Norm Finkelstein DOGWALKS Destiny In Israel Debate

Summary

The transcript details a lengthy debate on the Israel-Palestine conflict, highlighting the perspectives of various scholars and analysts. The discussion reveals the complexity and tension surrounding the issue, with participants addressing historical narratives, the role of international law, and the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The debate underscores the differing viewpoints on the legitimacy of Israeli actions and the plight of the Palestinian people, questioning the adherence to international law and human rights standards in the context of ongoing conflict.

The video is abnormal, and we are working hard to fix it.
Please replace the link and try again.

The video is abnormal, and we are working hard to fix it.
Please replace the link and try again.

Outlines

The video is abnormal, and we are working hard to fix it.
Please replace the link and try again.

Keywords

The video is abnormal, and we are working hard to fix it.
Please replace the link and try again.

Highlights

The debate featured a range of perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including author and scholar Norman Finkelstein, analyst and researcher Muen Rabani, author and historian Benny Morris, and YouTuber Steven Benell, also known as Destiny.

Destiny's presence in the debate was seen as irrelevant, illustrating the difficulty of defending the Israeli position with ignorance, willful blindness, and debate tricks.

The debate began with the controversial fairy tale view of history, where Jewish people are the only permitted victims and the solution to European atrocities is seen as imposing a burden on Palestinians.

Destiny challenged the idea that expulsion or ethnic cleansing was a core and necessary element of Zionism from the onset, questioning the inevitability of transfer.

Muqtedar Khan argued that Palestinians' rejection of the 1948 partition plan was unreasonable and potentially anti-Semitic, while Rabani refuted this by highlighting the injustice of dispossession.

Norman Finkelstein eloquently discussed the version of nationalism Zionism represents, emphasizing the conflict between an ethnic state and its indigenous population.

The debate touched on the historical quotes from early Zionist leaders, acknowledging the inevitable conflict with Palestinians and the necessity of violence and displacement.

The discussion included the reality of Israeli policies leading to the starvation of Palestinians, with Benny Morris denying the occurrence of starvation deaths.

Muqtedar Khan pointed out the double standards in judging Israeli and Western actions versus Palestinian actions, highlighting the hypocrisy in the application of international law.

Destiny attempted to complicate the issue of genocide, using legal jargon to dismiss the targeting of civilians and collective punishment.

The debate addressed the selective appeal to international law by Israel and its defenders, with Norm Finkelstein and Muqtedar Khan emphasizing the importance of consistent application of legal standards.

The conversation highlighted the dehumanization of Palestinians and the echoes of World War II atrocities in the current situation in Gaza.

The transcript concluded with a call to action, questioning whether international rules set after World War II can withstand the current genocide and whether the world will continue to uphold these principles or revert to the law of the jungle.

The debate underscored the importance of understanding the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict beyond soundbites and propaganda.

The participants discussed the role of Western powers in perpetuating the conflict and the need for a more nuanced and factual understanding of history.

The transcript highlighted the ongoing struggle for justice and the critical need for a fair and comprehensive resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The debate served as a platform for diverse voices to present their arguments, showcasing the depth and breadth of perspectives on a highly contentious issue.

Transcripts

Crystal what are you taking a look at

podcaster Lex fredman recently hosted a

roughly 5our long debate on Israel

Palestine that was frustrating combative

at times but nevertheless

extraordinarily revealing the debate

featured author and Scholar Norman

finlin analyst and researcher muen

robani arguing the Palestinian

perspective on the pro Zionist side you

had author and historian Benny Morris

and YouTuber Steven benell also known as

Destiny now if your immediate reaction

is that one of these individuals doesn't

quite fit in with the rest you are

correct and it was painfully obvious the

entire 5 hours that Destiny was wildly

onside of his depth in fact although

many of the viral clips from the debate

involved Destiny's humiliation at the

hands of Norm finlin the truth is that

for most of the debate he was kind of

irrelevant sitting like a child at the

grown-up's table his presence was

nevertheless useful for helping to

illustrate the combination of ignorance

willful blindness and debate bro tricks

of the trade that are required to fully

defend the Israeli position at this

point in time but Morris and Destiny

threw every propaganda device in the

hasbara Playbook up against the wall to

see what would stick so let's see how it

went in the face of what at this point

is an undeniable and indefensible

reality so first up any good hpar

campaign has got to start with a fairy

tale view of history now in this V

history the only permitted victims are

Jewish people who no doubt were horribly

victimized in the Holocaust and in this

history the only just response to those

atrocities is not for the US or the UK

or Germany or the Soviet Union to

provide justice peace and safety for the

Jewish people but rather to impose that

burden entirely on a people who had

nothing to do with the Holocaust and who

had in fact been by and large living

peaceably alongside indigenous Jews for

centuries in other words the only

solution to a European atrocity was to

give license to an additional atrocity

the ethnic cleansing of the Native Arab

Palestinian population from their own

land and the only acceptable response of

that palestin population was then to

meekly accept their dispossession to do

otherwise is to prove that Arabs from

the beginning were violent unreasonable

and anti-semitic this was a matter of

quite a lot of debate at the beginning

of the podcast here for example is

Destiny challenging the idea that

expulsion or ethnic cleansing was a core

and necessary element of Zionism from

the onset a claim that gets brought up a

lot has to do with the inevitability of

transfer in Zionism or the idea that as

soon as the Jews envisioned a state in

Palestine they knew that it would

involve some Mass transfer of population

perhaps a mass expulsion um I'm sure

we'll talk about Plan D or Plan D at

some point the issue that I run into is

while you can find quotes from leaders

while you can find maybe desires

expressed in Diaries I feel like it's

hard to truly ever know if there would

have been Mass transfer in the face of

Arab peace because I feel like every

time there was a huge deal on the table

that would have had a sizable Jewish and

Arab population living together the

Arabs would reject it out of hand so for

instance when we say that transfer was

inevitable when we say that zionists

would have never accepted you know a

sizable Arab population how do you

explain the acceptance of the 47

partition plan that would have had a

huge Arab population living in the

Jewish state is your contention that

after the acceptance of that after the

establishment of that state that Jews

would have slowly started to expel all

of these Arab citizens from their

country or how do you explained that in

Lucan a couple years later that Israel

was willing to formally Annex the Gaza

Strip and make 200,000 or so people

those citizens but but I'm I'm just

curious how how do we get this idea of

Zionism always means Mass transfer when

there were times at least early on in

the history of Israel and and a little

bit before it where Israel would have

accepted a state that would have had a

massive Arab population in it is your

yeah is your idea that they would have

just slowly expelled them afterwards yes

in fact expulsion or apartheid is the

only logical outcome of establishing a

Jewish state in a land that was and is

is majority Muslim Arab Zionist leaders

at the time were pretty open about this

and about the necessity of violence and

conflict with that indigenous population

for example Joseph whites head of the

Jewish agency's colonization Department

said in 1940 quote between ourselves it

must be clear that there is no room for

both peoples together in this country we

shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs

are in this small country there is no

other way than to transfer the Arabs

from here to neighboring countries all

of them not one Village not One Tribe

should be left so pretty clearcut and

there are plenty of other historical

quotes besides that that make it clear

early Zionist leaders realized their

ideology would inevitably result in

conflict with Palestinians some

acknowledged that Arab resistance was in

fact logical and even just and that they

would also fervently resist displacement

if the roles had been reversed now it is

this point about the reasonable and in

fact inevitable nature of Palestinian

resistance to Zionism that M Rabani

picks up on in doing so he lays waste to

the idea that Palestinians in rejecting

the original 1948 un partition plan were

out of line or even that it was

inherently anti-semitic to reject a

Jewish State being established on a

portion of their land at all I mean um

uh one doesn't have to sympathize with

the

Palestinians um to recognize that they

have now been a stateless people for 7 5

years can you name any country yours for

example or yours that would be prepared

to give

55%

25% 10% of your country to the

Palestinians of course not and so um the

issue was not the existence of Jews in

Palestine um they had been there for

centuries and of course they had ties to

Palestine and particularly to Jerusalem

M and and other places going back

centuries if not Millennia um but the

idea of establishing an

exclusively Jewish State at the expense

of those who are already living there I

think it was right to reject that and I

don't think we can look back now 75

years later and say well you should have

accepted losing 55% of your Homeland

because you ended up losing 78% of it

the addition and the remaining 22% was

occupied in

1967 that's that's not how things work

yeah um and I can I can imagine I can

imagine an American rejecting giving 10%

of the United States to the Palestinians

and if that rejection leads to war and

you lose half your country I doubt that

50 years from now you're going to say

well maybe I should have accepted that

so they didn't accept the establishment

of an explicitly Jewish State because

the inevitable outcome was some version

of exactly the parthe ethnic cleansing

and now out andout genocide that we are

seeing play out this was a point that

Norman finlin made quite eloquently

talking about the version of nationalism

Zionism represents most theorists of

nationalism say there are two kinds of

nationalism one is a nationalism based

on citizenship you become a citizen

you're integral to the country that's

sometimes called political nationalism

and then there's another kind of

national ISM and that says the state

should not belong to its

citizens it should belong to an ethnic

group each ethnic group should have its

own State it's usually called the German

romantic idea of

nationalism

Zionism is

squarely in the jewi German romantic

idea that was the whole point of Zionism

we don't want to be bundists and be one

more ethnic minority in

Russia we don't want to become citizens

and just become a Jewish people in

England or France we want our own

State like the Arabs are 23 States no

wait let's before we get to the Arabs

let's get let's stick to the Jews for a

moment or the Zionist we want our own

State and in that

concept of wanting your own State the

minority at best lives on

sufferance and at worst gets expelled

that's the logic of the German romantic

Zionist idea of a state that's why they

Zion

so the truth is the desires of the early

zionists especially after the Holocaust

but even before given the number of

violent pams in Europe were completely

understandable as the cause of black

nationalism a similar nationalist

ideology given the horrors of slavery

and Jim Crow and other discrimination

also so understandable but it's also

true that though their aspirations were

understandable in reality Palestine was

not a land without a people and

realization of those Zionist aspirations

in Palestine required committing grave

injustices against the people who were

presently living in that land now in

order to accept the fairy tale version

of history and to accept the current

fairy tale version of Israel version Joe

Biden seems to believe wholeheartedly in

where the Israeli government would never

intentionally Target civilians or engage

in a partite or have ethnic cleansing as

a policy goal in order to accept those

Disney versions of reality you got to

make a Bedrock underlying assumption

that Western powers in every instance

have good intentions and Palestinians in

every instance have bad intentions now

oftentimes these assumptions are based

in racist World Views in which

westerners are inherently civilized and

Arabs are inherently barbarians

Netanyahu hints at this when he

describes their genocidal assault on

Gaza as being a conflict between the

sons of Light and the sons of Darkness

now this unshakable belief in the

goodness of Western Powers was evident

throughout the debate in a jaw-dropping

moment Destiny reveals himself to be

fully captured by an almost religious

Devotion to that benevolent view of

Western Powers take a listen it was

correctly brought up that I believe that

Ben gurian had um I think scho benam

describes it as an obsession with

getting validation or support from

Western States um Great Britain and then

a couple decades later explains the Su

War the crisis exactly correct that was

one of the major motivators the idea to

work with Britain and France on a

military

operation but then the question again I

go back to if that is true if beneran if

the early uh Israel saw themselves as a

western Fashion Nation how could we

possibly imagine that they would have

engaged in the transfer of some 400,000

Arabs after accepting the partition plan

would that not have completely and

totally destroyed their legitimacy in

the eyes of the entire Western world

would there not have been how not if you

thought the US and the UK would object

at any point to naked barbarism against

Palestinians then the past several

months should have thoroughly disabused

you of this notion the idea that Israel

and its allies are always operating with

good intentions is also incredibly imper

in how incredulous Benny Morris and Desy

both are at the notion Israel would

intentionally Target civilians now you

would be very familiar with the

arguments that were proferred in that

section of the debate essentially both

of them argued that if civilians are

killed then they must have been human

Shields or at the very worst they were

regrettably killed due to the one-off

actions of a few Rogue soldiers such

atrocities could not not possibly be the

result of official Israeli government

policy of course a look at the evidence

renders this view absurd after October

7th the Israeli defense minister

announced to the world a top- down

policy of Complete Siege of the civilian

population that Collective punishment

has continued to a sufficient extent

that children are now literally starving

to death and Gaza is now the site of the

worst levels of acute hunger in the

entire world this in and of itself

disproves the fantasy that Israeli

governments would never Target civilians

intentionally that's to say nothing of

the vast destruction and death toll

which is inconsistent with a view that

the problem of Civilian casualties is

simply the result of a few bad apples

the entire Gaza Strip population has

clearly been targeted now in the debate

M Rabani does a phenomenal job of

identifying this massive blind spot and

hypocrisy when it comes to the Judgment

of Israeli or Western actions vers

versus Palestinian actions this

particular section has to do with

documented Israeli atrocities committed

against civilians in Lebanon take a

listen it sounds cold to say it but war

is tragic and civilians die there is no

war that this has not happened in in the

history of all of humankind the

statement that Israel might take care

not to Target civilians is not

incompatible with a diary entry from

someone who said they saw civilians

getting killed I think that sometimes we

do a lot of weird games when we talk

about International humanitarian law or

laws that govern conflict where we say

things like civilians dying is a war

crime or civilian homes or hospitals

getting destroyed is necessarily a war

crime or is necessarily somebody

intentionally targeting civilians

without making distinctions between

military targets or civilian ones I

think that when we analyze different

attacks or when we talk about the

conduct of a military I think it's

important to understand uh like

perspectively from the unit uh of

analysis of the actual military

committing the acts what's happening and

what are the decisions being made rather

than just saying retrospectively oh well

a lot of civilians died not very many

you know military people died

comparatively speaking so uh it must

have been war crimes especially when

you've got another side um fast forward

to Hamas that intentionally attempts to

induce those same civilian numbers

because Hamas is guilty of any War crime

that you would potentially accuse and

this is according to Amnesty

International people that Norm loves to

site Hamas is guilty of all of these

same war crimes of them failing to take

care of the civilian population of them

essentially utilizing human Shields to

try to fire Rockets free from

Attack essentially yes as I'm just

saying that essentially in terms of how

international law defines it not how

amesty International defines it but Amy

International describes times of human

shielding but they don't actually apply

the correct International legal standard

know what's the correct AB you I

absolutely

absolutely wiip I'm just saying I'm just

saying believe it or not normal the

entire Geneva conventions is all on

Wikipedia it's a wonderful website but

I'm just saying I'm just saying that on

the Hamas side if there's an attempt to

induce this type of military activity

attempt to induce civilian harm that

it's not just enough to say say like

well here's a diary entry where a guy

talks about how tragic I the problem I

think the problem with with with your

statement is that if you go back and

listen to it the first part of it is War

as hell civilians die it's it's a fact

of life and and and you state that in a

very factual matter then when you start

talking about

Hamas all of a sudden you've discovered

morality and you've discovered

condemnation and you've discovered

intent M absolutely bodied him there

when it's Hamas the bad intent is

assumed Destiny has zero trouble calling

their actions war crimes when it's

Israel where is hell and the default

assumption is that they were trying to

achieve legitimate military objectives

and the civilians just got in the way

but double standards and Habra are not

the only way of denying Israel is

committing war crimes when left with no

other options one can simply deny basic

reality here is Benny Morris resorting

to this tactic when confronted with the

starvation of Palestinians as of

one quarter of the population of Gaza is

starving that means 500,000 children are

starving are on the verge of famine they

keep saying on the verge

of I have not seen one Palestinian die

of starvation in these last four months

not one on the verge they're on the

verge they have been documented cases I

haven't seen yesterday aler said six and

the day before that they said two so

those are the two the that number

probably dies in Israel of starvation

also I don't think there's famine in

Israel there isn't there isn't in the

Gaza Strip either it's something which

is produced for the West there are

infants dying due to a engineered lack

of access to food and nutrition I it's

engineered I think if the Kamas stopped

shooting perhaps unforunately

unfortunately as you said engineered I

think um amnesty and excuse me Human

Rights Watch called it using starvation

as a weapon that's called engineering

Benny Morris claimed there I have not

seen one Palestinian die of

starvation maybe you need to spend some

more time on Tik Tok where you might get

actually information versus whatever

propaganda networks you are currently

being fed from yes Palestinian children

and infants are dying of starvation yes

it is because of an intentional series

of Israeli policies in fact Oxfam as we

discussed before just released a new

report detailing the many methods that

Israel is using to intentionally starve

Palestinians that includes blocking Aid

entirely using an arbitrarily

bureaucratic and restrictive process to

block that Aid indiscriminantly

targeting civilians including Aid

workers rendering distribution

impossible in the face of these

undeniable facts which are too awful to

defend without resorting to outright

Nazi rhetoric the only option left is

just to flat out deny reality there no

other choice if you're committed to

painting Israel as a moral actor for his

part Destiny was inclined to pull from

the debate bro playbook in order to

distract an attempt to put norm and M

both on the defensive one of these

tactics was on display as a debate

participants argued over whether or not

Israel is in fact committing genocide

now in this section Destiny attempted to

throw up a smoke screen of complexity to

number one try to make it appear as if

Norm's correct interpretation of the icj

finding was wrong thereby dodging the

actual implication of that International

Court's ruling that the South African

case alleging genocide was in fact

plausible and two in order to make the

question of genocide seem so complex and

Technical that no lay person could

possibly understand it and you're a fool

to even try you also get to enjoy some

of Norm's unbridled contempt for destiny

in this exchange take a look to even

make it to plausible that is not true

that is not what plaus it is absolutely

not Mr barelli please don't teach me

about the English langu which so the

Declaration judge I

saidil qualifying the court is not asked

at this present phase of the proceedings

to determine whether South Africa's

allegations of genocide are well founded

they're not well founded they're not

even well founded the you said that

plausible was a high standard is

absolutely not it is a misrepresentation

of the strength of the case against

Israel just like the majority of the

quotes they have in this case are and

also you said it was an extremely well

founded case they spend like four of all

of the quotations some even pulled from

the Goldstone report they try to uh that

actually deal with the intent part which

is by the way I think you guys I don't

know if you use the phrase the doo

specialis that the intentional part of

genocide know the the I think it's I

think it's called Doo specialis it is

the most important part of genocide

which is proving the special it is a

highly special intent to commit genocide

it's possible that Israel that's men's

no Pro the men's yes I understand the

state of mind but in for genocide there

is it's called specialis it's a highly

special intent did you read the case oh

it's a highly special intent dois

specialis if you don't know this obscure

legal term then apparently you can't

possibly understand the concept of

genocide it's a neat way for Destiny to

dismiss the targeting of civilians the

collective punishment the direct quotes

of high level Israeli officials

admitting their genocidal intent because

only Destiny at the table possesses this

super special knowledge and so only he

is qualified to judge whether Israel has

in fact met the bar of this highly

special intent now as our friend jagor

details on uh Twitter there is nothing

magical about the Latin legal term dois

specialis it just means specific intent

in other words you can't accidentally do

a genocide you got to have specific

intent something that Norm and W clearly

demonstrate in their comments that they

fully understand furthermore there is

actually debate for what it's worth in

the international law Community about

how such intent can be established since

usually usually governments do not go

around declaring they are doing a job

genocide many scholars argue that as a

result circumstantial evidence could

suffice for proving this specific intent

to genocide or do specialist if we're

being fancy in the case of Israel

however we don't really have this

problem since everyone from BB to

president Herzog to the defense minister

to a wide variety of War cabinet

ministers and ruling party members have

been happy to give quotes elucidating

their genocidal intent as South Africa

accurately detailed in their icj filing

this assertion of complexity is a go-to

tactic for Israel Defenders and it's

quite effective frankly many a liberal

concerned about the humanitarian horror

unfolding before their eyes can be shut

down in an instant by a simple assertion

that the Situation's really complex and

therefore outside of the understanding

of those without encyclopedic knowledge

of every twist and turn in the

historical record now ironically Norm

Moen and Benny actually have that

encyclopedic expert knowledge of the

conflict which Destiny is himself

completely lacking but the tactic is

such a go-to that Destiny attempts it

anywhere even when confronted with

actual legit experts and of course the

history the technical legal minutia all

these things are of course complex but

the basics are not difficult to

understand Palestinians were ethnically

cleansed from their land they live under

occupation and blockade both of which

are illegal they are currently being

slaughtered and starved on mass you

don't need to know what Theodore Herzel

wrote in his diary in 1896 in order to

understand these things although nor M

and Benny actually do know such specific

details relatedly I don't think it's

inappropriate for non-experts like

Destiny or myself for that matter to

have opinions and to voice them and to

defend them and to debate them even with

experts I might just recommend a little

bit of humility awareness of the bounds

of your technical knowledge as compared

to legit historians who have spent their

entire adult lives studying all of the

details now there is one final tactic

consistently deployed by Destiny and

Benny in this debate which is worth

Illuminating and that is the

inconsistent appeal to international law

now when it suits israelies such as when

discussing the original un partition

plan then international law is

everything it's binding when it doesn't

suit them such as when being held

accountable for illegal settlements and

war crimes it's irrelevant it's useless

who cares this selective appeal to

international law came out several times

throughout the debate perhaps most

notably in an exchange between norm and

Benny in which Norm de is the illegal

blockade of Gaza and Benny replies that

the Judgment of these International

bodies is irrelevant no one cares and

that we should quote forget the law take

a lesson they were shooting rockets at

Israel for for 20 years why is that

illegal to blockade

Gaza why why is it illegal I'll tell you

why you don't rocket your neighbor you

rocket your neighbor expect consequences

I'll tell you why expect consequences

but that works both way I know iess

Professor both ways I'll tell you why

because every human rights humanitarian

and un organization in the world has

said said that the nobody cares is a

form of collective punishment illegal

under International laal the word you

think you think a blockade you don't

understand the way the world works these

things are irrelevant and you think

confining because that's the blockade

yes you don't confing million children

combining that's the choice combining a

million children in what the economist

called a human rubbish sheep The

Economist supported Israel in this war

and continues to support Israel but um

International Committee of Red Cross

called a sinking ship with the UN High

Commissioner for human rights called a

toxic slum you think it is a slum of

course you think but it's cused under

international law you think it's

legitimate hey I know you want to forget

the law thing thatal what every Israeli

fears the most what the law as as siy ly

said I studied international law I

oppose international law of course you

don't want to hear about the law that's

got nothing to do anything okay so

here's a thing yeah then don't complain

about October 7th if you don't want you

hear me if you want to say forget about

the law all I said was they like barbar

there is no International humanitarian

law There's no distinction between

civilians and combatants should be and

so now you're doing what Meen said

you're becoming very selective about the

law so Norm refers there to what Moen

had said previously about the selective

appeal to international law and in fact

Moen did sum up this point quite

brilliantly and succinctly if you want

to um dismiss international law that's

fine but then you have to do it

consistently you can't um set standards

for the

Palestinians um but reject uh applying

those standards to Israel um if we're

going to have the law of the Jungle then

we can all be beasts and not only some

of us and I think so it's either that or

you have certain agreed uh standards

that that are intended to regulate our

conduct all of our conduct not just some

of us so does international law matter

or do we all live by the law of the

Jungle might Mak us right it's a good

place to wrap up because that's really

the core question being tested right now

in the Gaza Strip can any of the

international rules that were set after

the horrors of World War II withstand

the genocide being committed in front of

our eyes with the direct Aid of our

country the world's quote unquote

superpower will distinctions between

civilians and in combatants or

prohibitions on war crimes or genocide

will any of that survive this moment or

will we drop even the pretense of

pretending to care about these Concepts

and leave it as Moen says to the law of

the Jungle where we can all be Beast

because even the propaganda smokescreen

carefully erected over decades cannot

block the world from seeing the Echoes

of those World War II atrocities you

cannot see the images of the wasted

starved bodies of Palestinian children

without thinking about the Holocaust you

can't witness the utter destruction of

Gaza and not think of dresin or even

hoshima you cannot hear the Casual

public dehumanization of human beings as

animals and Vermin and not think of Nazi

ideology the wall of hasbara has

crumbled and we are all left to wrestle

with the grave crimes that our leaders

are perfectly willing to commit

so Sager even though hey guys if you

want to see what I had to say to

Crystal's monologue not just this one

all of them going back to the very

beginning become a premium subscriber

today breakingpoints

tocom