Israel-Hamas: Norman Finkelstein vs Alan Dershowitz Round 2

if you lock 2 million people in a concentration camp, don't react with surprise at what happened on October 7, they are all war CRI, ultimately they are not war crimes at all, we are not going to allow you to impose on me a double standard, no, I will. I will finish my statement, it is an abomination to even suggest that martyrdom could justify what happened on October 7. It's a shame, this is science fiction. Everyone has a very large audience. Please tell me to stop the settlement issue. I think it's pretty indefensible. International legal body that says the blockade of Gaza is not collective punishment.

You wouldn't condemn the Nazis Hitler Geral and Garing because they too suffered after the end of the First World War. One of the things that has been said to me the most is despicable. Often in debates about the Hamas war on Israel from both sides it is that the story did not begin on October 7 and that is true, there is no context that justifies the Hamas terrorist attack that day, but it is a mistake to deny that there was some context before that 6. Months after the atrocity we are discussing that context here in more detail. There is no discussion of 3,000 years of ancestry and who got there first, but it is about the conditions of conflict over the last century that frame almost everything about the war being fought today.

My two guests are scholars with deeply opposing views and some are also well researched and have their own Wikipedia page, but they agreed to debate with me today about the ideas, not the individual author and political scientist, Professor Norman Finklestein and the lawyer and Jewish War author and former Harvard Law Professor Alan DWI, so welcome to both of you. I thought we started with this because it's something that comes up all the time and people tell me it didn't start on October 7th and Of course, I realize that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not something that started just a few months ago and you could argue that it goes back thousands of years, but I'm not going to go into that part of the argument that What we want to do is take as a starting point for the modern era of conflict the 75 years from 1947, when the United Kingdom handed over the Palestine problem to the United Nations, who decided to divide Palestine into two different countries.

Let's take that as the catalyst for what has followed. over the next 75 years and what I want to do is give each of you at the beginning about two minutes to summarize what you think happened at the beginning and that has basically been the catalyst for what follows, so Norman Felstein, let me start with you. simply describe from 1947 what happened then that you believe actually created the problem that followed. I think the problem that followed can be summed up very easily in two statements by leading Israeli historian Benny Morris, statement number one he said in his complete history of the conflict. one that the fear of Arab displacement and dispossession was the main driver of Arab resistance to Zionism his second claim is the idea of ​​transference, which is what the euphemism for exposition the idea of ​​transference was inherent and inevitable in Zionism, that For me, the starting point is fear.

The rational fear of the Palestinian people that, if the Zionist idea were to become a reality, it would result in their dispossession and territorial displacement is no different than the fear of our own meaning of the American Indians that the success of the Euro-American enterprise in the United States would be at the expense of our native population fear the rational fear of territorial displacement and dispossession okay, that's very clear Alan dtz, would you really disagree with that in terms of an evaluation How did this make the Palestinians feel and whether they were wrong to feel that way?

Wouldn't it just be yes uh and yes uh? They felt it and they were wrong to feel it. I have to go back just 10 years before 1947 48 the appeal commission was created by Britain recommended dividing the mandate into a small part A piece of land along the Mediterranean for a Jewish state where there would be a Jewish majority and the Jewish majority would determine how would be governed. The great lord of Jerusalem, the leader of the Palestinian people, said that he rejected it, he said that there are no Palestinians. We are simply big Arabs and we don't want there to be a Palestinian state, we just want there to be no Jewish state and then in 1948 the UN division again invited to give the land to the vast majority of arable land. that is usable for the Arabs the Israelis accepted it again the Arabs rejected it again there was a Jewish majority in the area that was reserved for Israel the Arabs attacked in a genocidal war and tried to destroy Israel the key point may have been motivated by The The fear is that the Arabs and Muslims did not desperately want there to be a Jewish entity because Grandma Jerusalem was religious and that under Islamic law you cannot cede any land that was Muslim land to a Jewish land and then since that time, 1967, 2201, 2005, 2007, Israel was willing to accept a two-state solution and all Arab leaders rejected it, and Israel left the Gaza Strip, in 2005 it eliminated not only all the living people but also all the dead that were buried.

Greenhouses and agricultural equipment were left behind, yes, they had to protect their borders and they only had the blockade, the major blockade after Hamas took control and a little, I want to stop, we are getting a little ahead of where I want to go. At the beginning of this debate, you have outlined your response to what Norman said there. Norman in 1948 we had the Napa catastrophe, as the Palestinians call it, because the UN could not get the people to accept the proposal that Israel declare itself a state. War broke out, Israel gained more land. I believe this is indisputable from what the UN originally assigned and many Palestinians were forced to leave their homes.

It is also true that at the same time many Israelis were expelled or many Jews were forced to leave their homes. homes in Arab countries, so there was a lot of displacement on both sides and I would ask you if you look at that as a whole. I've had people say to me, "You know, if you really go back to this period in time." The parties have a legitimate reason to complain. Do you agree with that? I can't agree with that because we have to stick firmly to the factual record. The factual record is quite clear about what happened between 1947 and 1949 in the case of Israel and Palestine approximately 750,000 Palestinians from what became the state of Israel were expelled or fled out of fear and ended up refugees.

Now it's important to note Piers because you and I think we generously agreed to talk about the background, frankly, I think you're the first person I've noticed willing to talk about the background that 200 and about 270,000 of those Palestinians who were expelled during the first Arab-Israeli war ended up in Gaza, so if we want to take the point as a starting point from 1947 to 49 The starting point for Gaza is exactly the same, that's how Gaza became Loop. 70% of Gaza's population became Palestinian refugees. Now as to the question of what is sometimes called a population exchange between the Arabs who resided in, excuse me, the Jews. who reside in the Arab world versus the Arabs who resided in what became the state of Israel, there really isn't one.

I don't want to be in an academic debate now, uh, because it's just not the time or the place, but there isn't one. good studies on what happened to the Jewish Arabs in 1948, some like the Yemeni Jews, all agree that they came voluntarily. The question of Iraqi Jews is a bit blurry. What happened. I'm not going to take one position or another on this, but I don't think those other aspects of the conflict should distract us from the fundamental question that you asked and I think it's a very good question to look at the background and background of what happened, what which happened on October 7, began with the exposure of some 300,000 Palestinians to Gaza and now they comprise about 70 to 80% of the population of Gaza and their descendants, well, you don't agree with what you're hearing there, for how fundamentally Noca was a self- Benorian imposed a wound when he announced the establishment of Israel welcomed all Arabs to stay, he did not want to expel any, but Arab countries engaged in a genocidal war designed to kill all Jews and destroying Israel, was as a result of that.

Invasion that the Palestinians abandoned or were expelled I have now studied the situation of the Iraqi Jews because I was one of those people who helped draft resolution 242 at the United Nations and we analyzed in great detail the history of the Jews and places like Iraq In Iraq there was a Nazi program during World War II and there were additional pgrs in other Arab countries where the Jews had no choice but to leave and there was a population exchange very similar to that in the land of Sudon, just as that in Pakistan and In India and all other countries in the world, refugees were incorporated and assimilated into society, but for no reason, this horrible, horrible organization was created to keep Arab refugees in camps to make sure there was a suppurating wound.

The Jews were integrated into society. At first they were not first class citizens, but now they dominate the country. The same thing could have happened to the Arabs who left Israel. They could have been integrated into neighboring countries. Instead, they were kept in camps and told they had to destroy. destroy Israel they had to have the right to return they had to return that history cannot stop and you cannot move forward you just have to go back so the only fault of the refugees was the attack by the Arab countries designed to kill the Israelis that was when expulsions and departures occurred and before I leave before I return to the leadership before I return to Norman uh to respond to that from your understanding of how many Jews were displaced from their homes in this initial period because I have heard that it was actually a lot, between 7 and 800,000, with probably a trillion dollars in wealth.

These were people who had lived in these countries longer than Muslims. They had lived there since the Babylonian exile. um 2,000 years earlier, they had been full citizens. there were six they were second class because they were not muslims but they lived in peace and once this happened uh many were expelled some left voluntarily I can see that for uh Mr. Felstein but many left about the same number stayed voluntarily remember two with The Arabs were told to leave and that they would return victorious after in hia, for example, many of them wanted to stay and many stayed, but the Arab leaders said leave, we will return victorious, you will have everything back , this is a complex. situation, 75 years ago there was a statute of limitations for things like this, a moral statute of limitations, go ahead, settle in the countries you left and went to get rid of these refugee camps, get rid of the unreason and become full citizens of countries. you moved to the way my grandparents became full citizens of the United States, the pgrs had forced them to leave Poland.

Well, come to the normal day. His response to that. That's fine thanks. It appears first as a general point. I agree with the notion of a statute of limitations on your claims to a parcel of land. The first time I came across that expression I was reading Arnold's great history of the history of the world toin be, actually, and he points out in Its history that there is no statute of limitation on the claims of the Jews to Palestine, said that that claim was made 2,000 years ago and it is stated that even today it is claimed that, based on what happened 2,000 years ago, there are a large portion of the Israeli population who believe they have title to the West Bank, do have title. to Gaza because of that 2,000-year-old claim, isn't there a statute of limitations?

Let me complete my thought and then you may disagree. Isn't there a statute of limitations for the 2 to 3,000 year ago claim? Yes, I want to focus on G I want, I would like to focus on Gaza, the population is expelled from Israel to Gaza now, if you look at the Benny Mars story called the Border Wars, he says between 1949 and 1953, literally, listen carefully around 2,700 to 5,000 expelled Palestinians, including in the West Bank and Gaza, between 2,700 and 5,000 expelled Palestinians were killed by Israel as they attempted to return to their homes. Now Benny Mars says that 90% of those killed were unarmed and were what he called trees of economic infiltration who wanted to see their homes. their lands wanted to see their neighbors were brutally if you believe that Professor Maris was brutally murdered between those years in 1956, as you know, his counterparts England, France and Israel invaded Egypt, including at that time Gaza, which happened then according to Benny Moris in the book Border Wars.

He said that between 470 and 500 Palestinian men werealigned and dejected now let's keep in mind, comrades, this was long before this entity called Hamas entered the PCT landscape now we fast forward to 1967 after Israel occupies Gaza there are new attacks on the The people of Gaza this time continued with the defense at that time, no, it was not the Minister of Defense Agriculture, Ariel Chiron, now without deviating. I have to say Professor dtz every time I heard it, even when we debated among ourselves in 2003, I guess or 2004. I don't remember him continuing to escalate his claims about having written UN resolution 242 or contributing to the resolution Professor dtz I understand that the people have fantasies and I understand that people have memory lapses as they get older, but professor dtz when we had our original Debate, you didn't even know who wrote UN resolution 242, you had all these names, it was Lord Kidan, whoever was involved in the process would know, so let's agree on one thing that we should both agree to just state. facts and if we have any doubts about the facts, let's put them aside and try to give the viewers as accurate a record as possible.

Possibly, we may not agree, but when you get involved in your fantasies, to me it is very disturbing and disorienting. Well, let me ask. Professor dwit to answer well, first of all, let's get the facts straight. I was Arthur Goldberg's paralegal. Arthur Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations. He asked me to come. In fact, I moved in with him in the Wald towers off Historia. and working with him on 242 yes, I confuse the name Carrington with something else, but I worked closely, in fact, I was partly responsible for changing the words. Sorry Sorry.

I worked on the matter. I didn't work with Lord. Keridan I worked with Arthur Goldberg and together we managed to get rid of the word Palestinian before refugees to make sure that the resolution applied to both Palestinian refugees and Now you're interrupting me, so let me finish this. It's a detail It's a fact Now let's talk about what happened to the Gaza Strip I agree that there is a statute of limitations I oppose any biblical claim on Israel I believe Israel has a political and moral claim on the Land There has always been The Jews lived there from the time of Jesus and Muhammad until 1948 and wisely the British decided on a compromise plan for division and that plan was accepted by the Jewish and Zionist leaders, it was rejected by the Palestinians and then, as you know, Israel tried to give in The return of the Gaza Strip to Egypt during the Camp David Agreement almost caused a breakdown in the Camp David meetings because the Egyptians did not want it and Israel clung to it very reluctantly and then in 2005 Israel left Gaza and only when the rockets and a bloody coup occurred did Israel respond with border controls.

Let me tell you one thing: they were not strong enough if there had been better border controls. Hamas would not have been allowed to bring in concrete that it used to build tunnels. bring weapons that he used to murder all these people on October 7th, so Israel was not strong enough, it should have had much better border controls than other countries in comparable situations, so it is one more point to be and Benny dies. They are considered to be some kind of one-sided historians, there are claims that dispute them, especially since he was an openly anti-Zionist historian who did not believe that the Jewish people had any rights over Israel, there is also a statute of limitations for that, so let's move forward and moving forward means potentially a solution in which Hamas no longer has control of Gaza.

Also remember that you are absolutely right, Norman. Terrorism began long before Hamas terrorism was an essential part of the Palestinian leadership, the United States, the Olympic massacre that occurred before Hamas, terrorism on planes, blowing up planes, hijacking planes, the problem is that the world rewarded terrorism and is rewarding it again by allowing Hamas to free hundreds. of people legitimately many convicted not all convicted many convicted in exchange for a small number of completely innocent hostages you cannot compare completely innocent hostages with convicted murderers okay look Norman answers that but I also want to move on once you answer once I Answered and, if you like, turn to the issue of settlements as well, because one of the things I find most difficult to feel sympathy for Israel about is the continued expansion of settlements.

I agree, and particularly in the West Bank, and I think we can find some consensus here, but first of all, Norman, your response to what Alan D just said, but also then move it to resolve it, yeah, well, I I would like to try it with you, in fact, I can take you to the settlements, uh, about the Gaza case. I'd like to just pick up where I left off, so to speak, at the risk of boring the timeline. I said that in 1970 atrocities were committed in Gaza against the people of Gaza by agriculture led by the agriculture minister at that time.

Ariel cherome in 19 1987, as you may remember, appears the first inap erupted was overwhelmingly here I quote Benny Maris from his book Just Victims was an overwhelmingly non-violent civil resistance to the Israeli occupation in 1990 three years after the beginning or actually two years because it began on December 7, 1987 by 1990 Israel began to create institutions again. I stick strictly to Gaza, what he called a closure policy and the closure policy was basically to seal off Gaza, okay for 2002 2003, if you read, uh, Baro Kimmerling, he was a senior sociologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem described Gaza as, quote, the largest concentration camp ever known.

Now you could say that Baro Kimmerling was a leftist person and I grant that, but then we have the island of Gora. The island of Gora at that time was the head. of Israel's National Security Council, said in March 2003 and I quote him now, described Gaza as a huge concentration camp, so it can be said that there is a consensus among knowledgeable sociologists at the Hebrew University, head of the Council of National Security, that Israel had turned Gaza into a concentration camp in 2006 in 2006 there are elections in January 2006 Hamas wins the elections basically on the platform of reform because the Palestinian Authority is proverbially corrupt it comes to power immediately when it comes to power Israel institutes this brutal economic blockade on Gaza and in that time there have been various descriptions, I'm sure, it seems like you wouldn't be upset, you wouldn't call The Economist a left-wing or anti-Semitic magazine, it described God as, quote, a toxic dumping ground and, uh, at that point, I had to slowly give you and your listeners an example because you should have an idea of ​​what this lockdown was like.

Israel's explicit policy was to keep Gaza on the brink of economic catastrophe. This is how they describe their They banned the entry of chicks into Gaza They banned the entry of chocolate into Gaza They prohibited the entry of French fries into Gaza G They predict that they prohibited the entry of any spices into Gaza and they prohibited any export from Gaza except in a few places, occasionally , things like strawberries So what had happened to Gaza had on the eve of 2007 it had the highest unemployment rate in the world, around 60% were unemployed, 50% for the population as a whole, 60% for young people , the people in Gaza were left languishing and dying with no past, with no future to languish and die in the concentration camp that was their prospect as of October 6, 2003, excuse me, yes, 2023, sorry, hey , I answer well, I tell him what Yes, in fact, on that point Professor DZ, respond briefly to that point if you could and then I want to go back to the normal thinker Stein to move it to the solution, so Alan just responds to what uh, I respond to that suggestion that has been cited by many people that the conditions in Gaza in the period that Norman Finlin has been many people have described it as on the verge of a concentration camp and, at the very least, a form of occupation in which Israel will have too much control over what could enter and leave Gaza, including people, well, they write in the description that it was a toxic place, it was a toxic place because Hamas took power and because Hamas stole food from the people of Gaza, He took the material that was being sent from Europe from countries around the world and he took it from the children and he took it from the hospitals.

They took it from the schools and they gave it to their fighters to build 350 miles of tunnels. Imagine what could have been done with all the resources that had been sent to Gaza. There was plenty of food in Gaza, except that Hamas was using it. If there was a lot of material to build hospitals in Gaza, but Hamas was using it instead, it was Hamas that turned it into a toxic place when Israel actually occupied it, actually occupied it, it was in much better shape than when Hamas took care of him and so on. It's Hamas's fault Hamas turned Gaza into this horrible place and let's remember that Israel has been willing to abandon Gaza time and time again, tried desperately to give it back to Egypt during Camp David, tried desperately to allow a war in 2007.

Plan of merit Gaza was gives a Palestinian State Bill Clinton's 22201 plan Gaza is given over they rejected it if it was a toxic concentration camp the guards were not Israelis the guards were people from Hamas who threw homosexuals from the roof who murdered Palestinians People with authority and that deny women the right to live their lives decently. Yes, Gaza was a terrible place. Totally Hamas' fault. Can we reach a point of agreement on the settlement issue? I suspect we can. so normal and development the World Bank the international community monetary fund a thousand humanitarian and economic organizations have all come to the same conclusion it is very simple the main cause of the disaster in Gaza is the illegal blockade by Israel of that plot of land full stop that is wrong that is wrong that is wrong that is false who is wrong who is wrong and that is wrong is wrong the World Bank is wrong the international monetary fund is wrong everyone is wrong they are all anti-Semites is that what is happening I did not say that I did not say that They are wrong it turns out that I know more than any of them that because the blockade was completely legal it was designed to prevent importation and then the use of rockets is their country to attack in a I mean, they won't let me finish, they can't have a d Israel is exposed to a double standard but we are not going to let you impose a double standard on me no, I am going to finish my statement and you are not going to interrupt me so understand me, the military occupation was legal, the blockade was legal every day .

The country has the right to defend itself from the rockets from the terrorist tunnels of the people who come across the border murdering and kidnapping people, all of that is nonsense. I'm telling you as an expert in international law and the law of war, if you want to dispute me, get in touch. an expert who knows something about international law no a no no a p Professor D okay Professor dtz I actually teach the laws of war. I've been teaching them for the last five years, as I understand it, okay Professor DZ, okay. Professor DZ, let's agree, I am completely ignorant, let's take that as a starting point, how is it possible that yes, all humanitarian and political organizations in the world have declared that the blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment and, therefore Is it a violation? under international law a war crime under international law, how did that happen?

They are wrong, how is everything? you are wrong everyone is wrong no, you are not, you are wrong, you are wrong in describing you are wrong in the description of each group there are many group one is okay Professor DZ name me one legal International legal body or human rights organization name me one I will make a pause name me one that what you say that the blockade of Gaza is not a collective punishment name me one the law the laware project in the United States um the law the law fair project I said name me an international political or legal body one is the listening of all Pi Morgan has a very large audience name me one name me one international or legal legal political body that says the blockade of Gaza is legal name me one if it is legal and each or every organization I have been associated with the project from the legal fair the project led by a woman called Lightner an international project they were all everyone has come to the conclusion that the blockade is legal Israel Su la let me finish the Supreme Court of Israel which is beyond reproach and which is much more fair The international court of justice has also said that blockades designed to prevent rockets from being brought into Israel are legal.

Also use your common sense. What possible reason would there be forallow a Hamas group to go to Gaza to send rockets without trying to stop them from bringing rockets and building drops? Use your common sense. of course it is illegal, every country in the world would do exactly the same thing Israel did. I think we have exhausted this part of the debate. I want before we run out of time we only have about 5 minutes left. I want to arrive. on the settlements and I will start with you, Professor Fste, I think the settlement issue is quite indefensible, actually what has been happening and particularly in recent years in the West Bank, but what is your general view of the settlements issue? settlements? settlements, as in all issues, is what international law says according to article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: it is illegal for the occupying power to transfer its population to the occupied territory now that this issue came before the international court of justice in July 2004, every single judge, every single judge, including the American judge, Mr.

Bergenthal, all agreed on one point: the settlements are illegal under international law, now under the court's Rome statute international criminal law, those settlements constitute war crimes, so what are we talking about now since the settlement activity began. After the June 1967 war, what we are talking about is a war crime prolonged over a period of half a century and that is sometimes overlooked when we talk about what happened in Gaza, we are talking about two decades if We go back to closing. in 1990 we are talking about the martyrdom of a people who for three decades those young people who broke into the gates of Gaza on October 7 were born in use your phrase now, a toxic concentration camp, were born in it and that settlement activity that according to the statute of Rome is a war crime that has been ongoing for half a century, okay, let me talk, let me talk to Professor D, answer, please, let me answer, yes, first. of all, Finlin and Hamas consider Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as settlements, so they cannot be taken seriously about anything, they consider all of Israel as settlements and yes, I do not agree with the settlements in the West Bank that I have had since 1970 , when I debated with Chomsky.

I called for a two-state solution. I agree with a military occupation designed to prevent rockets and prevent terrorism, but I don't agree with civilian settlements, but the poor central point I want to make, we have finally reached this point, wait a second, no, for supposed. no, they are not war crimes at all, they are disputes over what constitutes UN resolution 242, the UN says they are illegal, where is that? The UN says many things, the UN yes the UN also called Israel, Zionism, racism, the UN. has no authority to define international law the UN can give judges let me finish so remember who appoints the judges the countries appoint the judges so when Lebanon appoints a judge it is Hezbollah that appoints the judge the international court of justice is an illegitimate court, it's not a real court court but I want to get to the core Point what he finally says wait minute let me finish pleas let me finish illegal what finlin what finlin is finally saying is that these people he called them modders I was in bayra I was in the Nova Music Festival I saw the remains of where a woman named Vivien Silver, a pnik who used to go and take Hamas and Gauen people to hospitals, was burned to death.

I saw where people were raped. There is no justification for collective rape. There is no justification for murdering a pnck. This woman was probably murdered by the same people she took to the hospitals because they knew exactly where she lived and where the hospitals were. It is an abomination to even suggest that any kind of martyrdom dispute over land, dispute over anyone could justify what happened on October 7. Shame on anyone who thinks that civilized human beings should be praised or even justified for doing what they did. I met a man whose son had been beheaded and Hamas then removed his head and brought it back to Gaza and put it up for sale. for $10,000 and this father had to bury his headless son, that's what Hamas did, and not only Hamas, but ordinary civilians from Gaza crossed the border and participated in these rapes and murders, and it's a shame for anyone who doesn't unequivocally condemn it there.

There is no justification for what happened on October 7th, no matter what the story is, history is in dispute, but I want to hear Norman Finlin say unequivocally, no matter what the story is, there is no justification for the massacres of October 7th. October, come on. We'll end with Norma Felin's answer and answer that question. Legit question. My answer is exactly the same one I gave you the first time I met you. Pierce. There were other major atrocities that occurred on October 7th. I think it is indisputable. So you asked me. Would you consider it terrorism?

So I answered you. I think atrocities denote terrorism. However, I said that I take the same attitude toward the perpetrators of those atrocities as I, as abolitionists in the United States, took toward Nat Turner's rebellion. Nat Turner, so you justify yourself. they then you praise them then you glorify them you honor them that is the reality I can finish yes I can finish yes uh Nat Turner and the slave revolt committed horrible atrocities the abolitionists said horrible things happened but they never condemned no, they don't happen they are perpetrated, you are justifying what that I was told to finish the lowest point you have ever reached and you have reached low points, but this is the lowest point you have reached when comparing these rapists and murderers to the lowest point in your history. let him finish what he's trying to say sure thanks btw Nat Turner's Rebellion is fine and Nat Turner's Rebellion committed horrible atrocities including beheading babies that's a fact however the ab they did you're justifying that Pierce didn't like them, can you please? tell him to let him finish the point he's making and then he responds okay, thank you, thank you very much, however, the abolitionists did not condemn the perpetrators, the abolitionist kept saying.

We told you, we told you, we told you, we told you, yes Treating people like that would inevitably happen what happened with the slave revolt and I say if you lock two million people in a concentration camp for 20 years, half of whom are children who were born in that concentration camp, do not react with surprise and sadness. and disbelief and indignation at what happened on October 7. I have spent the last 20 years of my life studying what has been done to the people of Gaza and every time I reread what I wrote I was more adamant than ever before that I will not condemn those people even though I recognize that mass atrocities occurred on October 7 and indescribable.

Okay, I let my last Point Norman get away. You wouldn't condemn the Nazis, Hitler Geral and Garing, because they also suffered after the end of the first world war they also tried to justify what they did as inevitable due to inflation due to living in terrible conditions they inevitably voted for Hitler they inevitably built chambers of gas inevitably built concentration camps and you, Norman Finlin, who claim your parents from the Holocaust Survivors, Norman Finklestein, according to his logic, would justify each of the six million Jews who were murdered because the Germans who did it do not deserve condemnation because they were victims of the bilateral treaty at the end of the First World War, that is the situation. you're in Norman finlin, it's despicable, well, well, well, we start, uh, I think in a reasonable way and we end up in a place where the last word is Despicable, which is a shame, but I understand that passions run high, I think that you.

We have both argued your case extremely eloquently and with great enthusiasm and I personally have sat down and learned a lot, which is what I hope to do with these debates, so thank you both very much for joining me, Professor Finlin, Professor DT. I appreciate it thank you uh thank you Piers thank you Piers as always you were very fair I respect that and I feel obliged to acknowledge it I appreciate that I try to be thank you very much in fact thank you I agree I agree with that we agree with that you are fair, I have finally reached a point of consensus between the two teachers and that is that I am fair, thank you very much to both of them.