Israel is American. wonder why
 
(76:58) career criminal Benjamin Netanyahu
 
(77:00) speaks English so well because he's from
 
(77:02) Philadelphia and maybe new prime
 
(77:04) minister Naftali Bennett, the one who
 
(77:06) said, "I've killed a lot of arrows in my
 
(77:07) life. There's no problem with that." But
 
(77:08) that's taken out of context. Is from San
 
(77:10) Francisco.
 
(77:12) Now, both these people are born in
 
(77:15) Israel. Bennett was born in Israel and
 
(77:18) Netanyahu's mother is Israeli too and
 
(77:20) his father is a Jew from Poland. So,
 
(77:23) it's like no uh no uh nothing. He's he's
 
(77:27) he's untethered. He doesn't feel
 
(77:30) anything has to be quite accurate. I
 
(77:32) really did limit myself to all his
 
(77:34) sources. He's all about Aisha, all about
 
(77:37) the bombing. And you you heard I looked
 
(77:39) well, you know, I don't know going into
 
(77:41) it what I'm going to find. Mhm.
 
(77:43) >> I didn't know that I would find that
 
(77:45) that um the thing in Herzel's diary,
 
(77:49) quote unquote, was really a letter where
 
(77:50) he was trying to
 
(77:53) uh remain anonymous as to who wrote this
 
(77:56) play of his.
 
(77:58) This is low low quality work.
 
(78:03) Well, he's doing a lot of damage and um
 
(78:05) I hope that this podcast u counters that
 
(78:09) a little bit anyway in a small way
 
(78:11) because he's really he he's out there
 
(78:13) being promoted heavily as as the guy,
 
(78:16) you know, whenever you have a Jewish guy
 
(78:18) speaking against
 
(78:19) >> Oh, they love that.
 
(78:20) >> They love it and and and and they're
 
(78:21) having a field day with it. So, I
 
(78:22) hopefully in a small way this podcast
 
(78:24) will will help you know um help that
 
(78:28) situation.
 
(78:30) But good job, Nom. And again, you kept
 
(78:32) him around for an hour. I didn't think
 
(78:33) he was going to last that long.
 
(78:34) >> Be honest with you.
 
(78:35) >> I just want you to answer this one
 
(78:36) question. Do they have the right to beat
 
(78:38) to to
 
(78:40) How would I phrase it? Do they have the
 
(78:42) How often do you beat your wife?
 
(78:43) >> Yeah. Yeah. Like, do they have the right
 
(78:45) to be beating their wives?
 
(78:48) No. But I don't I don't Where is he
 
(78:51) going to say beat their wife? I I don't
 
(78:53) know.
 
(78:53) >> Joan, any thoughts?
 
(78:55) >> Periel,
 
(78:56) >> I don't I don't think he liked you very
 
(78:58) much.
 
(78:59) >> No, probably not. I don't think you
 
(79:01) didn't extend your usual invitation to
 
(79:02) come and have kebabs.
 
(79:04) >> Well, I mean to be fair, I think that
 
(79:07) Noom would have extended that.
 
(79:09) >> I'm sure no had been stuck around. I I
 
(79:12) would like to say a couple of things. Um
 
(79:15) >> but he wouldn't not have, you know, been
 
(79:17) happy to uh take Nome up on it. Yeah. Go
 
(79:19) ahead, Bar.
 
(79:20) >> I mean, the thing I just looked this up
 
(79:22) just to try to be accurate. You know,
 
(79:25) the the thing for me is you your
 
(79:27) comment, for example, about gay marriage
 
(79:29) in Israel. Um, I think that most
 
(79:33) informed people know that be the
 
(79:35) religious government like it's not
 
(79:38) actually legal, but your point was is
 
(79:40) that it was accepted. You said it was
 
(79:43) legal or what?
 
(79:44) >> Legal. I'm reading right here for uh
 
(79:46) >> however, Israel recognizes same-sex
 
(79:49) marriages performed abroad. But you were
 
(79:51) trying to illustrate a point. By the
 
(79:53) way, it's not recognized in Italy, but
 
(79:55) it is recognized in Israel.
 
(79:57) >> But and and
 
(79:58) >> and he said, "Come on. Come on." But I
 
(79:59) said, "What? Like, don't you gay, right?
 
(80:01) Doesn't he know that Israel?"
 
(80:02) >> I don't I don't I think so. Yeah, he's
 
(80:04) gay. He's very good-looking.
 
(80:06) >> Doesn't he know that Israel recognizes
 
(80:08) gays performed abroad?
 
(80:10) >> I like that's that's amazing to me.
 
(80:12) >> I think he he knows that, I believe, but
 
(80:15) he he also knows that technically
 
(80:17) speaking, you can't get two men cannot
 
(80:19) get married.
 
(80:20) >> Yes. But think about what he's doing
 
(80:21) there. I'm saying, what is this one
 
(80:23) state going to look like? I mean, how
 
(80:24) are they going to agree on something
 
(80:25) like how to how to treat gay issues? And
 
(80:28) he makes the completely dishonest point
 
(80:32) that he made. And if you were to believe
 
(80:35) it, you would think, well, there's
 
(80:36) really not much difference between the
 
(80:37) way the the, you know, the the
 
(80:39) Palestinians or the, you know, whatever
 
(80:42) whoever leaders are,
 
(80:42) >> whoever or the people who believe like
 
(80:46) a certain brand of Islam that is a
 
(80:49) substantial portion of the Palestinian
 
(80:50) people who would be their leaders.
 
(80:53) >> Yeah. Six of one, half a dozen the
 
(80:54) other. That's what I'm if I'm a gay if
 
(80:56) I'm a gay person, what do I care if it
 
(80:58) is a Jewish government or, you know, a
 
(81:00) Musl or Hamas in charge?
 
(81:02) >> That was my point. It's obviously
 
(81:03) untrue, right?
 
(81:04) >> That that was that was my point that
 
(81:06) that felt like a little bit disingenuous
 
(81:09) because
 
(81:10) >> a little well disingenuous.
 
(81:13) >> Yeah,
 
(81:14) >> I think you outpreared him.
 
(81:16) >> I don't think he was expecting that.
 
(81:19) >> Yeah, they never expected.
 
(81:20) >> I mean, god forbid become famous and he
 
(81:23) can't get any guests anymore. Dude,
 
(81:25) >> all you have to do is Google.
 
(81:28) >> That's what I'm saying. AI must be easy
 
(81:30) to be an author. Well, they they say
 
(81:32) they just figure he's a comedy club
 
(81:34) owner, you know.
 
(81:35) >> So, so so you know, he doesn't actually
 
(81:37) have citations in his book.
 
(81:38) >> Mhm.
 
(81:40) >> The citations are only available online,
 
(81:43) which is weird. And then they're not
 
(81:47) traditional citations. It's just kind of
 
(81:49) like pages 21 and 23. This it doesn't
 
(81:52) like a like a properly
 
(81:54) uh notated book will have the addition
 
(81:57) of the book and the page number and
 
(81:59) sometimes even the paragraph. they'll
 
(82:00) quote the thing. You know, if you read
 
(82:01) Norman Finkelstein's books, um the that
 
(82:04) you can you can trace anything he says
 
(82:06) back to exactly where he got it from.
 
(82:09) This one was more challenging, but some
 
(82:12) of the citations are just simply wrong.
 
(82:16) And this idea he confided in his diary
 
(82:19) that, you know, he wanted to show his
 
(82:20) didn't want to show his genitals or
 
(82:22) something like that. And the obsession
 
(82:23) lingered. He didn't want to get his son
 
(82:26) circumcised. This is so bottom of the
 
(82:29) barrel. It would be bottom of the barrel
 
(82:31) if it were true. That's what I would
 
(82:33) say. If it were all true, like what kind
 
(82:35) of, like I said about Glenn Greenwell,
 
(82:37) like what kind of ad homonym attack am I
 
(82:40) supposed to uh be against civil rights
 
(82:43) now because you tell me something creepy
 
(82:46) about Martin Luther King? Like like how
 
(82:48) does that even connect? Why does it
 
(82:49) matter?
 
(82:50) >> King wasn't a settler colony. That's
 
(82:51) what he would say.
 
(82:52) >> But but the fact is it's creepy. It's
 
(82:56) unrelated logically and it's not true
 
(82:59) and it's not true. So, you know, I
 
(83:03) >> and and if we had three hours, it would
 
(83:04) have been great to go brick by brick,
 
(83:06) but you know, I thought it was good to
 
(83:08) cut to the chase because we only had a
 
(83:09) limited time. And I didn't know how long
 
(83:11) it was going to stay.
 
(83:12) >> No, I'll tell you why. I I strongly
 
(83:14) disagree with you. We know what cutting
 
(83:16) to the chase is going to be. It's not
 
(83:18) going to be interesting. It's going to
 
(83:19) be a lot of uh uh uh cliche arguments
 
(83:24) whether you agree with them or not agree
 
(83:25) with nothing new for anybody who's
 
(83:28) interested in this topic to learn from
 
(83:31) that conversation. It's a genocide. It's
 
(83:32) not a genocide. We've heard this debate
 
(83:34) a million times. What is interesting to
 
(83:36) people is that this guy who wrote this
 
(83:40) book that's getting so so much play
 
(83:44) again and again and again he can't back
 
(83:47) up what he wrote. So if he can't back up
 
(83:50) everything that he wrote,
 
(83:52) >> well maybe I don't I shouldn't be so
 
(83:54) eager to trust his conclusion on things.
 
(83:56) >> Now maybe you're right. Are we eating?
 
(83:59) >> We got another guest.
 
(84:00) >> At at 5:30 at 5:30.
 
(84:02) >> At 5:30.
 
(84:02) >> Okay.
 
(84:03) >> All right. Are we finished?
 
(84:05) Pop it around. It up.