Time to boycott Israel? | Head to Head

With every peace talk, Israel has consolidated its occupation. Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital, crushing peace dreams and Palestinian statistics. However, my guest tonight thinks that the old maps, the Jewish State, have light colors, the Arab State, dark, can still create new borders, but is it trapped? In the past I am Mary Hassen and I have come here to Oxford Union to come face to face with the controversial author and academic Norman Finlin. Some Israel supporters have called him a self-hating Jew who was once a rocker. of the Palestinian support movement is now attacked by many for his refusal to support a

boycott

of Israel today.

I will challenge him on how he can still believe a two-state solution is possible and why he has dismissed the

boycott

movement as a cult. We will also be joined by Salma Kami Aayu, a prominent Palestinian activist and human rights lawyer in London, Jeff Halper, director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions in Jerusalem, and Oliver Cam, London Times columnist and Jewish sidekick. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Norman finlin is a controversial figure. He is the author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry and How to Resolve the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Coming up Norman, his new book is called How to Resolve the Israel-Palestine Conflict, since US Secretary of State John Kerry is the last person.

Having tried and not done it, what makes you think that you have the solution to this conflict? Well, first of all, the Secretary of State did not attempt to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine in a way that is reasonable for both sides, basically he is or has done that. Basically I have been trying to impose the Israeli position on the Palestinians. My own opinion is that there is a reasonable chance of resolving the conflict. There is enough international support for this. There is enough popular support. Now the key is for the Palestinians themselves to mobilize in favor of that international consensus, which is basically what it has been for the last 30 years, two states on the June 67 border and what is called a fair resolution of the issue. of the refugees, the Palestinians, as you know better than I, first said they would support a two-state solution back in 1988, since then over the last quarter of a century we have had the Madrid conference, the Oslo Accords, the memorandum of the Y River Summit, the Camp David Summit, the Taba Summit, the road map, the Annapolis conference and lately the John Conference The Kerry plan none of them managed to achieve a two-state solution and yet you He says that is the most likely option.

In what fantasy world is this two-state solution going to occur? There is a huge reservoir of support for the Palestinians and the reservoir has now expanded to include, for example, I think large segments of the American Jewish community that have distanced themselves from the state of Israel and there are real possibilities of reaching out to American Jews as well, let me read to you what Professor Rashed Khi of Columbia University, one of the leading Palestinian intellectuals in the world, said that the two-state solution is now, quote, something magical and that people on the pro-Palestinian side like you, who still cling to a two-state solution, he says, quote, they need to have their

head

s examined if that were the case.

In that case, then it would have to be said that there is no possibility of a reasonable resolution of the conflict because, if the agreement of two States, as supported by the international community, if that is a matter of the Wizard of O, then one state is a matter of the man on the moon So, at this moment you have two possibilities: the two states, as has been adopted by the international community, and then there is what could be called at this moment the initiative of carrying, that is, imposing the ultimate goal of Israel. The Palestinians.

A State is not part of the debate. People would say that the two-state solution, yes, you can vote on it every year in the UN Assembly, you can win the support of American Jews, but the reality is that the facts on the ground have made it impossible. , unviable. There are too many Israeli settlements now. too many Jewish settlers too many Palestinians all trapped living together in the West Bank in East Jerusalem and it's too late to untangle them it's too late to untangle the tortilla that the Palestinians during what were called the Annapolis negotiations in May 2008 did present, which were What Would I say it was very reasonable?

The maps they presented presented the map, for example, showing that Israel can keep 60% of the settlers in place. 60% of settlers in place in 2% of the 2% of the West Bank and the Palestinian State. would still be contiguous, would still be a viable state, so do you really believe that half a million heavily subsidized, heavily armed Israeli settlers, many of them religious fanatics, will simply leave without saying anything to achieve these two solutions, not at all, no they will go without a scope and there you have to know the details, but Tippy Livy, who was then the foreign secretary, was in charge of the negotiations, she did not deny that it was a reasonable map, she said that it is not that your map is physically impossible , said it was politically impossible.

That is, no Israeli Prime Minister could support such a map and remain in office. The problem is not physics, the problem is politics. Well, let's go to our panel. Who is sitting here listening to you speak? Jeff Halper is the founder and director of the Israeli Committee against Jerusalem house demolitions, uh Jeff, when Norman says it's reversible, it's not irreversible, what is your opinion on that as someone on the ground who faces these problems all the days? Well we have said it for a long

time

um that it is irreversible in my opinion um what is happening in the West Bank and that is why we believe that the two state solution is gone it is reversible it is true I with Norman logistically there is only half You can see it this way, there are only half a million settlers in the occupied territories.

It is possible to move them. What is missing is the will to do it and that is the problem if there were a concerted will on the part of Europe and the United States to tell Israel, look, it's over, go back to the 67 borders period, it's doable, that's true, but that will is completely missing, okay, let's bring in Oliver Cam, who is a columnist and leading writer for the Times of London and the Jewish Chronicle. Oliver, you've had your differences, I know, with Norman poking his finger. past, but in this I am right in saying that you agree with them that a two-state solution is still possible and the most likely outcome I think is possible and I certainly think it is overwhelmingly the most desirable outcome, any other outcome is extremely uh, destructive, the problem is that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not simply a disagreement over borders, it is and I agree with Norman Finklestein on this, it's about politics more than physics, um, the problem is that There have been proposals. for a two-state agreement, um 228, nothing has come of them and the two-state solution on which there is a lot of international consensus, something along the lines of the pre-1967 Armistice, um, is now being postponed again because of politics within both sides and to the United States.

An official told an Israeli newspaper a few months ago that Kerry's plan fell apart. He cites that the main sabotage came from the settlements. He says: "Yes, I'm not going to defend the settlements, but I don't think that the settlements per se are an obstacle to a two-state solution, something that can be perfectly seen in the land swaps, in which 80% of the settlers remain in their places, and that there is a possibility of a two-state solution that meets the national aspirations of both sides and do you think that 80% of the settlers should be allowed to remain under your vision of a solution? , again you keep personalizing and saying my vision of a solution.

He co-authored a book called How to Solve Israel's Palestinian Right, but The proposals that the Palestinians made in Annapolis in 2008 said that about 60% of the settlers can stay in. the place. This will change a little because now there are more settlers, yes, around 60% will remain in the place, but then there are other possibilities and they must be taken into account, you correctly mentioned the large number of settlers that are being subsidized and. Then you have to ask your question: what happens if the Israeli government stops its subsidies and then there are the fanatics and that's true and they asked a former Israeli security chief what do you do with those fanatics.

He says it's very simple, all you have to do is tell those crazy settlers in Hebron that if you want to stay, stay, but we are leaving, which means the army is leaving and you are leaving. Us leaving is never going to happen Israel's army will never abandon the settlers Well I don't know why why you make that assumption right now That's right right now That's right because not much pressure has been put on Israel Israel has the first free occupation in human history, the Palestinians do the dirty work, the Europeans pay the bills and Israel and the US block them at the UN, so why should they leave?

There is no incentive to leave, let's bring it. Mami, who is a Palestinian lawyer and activist, what is her opinion? Are you someone who still wants to have that independent Palestinian state that so many Palestinians have said they wanted? I think the only thing they were missing in this whole discussion about the logistics of whether the two-state solution is practical or possible is whether it is actually desirable from the Palestinian point of view. I think the problem that people need to keep in mind is that the Palestinian problem that needs a solution is not limited to Palestinians living under occupation in the West.

Bank and Gaza, so we need a solution that achieves rights for the Palestinian diaspora, for refugees and for those who are discriminated against in Israel and the two-state solution clearly does not achieve that; It is unfair because it only gives the Palestinians 20% of their historic Homeland and it does not really address the broader issues that afflict the Palestinian population, so it is not correct, it is not a principle and it is not viable. What you want to see is in the general public at the international level, which is the furthest you can go. and, in my opinion, the furthest you can go for now is what you could call enlightened public opinion and enlightened public opinion in the world today is mainly the language of international law, the language of human rights, so Just look at the most representative organizations in the world. today and you look at what their terms are to resolve the conflict, two states say, this is what I don't understand with you, Norman, you are someone who called Israel a lunatic state, you called President Obama a fool, devoid of all principles except so miserable Like your predecessors, you call the Palestinian Authority a band of corrupt and miserable collaborators and yet your solution to the conflict involves those corrupt collaborators making a deal with that lunatic state under the supervision of a narcissistic and miserable president, how do you does that work?

I'm not so sure about those of you who are applauding, what would you have done during World War II? I'm not a big fan of Winston Churchill. I think he was a monster in many ways and what would they do with Mr. Stalin but then they want to defeat him? the Nazis and there was an alliance between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Stalin to defeat the Nazis, so what are you going to do? You will reject them both and that's fine, then you will have a Nazi government in the world that you have to bring. put pressure on the US government I think there are real possibilities now that Israel's stock has fallen precipitously in the United States, not just in general, but even in the American Jewish community Norman, don't you see the contradiction in your way of thinking?

In your way of thinking why a few moments ago? you told us and you have told previous interviewers that I work within the limits of public opinion and yet you are telling us that public opinion of horror changes us Jewish public opinion changes public opinion changes all the

time

why people can't make a case to shape public opinion to change public opinion to get people on board why say this is what the public thinks in America and this is the only deal the Palestinians can get for what to outsource the resolution of the Palestinian conflict to American public opinion well, I'm not outsourcing to American public opinion I think American public opinion right now is the weaker reading.

I think that European public opinion is quite powerful and I think it is quite feasible that you can win over not only European public opinion, but it is important to take into account also the European governments, I mean, as we speak, the European governments are exercising enormous pressure on Israel now on the settlement issue, but do you see any European governments? Can you name me one? A European government that has even hinted at a state. Europeans forget, let's not mention the government, maybe there is a governmentWorldwide. The Islamic Republic of Iran has called for a state.

If you were in the 1930s, what would you have said to Gandhi? You wrote a book on Gandhi. What would you have told him? Mandela, sorry guys, leave the National Liberation movement. Western public opinion is not with you. Give up all that National Liberation. accept whatever Western public opinion gives them. read Mahatma Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi's standard was always where public opinion is, you don't go beyond public opinion, public opinion in favor of independent India in the 1930s. I don't think it was Nor wow, we were entering in the era of decolonization that this was after. First World War and you said at that time that yes, that is something that is achievable, something that is within our reach, you always calculate it in terms of public opinion.

You said that you had to continue with the two-state solution because that is where they are. the limits of public opinion and I'm saying that's not how the world works when I said public opinion, I didn't limit myself to the United States. States, I said the United Nations, I said that 165 countries have adopted this solution, the problem is that they have only done it on paper and the challenge is how to convert passive support into active support and I think that in that I agree with Gandhi in the way you CH If you convert the passive support that exists even in the American Jewish community, the way you convert it into active support is to have massive nonviolent resistance in the occupied territories, like the first one that had notable success , although it was aborted, it was a very successful first time. okay our panel waved to come in Jeff Halper you wanted to come today there is no traction for a one state solution the problem here is that we are thinking linearly we are assuming that today's status quo Today's situation is going to continue and Now, how do we approach it?

This is a very dynamic situation. It is very likely, it is certainly possible that the Palestinian Authority will leave the scene at some point. I mean, Abu Masan himself is 80 years old. old man, it could very well be the Palestinian, that there will be a political collapse if the Palestinian Authority leaves the scene and Israel will have to reoccupy the Palestinian cities and perhaps Gaza, given the collapse, that opens possibilities for a single state. and other possibilities that do not exist today, which is true, you support the one-state solution. I support it and I think it is very feasible and not only is it feasible but it is the only way out, but it will have to wait until a collapse occurs. where what we are talking about today becomes really irrelevant, one of the issues where Palestinian public opinion is now shifting and many Palestinian grassroots are behind it is the idea of ​​a boycott of the divestment and sanctions movement, the BDS movement of some sort of South African anti-apart style movement to isolate Israel you said the occupation of Israel is free to impose a cost on Israel is something you fully support I was for BDS before BDS existed, any same person I would be in favor of it and yet a couple of years ago in an interview you now infamously referred to BDS as a cult, you said that people who joined BDS are part of a cult and are responsible for a mistake potentially historically criminal, yes, because there is a difference between a tactic and an objective, the tactic.

It is absolutely legitimate and as I said I have always supported the tactic the problem is the goal of ending Israel's occupation by dismantling the wall while recognizing the rights of Palestinian citizens in Israel and respecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees which of Do you believe those three objectives? object that BDS made its call in July 2005 to coincide with the first anniversary of the ICJ advisory opinion on the wall and the first statement of the BDS document says that we support international law and they said that the first right under the law International is the right of peoples to self-detect TED mining and three other rights derive from this right of self-determination.

I say, of course, that I agree with all that, but Israel is also a state under international law. Israel still has the right to self-determination. and declared under international law and then you have two options, one option is to recognize Israel's reciprocal rights under international law because you say you are anchored in international law or of course you have the right to say to hell with international law. I think it's all nonsense. I think everything is done by the rich against the poor. According to international law, only when it comes to my rights. It's like saying I have the right to walk on green, but I'm agnostic about red. walking on the green is because you have an obligation to stop on the red, they only count, they said they want to destroy Israel militarily, so you could say that is violating, I'm not sure how demanding three rights are that you agree with , if Israel is a state.

According to international law, it is recognized by international law, yes, and where does the BDS ask you? I've asked you, wait, you think it's an accident that Israel isn't mentioned. Israel, do you think it was an oversight? Oh, we forgot about Israel Norman Norman, is this really serious? Norman they forgot about Israel they forgot about Israel Omar bouti, the founder of BDS, has pointed out that the majority of people on the boycott committee are two absolutely correct states, what part of international law do they not recognize that Israel is a state under international law, can you show me a statement saying that Israel is not a state under international law?

Show me a statement where they say it. I show they say: did you ever ask him? Have you ever asked the BDS person what his position is on Israel? Yes and what do they say? We don't take any position Salma, you are not following international law by supporting this BDS campaign. All three BDS calls are completely in line with international law and the question of how you end up resolving the conflict, whether you have one state or two states, whether Israel is still there as a state or not is actually a political question about which international law is silent so there seems to be a lot of confusion about this role of international law and in my opinion it actually seems to be an excuse to attack BDS and I find it really extraordinary when the Palestinians have very few tools at their disposal right now to promote your rights and promote solidarity with your cause so I want to ask you why you would use your platform given the context we are in to attack BDS so VI talking about BDS with a capital b capital D and S capital letter what they asked me was the tools that are available to Palestinians and I said, of course, I support those group tools. and of course I used and endorsed them long before BDS came along, but under international law, which you claim I completely misunderstand, does Israel not have the right to self-determination and statehood or are you telling me that all nations in the UN are 196?

The nations that admit Israel as a member state are suffering from an illusion: they recognize it politically. It is a State according to international law. Jeff Alber, you support BDS. You're one of the few Israelis who actually thinks that yes, it's okay to boycott my own country to put a cost on it, I think not, it's true, you know we support BDS because, um, BDS gives to people in solidarity with the Palestinians those tools to put pressure on governments, if it had not been for the people, we would still have a separate South. Africa, the people were the ones who organized and pushed the governments to do what they had to do.

Governments won't do the right thing unless they are pushed by the people before it brings that's what BDS is about before it brings Norman back to Oliver. briefly, you wanted to go back there, this is where the debate breaks down. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Comparisons with the apart regime and institutionalized racial discrimination are biased and a shame when you demonize Israel in that way when you say it's a shame when you say It's a shame, are you aware that the ANC that led the Fighting Apart has endorsed BDS, not all of them in any way?

Norman, do you now regret having called two years ago the people who are campaigning for those three objectives that you say you share? The Palestinians who see no other way to end the occupation than to adopt a struggle similar to that of the Apar. Do you regret calling them members of a cult? I don't regret calling them members of The Cult if they act like a cult. You consider yourself a radical. You said in a recent biopic about your life called American Radical that you see the world as a radically unjust place that requires radical change and yet in Israel Palestine your position is not radical at all it is security first it is friendly to the establishment is pro the consensus of the UN Security Council and other opinions, you are not radical regarding Israel, Palestine, you are quite conservative, you know, that is like saying that we are facing an economic crisis in the Western world, so that you have to deal with what you're going to do. about it, okay, I'm going to be radical, I'm going to advocate the abolition of money, well, that's a really radical position, it really is, I mean, and according to Marx, that should solve everything because then we'll be in communism, But what does it mean?

That radical position has to do with the real world, that is a sect. I want to make the world a better place, so I'm trying to look at the real material conditions in the real world, the real political limits that are imposed on us, and figure out within those limits what is the maximum we can expect. I didn't even say the minimum. I said moderate, I said, let's see what's as much as possible. Well, we're going to have to leave it there and we'll get there. Come back, in the second part, we're going to take a break right now.

Ted, join me for part two, where I'll be talking to Norman Finlin about some of the personal battles he's had to fight, especially with the Jewish community, and we'll also hear from our audience here at the Oxford Union, which will be after the break. Welcome back to face to face on Al Jazer. We're talking to Norman Finlin, the American author and academic activist. Norman, you are an acquaintance. intellectual You have published several critically acclaimed best-selling books after your book The Holocaust Industry came out in 2000 You were accused of being a self-hating Jew, what is your response to that fairly common but very serious accusation ?

Well, my answer is a completely rational one, let's say it's true, for the sake of argument, that I'm a self-hating Jew, what does that have to do with the facts? I mean, if Einstein were a self-hating Jew, for the sake of argument, that means he e is not equal to MC squ, what? Do facts have to do with what I am or what I am not? If he were a self-loving Jew, that would mean that everything I say is true. Do you think that sometimes you might be your own worst enemy? You are quite provocative. "You're quite controversial.

Do you think that's part of the problem with Norman Finlin? That you pick fights with everyone and anyone and end up doing well in the first place. I don't think politics is a popularity contest that when you get too too popular among the people then there is probably some problem and there is a part of me that thinks I am not at all happy if there is any hostility from the people who are really suffering, that is, the Palestinians and I can see that Miss Cary is not happy With what I'm saying and that does bother me, I have to tell the rest of the people that I don't give a damn about his book The Holocaust Industry maintains that the memory of the Nazi Genocide in which most of his family perished has been used. excusing Israel's behavior in the occupied territory to justify our support is an argument that many people make is an argument.

I'm sure many people in this room would agree with people watching from home, but some people would say that you. expressed that argument in such a way in an overly provocative, even offensive way, look at the chapter titles, the book here, the Shakedown double hustlers, the hustlers and the story, how can you say that doesn't play into anti-Semitic stereotypes ? Well, it's kind of funny, I mean, it's a personal story and I hope. My editor is not going to be offended, but when the book came out, it was originally called Theory, Practice, and Examples of the three chapter titles, and he says it's so boring that we have to make it more exciting because a lot of people and those chapter titles chapters were cited by my university when he denied me 10 years, so I blamed him for the whole thing, but other than that, on a more serious note, when the book came out in 2000, I mean, it evoked a kind of hysteria and now I What I say is a kind of hysteria. de com place, so if we take the case of um, the former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, Abraham Burg, he writes a book about the Holocaust and he refers to the showa industry.

Now, when I use the expression, the Holocaust industry caused all thesehorrors and screams and what are you saying? Anti-Semitic Holocaust denier and now it is even commonplace among Israelis to refer to a show, to the entertainment industry. Yes, in your own words, you once said: "I have never been able to get a permanent teaching job in the US." Do you think it is like that? I'll just say that the facts as I understand them speak for themselves if you take the example of the last place I worked, which was a university in Chicago, when they denied me tenure, the statement they provided. in denying me tenure, he said that Finlin has been an excellent teacher and a prolific scholar, so if I were an excellent teacher and a prolific scholar, I shouldn't have been denied tenure, so why were you, well, I.

I think people have to come to that conclusion for themselves. Many Jews claim that you are anti-Semitic. So I think that would be a problem for the Palestinian people. I think who would see who has seen him as a champion over the years. You say that you are very popular, some people, one person called you a rocker. I think it would be a problem if it turned out that you were actually anti-Semitic. In fact, I think that would be a problem too. My opinion is that I do it more personally. to fight anti-Semitism by my example in the Muslim Arab world than probably almost every other Jew you know Oliver Norman says that by your example alone, by writing this book highlighting these issues, you have actually done more to combat anti-Semitism than most of the Jewish public.

Intellectuals, what do you say about that? That is not the opinion of the historians who reviewed his book. Peter Novic, the author of The Holocaust in American Life, described it as pure invention and compared it to the protocols of the Elders of Zion. My criticism of Norman Finklestein is a little more practical. I have no problem with writers being provocative. It's what I'm paid to do, but you're not very good at it. You are a pirate writer. a factual error, well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't know any experts. I don't know I don't know any experts you have on the subject.

You greatly underestimated the amount of Holocaust, that's the Last question very briefly. I'd like to answer that very briefly, please. I do not claim to be an authority on the Nazi Holocaust. The book The Holocaust Industry is not about the Nazi Holocaust. It is a book about how the Holocaust has been represented. In popular opinion and so-called scholars, the figure I got of less than 100,000 survivors of the Nazi Holocaust did not come from me, it came from Raúl Hilberg. I think you'll agree if you have any knowledge of the Nazi Holocaust, which is doubtful. but if you have any knowledge about the Nazi Holocaust, you know that the world's leading authority on the Nazi Holocaust was Raul Hilberg, he was in his class Raul Hilberg praised the Holocaust industry, in fact, he said my conclusions in the book were conservative now.

Hus's Holocaust Museum and his close friend Wiel begged Raul Hilberg to remove his name from his book and he said no. “I refuse to remove my name from the book because what Finlin wrote is true,” Finl Stein said. My place in history as a historian is secure and what they did to me was a farce, so when you come and say you are a pirate writer, I give it as much value as the dust on this floor, leave me this. I ask you this, let's move on. They both made their points strongly. How do you make sure you criticize Israel?

This is an open question. I think people will be interested to know your opinion. How do you make sure your criticism of Israel? Don't come across antisemitism because some people do. There are people who are anti-Zionists and they are anti-Semitic. There are anti-Zionist people who are not anti-Semitic. I'm just wondering what your point of view is. I am and I. I'm not trying to play the Holocaust card, but I am the son of Nazi Holocaust survivors, true survivors, aitz midic, every member of my family on both sides was exterminated during the war. I am very sensitive to that accusation, the accusation of the Holocaust.

I think it's completely crazy when applied to me because anyone who knew me growing up would say that if anything, I'm a Holocaust affirmer, not a Holocaust denier. I never stop talking about it regarding your question. I think the problem is what do you do? With motives, how do you guess a person's motive? and I don't know how you guess a person's motive. Yes, it's true that sometimes people will make statements because they harbor anti-Semitic or hardcore anti-Semitic feelings and then the only thing you can do, in my opinion, is try to refute it based on the facts.

Jeff Halper wants to enter Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee against Desmin House. He just wanted to register a reservation about linking criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Israel. It is a country and in fact Israel the whole idea of ​​Zionism was that we are not Jews we are Hebrews we are Israelis H the Jews are something else H the Jews you know that most Jews never went to Israel you cannot make Israel representative of Jews and you can't hold Jews responsible for what Israel does, so I really think we're playing into what Israel calls the new anti-Semitism that was invented by the Israeli government that says any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.

I think we have to deny that, and so I just wanted to say here that I was a little uncomfortable with the idea that somehow criticism of Israel actually has anything to do with anti-Semitism. In his opinion, is it easier to do it as an Israeli? Do you think it is easier to criticize Israel from within Israel than from outside Israel? Is there more criticism of the Israeli government at home than abroad? In Israel, as in any other country, criticizing your government is normal. I mean, if you criticize the Cameron government here, you are not anti-British and I think the Israelis know that this is a whole conversation that has more to do with the diasp than within Israel, okay, let me make that point. to Oliver Oliver, you write for a newspaper in the UK, do you agree with what Jeff says about what happened?

Criticism inside Israel is much fiercer and more open than outside Israel. I have never met anyone who believes that the Israeli government's policy criticism of Israel, much of what I have done myself, is inherently anti-Semitic, but the Israeli Foreign Ministry about five six years ago consciously and deliberately developed a concept that is called the new antisemitism that says exactly that, let me just bring salami here who are you a Palestinian uh based in Britain do you feel like someone who wants to do some kind of campaign for the rights of your people? Anti-occupation campaign, do you feel inhibited in what you can and cannot say about the conflict?

There is a certain inhibition for the Palestinians and for those who are in solidarity with the Palestinians, and that is that every time we want to talk about the nature of Zionism or, for example, the nature of the State of Israel as it is currently constituted, we come up against this criticism. that we are anti-Semitic or that we do not respect international law or that we are calling for the annihilation of the Israeli people when we are not and we want to be able to have a legitimate debate about the principles that underpin the state of Israel and why they have caused so much suffering to the Palestinians and how the continuity of Zionism is going to continue the de facto conflict and continue the dispossession of the Palestinians, but as long as we try to do it.

I would say that there are definitely people who shut down the debate by bringing forward this accusation of anti-Semitism or delegitimization of Israel, as they have called it, okay, let's go to our audience here who has been waiting very patiently. at the oxf union put your hands up and wait, let's go to the gentleman here in the front row, let's start with you in the red tie. I am a Palestinian born in Nazareth before the years, therefore I consider myself an akba survivor as an architect. Use my metaphor, never PL Master, about a crack that raises my question and that is why you and other colleagues, eminent people, tried to paper over the cracks of the question of Palestine, a question that began in the mid-19th century and manifested in the great tragedy in the 20th century the Palestinian NBA I think going back to 1800 or going back to 1600 uh is something like for me it's like what the Zionists say, let's go back to when there was this Jewish Kingdom of Judea in U Palestine said well, maybe there maybe there wasn't one, I don't know and, frankly, I don't care because I just don't think it has much to do with trying to achieve a reasonable resolution to the conflict now, the current political consensus demands that we use the term a resolution fair view of the refugee issue based on 194, which is not exactly the implementation of the right of return and then we have a question: what is the most that a political movement can extract politically from that legal right if we can mobilize a group of people?

Powerful enough move, we can probably extract more of that right. I'm going to talk to the gentleman in the white sweater in the third row from the back. Surely there is no strategy that Palestinians in civil society or their leaders can adopt to truly convert the sect? -as the international community's support for a two-state solution moves somewhat towards a good one-state solution, at this point, the Palestinian political will, for perfectly understandable reasons, has been exhausted, the Palestinians feel desperate, they are They feel cynical, everything you can imagine, the Palestinian people like everyone else. Everything else is normal and after suffering so many defeats there will be a great element of cynicism, hopelessness and the "every man for himself" mentality, but is there a chance?

Yes, I think there are very big possibilities, let's take an example if the Palestinians marched on the wall with a million Palestinians we will say holding a sign enforce the law dismantle women you said I'm not a radical and in a sense there is an argument there because I'm trying to find a slogan, a solution that will resonate with the majority of world opinion enforces the law has a real possible resonance, so I think there are possibilities if the Palestinians find the inner strength and admitted a lot of self-sacrifice to achieve the goal . I think that if they rose with millions of people they would rise. with signs that say one person, one vote, that would have no effect on the world, no, I don't think it will, because if you hold up a sign that says you want to dismantle the State of Israel, you want a state, yes, it will . exactly zero residence in the international the former prime minister of Israel said that if the Palestinians said one person, one vote, Israel is finished he said, let's go back to the hearing ma'am here with the um, right?

I mean, at this point maybe it's a blessing. disguised as the two-state solution being left out of public opinion because the unforeseen circumstances that could arise from that will be like oppression of the Palestinians in the State of Israel and more division between the Palestinians and the Israelis that in the end will cause more human rights violations in Israel itself. I don't know how this disappearance of the only practical possibility at this time of achieving some degree of justice in the conflict. The fact that it's not going to be possible. Why would that be a positive development.

Just because something is bad doesn't mean something good is on the horizon, it could be worse. Let's get back to the hearing, gentlemen, thank you. I think that the two-state solution that they are now proposing is basically used. I more or less like to protect Israeli interests on the ground. Now, by maintaining the settlements without addressing the question of the Palestinian refugees and the question of Jerusalem, okay, it is a kind of paradox this type of discussion because I think it has been forgotten that it was the executive committee of the PLO that endorsed the agreement of two states.

It's like all of history is being erased and whitewashed and now it's like you're saying I'm some kind of collaborator or traitor because I'm supporting the position that the Palestinians supported. during the heyday of his self, if you read shafik alhood, a respected former member of the PLO, he said that we supported the two-state agreement during the height of our confidence and our faith in ourselves, that is, during the first itself The polls clearly show that every year, the number of Palestinians who support the one-state solution increases year after year, and by age, the younger they are, the more support there is if tomorrow the polls show that next year or two years the majority of Palestinians both in the West Bank and abroad.

I want a state solution one person one vote will you support them in that uh in two in 2001 2002 in the occupied Palestinian territories the majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings now I can understand why they support suicide bombings I can understand the rage the anger and everything the rest, but in the name of supporting the Palestinians, am I obligated to support suicide bombings? are you really competing? support suicide B support one no, it wasn't what I was saying what I was saying was what I was saying was The fact that most people may support a particular position does not oblige me as a separate individual to accept it.

I think it's not realistic. Well, I'll take it as a note: let's gowith the gentleman right there in the back with his hand up yes sir you can stand up yes I wonder if you agree with the professor or the chonky who you know thinks language has a meaning particular here and that the peace process is what John Curry says, the peace process is, you know. It is extremely corrosive or that agreement sounds non-invasive when in reality the reality is something much more sinister, obviously it has not been a peace process, it has been an annexation process, which is why it is said that the peace process, at least in its current phase, current phase started in Oslo in 1993 and then we look at the results: there were about 250,000 settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories in September 1993, the figure is now 20 years later, it is now about 550,000, so judging by the results, no There has been a peace process, there has been an annexation process and the Israelis and the Americans use the peace process as a fig leaf to hide the annexation process, that is correct, gentleman, here in the second line, skip, thank you.

Now I am Palestinian. I'm confused I think you're confusing us all, are you pro Palestine or not? I am not pro-Palestine at all. I am Pro Justice. I have no interest in Palestine, right? Are you or are you an Israeli peace negotiator? Here I am. not because it is not because what you are saying has no interest let him finish this question then you can come back, make it clear that you are causing a division among international activists supporting Palestine by not accepting or not respecting what they are demanding a single solution . Can you show me some evidence, a shred of evidence that Palestinians are the majority or their civil society organizations support a state?

Where is that from? Show me the evidence. Let someone speak briefly. and we will return to the audience if you spent any time on the ground in Palestine or in the Palestinian diaspora.communities, this question would become obvious to you when Palestinians are asked explicitly what they believe is politically viable. They have been fed the idea of ​​two states for so long, many of them will say two states. You know, we can't imagine anything other than that if you asked them about the reality that they really want, they agree with the idea of ​​one state and if you presented them with a strategy to achieve it, they would absolutely support it, okay, let's go back to the audience now, gentlemen here.

In the front row, as you said, the majority of Israelis and Palestinians, as far as we know, support the two-state solution. However, do you think that some of your support for groups that support violence and rejection like Hezbollah you don't actually support? that majority of what you call um and I would agree that progressive public opinion actually undermines that and supports the rejecters well, first of all, there's too many things tied to me that don't reflect my own opinions. I don't think the majority of Two State Agreement supported by Israel, there is not a shred of evidence to support that what the majority of Israelis will support is probably around 70% will support a conflict in which Israel annexes the blocs of settlements, the main settlement blocks and the annexes. most of Jerusalem and nullifies the right of return, that is what you find perhaps in certain polls up to 95%, but when you talk about real settlements on the June 67 border and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, a major Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, support drops to 10 or 15%.

I think what their critics would point out is that a group like Hisbah is not that enthusiastic about the two-state solution, and yet they are willing to come out and publicly say there is nothing. confusion here I never said I support Hezbollah Hezbollah has the right and they did, uh, to my thinking, showing an enormous amount of courage, heroism and discipline, they expelled the foreign occupiers from their country and why shouldn't we celebrate those occasions ? In every other country in Europe, the people who are part of the resistance, the people who drove the Nazis out of their country, we all celebrate the resistance, why shouldn't we celebrate it because they are Muslims?

Let's get back to the hearing, lady over there. the second block audience there just said they support violence before saying they support violent anti-v resistance. Could you explain the contradiction? In my opinion, I don't consider it a contradiction in certain circumstances and I have studied Gandhi quite closely. Tactics can work in certain circumstances, they can't work in other circumstances if you're in the middle of a forest in India and the Indian army is coming in and just annihilating you, no one in the world cares because no one even knows what. What the hell is going on in that little forest in India, so nonviolence is not going to work there, but in a place like Israel Palestine, where for historical reasons Palestine is very much in the eye of the world and is very present in the international agenda in places like That's right, I think nonviolent resistance can work.

I don't think it would have worked in South Lebanon. Nobody gave a damn about the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Just like no one gives a damn about the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. Final question for you before we finish. Do you want to tell some of your fans to please don't put me on a pedestal because you'll end up disappointed? Do you think that's how a lot of people not only in the Jewish community but these days in the Palestinian community feel about you? disappointed, betrayed, I'm even the same person as always. The only difference is that it is not me that has changed, but the public sentiment of the international community.

There has been a big change, especially among the American Jewish community, and now you have something to work with. I have a real chance, a real hope that something can be done and I seem so moderate now, but the difference between me and many people in BDS is that I am very happy about the fact that we finally have a breakthrough in public opinion. We have someone that I talk to and other people think well, no, that's not good, let's take a more radical pose, let's try to be really radical, let's be really classy and let's be especially when you have a position, you can be really radical, and then they start to do all this. radical positions that have no connection with reality and that defend so much the cause that we have a real possibility now, what we fought for for decades, we now have a public that is willing to accept the terms of an agreement that, as I said, the own Palestinians approved in 1988 and now we have a chance and people say that two states approve a liberal Z, we need something more radical and that for me is very frustrating because I think we now have real possibilities Norman frl, thank you very much for joining us in facing face tonight thank you all for being here the debate will continue online join us next week here for face to face good evening oh