- The video is a debate on Israel and Palestine with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Muin Rabbani, and Stephen Bunnell
- The goal of the debate was to explore the history, present, and future of Israel and Palestine in a free-flowing conversation
- The debate was tense and emotional, reflecting the larger tensions and perspectives on the topic
- The first question was about the events of 1948 and the period around it, and the speakers discussed the UN's recommendation for 2 states in Palestine
- Norman Finkelstein expressed his support for the partition resolution and emphasized the need for full equality of all citizens in both the Jewish and Arab states

- Gromyko expressed concern for the suffering of the Jewish people during the war
- He stated that the UN should not ignore the situation
- He supported a 1-state solution but would consider a 2-state solution if necessary
- The Arab side rejected the partition resolution and launched a war against the Jewish community
- The Jewish state emerged due to Arab resistance and hostilities
- The Palestinian Arabs never tried to create a state before 1948, leading to the current state of affairs

- The establishment of the state of Israel was the result of preparation, war, and victory against Arab states.
- The war in 1948 resulted in a vast Palestinian refugee problem and the Nakba, or catastrophe.
- The UN's partition resolution in 1947 was deeply unjust and led to the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
- The lack of an independent Arab state in Palestine was due to collusion between Zionist and Hashemite leadership.

- The speaker points out that the Arab rejection of the 1947 partition plan led to a civil war in 1947.
- They argue that the majority of land acquired by Jews was through purchases from Palestinian Arabs before the mandatory period in 1920.
- The speaker criticizes the cherry-picking of facts and blames Zionism for population expulsion, but acknowledges the political, social, and military realities on the ground.
- The speaker challenges historian Morris on his views about transfer and expulsion being inevitable in Zionism, citing his own writings on the topic.
- Morris argues that the refugee problem and dispossession occurred as a result of war, and discusses the land purchases and displacement of Arab tenant farmers during the Ottoman and mandate periods.

- The speaker discusses the Zionist ideology of settling land with their own people 
- They argue that the Arabs started a war in 1947-48 and have not taken responsibility for their actions 
- They claim that expulsion and transfer were not part of Zionist policy 
- The discussion also touches on the Palestinians' engagement in diplomacy and civic action 
- There is a debate about the inevitability of mass transfer in Zionism and the acceptance of a large Arab population in the Jewish state

- The discussion revolves around the idea of transfer as part of the Zionist movement
- Professor Morris and the other speaker debate the centrality of transfer to Zionism
- Transfer was not officially adopted as policy, but it did occur during the 1947-48 conflict
- The discussion also touches on the ideology of Zionism and its influence on Israel today
- The diaries of Theodor Herzl and his correspondence with Cecil Rhodes are mentioned as influential in the Zionist movement

- The discussion revolves around the intentions of Cecil Rhodes and Theodor Herzl in relation to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
- Herzl's main goal was to create a liberal democratic Western state in Palestine for the Jews, not an imperial enterprise.
- The partition plan of 1947 and the rejection of it by the Palestinians is also discussed, with the focus on the ideological and principled reasons for the rejection.
- The issue of the transfer of Arab population after accepting the partition plan is raised, questioning the potential impact on Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the Western world.

- Video debate on Israel and Palestine with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Muin Rabbani, and Stephen Bunnell
- Tense and emotional debate reflecting larger tensions and perspectives on the topic
- Discussion of events of 1948, UN's recommendation for 2 states in Palestine, and the Palestinian refugee problem
- Debate on the inevitability of mass transfer in Zionism and the influence of Zionism on Israel today
- Mention of Theodor Herzl's goal to create a liberal democratic Western state in Palestine for the Jews

- The speaker discusses the history of Zionism and the establishment of the Jewish state in Israel
- They argue that the expulsion of Palestinians was intrinsic to the Zionist ideology
- They disagree with the idea that the Nakba (Palestinian exodus) was a product of war, not design
- There is a fundamental disagreement about the historical research and its implications

- The speaker discusses the history of the Zionist movement and its commitment to a Jewish state
- The conversation touches on the expulsion of Arabs and the Arab resistance to Zionism
- The speaker and Professor Morris disagree on the role of anti-Semitism in Arab nationalism
- The ideal solution for the Arab side in 1947 was a unitary Arab state, while the Zionist movement wanted a Jewish state
- The conversation highlights the complexities of the historical and political context surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

- The discussion revolves around the establishment of a unitary Arab state or a Palestinian state with guarantees for the security and rights of both communities
- There is debate about Jewish fears of a second Holocaust and the reasons for the flight of Arab Jews from their countries
- The conversation also touches on the push and pull factors for the departure of Jews from Arab lands after 1948
- The participants discuss the historical behavior of both parties and the ideology of Zionists and Arab Palestinians
- The world community is mentioned as forcing the Arabs to pay the price for the Holocaust

- The Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but their efforts to prevent Jewish immigration indirectly contributed to the slaughter of many Jews in Europe.
- Palestinian Arab National Movement's leader, Husseini, worked for the Nazis and called for the murder of Jews in the Middle East.
- The British sponsorship of Zionism was to secure the Suez Canal, leading to the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine.
- The Israeli state imposed restrictions on Palestinian citizens, leading to claims of apartheid.
- The responsibility of Palestinian Arabs for the Nazi Holocaust is considered absurd, and their resistance to Jewish immigration was due to fear of territorial displacement.
- Words count and should be taken seriously in discussions.

- The discussion revolves around the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the British support for the Zionist movement in Palestine.
- There is debate about the true motivations behind the Balfour Declaration, with one side arguing it was driven by imperial self-interest and the other side claiming it was motivated by idealism and a sense of owing a debt to the Jews.
- The British support for Zionism was not consistent, with periods of curbing Jewish immigration and ultimately turning anti-Zionist in 1939.
- There is also mention of a proposal for an alliance between a Zionist organization and Nazi Germany, but the significance of this proposal is debated.

- The discussion revolves around the role of Husseini in preventing Jews from fleeing to Palestine during the Holocaust
- The relevance of the Mufti of Jerusalem and the leader of the Palestinian movement is debated
- The conversation shifts to the modern day, specifically the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel

- Discussion of the history of Zionism and the establishment of Israel
- Disagreement over the expulsion of Palestinians and the Nakba
- Debate on the role of anti-Semitism in Arab nationalism
- Complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the push and pull factors for Jewish and Arab populations
- British support for Zionism and the Balfour Declaration
- Role of Palestinian leaders in preventing Jewish immigration during the Holocaust
- Modern day attacks by Hamas on Israel mentioned

- The discussion revolves around the Hamas charter calling for the elimination of Jews from Palestine
- The charter has been superseded by a 2018 political statement, but it still calls for the elimination of Jews from Israel
- There is a debate about whether Hamas deliberately targets Jews or Israelis
- The need for a proper, independent, international investigation into the actions of Hamas and Israel is emphasized
- There is disagreement about the number of civilians killed and who is responsible for their deaths

- The speaker discusses the responsibility for killings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad
- There is a debate about the number of casualties and the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance
- The speaker argues against selective condemnation and outrage, citing personal experiences with discussions about the Israel-Palestine conflict
- The focus is on distinguishing between attacks on civilians and military facilities, and the speaker expresses reluctance to selectively condemn actions from either side

- The discussion revolves around the double standards in condemning Israeli actions and the justification of war by both sides
- The conversation delves into the Lebanon War and the Second Intifada, with a focus on civilian casualties and differing accounts of the events
- The challenge is issued for a civil scholarly discussion and for the other party to respond to the claims made in print

- The speaker discusses the erasure of past atrocities and the need for understanding critical moments in history.
- The conversation addresses the conduct of the military and the intentional targeting of civilians by Hamas.
- There is a debate about the morality and intent of Israeli attacks and the actions of Hamas during the Great March of Return in Gaza.
- The conversation becomes heated as the speakers disagree on the actions of Israeli snipers and the violence during the Great March of Return.

- The speaker discusses a UN investigation finding that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) targeted civilians, including children, journalists, and medics.
- There is a debate about whether these attacks were part of a deliberate policy or individual actions.
- The organization and decision-making process within the IDF, particularly regarding strikes and bombings, is also discussed.
- The speaker challenges the claim that the IDF deliberately targeted civilians, citing the relatively low number of civilian casualties compared to the number of strikes.
- The debate also touches on the credibility of the reported casualty numbers and the comparison of Gaza to other combat zones in the world.

- The discussion revolves around whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
- South Africa has accused Israel of perpetrating genocide in Gaza and the court has decided to proceed with the case
- The debate includes the definition of genocide, the intent behind the actions, and the role of Hamas in the conflict
- The participants have differing opinions on the matter, with one side arguing that Israel is engaging in a genocidal assault against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip

The discussion revolves around the Hamas charter calling for the elimination of Jews from Palestine and Israel. There is a debate about whether Hamas deliberately targets Jews or Israelis, and a need for proper investigation into the actions of Hamas and Israel. The conversation also addresses the conduct of the military and intentional targeting of civilians by Hamas, as well as the morality and intent of Israeli attacks. Additionally, there is a debate about whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, with South Africa accusing Israel of perpetrating genocide and the court deciding to proceed with the case.

- The International Court of Justice ruling on South Africa's case against Israel is discussed
- The plausibility standard for the case is mentioned, with the speaker believing it to be low
- Misrepresentations in South Africa's complaint and the intent to commit genocide are highlighted
- The speaker doubts the competence of the ICJ judges and the American judge in the case
- The case is described as not well-founded and the intent to commit genocide is questioned

- The discussion is about a legal case involving genocide and war crimes in Israel and Palestine
- The speaker expresses pessimism about finding a solution to the conflict
- They discuss historical events and the closure of archives related to war crimes
- The conversation ends with a question about when Israel and Palestine have been closest to a peace settlement

- The closest the Israel-Palestine conflict came to a peace settlement was in 2000, when a two-state settlement was offered to PLO Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, but he ultimately rejected it.
- The maximum Israel was prepared to offer fell short of the minimum the Palestinians considered to be a reasonable two-state settlement.
- There were missed opportunities for peace in the mid-1970s and after the 1973 October War.
- The establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories remains realistic, but the question now is whether it is desirable given Israel's actions.

- The speaker discusses the potential for peace in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa after the ousting of oppressive regimes.
- They question whether peace can be achieved without dismantling the Zionist regime in the Middle East.
- The speaker believes a two-state settlement is still feasible but questions its desirability.
- They discuss the history of conflict in the region and the failure of peace agreements in the past.
- The conversation also touches on the perception of Israel as an apartheid regime and the need for difficult political maneuvering to achieve peace.

- The Israeli fear during the 1982 Lebanon War was the Palestinian peace offensive
- The 2000-2001 negotiations were divided into three parts: Camp David, Clinton parameters, and Taba in Egypt
- The Palestine Papers, 15,000 pages of negotiation records, show that Israel was willing to give up 92% of the West Bank but wanted to keep all major settlement blocks and 80% of settlers
- All concessions in the negotiations came from the Palestinian side based on international law
- The Palestinians demanded what was promised to them under international law, but the other side did not want to hear about international law
- The conflict resolution should be based on international law, but some argue that international law is meaningless and conflicts are not solved according to it

- The conversation discusses the basis of needs for Israel and Palestine
- The relevance of international law and standards in negotiations is debated
- The recognition of Israel by Palestinians and the feasibility of a two-state solution is questioned
- The conversation ends with the suggestion that according to Benny Morris, the Palestinians cannot be reasonable in accepting a two-state solution because they want all of Palestine.

- Discussion of International Court of Justice ruling on South Africa's case against Israel
- Doubt about competence of ICJ judges and American judge in the case
- Pessimism about finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Historical events and closure of archives related to war crimes are mentioned
- Missed opportunities for peace in the past
- Questioning the desirability of a two-state settlement
- Debate on the relevance of international law and standards in negotiations
- Questioning the feasibility of a two-state solution and the Palestinians' willingness to accept it

- The speaker discusses the historical debate within the Palestinian National Movement about accepting a two-state settlement or pursuing total liberation of Palestine.
- They argue that the Palestinian side has been delusional in their approach to negotiations and lacks effective leadership for peaceful settlement.
- The speaker suggests that international pressure and new leadership in both Palestine and Israel are necessary for a peaceful resolution.
- There is a disagreement about the application of international law and UN resolutions in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

- The discussion revolves around the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood and the effectiveness of international law in furthering the Palestinian cause. 
- There is disagreement about the historical negotiations and the willingness of Israel to concede Palestinian national rights. 
- The debate also touches on the extent of Palestinian territorial demands and the potential for peace in the Middle East. 
- The surrounding Arab states, particularly Egypt and Jordan, have made peace with Israel, but there is skepticism about the possibility of peace with the current regime in power.

- The discussion revolves around the peace deals between Israel and Egypt, and the strained relations between Israel and other Arab nations
- There is disagreement over the legitimacy and terms of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty
- The conversation also touches on the bleak situation in the region, with differing views on the legality and morality of certain actions and international law

- The speaker questions why the Houthis would bomb merchant ships while people in Yemen are dying of starvation
- They discuss the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the metrics used to measure it
- The conversation turns to the hope for the region and the possibility of a two-state settlement for Israel and Palestine
- There is a disagreement about the use of terms like apartheid and genocide in the context of the conflict
- The conversation becomes heated as accusations of racism are thrown around

- The conversation discusses the number of civilian casualties in Gaza and who is responsible for them
- The speakers debate the accuracy of the numbers and the intentions of the IDF and Hamas
- They also discuss the value of preserving the memory of historical events
- The conversation ends with a quote about peace being a journey.

The text discusses the historical debate within the Palestinian National Movement about accepting a two-state settlement or pursuing total liberation of Palestine. It highlights the need for international pressure and new leadership in both Palestine and Israel for a peaceful resolution. The conversation also touches on the peace deals between Israel and Egypt, the strained relations between Israel and other Arab nations, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. There is disagreement over the legitimacy and terms of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, the use of terms like apartheid and genocide in the context of the conflict, and the accuracy of the numbers and intentions of the IDF and Hamas. The conversation ends with a quote about peace being a journey.

Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris are historians. Mouin Rabbani is a Middle East analyst. Steven Bonnell (aka Destiny) is a political livestreamer. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod to get 3 months free
- Babbel: https://babbel.com/lexpod and use code Lexpod to get 55% off
- Policygenius: https://policygenius.com/lex
- Eight Sleep: https://eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings

TRANSCRIPT:
https://lexfridman.com/israel-palestine-debate-transcript

EPISODE LINKS:
Mouin's X: https://x.com/MouinRabbani
Mouin's Podcast: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLkT5TSHWFSYKY_6vrNn_vZAmfunA_s9g
-
Benny's Books: https://amzn.to/3Vf7NNU
-
Norman's X: https://x.com/normfinkelstein
Norman's Website: https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
Norman's Books: https://amzn.to/3IqouxU
Knowing Too Much (excerpt): https://jumpshare.com/v/8EUbbP40Do44ITDfJUoR
-
Destiny's YouTube: https://youtube.com/destiny
Destiny's X: https://x.com/TheOmniLiberal
Destiny's Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/
Destiny's Website: https://destiny.gg
-
Norman and Mouin provided additional links to supplement the discussion. See them here: https://sites.google.com/view/israel-palestine-debate/home

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
4:42 - 1948
1:03:14 - Partition
2:07:47 - October 7
3:01:59 - Gaza
3:28:34 - Peace
4:33:18 - Hope for the future

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they're advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to 3 times whenever I'm on.

1 of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say.

Norm will say this all over and over and over again.

I only deal in facts, I don't deal in hypotheticals.

I only deal in facts, I only deal in facts.

And that seems to be the case, except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you're trying to push.

The idea that Jews would have out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion is just betrayed by the acceptance of the 47 partition plan.

prevent emigration of Jews from Europe and reaching safe shores in Palestine.

your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration?

By the late 1930s, they weren't happy to take in Jews and Americans.

And why are Palestinians who were not Europeans, who had 0 role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this.

Why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely culpable?

Professor Morris, because of your logic, and I'm not disputing it, that's why October 7 happened.

Because there was no options left for those people.

The Hamas guys who attacked the kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians and they killed family after family, house after house.

I'm just trying to think that you're co here.

Only when they agree with you though, that you've lied about

Those kids weren't just on the beach as is often stated in articles.

Those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas compound that they had operated from.

Borelli, with all due respect, with all due respect, you're such a fantastic moron.

The following is a debate on the topic of Israel and Palestine with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Muin Rabbani and Stephen Bunnell, also known online as Destiny.

Norm and Benny are historians, Muin is a Middle East analyst, and Stephen is a political commentator and streamer.

All 4 have spoken and debated extensively on this topic.

The goal for this debate was not for anyone to win or to score points.

And I think there are probably much easier ways to get those things if I did care.

The goal was to explore, together, the history, present and future of Israel and Palestine in a free-flowing conversation, no time limits, no rules.

There was a lot of tension in the room from the very beginning, and it only got more intense as we went along, And I quickly realized that this very conversation in a very real human way was a microcosm of the tensions and distance and perspectives on the topic of Israel and Palestine.

For some debates, I will step in and moderate strictly to prevent emotion from boiling.

For this, I saw the value in not interfering with the passion of the exchanges, because that emotion in itself spoke volumes.

We did talk about the history and the future, but the anger, the frustration, the biting wit, and at times respect and camaraderie were all there.

Like I said, we did it in an perhaps all too human way.

I will do more debates and conversations on these difficult topics.

And I will continue to search for hope in the midst of death and destruction, to search for our common humanity in the midst of division and hate.

This thing we have going on, human civilization, the whole of it is beautiful.

And it's worth figuring out how we can help it flourish together.

To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description.

And now, dear friends, here's Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouyan Rabbani, and Stephen Bunnell.

For Israelis, 1948 is the establishment of the State of Israel and the War of Independence.

For Palestinians, 1948 is the Nakba, which means catastrophe, or the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes as a consequence of the war.

What to you is important to understand about the events of 1948 and the period around there, 47, 49, that helps us understand what's going on today?

And maybe helps us understand the roots of all of this that started even before 1948.

I was hoping that Norm could speak first, and Benny, then Muin, and then Steve.

After World War II, the British decided that they didn't want to deal with the Palestine question anymore, and the ball was thrown into the court of the United Nations.

Now, as I read the record, the UN was not attempting to arbitrate or adjudicate rights and wrongs.

It was confronting a very practical problem.

There were 2 national communities in Palestine and there were irreconcilable differences on fundamental questions, most importantly looking at the historic record on the question of immigration and associated with the question of immigration, the question of land.

The UN Special Committee on Palestine, which came into being before the UN 181 partition resolution, the UN Special Committee recommended 2 states in Palestine.

There was a minority position represented by Iran, India, Yugoslavia, They supported 1 state, but they believed that if forced to, the 2 communities would figure out some sort of modus vivendi and live together.

United Nations General Assembly supported partition between what it called a Jewish state and an Arab state.

Now, In my reading of the record, and I understand there's new scholarship on the subject, which I've not read, but so far as I've read the record, there's no clarity on what the United Nations General Assembly meant by a Jewish state and an Arab state, except for the fact that the Jewish state would be demographically, the majority would be Jewish, and the Arab state demographically would be Arab.

The UNSCOP, the UN Special Committee on Palestine, it was very clear, and it was reiterated many times, that in recommending 2 states, each state, the Arab state and the Jewish state, would have to guarantee full equality of all citizens with regard to political, civil, and religious matters.

Now that does raise the question, if there is absolute, full equality of all citizens both in the Jewish state and the Arab state with regard to political rights, civil rights, and religious rights, apart from the demographic majority, it's very unclear what it meant to call a state Jewish or call a state Arab.

In my view, the partition resolution was the correct decision.

I do not believe that the Arab and Jewish communities could at that point be made to live together.

I disagree with the minority position of India, Iran, and Yugoslavia.

And that not being a practical option, 2 states was the only other option.

In this regard, I would want to pay tribute to what was probably the most moving speech at the UN General assembly proceedings by the Soviet foreign minister Gromyko.

I was very tempted to quote it at length, but I recognized that would be taking too much time.

So I asked a young friend, Jamie Stern-Weiner, to edit it and just get the essence of what Foreign Minister Gromyko had to say.

During the last war, Gromyko said, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering.

Without any exaggeration, This sorrow and suffering are indescribable.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews are wandering about in various countries of Europe in search of means of existence and in search of shelter.

The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference.

Past experience, particularly during the Second World War, shows that no Western European state was able to provide adequate assistance for the Jewish people in defending its rights and its very existence from the violence of the Hitlerites and their allies.

This is an unpleasant fact, but unfortunately, like all other facts, it must be admitted.

Gromyko went on to say, in principle, he supports 1 state, or the Soviet Union supports 1 state, but he said, if relations between the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine proved to be so bad that would be impossible to reconcile them and to ensure the peaceful coexistence of the Arabs and the Jews, the Soviet Union would support 2 states.

I personally am not convinced that the 2 states would have been unsustainable in the long term if, and this is a big if, the Zionist movement had been faithful to the position it proclaimed during the UNSCOP public hearings.

At the time, Ben-Gurion testified, quote, I want to express what we mean by a Jewish state.

We mean by a Jewish state simply a state where the majority of the people are Jews, not a state where a Jew has in any way, any privilege more than anyone else.

A Jewish state means a state based on absolute equality of all her citizens and on democracy.

As Professor Morris has written, quote, Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist.

And then he wrote in another book, transfer, the euphemism for expulsion, transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism because it sought to transform a land which was Arab into a Jewish state.

And a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population.

And because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs, which in turn persuaded the Yeshuv's leaders, the Yeshuv being the Jewish community, the Yeshuv's leaders that a hostile Arab majority or a large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure.

Or, as Professor Morris retrospectively put it, quote, a removing of a population was needed.

Without a population expulsion, a Jewish state would not have been established." The Arab side rejected outright the partition resolution.

I know a lot of people tried to prove it's not true.

The Arab side rejected outright the partition resolution, while Israeli leaders, acting under compulsions, inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism, found the pretext in the course of the First Arab-Israeli War to expel the indigenous population and expand its borders.

I therefore conclude that neither side was committed to the letter of the partition resolution and both sides aborted it.

Norm asked that you make a lengthy statement in the beginning.

Benny, I hope it's okay to call everybody by their first name in the name of camaraderie.

Perhaps you can comment broadly on the question of 1948 and maybe respond to the things that Norm said.

Yeah, UNSCOP, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine recommended partition, the majority of UNSCOP recommended partition, which was accepted by the UN General Assembly in November 1947.

Essentially, looking back to the Peel Commission in 1937, 10 years earlier, a British commission had looked at the problem of Palestine, the 2 warring national groups who refused to live together, if you like, or consolidate a unitary state between them.

The country must be partitioned into 2 states.

This would give a modicum of justice to both sides, if not all their demands of course.

The United Nations UNSCOP and then the UN General Assembly representing the will of the international community said 2 states is the just solution in this complex situation.

The problem was that immediately with the passage of the resolution, The Arab states and the Arabs of Palestine said no, as Norman Finkelstein said.

They said no, they rejected the partition idea, the principle of partition, not just the idea of what percentage which side should get, but the principle of partition they said no to.

The Jews should not have any part of Palestine for their sovereign territory.

Maybe Jews could live as a minority in Palestine.

That also was problematic in the eyes of the Palestinian Arab leadership.

Husseini had said only Jews who were there before 1917 could actually get citizenship and continue to live there.

But the Arabs rejected partition and the Arabs of Palestine launched in very disorganized fashion war against the resolution, against the implementation of the resolution, against the Jewish community in Palestine.

And this was their defeat in that civil war between the 2 communities while the British were withdrawing from Palestine led to the Arab invasion, the invasion by the Arab states in May 1948 of the country.

Again, basically with the idea of eradicating or preventing the emergence of a Jewish state in line with the United Nations decision and the will of the international community.

Norman said that the Zionist enterprise, and he quoted me, meant from the beginning to transfer or expel the Arabs of Palestine or some of the Arabs of Palestine.

And I think he's sort of quoting out of context.

The context in which the statements were made that the Jewish state could only emerge if there was a transfer of Arab population was preceded in the way I wrote it and the way it actually happened by Arab resistance and hostilities towards the Jewish community.

Had the Arabs accepted partition, there would have been a large Arab minority in the Jewish state which emerged in 48, 47.

And in fact, Jewish economists and state builders took into account that there would be a large Arab minority and its needs would be cared for, etc.

But this was not to be because the Arabs attacked.

And had they not attacked, perhaps a Jewish state of the large Arab minority could have emerged, but this didn't happen.

They went to war, the Jews resisted, and in the course of that war, Arab populations were driven out, some were expelled, some left because Arab leaders advised them to leave or ordered them to leave.

And at the end of the war, Israel said they can't return because they just tried to destroy the Jewish state.

And that's the basic reality of what happened in 48.

The Jews created a state, the Palestinian Arabs never bothered to even try to create a state before 48 and in the course of the 1948 war.

And for that reason, they have no state to this day.

The Jews do have a state because they prepared to establish a state, fought for it, and established it hopefully lastingly.

When you say hostility, in case people are not familiar, there was a full-on war where Arab states invaded and Israel won that war.

Let me just add to clarify, the war had 2 parts to it.

The first part was the Arab community in Palestine, its militiamen attacked the Jews from November 1947.

In other words, from the day after the UN partition resolution was passed, Arab gunmen were busy shooting up Jews.

And that snowballed into a full-scale civil war between the 2 communities in Palestine.

In May 1948, a second stage began in the war in which the Arab states invaded the new state, attacked the new state, and they too were defeated, and thus a state of Israel emerged.

In the course of this two-stage war, a vast Palestinian refugee problem occurred.

And so after that, the transfer, the expulsion, the thing that people call the Nakba happened.

Mui-Yin, could you speak to 1948 and the historical significance of it?

I'll try to limit myself to just a few points.

Regarding Zionism and transfer, I think Chaim Weizmann, the head of the World Zionist Organization, had it exactly right when he said that the objective of Zionism is to make Palestine as Jewish as England is English or France is French.

In other words, as Norman explained, a Jewish state requires Jewish political, demographic, and territorial supremacy.

Without those 3 elements, the state would be Jewish in name only.

And I think what distinguishes Zionism is its insistence, supremacy, and exclusivity.

Second point is I think what the Soviet foreign minister at the time, Andrei Gromyko, said is exactly right, with 1 reservation.

Gromyko was describing a European savagery unleashed against Europe's Jews.

At the time, it wasn't Palestinians or Arabs.

The savages and the barbarians were European to the core.

It had nothing to do with developments in Palestine or the Middle East.

Secondly, at the time that Gromyko was speaking, those Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and others who were in need of safe haven were still overwhelmingly on the European continent and not on Palestine, not in Palestine.

And I think given the scale of the savagery, I don't think that any 1 state or country should have borne the responsibility for addressing this crisis.

I think it should have been an international responsibility.

Germany certainly could and should have contributed.

The United Kingdom and the United States, which slammed their doors shut to the persecuted Jews of Europe as the Nazis were rising to power, they certainly should have played a role.

But instead, what passed for the international community at the time decided to partition Palestine.

And Here I think we need to judge the partition resolution against the realities that obtained at the time.

2 thirds of the population of Palestine was Arab.

The Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, constituted about 1 third of the total population and controlled even less of the land within Palestine.

As a preeminent Palestinian historian, Walid Al Khalidi has pointed out, the partition resolution in giving roughly 55% of Palestine to the Jewish community and I think 41-42% to the Arab community, to the Palestinians, did not preserve the position of each community or even favor 1 community at the expense of the others.

Rather, it thoroughly inverted and revolutionized the relationship between the 2 communities.

And as many have written, the Nakba was the inevitable consequence of partition given the nature of Zionism, given the territorial disposition, given the weakness of the Palestinian community whose leadership had been largely decimated during a major revolt at the end of the 1930s, given that the Arab states were still very much under French and British influence.

The Nakba was inevitable, the inevitable product of the partition resolution.

And 1 last point also about the UN's partition resolution is yes, formally that is what the international community decided on the 29th of November, 1947.

It's not a resolution that could ever have gotten through the UN General Assembly today for a very simple reason.

It was a very different General Assembly.

Most African, most Asian states were not yet independent.

Were the resolution to be placed before the international community today, and I find it telling that the minority opinion was led by India, Iran, and Yugoslavia, I think they would have represented the clear majority.

So partition, given what we know about Zionism, given that it was entirely predictable what would happen, given the realities on the ground in Palestine was deeply unjust, and the idea that either the Palestinians or the Arab states could have accepted such a resolution is, I think, an illusion.

Palestinian society was essentially destroyed.

Over 80% I believe of Palestinians resident in the territory that became the state of Israel were either expelled or fled and ultimately were ethnically cleansed because ethnic cleansing consists of 2 components.

It's not just forcing people into refuge or expelling them.

It's just as importantly preventing their return.

And here, and Benny Morris has written, I think, an article about Yosef Weiz and the transfer committees.

There was a very detailed initiative to prevent the return and it consisted of raising hundreds of Palestinian villages to the ground, which was systematically implemented and so on and so Palestinians became a stateless people.

Now, What is the most important reason that no Arab state was established in Palestine?

Well, since the 1930s, the Zionist leadership and the Hashemite leadership of Jordan, as has been thoroughly researched and written about by the Israeli-British historian Avish Slaim, essentially colluded to prevent the establishment of an independent Arab state in Palestine in the late 1940s.

There's much more here, but I think those are the key points I would make about 1948.

We may talk about Zionism, Britain, UN assemblies, and all the things you mentioned, there's a lot to dig into.

So again, if we can keep it to just 1 statement moving forward after Stephen, if you wanna go a little longer.

Also, we should acknowledge the fact that the speaking speeds of people here are different.

Stephen speaks about 10 times faster than me.

Yeah, I think it's interesting where people choose to start the history.

I noticed a lot of people like to start at either 47 or 48, because it's the first time where they can clearly point to a catastrophe that occurs on the Arab side that they want to ascribe 100% of the blame to the newly emergent Israeli state to.

But I feel like when you have this type of reading of history, it feels like the goal is to moralize everything first and then to pick and choose facts that kind of support the statements of your initial moral statement afterwards.

Whenever people are talking about 48 or the establishment of the Arab state, I never hear about the fact that a civil war started in 47.

That was largely instigated because of the Arab rejectionism of the 47 partition plan.

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Israel-Palestine Debate: Finkelstein, Destiny, M. Rabbani & Benny Morris | Lex Fridman Podcast #418