Deluge Gaza -- Norman Finkelstein, Slavoj Zizek, Mouin Rabbani, Razia Iqbal, Colter Louwerse
Debate · OR Books ·
2024-04-18 · 1:46:42 · 13,238 words
with Olivia (OR Books, events/publicity), Razia Iqbal (moderator), Colter Louwerse, Mouin Rabbani, Norman Finkelstein
geopolitics-warideologyethicsrace-antisemitismfascism-populismphilosophy-general
Panel launch for the OR Books anthology 'Deluge' on the Gaza war, with Colter Louwerse, Mouin Rabbani, Norman Finkelstein and Slavoj Žižek, moderated by Razia Iqbal. Žižek's contribution reports his being publicly branded anti-Semitic at the Frankfurt Book Fair for saying Palestinians also suffer, denounces Germany's 'dirty deal' with Israel, attacks Habermas for abandoning the dialectic of enlightenment, and reads the US-made bombs and food parachutes falling together over Gaza as the emblem of a European moral collapse.
every located moment in this recording, click one to read it
The ideas in it 9
in the order they first come up; click a row for what he does with the idea here
The German newspaper framing he was attacked with: Hamas is absolute original abyssal evil that no context can explain, a metaphysical move he traces back to German idealism and rejects via Primo Levi.
Badiou's thesis that every ethics is grounded in a prior political decision, which Žižek invokes to expose the German framing of pro-Israel advocacy as neutral compassion.
The gesture of presenting a partisan political judgment (e.g. unconditional support for Israel) as apolitical compassion, which Žižek calls the dirtiest form of politics.
Horkheimer's thesis that colonialism, the Gulag and the Shoah are not residues of a medieval past but immanent results of the project of European modernity, a frame Žižek accuses Habermas of abandoning.
Germany's implicit bargain: we did the Holocaust, so in exchange we affirm Israel as the victim and tolerate its crimes today, a logic Žižek finds disgusting.
His image for the new era opened when Netanyahu openly declares 'from the river to the sea, big Israel': what was once done discreetly is now done in the open.
His verdict on the Gaza catastrophe: European human rights discourse has been reduced, in Palestinian eyes, to the bombs falling on them, Europe's moral substance is dying there.
Žižek's coined renaming of German culture minister Claudia Roth, who ruled that one may mention Palestinian suffering only after making clear Hamas is ultimately responsible for it.
as “apartheid”
Applied to Israel: counting all territory under Israeli control the population is nearly 50-50 Jews and Palestinians, yet only Jewish will counts, 'this is apartheid in practice'.
Stories he reaches for 1
At the Frankfurt Book Fair, with Slovenia as guest of honour, Žižek gave a careful speech condemning Hamas and adding only that Palestinians also suffer; a commissioner for anti-Semitism and two politicians stood up and shouted that he was anti-Semitic and 'contextualizing', and German newspapers ran a series of attacks on him.
“they stood up and started to shout at me. i'm anti-semitic, i am equalizing blah blah blah, and i am the worst thing. i'm contextualizing it.”
Works invoked 1
The headline of a German newspaper attack on him, treated as the emblem of the metaphysical doctrine that Hamas is absolute abyssal evil beyond any context, a framing he rejects via Primo Levi.
People invoked 12
Dismissed as someone 'i would not trust my mother to' after Cameron tentatively suggested the UK might recognize Palestine.
Primo Levi positive
Invoked as authority against the 'Hamas has no context' doctrine: Levi insisted it was crucial to analyze the Holocaust rather than simply declare it evil.
Anat Matar positive
Israeli philosophy professor whom the university is trying to fire for statements problematic to the Israeli establishment; her case is used to show the depoliticization of academic repression.
Norman Finkelstein positive
Praised as 'the best argument against anti-Semitism', his existence as a Jewish dissenter is cited against the German equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
Donald Trump negative
Cited as the US instance of state power depending on criminal gangs, Trump 'needs proud boys and so on'.
Alain Badiou positive
His thesis that 'every ethics is grounded in a political decision' is endorsed as fully justified by the Frankfurt affair.
Mentioned via Ami Ayalon's proposal that he be set free as part of allowing Palestinian political subjectivity.
Benjamin Netanyahu negative
Criticized for publicly declaring 'from the river to the sea, big Israel' as 'the only democratic solution', an open maximalism Žižek reads as the masks falling.
Ami Ayalon positive
Former head of Shin Bet/Mossad cited approvingly for arguing the only solution is to grant political subjectivity to Palestinians and to free Marwan Barghouti, a position for which, Žižek notes, one would be 'almost arrested' in Germany.
Claudia Roth negative
German culture minister whom Žižek renames 'minister of barbarism' for ruling that Palestinian suffering may be mentioned only after making clear Hamas is ultimately responsible for it.
Jürgen Habermas negative
Called 'as close as you can come to a German state philosopher'; his public letter defending Israel as 'the only democratic society in the Middle East' is accused of abandoning Horkheimer's dialectic of enlightenment in favour of a flat demand for more European enlightenment.
Max Horkheimer positive
Credited with the 'dialectic of enlightenment', the thesis that colonialism, the Gulag and the Shoah are immanent to European modernity, not residues of a medieval past, which Žižek accuses Habermas of abandoning.
What it argues
Germany's repression of pro-Palestinian speech under cover of fighting anti-SemitismThe depoliticization of unconditional support for Israel as the dirtiest politicsHabermas's abandonment of the dialectic of enlightenmentThe US-bombs-and-food-parachutes image as emblem of Western hypocrisyIsrael's open turn to maximalist expansion ('from the river to the sea')The death of Europe's moral authorityState power's dependence on criminal gangs (Trump/Proud Boys, Israel/settlers)
Dialectical moves 3
“Such depoliticization of judgment is politics at its dirtiest.”
The inversion: what is presented as neutral, compassionate and apolitical is in fact the most partisan political act, the very denial of politics is the political move.
“The right moment will be to say it when it will mean nothing to say it. Now it means something to say this.”
The inversion of the 'wrong moment' excuse: the convenient moment is precisely the impotent one; the costly moment is the one that actually does something.
“The same photo shows US-made Israeli bombs destroying Gaza and, just behind them, parachutes with food falling down.”
The inversion that identifies humanitarianism with violence: the aid and the bombardment are one image, one operation, the benevolent gesture is the bombing.
Claims 12
asserts
The existence of people like Norman Finkelstein is the best argument against anti-Semitism.anti-Semitism and Jewish dissent
rejects
Germany's campaign branding him anti-Semitic for 'contextualizing' at the Frankfurt Book Fair shows that even moderated, Hamas-condemning speech that adds 'Palestinians also suffer' is now treated as treason.German repression of pro-Palestinian speech
rejects
The German doctrine that 'Hamas has no context' — that it is absolute abyssal evil beyond explanation — must be rejected; following Primo Levi, even the Holocaust had to be analyzed, not merely denounced as evil.the 'no context' framing of Hamas
reframes
Depicting unconditional support for Israel as apolitical compassion while calling any mention of Palestinian suffering 'politicization' is politics at its dirtiest.the depoliticization of pro-Israel advocacy
rejects
Habermas's public letter defending Israel abandons the Frankfurt School's own dialectic of enlightenment, replacing it with a flat demand for 'more European enlightenment'.Habermas and the dialectic of enlightenment
asserts
Germany has struck a dirty deal: it acknowledges the Holocaust in exchange for tolerating Israel's crimes today.Germany's Holocaust-to-Israel bargain
asserts
State power can no longer reproduce itself without the direct use of criminal gangs — Trump needs the Proud Boys, and the Israeli establishment softly uses the illegal settler movement in the West Bank.state dependence on gangs
asserts
Netanyahu's public declaration of 'from the river to the sea, big Israel' as 'the only democratic solution' marks the falling of the masks and a new, extremely dangerous era.Netanyahu's open maximalism
asserts
What is happening now in Gaza is the death of Europe, because European human rights discourse is now experienced by Palestinians as the bombs falling on them.the death of Europe
asserts
Israel is apartheid in practice: across all the territory it controls the population is nearly 50-50, yet only Jewish political will is counted.Israel as apartheid
reframes
The German whisper that 'it is just not the right moment' is inverted: the right moment will be when saying it means nothing; now, precisely because it costs something, is when it means something to say it.the timing of speaking out
asserts
The struggle to gradually change public perception is effective and not lost, even if small states like Slovenia recognizing Palestine are only modest signs.the struggle to shift public opinion
Quotes 6
“the existence of people like you is the best argument against anti-semitism.”Slavoj Žižek · Finkelstein as counter-argument to anti-Semitism
“such depoliticization of judgment is politics at its dirtiest.”Slavoj Žižek · the depoliticization inversion
“we did the holocaust, so now it's there! dirty deal with israel we will say you were a victim, but in exchange we tolerate your crimes today. it's disgusting.”Slavoj Žižek · Germany's dirty deal with Israel
“what is happening now in gaza is the death of europe.”Slavoj Žižek · the death of Europe
“the right moment will be to say it when it will mean nothing to say it. now it means something to say this.”Slavoj Žižek · inversion of the 'wrong moment' excuse
“the masks are falling, literally.”Slavoj Žižek · the open turn of maximalism
Transcript 103 turns
Olivia (OR Books, events/publicity)
if we could all quiet down, the event is going to begin. my name is olivia. i work here at or books and i do the events and publicity. and we're really excited to have our wonderful panelists and authors and journalists and activists here today, philosophers, for a one part of our series called live on avenue c at or books. tonight our event is honor of the release of this wonderful book, which is for sale at the front of the bar, deluge both mouen and coulter are contributors. unfortunately, jamie, the editor, is not able to make it tonight but razia, our wonderful moderator, will open with some remarks by him and we hope you come to more of our wonderful or events. the next one is on may 15th. for another one of our books, corporate coup. but for now, i'll turn it over and thank you so much to our panelists and moderator and all of you for being here tonight. thank you very much.
if we could all quiet down, the event is going to begin. my name is olivia. i work here at or books and i do the events and publicity. and we're really excited to have our wonderful panelists and authors and journalists and activists here today, philosophers, for a one part of our series called live on avenue c at or books. tonight our event is honor of the release of this wonderful book, which is for sale at the front of the bar, deluge both mouen and coulter are contributors. unfortunately, jamie, the editor, is not able to make it tonight but razia, our wonderful moderator, will open with some remarks by him and we hope you come to more of our wonderful or events. the next one is on may 15th. for another one of our books, corporate coup. but for now, i'll turn it over and thank you so much to our panelists and moderator and all of you for being here tonight. thank you very much.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
thank you, olivia. thank you, colin, as well. and thank you very much for coming, everyone and thank you to everyone who is joining us online. for just a moment, if you can imagine that i am jamie stern-weiner, the editor. of this book. this is his opening remarks. he's sorry that he can't be here. so i'd like to begin by thanking olivia from all books for organising this meeting, razia fera, it's me, and all the panellists for taking the part. this is a sombre event as book launches go, but then it's a sombre book. and a somber moment. according to the latest humanitarian reports, israel has killed more than 33,000 people in gaza, mostly women and children. israel has partially or totally destroyed more than 60% of all houses in gaza. and a deliberately engineered famine is imminent, if not already underway. in october, the un secretary general antonio guterres, observed that this catastrophe, quote, did not happen in a vacuum. this week, the heroic un relief and works agency for palestinian refugees, unrwa, noted that the crisis now unfolding there is... unparalleled. both these statements are true. what's happening in gaza is the product of long-standing, multi-layered injustices. that is to say, decades after decade of dispossession. annexation, siege and massacre. and the current catastrophe has also in critical respects broken new ground with this book, i have tried to illuminate both the continuities and the changes in what's unfolding in gaza, to provide readers with the crucial background context necessary to understand how things came to this horrific pass, while also providing an initial analysis of what looks set to be a turning point in the conflict's history. colter lewers's chapter in the book, based on his doctoral dissertation runs through the whole diplomatic background to the conflict since 1967. he authoritatively demonstrates that israel had chance after chance to resolve the conflict on reasonable terms, first with the palestine liberation organization and then after its election in 2006 with hamas. in my view, it's because israel and its international enablers spurned these opportunities that we are where we are today. maen rabani's contribution situates the gaza war within two crucial regional dynamics. the warming ties between israel and the gulf states, facilitated and encouraged by the united states on the one hand, and on the other hand, relations between hamas and the so-called axis of resistance led by iran and hezbollah. among the most heart-rerendinging passages in the book are moin's descriptions of the hapless us secretary of state, antony blinken. shuttling between arab governments, cap in hand, begging them to help bail israel out, only to return with nothing but that broken, dead-eyed stare. norman finkelstein and sloj zisek, of course, need no introduction from me. i merely take this opportunity to thank both for their participation and to extend a special thanks to norman for his help with the book and for his exemplary life work, standing for truth and justice come what may. beyond the appalling devastation in gaza, there is a real possibility now that the conflict will escalate to set the whole region on fire and the rest of the world with it. the stakes here could not be higher. and so i am glad now to hand over to a panel that could scarcely be better equipped to help guide us through it. thank you. and our thanks too. j just to give you a quick structure of how we're going to proceed. each of the panellists is going to speak for about six or seven minutes to present what they would like to say about the current crisis and then we will the five of us have a discussion, then we will open it up to questions on the floor and possibly also some questions for the audience online. i just want to add one other thing before we begin. um... to add to what jamie has said. the numbers that we are presented with every day seem unfathomable. today is eat alf f. eth marak to those who... are celebrating. and also to those who actually can't celebrate. and because the numbers are so unfathomable, i want all of us, if we can, to keep in the backs of our minds. but every life is... a whole world. every life. and so when we're faced with these enormous numbers, that's the thing that i would like us to think about. while we're absorbing the political analysis, the potential ramifications still to come. thank you very much, all of you for being here tonight. we're going to start with collter. who has of course published in this book.
thank you, olivia. thank you, colin, as well. and thank you very much for coming, everyone and thank you to everyone who is joining us online. for just a moment, if you can imagine that i am jamie stern-weiner, the editor. of this book. this is his opening remarks. he's sorry that he can't be here. so i'd like to begin by thanking olivia from all books for organising this meeting, razia fera, it's me, and all the panellists for taking the part. this is a sombre event as book launches go, but then it's a sombre book. and a somber moment. according to the latest humanitarian reports, israel has killed more than 33,000 people in gaza, mostly women and children. israel has partially or totally destroyed more than 60% of all houses in gaza. and a deliberately engineered famine is imminent, if not already underway. in october, the un secretary general antonio guterres, observed that this catastrophe, quote, did not happen in a vacuum. this week, the heroic un relief and works agency for palestinian refugees, unrwa, noted that the crisis now unfolding there is... unparalleled. both these statements are true. what's happening in gaza is the product of long-standing, multi-layered injustices. that is to say, decades after decade of dispossession. annexation, siege and massacre. and the current catastrophe has also in critical respects broken new ground with this book, i have tried to illuminate both the continuities and the changes in what's unfolding in gaza, to provide readers with the crucial background context necessary to understand how things came to this horrific pass, while also providing an initial analysis of what looks set to be a turning point in the conflict's history. colter lewers's chapter in the book, based on his doctoral dissertation runs through the whole diplomatic background to the conflict since 1967. he authoritatively demonstrates that israel had chance after chance to resolve the conflict on reasonable terms, first with the palestine liberation organization and then after its election in 2006 with hamas. in my view, it's because israel and its international enablers spurned these opportunities that we are where we are today. maen rabani's contribution situates the gaza war within two crucial regional dynamics. the warming ties between israel and the gulf states, facilitated and encouraged by the united states on the one hand, and on the other hand, relations between hamas and the so-called axis of resistance led by iran and hezbollah. among the most heart-rerendinging passages in the book are moin's descriptions of the hapless us secretary of state, antony blinken. shuttling between arab governments, cap in hand, begging them to help bail israel out, only to return with nothing but that broken, dead-eyed stare. norman finkelstein and sloj zisek, of course, need no introduction from me. i merely take this opportunity to thank both for their participation and to extend a special thanks to norman for his help with the book and for his exemplary life work, standing for truth and justice come what may. beyond the appalling devastation in gaza, there is a real possibility now that the conflict will escalate to set the whole region on fire and the rest of the world with it. the stakes here could not be higher. and so i am glad now to hand over to a panel that could scarcely be better equipped to help guide us through it. thank you. and our thanks too. j just to give you a quick structure of how we're going to proceed. each of the panellists is going to speak for about six or seven minutes to present what they would like to say about the current crisis and then we will the five of us have a discussion, then we will open it up to questions on the floor and possibly also some questions for the audience online. i just want to add one other thing before we begin. um... to add to what jamie has said. the numbers that we are presented with every day seem unfathomable. today is eat alf f. eth marak to those who... are celebrating. and also to those who actually can't celebrate. and because the numbers are so unfathomable, i want all of us, if we can, to keep in the backs of our minds. but every life is... a whole world. every life. and so when we're faced with these enormous numbers, that's the thing that i would like us to think about. while we're absorbing the political analysis, the potential ramifications still to come. thank you very much, all of you for being here tonight. we're going to start with collter. who has of course published in this book.
Colter Louwerse
okay. thank you, razio. in recent weeks, the joe biden administration. has claimed that once the current crisis in gaza is over, it's going to revive, quote-unquote, concerted efforts at establishing a two-state resolution to the israel-palestine conflict. it's been all the more vehement, however, that there is no place for hamas in this two-state settlement. you know the argument, hamas is committed to destroying the state of israel, therefore hamas itself must be destroyed. therefore, the genocide in gaza must continue if we ever want to see any peace in the region. claims like this, blaming the palestinian leadership for the israel-palestine conflicts, infamous intractability, are of course not new. decades ago, the israeli foreign minister, abba eban, claimed that, quote, the palestinian leadership has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. now, as my chapter in deluge attempts to demonstrate, the main problem with this claim is that it's completely contradicted by the factual record. in reality, both the palestine liberation organization, the plo, and then after it hamas, have, with varying degrees of clarity, endorsed a two-state resolution to the conflict, whereas israel, of course, backed unilaterally by the united states, has persistently rejected. such a resolution in favor of territorial expansion? and has in fact resorted often to very bloody military assaults in order to derail the threat of palestinian peace offensives. if you take the plo, in the aftermath of the june 1967 war, the plo initially rejected recognition of israel for perfectly understandable reasons. they did not want to accept a state that had been established on 78% of historic palestine via the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous palestinian people. and yet from the early 1970s, particularly after the october 1973 war, yasser arafat and the core palestinian leadership recognized that legitimizing palestinian claims in the eyes of the international community would necessitate the pragmatic step of recognizing israel. and already in january of 1976, the plo offered to do just that at the united nations security council. predictably, the united states reacted by vetoing the resolution. israel, for its part, refused to take part in the security council deliberations and carried out airstrikes in lebanon against palestinian refugees, killing dozens. and as this pattern of israeli behavior became more and more manifest in the late 1970s, american officials came to observe that israeli strikes in south lebanon had very little to do with the supposed threat of palestinian terror, and in fact everything to do with attempting to batter the palestinians out of their moderation. and back into extremism. uh. the apex of this strategy was of course the june 1982 israeli invasion of lebanon. in which, for fear of the fact that the power pine liberation organization had accepted a ceasefire and scrupulously adhered to it for over a year. and that was advocating negotiations once again. israel steamrolled into lebanon, killing 15,000 to 20,000 palestinians and lebanese. skip ahead 25 years and israel's today, or not today, but in 2006 and after, carried out the exact same plague book in relation to its to the threat of hamas peace offensives. elected in january 2006 on a reform platform, hamas very quickly signaled to washington that it was willing to abandon its notorious 1988 charter and to integrate itself into negotiations aimed at a two-state settlement. the crucial point is this. in the 15 years since, neither washington or tel aviv has ever once so much as indicated that it would be willing to test that hamas offer. to the contrary, they immediately moved to punish the hamas. leadership and the people of gaza through that vile and illegal blockade. when hamas threatened to break with its assigned role as a rejectionist terrorist group and sought to integrate itself into negotiations, israel furthermore fell back upon its age-old method, massive resort to military violence. and as norman has documented in insane detail, it carried out military operations in 2006, in 2008, in 2012, and 2014, in virtually every case aimed, at least in part, at derailing palestinian peace initiatives. and so... when the question is raised, how can israel coexist with hamas when it refuses to engage in diplomatic activity or refuses to recognize israel, the simple answer is that hamas tried, tried that for 15 years. and every avenue it sought to go down, it was blocked by american and israeli power. and as i write in the chapter, the bottom line is this, that were it not for the fact that israel not only missed but actively spurned and sabotaged, spurned and sabotaged every palestinian peace offer. those crimes committed on october 7th and the much greater crime that is ongoing, that israeli genocide in gaza, would never have happened. they would never have happened because the israel-palestine conflict. would have long been resolved.
okay. thank you, razio. in recent weeks, the joe biden administration. has claimed that once the current crisis in gaza is over, it's going to revive, quote-unquote, concerted efforts at establishing a two-state resolution to the israel-palestine conflict. it's been all the more vehement, however, that there is no place for hamas in this two-state settlement. you know the argument, hamas is committed to destroying the state of israel, therefore hamas itself must be destroyed. therefore, the genocide in gaza must continue if we ever want to see any peace in the region. claims like this, blaming the palestinian leadership for the israel-palestine conflicts, infamous intractability, are of course not new. decades ago, the israeli foreign minister, abba eban, claimed that, quote, the palestinian leadership has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. now, as my chapter in deluge attempts to demonstrate, the main problem with this claim is that it's completely contradicted by the factual record. in reality, both the palestine liberation organization, the plo, and then after it hamas, have, with varying degrees of clarity, endorsed a two-state resolution to the conflict, whereas israel, of course, backed unilaterally by the united states, has persistently rejected. such a resolution in favor of territorial expansion? and has in fact resorted often to very bloody military assaults in order to derail the threat of palestinian peace offensives. if you take the plo, in the aftermath of the june 1967 war, the plo initially rejected recognition of israel for perfectly understandable reasons. they did not want to accept a state that had been established on 78% of historic palestine via the dispossession and displacement of the indigenous palestinian people. and yet from the early 1970s, particularly after the october 1973 war, yasser arafat and the core palestinian leadership recognized that legitimizing palestinian claims in the eyes of the international community would necessitate the pragmatic step of recognizing israel. and already in january of 1976, the plo offered to do just that at the united nations security council. predictably, the united states reacted by vetoing the resolution. israel, for its part, refused to take part in the security council deliberations and carried out airstrikes in lebanon against palestinian refugees, killing dozens. and as this pattern of israeli behavior became more and more manifest in the late 1970s, american officials came to observe that israeli strikes in south lebanon had very little to do with the supposed threat of palestinian terror, and in fact everything to do with attempting to batter the palestinians out of their moderation. and back into extremism. uh. the apex of this strategy was of course the june 1982 israeli invasion of lebanon. in which, for fear of the fact that the power pine liberation organization had accepted a ceasefire and scrupulously adhered to it for over a year. and that was advocating negotiations once again. israel steamrolled into lebanon, killing 15,000 to 20,000 palestinians and lebanese. skip ahead 25 years and israel's today, or not today, but in 2006 and after, carried out the exact same plague book in relation to its to the threat of hamas peace offensives. elected in january 2006 on a reform platform, hamas very quickly signaled to washington that it was willing to abandon its notorious 1988 charter and to integrate itself into negotiations aimed at a two-state settlement. the crucial point is this. in the 15 years since, neither washington or tel aviv has ever once so much as indicated that it would be willing to test that hamas offer. to the contrary, they immediately moved to punish the hamas. leadership and the people of gaza through that vile and illegal blockade. when hamas threatened to break with its assigned role as a rejectionist terrorist group and sought to integrate itself into negotiations, israel furthermore fell back upon its age-old method, massive resort to military violence. and as norman has documented in insane detail, it carried out military operations in 2006, in 2008, in 2012, and 2014, in virtually every case aimed, at least in part, at derailing palestinian peace initiatives. and so... when the question is raised, how can israel coexist with hamas when it refuses to engage in diplomatic activity or refuses to recognize israel, the simple answer is that hamas tried, tried that for 15 years. and every avenue it sought to go down, it was blocked by american and israeli power. and as i write in the chapter, the bottom line is this, that were it not for the fact that israel not only missed but actively spurned and sabotaged, spurned and sabotaged every palestinian peace offer. those crimes committed on october 7th and the much greater crime that is ongoing, that israeli genocide in gaza, would never have happened. they would never have happened because the israel-palestine conflict. would have long been resolved.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
thank you. and now to mouin rabbani.
thank you. and now to mouin rabbani.
Mouin Rabbani
thank you very much, razia, and thank you to all our books for organizing this event and inviting me to participate. i think this is when we're supposed to wave the book around. um. and i would pretend... sale.
thank you very much, razia, and thank you to all our books for organizing this event and inviting me to participate. i think this is when we're supposed to wave the book around. um. and i would pretend... sale.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
on sale.
on sale.
Mouin Rabbani
and i would particularly refer you to not only gton's outstanding chapter, but also janie's. brilliant introduction to that book. my chapter was about sorry.
and i would particularly refer you to not only gton's outstanding chapter, but also janie's. brilliant introduction to that book. my chapter was about sorry.
Colter Louwerse
t.
t.
Mouin Rabbani
yeah.
yeah.
Colter Louwerse
this speaker is the mind.
this speaker is the mind.
Mouin Rabbani
yes, i'll speak closer to the mic. my chapter was about the regional dynamics of the current crisis. and given time constraints, i'd like to focus on an issue that most instapundits who have emerged out of the woodworks since october 7th what for them has been an article of faith, which is that a primary motivation for hamas to launch its attacks on israel on october 7th. was to sabotage the prospect of an imminent israeli-saudi normalization agreement. and i'd like to explain why this was not the case and that we should not take these inst any more seriously than they were pontificating about ukraine and before that about covid and the other things on which they reinvent themselves. louder yes, and the other issues on which they reinvent themselves every few months. a key issue is that there wasn't actually the discussions. were not really about an israeli-saudi normalization agreement in the sense that there would be an agreement where israel and saudi arabia would make their primary concessions to each other. rather, the discussion was about an israeli-saudi-us agreement. where the key commitments were being made. by the united states and the key commitments the united states was making were to saudi arabia specifically in the form of a security guarantee to saudi arabia and in the form of the delivery of a nuclear reactor with enrichment capabilities. and that alone should tell you that such an agreement was extremely unlikely from the outset because those are commitments that the united states could only have implemented if it had obtained congressional approval variety of reasons that i won't get into here, it was extremely unlikely that congress would have gone along with such formal u.s. commitments to saudi arabia. secondly, israel would be required to make a number of gestures to the palestinians in the context of such an agreement. and although the gestures were largely of a cosmetic nature, um... we are dealing with an israeli government that is incapable of making even cosmetic gestures to the palestinians. and i think the biden administration at some level was hoping that this would induce the israeli prime minister netanyahu, to alter his governing coalition and switch out some of the neo-fascist right parties for more centrist ones. the problem there is that israel's most prominent opposition leader ya abid has been on record repeatedly stating that he would not endorse any normalization agreement with saudi arabia that involved an american commitment to deliver a nuclear reactor to saudi arabia. so my first point is that such an agreement was in any case extremely unlike zoom. my second point is that even if i'm wrong and such an agreement had been imminent and if hamas had been convinced such an agreement was about to be signed. that would have made no sense for them to launch this attack in order to sabotage such an agreement, because if we look at the history of arab-israeli normalization agreements, there is no record of such normalization agreements being reversed or suspended or abrogated on account of israeli policy towards the palestinians. so if you take the main one, the 1979 egyptian-israeli peace treaty, it was essentially unaffected by not only continuing israeli expansionism in the west bank and the gaza strip, but even was't affected. by israel's 1982 invasion of lebanon that col had referred to, or the sabra and shatila massacres at their culmination. similarly, the jordania. israeli peace treaty of 1994 was unaffected by subsequent israeli policy, including its brutal repression of palestinians during the second to follow. and the more recent grandiloquently named abraham accords that were midwifed by jared kushner during the trump administration were unaffected by, first of all, the conflict that erupted. 2021 or indeed by the current crisis in therael genocidal assault on the gaza strip. in other words, the most hamas could have hoped to achieve would have been a decent inter to postpone a saudi-israeli. normal agreement by a decent interval, the corpses buried and so on. and i think it's fair to conclude that the hamas leadership would have concluded that that would simply not have been. oh. not have been with the effort. and indeed, if we look at hamas's statements on october 7th and since then, they put out one major statement a few months ago in which they sought to explain and justify and rationalize the attacks of october 7th. they don't mention saudi arabia even once or the prospects of a saudi-israeli mobilization even once. they do talk about regional and international neglect and marginalization of the dman question, but in a much broader sense than in terms of any specific agreement. that they were hoping to sabotage. am i out of touch he's got minutes. i've just got a minute. so my final observation would be yeah yes, this regional and international marginalization and neglect of the question of palestine and using arab-israeli normalization to tune of oppose palestinian rights rather than as leverage for palestinian rights did factor into it in a general sense. and that also explains, i think, why there has been so little regional and international response to israel's genocide started against the gaza strip going on now for over half a year. thank you very much.
yes, i'll speak closer to the mic. my chapter was about the regional dynamics of the current crisis. and given time constraints, i'd like to focus on an issue that most instapundits who have emerged out of the woodworks since october 7th what for them has been an article of faith, which is that a primary motivation for hamas to launch its attacks on israel on october 7th. was to sabotage the prospect of an imminent israeli-saudi normalization agreement. and i'd like to explain why this was not the case and that we should not take these inst any more seriously than they were pontificating about ukraine and before that about covid and the other things on which they reinvent themselves. louder yes, and the other issues on which they reinvent themselves every few months. a key issue is that there wasn't actually the discussions. were not really about an israeli-saudi normalization agreement in the sense that there would be an agreement where israel and saudi arabia would make their primary concessions to each other. rather, the discussion was about an israeli-saudi-us agreement. where the key commitments were being made. by the united states and the key commitments the united states was making were to saudi arabia specifically in the form of a security guarantee to saudi arabia and in the form of the delivery of a nuclear reactor with enrichment capabilities. and that alone should tell you that such an agreement was extremely unlikely from the outset because those are commitments that the united states could only have implemented if it had obtained congressional approval variety of reasons that i won't get into here, it was extremely unlikely that congress would have gone along with such formal u.s. commitments to saudi arabia. secondly, israel would be required to make a number of gestures to the palestinians in the context of such an agreement. and although the gestures were largely of a cosmetic nature, um... we are dealing with an israeli government that is incapable of making even cosmetic gestures to the palestinians. and i think the biden administration at some level was hoping that this would induce the israeli prime minister netanyahu, to alter his governing coalition and switch out some of the neo-fascist right parties for more centrist ones. the problem there is that israel's most prominent opposition leader ya abid has been on record repeatedly stating that he would not endorse any normalization agreement with saudi arabia that involved an american commitment to deliver a nuclear reactor to saudi arabia. so my first point is that such an agreement was in any case extremely unlike zoom. my second point is that even if i'm wrong and such an agreement had been imminent and if hamas had been convinced such an agreement was about to be signed. that would have made no sense for them to launch this attack in order to sabotage such an agreement, because if we look at the history of arab-israeli normalization agreements, there is no record of such normalization agreements being reversed or suspended or abrogated on account of israeli policy towards the palestinians. so if you take the main one, the 1979 egyptian-israeli peace treaty, it was essentially unaffected by not only continuing israeli expansionism in the west bank and the gaza strip, but even was't affected. by israel's 1982 invasion of lebanon that col had referred to, or the sabra and shatila massacres at their culmination. similarly, the jordania. israeli peace treaty of 1994 was unaffected by subsequent israeli policy, including its brutal repression of palestinians during the second to follow. and the more recent grandiloquently named abraham accords that were midwifed by jared kushner during the trump administration were unaffected by, first of all, the conflict that erupted. 2021 or indeed by the current crisis in therael genocidal assault on the gaza strip. in other words, the most hamas could have hoped to achieve would have been a decent inter to postpone a saudi-israeli. normal agreement by a decent interval, the corpses buried and so on. and i think it's fair to conclude that the hamas leadership would have concluded that that would simply not have been. oh. not have been with the effort. and indeed, if we look at hamas's statements on october 7th and since then, they put out one major statement a few months ago in which they sought to explain and justify and rationalize the attacks of october 7th. they don't mention saudi arabia even once or the prospects of a saudi-israeli mobilization even once. they do talk about regional and international neglect and marginalization of the dman question, but in a much broader sense than in terms of any specific agreement. that they were hoping to sabotage. am i out of touch he's got minutes. i've just got a minute. so my final observation would be yeah yes, this regional and international marginalization and neglect of the question of palestine and using arab-israeli normalization to tune of oppose palestinian rights rather than as leverage for palestinian rights did factor into it in a general sense. and that also explains, i think, why there has been so little regional and international response to israel's genocide started against the gaza strip going on now for over half a year. thank you very much.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
thank you slavooy, jeé.
thank you slavooy, jeé.
Slavoj Žižek
okay, first i must emphasize how proud i am to be here and sorry if i begin with you, norman. i think it will sound pathetic, but i mean it literally that the existence of people like you is the best argument against anti-seemitism. it's not that people like you exist. let me go on. i would like to briefly report on you on my pretty terrifying even now i shocked maybe some of you. know about it but it happened in europe at frankfurt opened book fair slovenia was the guest of ornot, so i was allowed to speak at the opening ceremony. my speech was, i'm almost ashamed of it, so absolutely... careful, moderated and so on. i said yes i condemned hamas, everything. my point was just palestinians are also suffering. you know what happened? they have now a special position in every german land. a called beauftragter, to cut it short, commissioner for fighting anti-semitism. and she and another two politicians, go to youtube, you can find it, stood up and like in old communist times, but communist know better, stood up and started to shout at me. i'm anti-semitic, i am equalizing blah blah blah,as, and i am the worst thing. i'm contextualizing it. and then there was a series of attacks in big german newspapers on me. frankfurter allgemeine and so on. the title of one of them is very clear. hamas has no context. like it's literally, you have to understand this, you have to go back to german idealism and metaphysics. the idea is... this is absolute original abyssal evil. no context can even explain it. and when i then quoted as a reply primo levi of all guys, who said it's crucial to analyze holocaust, not to say this is just evil, i was again attacked blah blah. so let me not lose time. another important thing happened then. al. i was accused of politicizing the event, book a cultural event, blah blah. sorry, before me there were five speakers from germany. all of them, openly. repeated one motive full unconditional support for israel. i just added to it. palestinians are also suffering. i was accused of politicizing it. and this brings me to what goes on today, yesterday, in israel. you know anat matar, the professor of philosophy there. is now... very sad thing. because she made some for israel establishment problematic statements. okay they want to fire her at the university but two things are ominous here. first students protested against her. i think... the same thing i noticed in reagan's time when i visited berkeley. professors were... usually old 68 guys much more progressive than students. and i don't know how it is here but all around europe the younger generation of men mostly is getting absolutely more reactionary the other thing alain badiou's thesis that every ethics is grounded in a political decision is fully justified here. because you see, what happened in frankfurt is when they claim, no, the first guys who preached total support for israel, this was totally apolitical, just compassion and so on and so on. no, such depoliticization of judgment is politics at its dirtiest. let me go on. do i have to minutes?
okay, first i must emphasize how proud i am to be here and sorry if i begin with you, norman. i think it will sound pathetic, but i mean it literally that the existence of people like you is the best argument against anti-seemitism. it's not that people like you exist. let me go on. i would like to briefly report on you on my pretty terrifying even now i shocked maybe some of you. know about it but it happened in europe at frankfurt opened book fair slovenia was the guest of ornot, so i was allowed to speak at the opening ceremony. my speech was, i'm almost ashamed of it, so absolutely... careful, moderated and so on. i said yes i condemned hamas, everything. my point was just palestinians are also suffering. you know what happened? they have now a special position in every german land. a called beauftragter, to cut it short, commissioner for fighting anti-semitism. and she and another two politicians, go to youtube, you can find it, stood up and like in old communist times, but communist know better, stood up and started to shout at me. i'm anti-semitic, i am equalizing blah blah blah,as, and i am the worst thing. i'm contextualizing it. and then there was a series of attacks in big german newspapers on me. frankfurter allgemeine and so on. the title of one of them is very clear. hamas has no context. like it's literally, you have to understand this, you have to go back to german idealism and metaphysics. the idea is... this is absolute original abyssal evil. no context can even explain it. and when i then quoted as a reply primo levi of all guys, who said it's crucial to analyze holocaust, not to say this is just evil, i was again attacked blah blah. so let me not lose time. another important thing happened then. al. i was accused of politicizing the event, book a cultural event, blah blah. sorry, before me there were five speakers from germany. all of them, openly. repeated one motive full unconditional support for israel. i just added to it. palestinians are also suffering. i was accused of politicizing it. and this brings me to what goes on today, yesterday, in israel. you know anat matar, the professor of philosophy there. is now... very sad thing. because she made some for israel establishment problematic statements. okay they want to fire her at the university but two things are ominous here. first students protested against her. i think... the same thing i noticed in reagan's time when i visited berkeley. professors were... usually old 68 guys much more progressive than students. and i don't know how it is here but all around europe the younger generation of men mostly is getting absolutely more reactionary the other thing alain badiou's thesis that every ethics is grounded in a political decision is fully justified here. because you see, what happened in frankfurt is when they claim, no, the first guys who preached total support for israel, this was totally apolitical, just compassion and so on and so on. no, such depoliticization of judgment is politics at its dirtiest. let me go on. do i have to minutes?
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
three.
three.
Slavoj Žižek
they already to you i getting soft. okay, let me go on. the fiasco of german philosophy as an answer to all this attack in corner with them against me jürgen habermas, as close as you can come to a german state philosopher, and two other his followers wrote a public letter. they don't mention me, but i have my kgb agents there. i. against me claiming no, unconditional, you know, the usual bullshit israel the only democratic society in the middle east and so on and so on. and now i come to conclusion this is what fascinates me, even the philosophical importance. you know what habermas abandons, what the greatest first generation of frankfurt school, ad hkheimer called dialectic of enlightenment. which means the horrors that were happening, colonialism or gulak shoakh. they are not some remainder of a dark medieval past. they are the results of the imminent antagonisms of the project of european modernity. with habas, this disappears. just we need more european enlightenment and so on and so on. to conclude, then you can ask me questions if you want to. you know, we really live in third times, not only is germany. i can explain it more. doing the most unethical thing you can imagine. everybody knows. the general logic is we did the holocaust, so now it's there! dirty deal with israel we will say you were a victim, but in exchange we tolerate your crimes today. it's disgusting. just to conclude. you know? people like to mention what happens today in haiti. gangs taking over. but it's not just haititi, even in the developed states, everywhere. did you notice how the state... power cannot reproduce itself without direct use of what are ultimately criminal gangs. trump here needs proud voice and so on. and in israel, let's face it, settlers movement of the west bank are illegal, criminal gangs softly used by israeli establishment. and this is where we are, unfortunately, where we are. to today to use the pathetic term. half a minute the masks are falling, literally. i was shocked, you know, my reaction was like, you know, in tom and jerry, when something happens i spoke alex't i reacting when netanyahu, a month ago or when, said publicly from the river to the sea, but the big israel. so it! no, what was still now done more discreetly is now done openly. we are entering a new era, extremely dangerous era. and i, in all my naivety, who still think maybe there is something good, although they are hypocritical in this european human rights and'm saying what is happening now in gaza is the death of europe in the sense of, you know, you talk to a palestinian, he will tell you, yes, european human rights are bombs which are phone him con us.
they already to you i getting soft. okay, let me go on. the fiasco of german philosophy as an answer to all this attack in corner with them against me jürgen habermas, as close as you can come to a german state philosopher, and two other his followers wrote a public letter. they don't mention me, but i have my kgb agents there. i. against me claiming no, unconditional, you know, the usual bullshit israel the only democratic society in the middle east and so on and so on. and now i come to conclusion this is what fascinates me, even the philosophical importance. you know what habermas abandons, what the greatest first generation of frankfurt school, ad hkheimer called dialectic of enlightenment. which means the horrors that were happening, colonialism or gulak shoakh. they are not some remainder of a dark medieval past. they are the results of the imminent antagonisms of the project of european modernity. with habas, this disappears. just we need more european enlightenment and so on and so on. to conclude, then you can ask me questions if you want to. you know, we really live in third times, not only is germany. i can explain it more. doing the most unethical thing you can imagine. everybody knows. the general logic is we did the holocaust, so now it's there! dirty deal with israel we will say you were a victim, but in exchange we tolerate your crimes today. it's disgusting. just to conclude. you know? people like to mention what happens today in haiti. gangs taking over. but it's not just haititi, even in the developed states, everywhere. did you notice how the state... power cannot reproduce itself without direct use of what are ultimately criminal gangs. trump here needs proud voice and so on. and in israel, let's face it, settlers movement of the west bank are illegal, criminal gangs softly used by israeli establishment. and this is where we are, unfortunately, where we are. to today to use the pathetic term. half a minute the masks are falling, literally. i was shocked, you know, my reaction was like, you know, in tom and jerry, when something happens i spoke alex't i reacting when netanyahu, a month ago or when, said publicly from the river to the sea, but the big israel. so it! no, what was still now done more discreetly is now done openly. we are entering a new era, extremely dangerous era. and i, in all my naivety, who still think maybe there is something good, although they are hypocritical in this european human rights and'm saying what is happening now in gaza is the death of europe in the sense of, you know, you talk to a palestinian, he will tell you, yes, european human rights are bombs which are phone him con us.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
to find me. norman finkelner.
to find me. norman finkelner.
Norman Finkelstein
thank you. is it working? yes. well, thank you for having me. and i want to... publicly thank jenny sprenwiner and hfer. because both of them represent, for me at any rate, i met both of them at they're relatively young ages and they represent the new generation and for myself, i feel very hopeful that they will carry on the tradition of trying to fight back. and trying to use your mind as well as your passion in the struggle. , is in. old friend at this point. and a colleague and a comrade both. together had our date with destiny. which marked as a world historic event, and i'm glad it was with mine, although i still insist it was. watch to. proper from what case um there's obviously no silver lining in a genocide. and it would be sinful to try to... pretend there's one. so not casting it as a silver lining, i would rather simply cast my remarks as why i believe as despair as the situation is, and why i believe what we're doing is useful, and why we should not for a moment relent in the face of less clearly unsatisfactory results. so i'm just going to review some items from the past six months which have made me hopeful, even though as i say, for those who won't make it to the final right, there involved cancellation. this would be a very personalized list. as maen will attest, very early on in the events following october 7th, there were some people who are pressing to try to make this a genocide case before the international court of justice. and i found that holy. oh,'m. uhuh. a wholly waste of time. i couldn't believe that any country on god's earth would risk a confrontation with the united states on behalf of a... effectively stateless people and people have no power. and the wealth. and so i was quite shocked. when south africa stepped forward. step forward not just as a token gesture, but they stepped forward in a very professional and one would have to say profound way. they produced an application for the courts which had literally applications like a brief for the court, which had literally hundreds of footnotes. and was extremely polished in its presentation. they chose very impressive people to represent south africa, including my old friend, john dugard, the international jurist, and a very impressive fellow who even at 87 years old, and he was wobbbling a little as he came up to the microphone, but he still gave a very powerful presentation. many many ways it was a beautiful delegation. it was men, women, black, white, foreigners, south africans, what, to the extent that it's possible it sort of was anticipatory. in better world they they doing it all for the people of gaza. one of the things that struck me about the footnotes, and here i know it's confound the little academic, but you'll forgive me. one of the things that's talking about the footnotes is it depended entirely on un agencies and un documentation. with a few references to human rights groups. and for everybody who's been involved in this matter for a sustained period of time, you know that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of reports put out every year. and you can't but roll your eyes and wonder, isn't this all a waste of trees? this accumulation of reports which really nobody except maybe five people on god's earth read. and suddenly all the labors of those people. or week after week after week. chronicle the death, the hunger, the destruction. and all those papers which you're just accumulating. uh-huh. thus... and cobwebs. they suddenly came to life. and it was for myself. a hero. an awakening that sometimes you're laboring away in a corner. i think it's all a waste of time. why am i doing this? nobody's reading it. and suddenly, it became the raw material. for an application to the south an application to the icj. which was because of the precision because of the neutrality of the organizations. it became... irresistible and invincible. and that brings me to the third point, what happened on the icj itself. i spoke every day at hearing. male orange. our conversation with moen. i said, i kept doing the numbers. there's no possibility they can get more than six states. on board for this classical ch side. i name the stateses and of course i said, of course, forget the united states, forget germany, don't even waste your time. i also said, forget australia. uh. i was happily wrong. i glad when i'm wrong for a good cause. it was 15 to 2. we only need two dissents for the israeli judge represented on the court and this woman from uganda. and i hope she got a nice car and a ring for her nope. clearly she didn't even write what she wrote. it was very obvious. and then the icj was 15 to 2. but it didn't stop. south africa went back a second time. produced a very professional statement again. lot of footnotes. it went back a third time. for the people of gossip. it wouldn't stop. it wouldn't relent. and then a new case was opened up before the icj. regarding a kindred but separate matter. so now there are two israel cases in the icj. and then lo and behold, guess what happens? nicaragua. that there's the picture. and it files a case. against germany for abetting the genocide in gaza. and you suddenly saw all these possibilities. open up. for uh fort. yes, she does. they haven't resolved anything for sure. but possibilities, potentialities. i haven't yet read the german. the nicaraguan one. or the german response, but i have to say i had a hearty laugh. because i did listen to one of the spokespersons to the germans. the germans like to say, oh, we do it for states for zone because we have a special commitment to israel because of the holocaust. the nicaraguan, he steps up to was the nicaraguan representative to the for governments. he says, we know what? the germans are making a lot of money off of this work. and he starts going through all the military contracts. and suddenly the mask is off a little. no it's not all about stakes right zone, you know, fancyancy terminology. we're making a lot of bucks off of it. so to wrap up. oh okay. uh. mm okay, like i have to wrap up. i want to give credit. uh to two. groups of people. first of all... i found the reaction of the young people in the past six months to be absolutely heroic. and totally inspiring. who fact that they keep coming up. i'm out and coming out. i don't remember that from the war vietnam days. we would have a mass demonstration maybe once every six months or maybe more, maybe once every three months. but the persistence, the tenacity of the young people has been truly inspiring. i know when i go to the demonstrations, there's usually 40 years separating me and the next oldest person. in the crowd's mostly about 25-year olds, i would guess. uhuh and the last group of people i would want to acknowledge the woofies. i find it deeply inspiring that poorest nation on earth. as i understand it, correct in the middle east, because i read the other day a planet, but no, in the middle east. um their tenacity their willingness to suffer and it always brings to mind, and i'll end on that note,, for those of you who've read rousseau's certain discourse, he makes the argument that what he calls savage man is much more moral. than civilized men because he says, the thing that humanizes people, what makes people human, it's not their reason. it's their capacity for pity. and that pity is a natural faculty and pity is the source of everything that's positive in human beings. and he says, the more educated you become, first of all, the more egotistical you become, and secondly, with your education, you develop the faculty to rationalize doing nothing.. so he says, a philosopher who looks out his window and sees somebody being med. on his outside in the street, the philosopher, all he has to do is close his ears and say perish if you will i am safe. that's the philosopher's credo. but those who are not being quote unquote civilized. they don't have the capacity to rationalize their indifference to human suffering. and i've always found that to be a credible thesis. and i think it's borne out. by um... the actions of the houthis yesterday, jamie, as it happens, you sent me a clip which i guess you saw. and it was some yi. fishermen, they were anti-hul people. and they were talking about how they're suffering because the us is here, iran is there, and they can't fish. but they said, and when we can affirm it, they say. we don't care. people of gaza are suffering. the movies are their enemy. they say, we don't care. if it's for the suffering people of palestine, of gaza. we accept it. it was a beautiful sentiment. and an inspiring one for me. perfect
thank you. is it working? yes. well, thank you for having me. and i want to... publicly thank jenny sprenwiner and hfer. because both of them represent, for me at any rate, i met both of them at they're relatively young ages and they represent the new generation and for myself, i feel very hopeful that they will carry on the tradition of trying to fight back. and trying to use your mind as well as your passion in the struggle. , is in. old friend at this point. and a colleague and a comrade both. together had our date with destiny. which marked as a world historic event, and i'm glad it was with mine, although i still insist it was. watch to. proper from what case um there's obviously no silver lining in a genocide. and it would be sinful to try to... pretend there's one. so not casting it as a silver lining, i would rather simply cast my remarks as why i believe as despair as the situation is, and why i believe what we're doing is useful, and why we should not for a moment relent in the face of less clearly unsatisfactory results. so i'm just going to review some items from the past six months which have made me hopeful, even though as i say, for those who won't make it to the final right, there involved cancellation. this would be a very personalized list. as maen will attest, very early on in the events following october 7th, there were some people who are pressing to try to make this a genocide case before the international court of justice. and i found that holy. oh,'m. uhuh. a wholly waste of time. i couldn't believe that any country on god's earth would risk a confrontation with the united states on behalf of a... effectively stateless people and people have no power. and the wealth. and so i was quite shocked. when south africa stepped forward. step forward not just as a token gesture, but they stepped forward in a very professional and one would have to say profound way. they produced an application for the courts which had literally applications like a brief for the court, which had literally hundreds of footnotes. and was extremely polished in its presentation. they chose very impressive people to represent south africa, including my old friend, john dugard, the international jurist, and a very impressive fellow who even at 87 years old, and he was wobbbling a little as he came up to the microphone, but he still gave a very powerful presentation. many many ways it was a beautiful delegation. it was men, women, black, white, foreigners, south africans, what, to the extent that it's possible it sort of was anticipatory. in better world they they doing it all for the people of gaza. one of the things that struck me about the footnotes, and here i know it's confound the little academic, but you'll forgive me. one of the things that's talking about the footnotes is it depended entirely on un agencies and un documentation. with a few references to human rights groups. and for everybody who's been involved in this matter for a sustained period of time, you know that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of reports put out every year. and you can't but roll your eyes and wonder, isn't this all a waste of trees? this accumulation of reports which really nobody except maybe five people on god's earth read. and suddenly all the labors of those people. or week after week after week. chronicle the death, the hunger, the destruction. and all those papers which you're just accumulating. uh-huh. thus... and cobwebs. they suddenly came to life. and it was for myself. a hero. an awakening that sometimes you're laboring away in a corner. i think it's all a waste of time. why am i doing this? nobody's reading it. and suddenly, it became the raw material. for an application to the south an application to the icj. which was because of the precision because of the neutrality of the organizations. it became... irresistible and invincible. and that brings me to the third point, what happened on the icj itself. i spoke every day at hearing. male orange. our conversation with moen. i said, i kept doing the numbers. there's no possibility they can get more than six states. on board for this classical ch side. i name the stateses and of course i said, of course, forget the united states, forget germany, don't even waste your time. i also said, forget australia. uh. i was happily wrong. i glad when i'm wrong for a good cause. it was 15 to 2. we only need two dissents for the israeli judge represented on the court and this woman from uganda. and i hope she got a nice car and a ring for her nope. clearly she didn't even write what she wrote. it was very obvious. and then the icj was 15 to 2. but it didn't stop. south africa went back a second time. produced a very professional statement again. lot of footnotes. it went back a third time. for the people of gossip. it wouldn't stop. it wouldn't relent. and then a new case was opened up before the icj. regarding a kindred but separate matter. so now there are two israel cases in the icj. and then lo and behold, guess what happens? nicaragua. that there's the picture. and it files a case. against germany for abetting the genocide in gaza. and you suddenly saw all these possibilities. open up. for uh fort. yes, she does. they haven't resolved anything for sure. but possibilities, potentialities. i haven't yet read the german. the nicaraguan one. or the german response, but i have to say i had a hearty laugh. because i did listen to one of the spokespersons to the germans. the germans like to say, oh, we do it for states for zone because we have a special commitment to israel because of the holocaust. the nicaraguan, he steps up to was the nicaraguan representative to the for governments. he says, we know what? the germans are making a lot of money off of this work. and he starts going through all the military contracts. and suddenly the mask is off a little. no it's not all about stakes right zone, you know, fancyancy terminology. we're making a lot of bucks off of it. so to wrap up. oh okay. uh. mm okay, like i have to wrap up. i want to give credit. uh to two. groups of people. first of all... i found the reaction of the young people in the past six months to be absolutely heroic. and totally inspiring. who fact that they keep coming up. i'm out and coming out. i don't remember that from the war vietnam days. we would have a mass demonstration maybe once every six months or maybe more, maybe once every three months. but the persistence, the tenacity of the young people has been truly inspiring. i know when i go to the demonstrations, there's usually 40 years separating me and the next oldest person. in the crowd's mostly about 25-year olds, i would guess. uhuh and the last group of people i would want to acknowledge the woofies. i find it deeply inspiring that poorest nation on earth. as i understand it, correct in the middle east, because i read the other day a planet, but no, in the middle east. um their tenacity their willingness to suffer and it always brings to mind, and i'll end on that note,, for those of you who've read rousseau's certain discourse, he makes the argument that what he calls savage man is much more moral. than civilized men because he says, the thing that humanizes people, what makes people human, it's not their reason. it's their capacity for pity. and that pity is a natural faculty and pity is the source of everything that's positive in human beings. and he says, the more educated you become, first of all, the more egotistical you become, and secondly, with your education, you develop the faculty to rationalize doing nothing.. so he says, a philosopher who looks out his window and sees somebody being med. on his outside in the street, the philosopher, all he has to do is close his ears and say perish if you will i am safe. that's the philosopher's credo. but those who are not being quote unquote civilized. they don't have the capacity to rationalize their indifference to human suffering. and i've always found that to be a credible thesis. and i think it's borne out. by um... the actions of the houthis yesterday, jamie, as it happens, you sent me a clip which i guess you saw. and it was some yi. fishermen, they were anti-hul people. and they were talking about how they're suffering because the us is here, iran is there, and they can't fish. but they said, and when we can affirm it, they say. we don't care. people of gaza are suffering. the movies are their enemy. they say, we don't care. if it's for the suffering people of palestine, of gaza. we accept it. it was a beautiful sentiment. and an inspiring one for me. perfect
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
thank you all very much. i want to start by asking each of you really, let's stick with you norman, in the first instance because you talked about the hope that the icj case, the one that south africa brought gave you and at the time the us secretary of state said that the case was without merit. something similar was said immediately after. the case had been presented and israel had presented its defense. and just a couple of days ago in front of the senate, the us secretary of defense said there was nothing to see here, they had no evidence of a genocide. given given that what the united states does and its very, very slow shifting position over the last six months, what do you make of... what is possible? for the united states in terms of saving face, a change in. found change in us foreign policy, its changing attitude towards israel. how you reflect on what they've been saying to date, very recently?
thank you all very much. i want to start by asking each of you really, let's stick with you norman, in the first instance because you talked about the hope that the icj case, the one that south africa brought gave you and at the time the us secretary of state said that the case was without merit. something similar was said immediately after. the case had been presented and israel had presented its defense. and just a couple of days ago in front of the senate, the us secretary of defense said there was nothing to see here, they had no evidence of a genocide. given given that what the united states does and its very, very slow shifting position over the last six months, what do you make of... what is possible? for the united states in terms of saving face, a change in. found change in us foreign policy, its changing attitude towards israel. how you reflect on what they've been saying to date, very recently?
Norman Finkelstein
well. i think the biggest change it's not at the practical political level, it's at the level of public opinion. and i'll give you two examples. to illustrate the point. the first almost... almost. breath. moment. was when charles schumer delivered his speech. on the current situation. now, senator schumer has been in the u.s. senate the foremost supporter of the state of israel. he opposed the iran deal. i think he and menendez in new jersey were the only two senior senators democrat senators to oppose the deal. and he has an awful track record in 2010. he went before a group of orthodox rabbis and he said that we should economically strangle gaza. you know, god said with a million children, he said we should economically strangle it. look look read his speech. it was quite remarkable. first of all, he allocated exactly the same degree of responsibility for the current impasse to israel and to hamas or israel and the palestinians. he on the one hand, the problem is netanyahu and the israeli far right. and then you say, on the other hand, the problem is hamas and the... um. corruption of the palestinian authority. was was very careful to balance it. and then he proceeded to try to defend the claim that israel is not a settler colonial state. about six months ago, that wasn't even a subject of discussion among those elites. but suddenly he felt compelled. to rationally explained why he thought that's historically incorrect. and then he proceeded to have to explain why. the idea of one state was wrong. now, one state is officially by the ihra, international hol association, definition of anti-semitism. one state is officially anti-semitic. what, what did schumer do? sen. shuler began by saying, i know many idealistic young people support one state. he didn't say they're all anti-semites. he said they're idealistic young people. and so now you saw. he had or the democratic party has to contend. with a new reality at the base of that party. namely, there is something fundamentally illegitimate. about israel either historically. or as a jewish state. and that to me is in a very short period of time. though you could say it was percolating for a long time. that's a historical shift in public opinion. just one last thing, and i'm making it very brief. i opened up the new york times yesterday. they have this article about how iran is supplying all these weapons to the west bank. and you know, a giant yawn from there. so i was just curious. i turned to the letters comment section. i sent it to mine, and he again can affirm. you know what the letters rep like? you got. well shouldn't iran supply weapons to the west bank? they're anoccupied people, they have the right to armed resistance. and who the hell is the united states talking about other countries supplying weapons to? people in the vault. i was totally shocked. this is the new york times. usually weapons like that never get perfect. yeah we just go right for the disc. and suddenly there was one, am i correct, one after another after another. so even the times readers have fallen out of the range of legitimate opinion on this topic.
well. i think the biggest change it's not at the practical political level, it's at the level of public opinion. and i'll give you two examples. to illustrate the point. the first almost... almost. breath. moment. was when charles schumer delivered his speech. on the current situation. now, senator schumer has been in the u.s. senate the foremost supporter of the state of israel. he opposed the iran deal. i think he and menendez in new jersey were the only two senior senators democrat senators to oppose the deal. and he has an awful track record in 2010. he went before a group of orthodox rabbis and he said that we should economically strangle gaza. you know, god said with a million children, he said we should economically strangle it. look look read his speech. it was quite remarkable. first of all, he allocated exactly the same degree of responsibility for the current impasse to israel and to hamas or israel and the palestinians. he on the one hand, the problem is netanyahu and the israeli far right. and then you say, on the other hand, the problem is hamas and the... um. corruption of the palestinian authority. was was very careful to balance it. and then he proceeded to try to defend the claim that israel is not a settler colonial state. about six months ago, that wasn't even a subject of discussion among those elites. but suddenly he felt compelled. to rationally explained why he thought that's historically incorrect. and then he proceeded to have to explain why. the idea of one state was wrong. now, one state is officially by the ihra, international hol association, definition of anti-semitism. one state is officially anti-semitic. what, what did schumer do? sen. shuler began by saying, i know many idealistic young people support one state. he didn't say they're all anti-semites. he said they're idealistic young people. and so now you saw. he had or the democratic party has to contend. with a new reality at the base of that party. namely, there is something fundamentally illegitimate. about israel either historically. or as a jewish state. and that to me is in a very short period of time. though you could say it was percolating for a long time. that's a historical shift in public opinion. just one last thing, and i'm making it very brief. i opened up the new york times yesterday. they have this article about how iran is supplying all these weapons to the west bank. and you know, a giant yawn from there. so i was just curious. i turned to the letters comment section. i sent it to mine, and he again can affirm. you know what the letters rep like? you got. well shouldn't iran supply weapons to the west bank? they're anoccupied people, they have the right to armed resistance. and who the hell is the united states talking about other countries supplying weapons to? people in the vault. i was totally shocked. this is the new york times. usually weapons like that never get perfect. yeah we just go right for the disc. and suddenly there was one, am i correct, one after another after another. so even the times readers have fallen out of the range of legitimate opinion on this topic.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
i, wonder if we're open to bring you in here on this whole issue of the two-state solution versus the one-state solution because for so long that has the two-sex solution has been the mantra. and increasingly people are talking about it as being a hollow. mantra. and of course there are huge problems from all sorts of sides if we talk about a one state solution because it then means that it's no longer an ethno-nationalist project it is no longer a jewish state. i wonder how you would reflect on the shift inside. the middle east on that issue.
i, wonder if we're open to bring you in here on this whole issue of the two-state solution versus the one-state solution because for so long that has the two-sex solution has been the mantra. and increasingly people are talking about it as being a hollow. mantra. and of course there are huge problems from all sorts of sides if we talk about a one state solution because it then means that it's no longer an ethno-nationalist project it is no longer a jewish state. i wonder how you would reflect on the shift inside. the middle east on that issue.
Mouin Rabbani
yes. well... i would have three comments. i think the first one to make is that when western politicians talk about a two-state settlement, we need to look at their actions and not their words. and for them, two-state settlement is a diversionary charade. it's smoke and mirrors. it's to use words to deflect attention from their actions because their actions are undermining any settlement and most particularly the prospect of an end to israeli occupation because that's being entrenched with the active support and or passive acquiescence. of western the. the second question becomes whether a two-state settlement remains practical or is it practical, is it feasible? and i've written about this, and i think that as a practical matter. a two-state settlement remains feasible an israeli withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries.
yes. well... i would have three comments. i think the first one to make is that when western politicians talk about a two-state settlement, we need to look at their actions and not their words. and for them, two-state settlement is a diversionary charade. it's smoke and mirrors. it's to use words to deflect attention from their actions because their actions are undermining any settlement and most particularly the prospect of an end to israeli occupation because that's being entrenched with the active support and or passive acquiescence. of western the. the second question becomes whether a two-state settlement remains practical or is it practical, is it feasible? and i've written about this, and i think that as a practical matter. a two-state settlement remains feasible an israeli withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
dismantling of the
dismantling of the
Mouin Rabbani
this strengthening of the settlements. and a just resolution to the refugee question. as a matter of principle. remains practical and i think a useful way to look at this is to compare israel's position on the west bank with britain's position in ireland in 1915, france's position in algeria in 1950, ethiopia's position in in eritrea in 1985, indonesia's position in east timor in 1990. and i think in all of those cases, you fine. excuse me. a foreign presence that was in many respects more entrenched than is the israeli presence in theoccupied territories. the third point becomes okay, well, if it is indeed practical, what has happened? in the past six months. and here i would argue that for many people who previously considered this practical would also consider it no longer desirable. question becomes can you have lasting durable peace in the middle east with the continued existence of a irrational, genocidal apartheid regime. or does this regime and its key institutions need to be dismantled? as a precondition. for peace in the west. i think these are questions that are increasingly being raised that are open. for discussion. i don't think there are easy answers in this respect. and my last comment also is that i do not in any way based my analysis on the so-called failure. of the oslo process. i think oslo has been one of the most successful diplomatic processes since 1945 for the simple reason that it was never about ending occupation, was never about a two-state settlement. it was never about... establishing an independent palestinian state. it was about reformulating and consolidating. permanent israeli control over the palestinians. so to that extent, it's a success.
this strengthening of the settlements. and a just resolution to the refugee question. as a matter of principle. remains practical and i think a useful way to look at this is to compare israel's position on the west bank with britain's position in ireland in 1915, france's position in algeria in 1950, ethiopia's position in in eritrea in 1985, indonesia's position in east timor in 1990. and i think in all of those cases, you fine. excuse me. a foreign presence that was in many respects more entrenched than is the israeli presence in theoccupied territories. the third point becomes okay, well, if it is indeed practical, what has happened? in the past six months. and here i would argue that for many people who previously considered this practical would also consider it no longer desirable. question becomes can you have lasting durable peace in the middle east with the continued existence of a irrational, genocidal apartheid regime. or does this regime and its key institutions need to be dismantled? as a precondition. for peace in the west. i think these are questions that are increasingly being raised that are open. for discussion. i don't think there are easy answers in this respect. and my last comment also is that i do not in any way based my analysis on the so-called failure. of the oslo process. i think oslo has been one of the most successful diplomatic processes since 1945 for the simple reason that it was never about ending occupation, was never about a two-state settlement. it was never about... establishing an independent palestinian state. it was about reformulating and consolidating. permanent israeli control over the palestinians. so to that extent, it's a success.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
norman, do you want to? come back and respond to count.
norman, do you want to? come back and respond to count.
Norman Finkelstein
my own view is that now is simply not the time to be talking about solutions. first of all, there's no representative palestinian organization to negotiate with. and the israeli political spectrum is, and i don't use the term loosely, i've not used it before, but i don't use it loosely. the israeli political spectrum is insane. it goes from the right to the far right to the ultra-right. there's no center and there's no left. that's just a factual letter. uh... oh, there's... there's nothing to negotiate with. you could say around 2000 with the camp david the accord, with the oslo and camp david, you could say in those years, and if you look closely at the negotiations that i have, they were arguing about percentages. so... ehud barak says we want to keep 80% of the settlers, the illegal settlers. we want to keep them in any final settlement. we want to keep 80%. um... ehud olmert says we want to keep 87%. the palestinians say, you can keep 60%. the israelis say we want to keep about 10%. of... the west bank. the palestinians say, we'll let you keep 2% of the west bank. now, i'm not saying that we're close. there was still... a gap. look not a chasm, look at what it a significant gap. we were talking about percentages. now... the current government of israel we can't extract from them a broom closet. or a bread box for the palestinians. so there's no place for. discussion at this point, there are no two sides where any kind of argument can even be made. i just the second thing, we have to be realistic, in my opinion. we still have be very... m can last a long time. the ukraine war is over two years now and then you can look at the vietnam war or you can look at world war ii. we're at six months. i don't... i don't like to say it, but i think there's a very good chance we're still closer to the beginning than to the end. because if you read the israeli statements and you read the analyses, like i read one last night from jinsa, one of these jewish neoconservative lunatic organizations, and they say... mm-hmm. no! and it's possible. unless there is an absolute... total unequivocal defeat inflicted on hamas and an absolute, total unequivocal victory for israel. and on the other side, groups like hezbollah are saying, we will not accept. a total unequivocal defeat by hamas that we will do what's necessary to prevent that. and so... i believe we still might be quite far from the end of this current situation and it's just pointless now to be talking about solutions.
my own view is that now is simply not the time to be talking about solutions. first of all, there's no representative palestinian organization to negotiate with. and the israeli political spectrum is, and i don't use the term loosely, i've not used it before, but i don't use it loosely. the israeli political spectrum is insane. it goes from the right to the far right to the ultra-right. there's no center and there's no left. that's just a factual letter. uh... oh, there's... there's nothing to negotiate with. you could say around 2000 with the camp david the accord, with the oslo and camp david, you could say in those years, and if you look closely at the negotiations that i have, they were arguing about percentages. so... ehud barak says we want to keep 80% of the settlers, the illegal settlers. we want to keep them in any final settlement. we want to keep 80%. um... ehud olmert says we want to keep 87%. the palestinians say, you can keep 60%. the israelis say we want to keep about 10%. of... the west bank. the palestinians say, we'll let you keep 2% of the west bank. now, i'm not saying that we're close. there was still... a gap. look not a chasm, look at what it a significant gap. we were talking about percentages. now... the current government of israel we can't extract from them a broom closet. or a bread box for the palestinians. so there's no place for. discussion at this point, there are no two sides where any kind of argument can even be made. i just the second thing, we have to be realistic, in my opinion. we still have be very... m can last a long time. the ukraine war is over two years now and then you can look at the vietnam war or you can look at world war ii. we're at six months. i don't... i don't like to say it, but i think there's a very good chance we're still closer to the beginning than to the end. because if you read the israeli statements and you read the analyses, like i read one last night from jinsa, one of these jewish neoconservative lunatic organizations, and they say... mm-hmm. no! and it's possible. unless there is an absolute... total unequivocal defeat inflicted on hamas and an absolute, total unequivocal victory for israel. and on the other side, groups like hezbollah are saying, we will not accept. a total unequivocal defeat by hamas that we will do what's necessary to prevent that. and so... i believe we still might be quite far from the end of this current situation and it's just pointless now to be talking about solutions.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
slavo, let's talk about the kind of moral reckoning that needs to take place. even if we were to... except what norman is saying that this could go on for a lot lot longer. the fact that it has got as far as it has now with 33,000 people. being killed in six months. which might have seemed unthinkable when you compare it, say, to 2021 when now, call to help me with the numbers, how many people were killed in 2021? 16 or something like that.
slavo, let's talk about the kind of moral reckoning that needs to take place. even if we were to... except what norman is saying that this could go on for a lot lot longer. the fact that it has got as far as it has now with 33,000 people. being killed in six months. which might have seemed unthinkable when you compare it, say, to 2021 when now, call to help me with the numbers, how many people were killed in 2021? 16 or something like that.
Norman Finkelstein
the biggest ones, operation cas led was ,, 1,400 people. operation protective edge was 2,200 people killed, so we're just enough. completely different.
the biggest ones, operation cas led was ,, 1,400 people. operation protective edge was 2,200 people killed, so we're just enough. completely different.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
so given that the western... world which continues to regard itself even though that kind of idea is falling apart before our very eyes, still continues to regard itself as the kind of you know, moral arbiter of what happens in the world. what are we to make of the need for a moral reckoning of the failure to have protected the thousands and thousands of innocent people in gaza?
so given that the western... world which continues to regard itself even though that kind of idea is falling apart before our very eyes, still continues to regard itself as the kind of you know, moral arbiter of what happens in the world. what are we to make of the need for a moral reckoning of the failure to have protected the thousands and thousands of innocent people in gaza?
Slavoj Žižek
cruc question. i would like just to make some brief remarks that i don't get lost. first, that problem about 30,000 dead and so on, i think it's not just a question of data. even the western media don't deny this data. but there is especially in germany but also in other states, there is one mode of interpreting it and in germany it's legalized. even the relatively moderate minister of culture, i would call her minister of barbarism, claudia roth. she explicitly said the rule. she said, you can literally. again, i had a comment juryerry reaction she said, yes, we can talk about palestinian suffering. but we should make it clear that ultimately it's hamas which is responsible for it. it's as if, you know, hamas is engaged in a big suicidal operation and israel just somehow got caught into it, you know. this has to be changed. and also to change, as it was pointed out, this public perception is crucial. for example, we should insist how israel, okay, we hear from habermas and soon the only democratic state. i'm sorry, but a month ago or when. netanyahu justified the opposition against a two-state solution, which meant big israel from the river to the sea. he said it's the only democratic solution because i don't know if this is true, but she quoted some statistic that now almost 99.0% of jews dead in israel are against it. i'm sorry, but if you take into account all the area controlled by israel, it's almost 50-50. there are just a little bit more maybe jews than palestinians. she even didn't mention, you see, this is apartheid in. in practice. so what can we do? and another thing maybe along the practical lines that you norman emphasize opion. maybe. something will happen like i know. maybe i helped a little bit to push into their ab their essence with some of my influence in slovenia, but i learned from reliable sources that now... till the end of june, july. spain? uh am land. and. this is very nice here my small influence camp slovenia and okay, it's not the greatest state in the world. i.
cruc question. i would like just to make some brief remarks that i don't get lost. first, that problem about 30,000 dead and so on, i think it's not just a question of data. even the western media don't deny this data. but there is especially in germany but also in other states, there is one mode of interpreting it and in germany it's legalized. even the relatively moderate minister of culture, i would call her minister of barbarism, claudia roth. she explicitly said the rule. she said, you can literally. again, i had a comment juryerry reaction she said, yes, we can talk about palestinian suffering. but we should make it clear that ultimately it's hamas which is responsible for it. it's as if, you know, hamas is engaged in a big suicidal operation and israel just somehow got caught into it, you know. this has to be changed. and also to change, as it was pointed out, this public perception is crucial. for example, we should insist how israel, okay, we hear from habermas and soon the only democratic state. i'm sorry, but a month ago or when. netanyahu justified the opposition against a two-state solution, which meant big israel from the river to the sea. he said it's the only democratic solution because i don't know if this is true, but she quoted some statistic that now almost 99.0% of jews dead in israel are against it. i'm sorry, but if you take into account all the area controlled by israel, it's almost 50-50. there are just a little bit more maybe jews than palestinians. she even didn't mention, you see, this is apartheid in. in practice. so what can we do? and another thing maybe along the practical lines that you norman emphasize opion. maybe. something will happen like i know. maybe i helped a little bit to push into their ab their essence with some of my influence in slovenia, but i learned from reliable sources that now... till the end of june, july. spain? uh am land. and. this is very nice here my small influence camp slovenia and okay, it's not the greatest state in the world. i.
Colter Louwerse
yeah
yeah
Slavoj Žižek
we publicly recognize palestine. and... these small signs that you norman mentioned didn't even guide. whom? i would not trust my mother to. his house david cameron at some point mentioned maybe we should
we publicly recognize palestine. and... these small signs that you norman mentioned didn't even guide. whom? i would not trust my mother to. his house david cameron at some point mentioned maybe we should
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
we have the united kingdom.
we have the united kingdom.
Slavoj Žižek
yeah, yeah. and yeah, yeah, and you know what's this political situation in the united kingdom, no? you had one big, big central right-wing party. it's called labor party. then you have some more crazy right-wing party okay, what's? sorry, let go on. so what i want to say is that now we have to make, as you pointed out, the next step. now it's legitimized to talk about palestinian suffering. and now we go to the next stage. well, what does this suffering mean? the logic give, yes, you have to sympathize, you break, you put those stupid how do you call it parachutes with but what does this mean? i think there is mean there is one thought of which for me is the best symbol of the situation. i found it in big media. it's the same photo you see from gaza. you see in from. israi. b bombs made by usa. falling on gaza, destroying buildings and just behind parachutes with food. falling down. that's the catch. so let me just very briefly to conclude with one remark. you know where we have to work. how these prohibitions, what were permitted to say when i said what i said in frankfurt? the most disgusting thing for me is literally dozens of people, hardline germans came to me privately, literally looked around carefully and then whispered into my, you know, basically i agree with you. it's just not the right moment to say it. my answer was, of course, i know what you mean. the right moment will be to say it when it will mean nothing to say it. now it means something to say this. so you know what really, i wonder if i address this also to you so that finally would agree. i don't trust. but for example, you probably all know trust, who, me, if you are intelligent, but also the ex-bosses of shin bet, mossad, but a guy called, i think, ami ayalon. okay, she is now retired. once you are retired, you can say many things. but nonetheless, she wrote a comment or interview where she said the only solution is allow political subjectivity to palestinians and even a very practical proposal. set free marwan barghouti and so on. where are we when if you say in germany, what? a chef chef of shin bet, i think. you are almost arrested if you say this in germany. so it's not just, you know, one thing is to say things in places like this one and so on. at this point, the struggle is effective and it's not a lost struggle to gradually change the public. perception.
yeah, yeah. and yeah, yeah, and you know what's this political situation in the united kingdom, no? you had one big, big central right-wing party. it's called labor party. then you have some more crazy right-wing party okay, what's? sorry, let go on. so what i want to say is that now we have to make, as you pointed out, the next step. now it's legitimized to talk about palestinian suffering. and now we go to the next stage. well, what does this suffering mean? the logic give, yes, you have to sympathize, you break, you put those stupid how do you call it parachutes with but what does this mean? i think there is mean there is one thought of which for me is the best symbol of the situation. i found it in big media. it's the same photo you see from gaza. you see in from. israi. b bombs made by usa. falling on gaza, destroying buildings and just behind parachutes with food. falling down. that's the catch. so let me just very briefly to conclude with one remark. you know where we have to work. how these prohibitions, what were permitted to say when i said what i said in frankfurt? the most disgusting thing for me is literally dozens of people, hardline germans came to me privately, literally looked around carefully and then whispered into my, you know, basically i agree with you. it's just not the right moment to say it. my answer was, of course, i know what you mean. the right moment will be to say it when it will mean nothing to say it. now it means something to say this. so you know what really, i wonder if i address this also to you so that finally would agree. i don't trust. but for example, you probably all know trust, who, me, if you are intelligent, but also the ex-bosses of shin bet, mossad, but a guy called, i think, ami ayalon. okay, she is now retired. once you are retired, you can say many things. but nonetheless, she wrote a comment or interview where she said the only solution is allow political subjectivity to palestinians and even a very practical proposal. set free marwan barghouti and so on. where are we when if you say in germany, what? a chef chef of shin bet, i think. you are almost arrested if you say this in germany. so it's not just, you know, one thing is to say things in places like this one and so on. at this point, the struggle is effective and it's not a lost struggle to gradually change the public. perception.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
i want to just pick up on, you didn't answer the question about the moral reference.
i want to just pick up on, you didn't answer the question about the moral reference.
Colter Louwerse
yeah. well, i'll move on then.
yeah. well, i'll move on then.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
um
um
Slavoj Žižek
not too.
not too.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
we'll just say a little about the how you account for the fact that in your essay you you chronicle and document so carefully every single instance of hamas being willing to engage and willing to indicate its efforts to be moderate or to engage in a peace process. and yet the narrative that most people, the majority of people who are looking at what is happening the narrative that they absorb is the exact opposite as framed by western governments and israel in particular. how do you account for that, that lack of knowledge of the very detailed chronicling that you set out?
we'll just say a little about the how you account for the fact that in your essay you you chronicle and document so carefully every single instance of hamas being willing to engage and willing to indicate its efforts to be moderate or to engage in a peace process. and yet the narrative that most people, the majority of people who are looking at what is happening the narrative that they absorb is the exact opposite as framed by western governments and israel in particular. how do you account for that, that lack of knowledge of the very detailed chronicling that you set out?
Colter Louwerse
noam chomsky wrote a book about it, manufacturing consent. the fact that the western media in general is beholden to the interests of megaorporations, has a vested interest in repeating the dogmas of the american state, and for that reason are uninterested in telling americans and westerners more broadly the truth about what israel has done. to gaza, not just since october 7th, but repeatedly before that. i can give one example. operation cas-led. the media narrative about operation cas-led was generally one that depicted israel responding to hamas rocket fire in an act of self-defense. but in fact, operation cas-led was the product of an israeli viololation of a ceasefire. ceasefire had been signed in june of 2008 and israeli officials readily admitted that the hamas militants carefully adhered to that ceasefire and that it brought, i'm quoting israeli defense official now, brought a large measure of peace and quiet to the israeli communities surrounding gaza. in that ceasefire was meant to be that hamas would cease firing rockets, which it did, and israel was going to lift its illegal and crushing blockade. it did not. it barely eased it. and on november 4th, as normans documented this in the most detail, but on november 4th, while americans were transfixed by their presidential election, israel conducts a raid into gaza, kills six palestinian militants, and at that point, the rockets begin to fly and israel begins bombing gaza. on december 19th, the ceasefire, it was a six-month ceasefire agreement, the ceasefire expires, and within days, hamas offers, both through somebody associated with the carter center as well as european governments like norway and through the united nations, offers israel a return to that same ceasefire, the one the palestinians were upholding and that israel incessantly violated. two days later, on december 21st, the israeli cabinet met and decided it was going to bomb gaza and launch a major operation there. in fact, they'd been planning it for years, ever since 2006. they were humiliated by hezbollah in lebanon. but not only do they decide that they're going to start bombing gaza at that december 21st cabinet meeting, they also decide to lie about when they're going to begin bombing. sie livni meets with the egyptian president at the time, mubarak, and lets him know that it will not be until the sunday, december 28th, that israel will make a decision about what it's going to do about the escalating situation in gaza. on december 27th. at 113.30 a. in the morning. israel drops 100 tons of bombs on little gaza. it kills, according to human rights organizations, up to 300 palestinians in the space of minutes. if october 7th, yes, was the bloodiest day in the history of the israel-palestine conflict, certainly the beginning of operation cast lead were the bloodiest. minutes. ehud barak, the former israeli prime minister at the time, the defense minister, boasted that he had killed 350 terrorists within the space of a few minutes at the opening of k-led. and of course, israel then went on to carry out what amnesty international called 22 days of death and destruction in gaza, killing some 1,400 palestinians, probably 80% of them. civilians. so when you hear talk, for example, about october 7th, people saying that hamas must be destroyed because it violated a ceasefire and committed this horrible atrocity, i don't see any reason why that same argument couldn't be applied to israel and what it did at the beginning of cast-led, and not just cas-led, but again in 2012. it's 2012. operation pillar of defense and then operation, sorry in 2014 once more.
noam chomsky wrote a book about it, manufacturing consent. the fact that the western media in general is beholden to the interests of megaorporations, has a vested interest in repeating the dogmas of the american state, and for that reason are uninterested in telling americans and westerners more broadly the truth about what israel has done. to gaza, not just since october 7th, but repeatedly before that. i can give one example. operation cas-led. the media narrative about operation cas-led was generally one that depicted israel responding to hamas rocket fire in an act of self-defense. but in fact, operation cas-led was the product of an israeli viololation of a ceasefire. ceasefire had been signed in june of 2008 and israeli officials readily admitted that the hamas militants carefully adhered to that ceasefire and that it brought, i'm quoting israeli defense official now, brought a large measure of peace and quiet to the israeli communities surrounding gaza. in that ceasefire was meant to be that hamas would cease firing rockets, which it did, and israel was going to lift its illegal and crushing blockade. it did not. it barely eased it. and on november 4th, as normans documented this in the most detail, but on november 4th, while americans were transfixed by their presidential election, israel conducts a raid into gaza, kills six palestinian militants, and at that point, the rockets begin to fly and israel begins bombing gaza. on december 19th, the ceasefire, it was a six-month ceasefire agreement, the ceasefire expires, and within days, hamas offers, both through somebody associated with the carter center as well as european governments like norway and through the united nations, offers israel a return to that same ceasefire, the one the palestinians were upholding and that israel incessantly violated. two days later, on december 21st, the israeli cabinet met and decided it was going to bomb gaza and launch a major operation there. in fact, they'd been planning it for years, ever since 2006. they were humiliated by hezbollah in lebanon. but not only do they decide that they're going to start bombing gaza at that december 21st cabinet meeting, they also decide to lie about when they're going to begin bombing. sie livni meets with the egyptian president at the time, mubarak, and lets him know that it will not be until the sunday, december 28th, that israel will make a decision about what it's going to do about the escalating situation in gaza. on december 27th. at 113.30 a. in the morning. israel drops 100 tons of bombs on little gaza. it kills, according to human rights organizations, up to 300 palestinians in the space of minutes. if october 7th, yes, was the bloodiest day in the history of the israel-palestine conflict, certainly the beginning of operation cast lead were the bloodiest. minutes. ehud barak, the former israeli prime minister at the time, the defense minister, boasted that he had killed 350 terrorists within the space of a few minutes at the opening of k-led. and of course, israel then went on to carry out what amnesty international called 22 days of death and destruction in gaza, killing some 1,400 palestinians, probably 80% of them. civilians. so when you hear talk, for example, about october 7th, people saying that hamas must be destroyed because it violated a ceasefire and committed this horrible atrocity, i don't see any reason why that same argument couldn't be applied to israel and what it did at the beginning of cast-led, and not just cas-led, but again in 2012. it's 2012. operation pillar of defense and then operation, sorry in 2014 once more.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
i want to just pick up on a few of the threads of comments that we've heard so far. really just to try and examine, and i want to bring you in, m, here, the relationship between governments and the people. so in the middle east, it seems to me that whatever machinations go on with autocratic states in the gulf and you know, absolute monarchies and so on. the relationship between those states and governments and the west. is so far removed from the arab in the street and what the arab in the street and the need for those governments and states to get the balance right between what arabs. feel about palestinians and palestine and what might suit. those in power.
i want to just pick up on a few of the threads of comments that we've heard so far. really just to try and examine, and i want to bring you in, m, here, the relationship between governments and the people. so in the middle east, it seems to me that whatever machinations go on with autocratic states in the gulf and you know, absolute monarchies and so on. the relationship between those states and governments and the west. is so far removed from the arab in the street and what the arab in the street and the need for those governments and states to get the balance right between what arabs. feel about palestinians and palestine and what might suit. those in power.
Mouin Rabbani
yes, and i mean, we're often told, we're often told.
yes, and i mean, we're often told, we're often told.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
doctor was good.
doctor was good.
Mouin Rabbani
what. thank you. we're often told there is no democracy in the arab world because of sub culture, backward religion, backwardness, and sideways that. of... well, let's take an example, the palestinians. we don't even need to go to the arab world. you have a palestinian authority. which is propped up. and supported. by the west. uh... in an inverse relationship to its legitimacy among its own people. it seems the more credibility and legitimacy it loses among its own people, the greater the support it gets from. it's literally being propped up by israel and the west. of course, those aren't the only reasons for the absence of of democracy in the arab world, but they are absolutely central to any analysis. and to say, oh, arabs just want to... blind the west for their own ills. again, look at the palestinian example. in 2006, the palestinians held an election. that was certified by the carter center as, i believe, not only entirely free and fair, but i think as the most free and fair of all elections that the carter center that monitored.
what. thank you. we're often told there is no democracy in the arab world because of sub culture, backward religion, backwardness, and sideways that. of... well, let's take an example, the palestinians. we don't even need to go to the arab world. you have a palestinian authority. which is propped up. and supported. by the west. uh... in an inverse relationship to its legitimacy among its own people. it seems the more credibility and legitimacy it loses among its own people, the greater the support it gets from. it's literally being propped up by israel and the west. of course, those aren't the only reasons for the absence of of democracy in the arab world, but they are absolutely central to any analysis. and to say, oh, arabs just want to... blind the west for their own ills. again, look at the palestinian example. in 2006, the palestinians held an election. that was certified by the carter center as, i believe, not only entirely free and fair, but i think as the most free and fair of all elections that the carter center that monitored.
Norman Finkelstein
well
well
Mouin Rabbani
whatever one may think of hamas, hamas want that fair and square. and the western reaction. was to put in place a process of blockade, of demonization, of delegitimization, of repeated military onslaughts on the gaza strip that led precisely to the genocidal assault on the palestinians of the gaza strip that we are experiencing today. so don't come to me with stories about, you know, the west is looking for a democratic partner. whenever there's been an inkling of a democratic quarter, he's been eliminated.
whatever one may think of hamas, hamas want that fair and square. and the western reaction. was to put in place a process of blockade, of demonization, of delegitimization, of repeated military onslaughts on the gaza strip that led precisely to the genocidal assault on the palestinians of the gaza strip that we are experiencing today. so don't come to me with stories about, you know, the west is looking for a democratic partner. whenever there's been an inkling of a democratic quarter, he's been eliminated.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
i just want to read from couter's essay where he quotes hillary clinton when she was a senator. if we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure to determine who was going to win.
i just want to read from couter's essay where he quotes hillary clinton when she was a senator. if we were going to push for an election, we should have made sure to determine who was going to win.
Norman Finkelstein
yeah. i was friends. precisely. i want i, i want to just take up where... wow. halter and wen leftff. in my opinion, and obviously we can disagree on it, when you pass moral judgments on other people's actions. you have to, in my opinion, you have to also examine what were the options available in the context of the decisions that were made. now, as... mowen pointed out a br blockade. was imposed on gaza. it really began around 1991. it was called a closure and then it was ratcheted up with the election in 2006 when hamas won and then it was ratcheted up again in 2007. and at that point, a process began. which... because of the brutality of the blockade to turn gaza into what the economist called a human rubbish heap. no, gar. 2 million people, 70% of them refugees from 1948 and their descendants, half of them children, a million, more than a million children, and they have been reduced. as a consequence of that blockade. into to repeat the expression. a human rubbish heap. that's the context. that he might call it the socio-economic context. and nobody can go in and nobody can come out. most of the young people who burst the gates of gaza on october 7th were born into that rubbish heap. were... living in that rab she and as things look in october, the night9 of october 6th, they were going to die in that rubbish heap. that's the socio-economic context. now, couter. fills in the political context. in that period a numerous pensions hamas attempted the diplomatic resolution of the conflict. were their proposals perfect?. would they have required a lot of intense negotiation to achieve a settlement? in my opinion, yes. but they were certainly reasonable proposals and they were a basis to try to solve the conflict diplomatically. all of those diplomatic proposals were peremptorily dismissed they weren't even. acknowledge these proposals. so now... what options are left for the palestinians? there was an option which i, i have to say embarrassingly, have to acknowledge, i was the one promoting. in all my talks for several years, i thought the possibility, the option of nonviolent civil resistance couldn't work. and in, on march 30th, 2018, it was a popular initiative. it did not start with hanas. it was a popular initiative. they tried the non-violence civil resistance.
yeah. i was friends. precisely. i want i, i want to just take up where... wow. halter and wen leftff. in my opinion, and obviously we can disagree on it, when you pass moral judgments on other people's actions. you have to, in my opinion, you have to also examine what were the options available in the context of the decisions that were made. now, as... mowen pointed out a br blockade. was imposed on gaza. it really began around 1991. it was called a closure and then it was ratcheted up with the election in 2006 when hamas won and then it was ratcheted up again in 2007. and at that point, a process began. which... because of the brutality of the blockade to turn gaza into what the economist called a human rubbish heap. no, gar. 2 million people, 70% of them refugees from 1948 and their descendants, half of them children, a million, more than a million children, and they have been reduced. as a consequence of that blockade. into to repeat the expression. a human rubbish heap. that's the context. that he might call it the socio-economic context. and nobody can go in and nobody can come out. most of the young people who burst the gates of gaza on october 7th were born into that rubbish heap. were... living in that rab she and as things look in october, the night9 of october 6th, they were going to die in that rubbish heap. that's the socio-economic context. now, couter. fills in the political context. in that period a numerous pensions hamas attempted the diplomatic resolution of the conflict. were their proposals perfect?. would they have required a lot of intense negotiation to achieve a settlement? in my opinion, yes. but they were certainly reasonable proposals and they were a basis to try to solve the conflict diplomatically. all of those diplomatic proposals were peremptorily dismissed they weren't even. acknowledge these proposals. so now... what options are left for the palestinians? there was an option which i, i have to say embarrassingly, have to acknowledge, i was the one promoting. in all my talks for several years, i thought the possibility, the option of nonviolent civil resistance couldn't work. and in, on march 30th, 2018, it was a popular initiative. it did not start with hanas. it was a popular initiative. they tried the non-violence civil resistance.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
mer return.
mer return.
Norman Finkelstein
the great, what was called, yes, the great march of return. and as there is a very good un report, it runs to 250 single space pages. it's a very exhaustive, even by the un standards, it was remarkably exhaustive. it wasn't as large as the goldstone report, but it was a very significant report. and they're very a bit withdrawn. right. and it was a remarkably uhetailed report. a large chunk of that report is given over to describing what happened to those marchers in the great marcher returns? the... just to give the saline facts. number one, they described the march as beginning as people will remember. it began as a festive occasion. there was singing. there were dancing. there were circus-like performances. people were very enthusiastic about this prospect, possibility, and potentiality. what did israel do? it lined up. it's best snipers. the the best snipers. along the perimeter with gossip. okay. and then the report. with a lot of detail. it goes through what those snipers did. they quote the israeli government as saying, every bo. when did where it was intended to land. there's no question here of like, wck mistakes. errors every bullet landed where it was intended to land. okay? so... the report says, israel targeted. the snipers. methodically. systematically premeditatedly, deliberately. it targeted children. it targeted medics! it targeted journalists! and in targeted disabled people. it targeted double amputees. it targeted people in wheelchairs. he targeted people on crutches. who are free hundred m. away from the perimeter fence. now. anybody who understands anything about nonviolence knows as a method. of struggle. it can only work. if it evokes or elicits our reaction. from bystanders! from not... uh non participants either as perpetrators or victims. the whole point of martin luther king's non non-violent campaign was he's said... the... we can evoke sympathy. action from the federal government. from the north. every we exhibit the violence that's entrenched in this system. and the only way you can exhibit the violence entrenched in the system is you have to go out to demonstrate. they will come out with their dogs, they will come out with their fire hoses, sometimes they will come out with their guns. and young people are supposed to react. if our federal government did not react. if the north did not react. then everybody would just die. the non-violence is a dead end. and the fact that... as israel targeted children, medics, journalists, disabled people, nobody reacted. i have to acknowledge not even the palestine solidarity movement be active. so i have to embarrassingly say... i was shamefaced after that. because i had been in touch with some people in some positions, i was the one that was counseling it. and it was a complete and total failure. and so i say. we come to october 6th. the night. diplomacy? it doesn't work. non-violent civil resistance it doesn't work. i'm willing to accept what mowen says because he's much more knowledgeable than me. he's said... the saudi deal was not really going to happen, but i'm sure m wing will agree with me. many people thought it would happen. and so they thought this whole arab-israeli conflict was going to be solved. above the heads of the people of gossip. that would be happily ever after between the gulf states, saudi, israel, and the united states. and the people of gaza. they want to languish. and die. in that concentration camp. that was their fate and their future. and unless somebody can present to me what? option. did they not exploit? what choices? did they have? at that point. i for one. recognizing that atrocities of a significant magnitude occurred. on october 7th. i for one. find it very difficult. to condemn what happened? on october 7th. even as i recognize atrocities occur.
the great, what was called, yes, the great march of return. and as there is a very good un report, it runs to 250 single space pages. it's a very exhaustive, even by the un standards, it was remarkably exhaustive. it wasn't as large as the goldstone report, but it was a very significant report. and they're very a bit withdrawn. right. and it was a remarkably uhetailed report. a large chunk of that report is given over to describing what happened to those marchers in the great marcher returns? the... just to give the saline facts. number one, they described the march as beginning as people will remember. it began as a festive occasion. there was singing. there were dancing. there were circus-like performances. people were very enthusiastic about this prospect, possibility, and potentiality. what did israel do? it lined up. it's best snipers. the the best snipers. along the perimeter with gossip. okay. and then the report. with a lot of detail. it goes through what those snipers did. they quote the israeli government as saying, every bo. when did where it was intended to land. there's no question here of like, wck mistakes. errors every bullet landed where it was intended to land. okay? so... the report says, israel targeted. the snipers. methodically. systematically premeditatedly, deliberately. it targeted children. it targeted medics! it targeted journalists! and in targeted disabled people. it targeted double amputees. it targeted people in wheelchairs. he targeted people on crutches. who are free hundred m. away from the perimeter fence. now. anybody who understands anything about nonviolence knows as a method. of struggle. it can only work. if it evokes or elicits our reaction. from bystanders! from not... uh non participants either as perpetrators or victims. the whole point of martin luther king's non non-violent campaign was he's said... the... we can evoke sympathy. action from the federal government. from the north. every we exhibit the violence that's entrenched in this system. and the only way you can exhibit the violence entrenched in the system is you have to go out to demonstrate. they will come out with their dogs, they will come out with their fire hoses, sometimes they will come out with their guns. and young people are supposed to react. if our federal government did not react. if the north did not react. then everybody would just die. the non-violence is a dead end. and the fact that... as israel targeted children, medics, journalists, disabled people, nobody reacted. i have to acknowledge not even the palestine solidarity movement be active. so i have to embarrassingly say... i was shamefaced after that. because i had been in touch with some people in some positions, i was the one that was counseling it. and it was a complete and total failure. and so i say. we come to october 6th. the night. diplomacy? it doesn't work. non-violent civil resistance it doesn't work. i'm willing to accept what mowen says because he's much more knowledgeable than me. he's said... the saudi deal was not really going to happen, but i'm sure m wing will agree with me. many people thought it would happen. and so they thought this whole arab-israeli conflict was going to be solved. above the heads of the people of gossip. that would be happily ever after between the gulf states, saudi, israel, and the united states. and the people of gaza. they want to languish. and die. in that concentration camp. that was their fate and their future. and unless somebody can present to me what? option. did they not exploit? what choices? did they have? at that point. i for one. recognizing that atrocities of a significant magnitude occurred. on october 7th. i for one. find it very difficult. to condemn what happened? on october 7th. even as i recognize atrocities occur.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
okay, a moment then just because we've got about 20 minutes, i think, to open it up to the floor. and i'll give you the chance, slavoy, to respond. i can't really see with the lights aren't us, but yes, i can. if you put hands up, that would be great. yes, no, you're so shy.
okay, a moment then just because we've got about 20 minutes, i think, to open it up to the floor. and i'll give you the chance, slavoy, to respond. i can't really see with the lights aren't us, but yes, i can. if you put hands up, that would be great. yes, no, you're so shy.
Olivia (OR Books, events/publicity)
that one christian.
that one christian.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
sorry, is there somebody?
sorry, is there somebody?
Olivia (OR Books, events/publicity)
yeah.
yeah.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
is there a microphone? do you have a microphone? does it matter?
is there a microphone? do you have a microphone? does it matter?
Olivia (OR Books, events/publicity)
i think if you talk that's fine.
i think if you talk that's fine.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
okay.
okay.
Audience Member (Israel politics question)
hi, thank you. i want to go back to the question of the... politics in israel. so you talked about there's the right, the center right, the far right. i mean, we are also seeing this sort of protest movement growing against netanyahu to get the hostages home that is. not talking a whole lot about the palestinians. and you know, i think all. if at all, right? and... i guess my question is... if we assume that the global movement in support of palestine continues to grow, and the movement inside of israel, maybe it grows in its way, but in a way that is really to sort of calcify a less far-right version of israel. what do you do about that? what do you do about this population of what is it? 7 million people in israel? who, um... seem to just be refuse to accept that there was something fundamentally it. oppressive and wrong about their society.
hi, thank you. i want to go back to the question of the... politics in israel. so you talked about there's the right, the center right, the far right. i mean, we are also seeing this sort of protest movement growing against netanyahu to get the hostages home that is. not talking a whole lot about the palestinians. and you know, i think all. if at all, right? and... i guess my question is... if we assume that the global movement in support of palestine continues to grow, and the movement inside of israel, maybe it grows in its way, but in a way that is really to sort of calcify a less far-right version of israel. what do you do about that? what do you do about this population of what is it? 7 million people in israel? who, um... seem to just be refuse to accept that there was something fundamentally it. oppressive and wrong about their society.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
is that directed at anyone in particular?
is that directed at anyone in particular?
Audience Member (Israel politics question)
i mean, i was thinking, norman, i'd love to hear your thoughts and whoever else.
i mean, i was thinking, norman, i'd love to hear your thoughts and whoever else.
Norman Finkelstein
i'd rather hear from wing first.
i'd rather hear from wing first.
Mouin Rabbani
um well, i think
um well, i think
Norman Finkelstein
think.
think.
Mouin Rabbani
the problem with this society is you can think of it as a spoiled child. that runs them up in a porcelain store. and the store owner, instead of demanding that the parents pay. the price of the broken first starts telling the parents what a cute kid it is and could he please break some more? i think israeli society at one level we need to show a bit of understanding. you know, if you've been allowed to get away with everything, for so long. and if total impunity is the default setting, you can't really expect cool. his society to act differently people talk about how small. the peace movement in israel was, and it isn't small, but in a sense, it's a miracle there's one at all, given. given the nature of the society in relation. to its western sponsors and the absolute impunity that it enjoys for anything and everything. it does towards the palestinian people, including genocide. even that. is beating actively. supported. by the west. so in terms of these protests you're talking about, you know, you had a very large... protest movement before october 7th against the netanyahu government's legislative agenda.
the problem with this society is you can think of it as a spoiled child. that runs them up in a porcelain store. and the store owner, instead of demanding that the parents pay. the price of the broken first starts telling the parents what a cute kid it is and could he please break some more? i think israeli society at one level we need to show a bit of understanding. you know, if you've been allowed to get away with everything, for so long. and if total impunity is the default setting, you can't really expect cool. his society to act differently people talk about how small. the peace movement in israel was, and it isn't small, but in a sense, it's a miracle there's one at all, given. given the nature of the society in relation. to its western sponsors and the absolute impunity that it enjoys for anything and everything. it does towards the palestinian people, including genocide. even that. is beating actively. supported. by the west. so in terms of these protests you're talking about, you know, you had a very large... protest movement before october 7th against the netanyahu government's legislative agenda.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
reform
reform
Mouin Rabbani
yes, the so-called judicial reforms. the leaders of that process movement were actively keeping any discussion of israeli-palestinian relations, to use that euphemism. out of the protest mood. and now it's simply about protesting against the government. to cut a deal with hamas so that the captives are released. but other than that, to the best of my understanding, it really doesn't have a political agenda. in terms of changing the nature of this relation. if you want to change israeli society... don't hook it is real. look at those who are enabling us. and those who have taught israeli society that anything goes up to and including genocide, that there will never be accountability, that impunity is a default setting, that's really one of the fundamental problem.
yes, the so-called judicial reforms. the leaders of that process movement were actively keeping any discussion of israeli-palestinian relations, to use that euphemism. out of the protest mood. and now it's simply about protesting against the government. to cut a deal with hamas so that the captives are released. but other than that, to the best of my understanding, it really doesn't have a political agenda. in terms of changing the nature of this relation. if you want to change israeli society... don't hook it is real. look at those who are enabling us. and those who have taught israeli society that anything goes up to and including genocide, that there will never be accountability, that impunity is a default setting, that's really one of the fundamental problem.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
isn't there also an issue with what you were talking about earlier, norman, the chuck schumer comments? this perception that seems to be prevailing that if netanyahu was the person that... was gotten rid of then things would be better without taking into account the kind of entrenched structural views and consciousness and psychology that prevails in israel.
isn't there also an issue with what you were talking about earlier, norman, the chuck schumer comments? this perception that seems to be prevailing that if netanyahu was the person that... was gotten rid of then things would be better without taking into account the kind of entrenched structural views and consciousness and psychology that prevails in israel.
Norman Finkelstein
there are a number of comments to make. first of all, i totally agree with you. it's not netanyahu's war anymore more than... it's putin's war. it's a consensus across the elites. in the case of both. it's not just netanyahu. in the case of israel, i'll speak reluctantly about russia because i don't know the popular sentiment. in the case of russia, it's the whole of, the case of israel, the entire society. if you look at the polling data, roughly 90% of israelis believe, or 88% believe that israel is using enough force or insufficient force. about 40% believe israel is using insufficient force in gaza.'s 12% who have second thoughts about what israel is doing. so i don't think, i agree with you, i don't think it's correct to describe, let's say, netanyahu's war, and i don't think senator schumer was accurate as if to say there were an election, somebody better. maybe a gantz who campaigned when he ran for office he campaigned on the destruction he wreaked on gaza in 2014. that was his campaign video. so i can't say i'm optimistic on that score that it's just... putinuse me, it's just netanyahu and a handful of others. i would say, and i don't say this happily, i think it's pointless to try to change the attitudes of israelis now. just as it was pointless during the civil rights movement to try to change the attitudes of whites in the south. it required external force up to and including the introduction of federal troops to desegregate the south. there were a handful of people, the south whites who had second thoughts about what was going on, were honestly opposed to it, but it was a really tiny handful. i don't believe uh. you can expect for all the reasons that men described, be left out. the ideological aspects of it is well a very lethal combination of. notions of jewish superiority and inferiority, actually animality not inferiority. there are a whole, there are all these different levels of... ideological, let's just call it ugliness. that make it very hard to transform israelis society. i'll have to say, because i want to be fair about these things. you could say the two, in a very ugly history of 20th century, you could say the two most racist and imperialist countries in god's earth were germany and japan. in the 1930s and the kinds of crimes they occurred they committed to what we're towards just.
there are a number of comments to make. first of all, i totally agree with you. it's not netanyahu's war anymore more than... it's putin's war. it's a consensus across the elites. in the case of both. it's not just netanyahu. in the case of israel, i'll speak reluctantly about russia because i don't know the popular sentiment. in the case of russia, it's the whole of, the case of israel, the entire society. if you look at the polling data, roughly 90% of israelis believe, or 88% believe that israel is using enough force or insufficient force. about 40% believe israel is using insufficient force in gaza.'s 12% who have second thoughts about what israel is doing. so i don't think, i agree with you, i don't think it's correct to describe, let's say, netanyahu's war, and i don't think senator schumer was accurate as if to say there were an election, somebody better. maybe a gantz who campaigned when he ran for office he campaigned on the destruction he wreaked on gaza in 2014. that was his campaign video. so i can't say i'm optimistic on that score that it's just... putinuse me, it's just netanyahu and a handful of others. i would say, and i don't say this happily, i think it's pointless to try to change the attitudes of israelis now. just as it was pointless during the civil rights movement to try to change the attitudes of whites in the south. it required external force up to and including the introduction of federal troops to desegregate the south. there were a handful of people, the south whites who had second thoughts about what was going on, were honestly opposed to it, but it was a really tiny handful. i don't believe uh. you can expect for all the reasons that men described, be left out. the ideological aspects of it is well a very lethal combination of. notions of jewish superiority and inferiority, actually animality not inferiority. there are a whole, there are all these different levels of... ideological, let's just call it ugliness. that make it very hard to transform israelis society. i'll have to say, because i want to be fair about these things. you could say the two, in a very ugly history of 20th century, you could say the two most racist and imperialist countries in god's earth were germany and japan. in the 1930s and the kinds of crimes they occurred they committed to what we're towards just.
Mouin Rabbani
right
right
Norman Finkelstein
total abomination. we all know about the germans once the japanese killed about 26 million chinese. it was a very ugly, ugly war by the... japanese in the. and sure. um... but countries change. germany did change. japan did change. so i don't believe in these notions of original sin. but i do agree, i've come to agree. with moy that a serious revamping of israeli society is necessary. how that occurs, how it unfolds, i can't say, but it's just really it's such an ugly place now. and has been for a very long time. and i'll admit to something you know... when i'm reading the coverage now. the coverage now, now. against israel is it's really horrible. got positions it's put itself. the position, it's what itself. that being by nature, i always support the underdog. i almost feel sorry for it. what it did to itself. because it's horrible. and these folks they don't even see it. what they've done. it's like a state that's an abortion. and maybe the whole idea was wrong from the beginning and maybe it was wrong at the beginning, but you know there was a lot of things wrong with america at the beginning. but then the us figured out a way. not to make it a great place, and it did require the extermination of the native population. we can't forget that. but the us seem to have some capacity, some capacity. for self-reform. and... i don't know if israel does.
total abomination. we all know about the germans once the japanese killed about 26 million chinese. it was a very ugly, ugly war by the... japanese in the. and sure. um... but countries change. germany did change. japan did change. so i don't believe in these notions of original sin. but i do agree, i've come to agree. with moy that a serious revamping of israeli society is necessary. how that occurs, how it unfolds, i can't say, but it's just really it's such an ugly place now. and has been for a very long time. and i'll admit to something you know... when i'm reading the coverage now. the coverage now, now. against israel is it's really horrible. got positions it's put itself. the position, it's what itself. that being by nature, i always support the underdog. i almost feel sorry for it. what it did to itself. because it's horrible. and these folks they don't even see it. what they've done. it's like a state that's an abortion. and maybe the whole idea was wrong from the beginning and maybe it was wrong at the beginning, but you know there was a lot of things wrong with america at the beginning. but then the us figured out a way. not to make it a great place, and it did require the extermination of the native population. we can't forget that. but the us seem to have some capacity, some capacity. for self-reform. and... i don't know if israel does.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
let's questions. i sure. captain, there's a hand. stuck there at the back.
let's questions. i sure. captain, there's a hand. stuck there at the back.
Audience Member (Tel Aviv question)
yeah, i actually just want to follow up on that. i mean, so like... ilan pappé talks about the israel of tel aviv and the israel of the settlers. right? i mean, israel is a very unified society when it comes to palestine, but it is internally an extremely polarized society. israelis perceive themselves as living in a highly polarized society. and i think one of the things, if you know israelis, and you know israelis that are in the israel of tel aviv, that you'll hear, since october 7th particularly, but really 2023, i mean, there was this idea in the israel of tel aviv that, you know, we can sort of... um... more we don't have to resolve the question of palestine and we can just sort of continue. living in what feels like a normal society where we can go to cafes in tel aviv and eat croissants and um... and 2023, first with the crisis, as they call it, the crisis of democracy. and then with october 7th, there's a massive across the israel of tel aviv. this investment in the future. of living in israel. so many people all of a sudden talking about there's no future here, we're going to live under constant threat of violence from hamas, from hezbollah, from iran. and these were the people that were sort of the yeah,. the ambassadors to the worlds of the sort of humane liberal enlightened israel, right? i mean these were the sort of educated professionals and intellectuals who went to their conferences and presented themselves as living in a uh normal nation among nations. um and there's a massive. a sort of movement among those people of um... this investment in the national project. and many people who just talk about leaving, actually a lot of people who talk about moving back to europe.
yeah, i actually just want to follow up on that. i mean, so like... ilan pappé talks about the israel of tel aviv and the israel of the settlers. right? i mean, israel is a very unified society when it comes to palestine, but it is internally an extremely polarized society. israelis perceive themselves as living in a highly polarized society. and i think one of the things, if you know israelis, and you know israelis that are in the israel of tel aviv, that you'll hear, since october 7th particularly, but really 2023, i mean, there was this idea in the israel of tel aviv that, you know, we can sort of... um... more we don't have to resolve the question of palestine and we can just sort of continue. living in what feels like a normal society where we can go to cafes in tel aviv and eat croissants and um... and 2023, first with the crisis, as they call it, the crisis of democracy. and then with october 7th, there's a massive across the israel of tel aviv. this investment in the future. of living in israel. so many people all of a sudden talking about there's no future here, we're going to live under constant threat of violence from hamas, from hezbollah, from iran. and these were the people that were sort of the yeah,. the ambassadors to the worlds of the sort of humane liberal enlightened israel, right? i mean these were the sort of educated professionals and intellectuals who went to their conferences and presented themselves as living in a uh normal nation among nations. um and there's a massive. a sort of movement among those people of um... this investment in the national project. and many people who just talk about leaving, actually a lot of people who talk about moving back to europe.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
it started to happen as well. was there a specific question? i mean the comments.
it started to happen as well. was there a specific question? i mean the comments.
Audience Member (Tel Aviv question)
ready.
ready.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
interesting
interesting
Audience Member (Tel Aviv question)
yeah, yeah, yeah. so the question is just, do you perceive that as... a major factor because i know people say, i mean, israeli society is beyond reform when it comes to the question of the palestinians, but do you perceive that as a significant moving part? um yeah, events going forward.
yeah, yeah, yeah. so the question is just, do you perceive that as... a major factor because i know people say, i mean, israeli society is beyond reform when it comes to the question of the palestinians, but do you perceive that as a significant moving part? um yeah, events going forward.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
sl, do you want to take that with?
sl, do you want to take that with?
Audience Member (Tel Aviv question)
i to go into.
i to go into.
Mouin Rabbani
defend.
defend.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
okay
okay
Mouin Rabbani
did i just answer for? go ahead, please,. which is to say that... i won't pretend to know more about this issue than you do. and assuming that your observations are correct, i think. that makes the problem even more complicated. that was made out to be because that would be the capacity for self-reform. um... simply doesn't exist. mm-hmm thank.
did i just answer for? go ahead, please,. which is to say that... i won't pretend to know more about this issue than you do. and assuming that your observations are correct, i think. that makes the problem even more complicated. that was made out to be because that would be the capacity for self-reform. um... simply doesn't exist. mm-hmm thank.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
let's see how the hands going up.
let's see how the hands going up.
Audience Member (Tel Aviv question)
just a question to anyone in the panel. how likely do you think that this conflict will spread in the region, that other actors might get involved? and does israel have an interest in enlarging this conflict?
just a question to anyone in the panel. how likely do you think that this conflict will spread in the region, that other actors might get involved? and does israel have an interest in enlarging this conflict?
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
mar, you've referred to that in your question. yeah, of course. is it in israel's interest to escalate the war regionally and how likely is it that that might happen?
mar, you've referred to that in your question. yeah, of course. is it in israel's interest to escalate the war regionally and how likely is it that that might happen?
Mouin Rabbani
i think israel would like to escalate the conflict regionally because it sees an opportunity to draw the u.s. directly into its conflict with its adversaries and in an ideal situation from israel's perspective to provoke a direct iranian-american confrontation. just very briefly, you're familiar with the recent iranian attack. on the recent israeli attack on the iranian consulate in damascus. and apparently the iranians have sent messages to the americans that if the americans successfully produce a permanent ceasefire, in other words, an end to israel's war in the gaza strip, then, as far as the iranians are concerned, the file is closed. and if the americans fail, then the iranians have decided that in order to deter israel, they will will launch an attack directly on israeli territory, not through one of their allied militias, but directly from iran territory. so in other words, if the americans make the choice not to enter. together would be a policy decision. and the iranians follow through under threat that we could be blocking. had a very major regional escalation.
i think israel would like to escalate the conflict regionally because it sees an opportunity to draw the u.s. directly into its conflict with its adversaries and in an ideal situation from israel's perspective to provoke a direct iranian-american confrontation. just very briefly, you're familiar with the recent iranian attack. on the recent israeli attack on the iranian consulate in damascus. and apparently the iranians have sent messages to the americans that if the americans successfully produce a permanent ceasefire, in other words, an end to israel's war in the gaza strip, then, as far as the iranians are concerned, the file is closed. and if the americans fail, then the iranians have decided that in order to deter israel, they will will launch an attack directly on israeli territory, not through one of their allied militias, but directly from iran territory. so in other words, if the americans make the choice not to enter. together would be a policy decision. and the iranians follow through under threat that we could be blocking. had a very major regional escalation.
Norman Finkelstein
i just want to reiterate what i said earlier. if the us imposes a permanent ceasefire as the quid pro quo ran, not hiking and retaliatory action the problem is that hamas will be able to declare victory. and israel will not accept that. israel is determined to you have to. absolute, unequivocal total victory and inflict the total victory on public defeat. on hamas. and there's the second problem. right now, about 100,000 people are displaced from northern israel because of hezbollah. and israel is not pleased about that fact either. will it give hezbollah a pass? i think personally, but m can disagree and he knows better than me. personally, i don't believe it. and then there's one third problem, the problem that ,ter alluded to. it's very easy to break a permanent ceasefire. you can agree to a permanent ceasefire. israel can agree to it, as they did, as kter pointed out in june 2008. and then when israel wanted a war, just provoked, provoked, provoked. then there's the war and everybody forgets who provoked. and israel can claim it's acting in self-defense. so personally, i don't attach any significance or value to any declared permanent ceasefire because looking at the history, it is very easy to break.
i just want to reiterate what i said earlier. if the us imposes a permanent ceasefire as the quid pro quo ran, not hiking and retaliatory action the problem is that hamas will be able to declare victory. and israel will not accept that. israel is determined to you have to. absolute, unequivocal total victory and inflict the total victory on public defeat. on hamas. and there's the second problem. right now, about 100,000 people are displaced from northern israel because of hezbollah. and israel is not pleased about that fact either. will it give hezbollah a pass? i think personally, but m can disagree and he knows better than me. personally, i don't believe it. and then there's one third problem, the problem that ,ter alluded to. it's very easy to break a permanent ceasefire. you can agree to a permanent ceasefire. israel can agree to it, as they did, as kter pointed out in june 2008. and then when israel wanted a war, just provoked, provoked, provoked. then there's the war and everybody forgets who provoked. and israel can claim it's acting in self-defense. so personally, i don't attach any significance or value to any declared permanent ceasefire because looking at the history, it is very easy to break.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
can i just ask couter a question about just picking up from norman's point point? the... declaration that israel makes time and again to eliminate hamas once and for all. the the feasibility of that, because you do refer to that in your essay, the fact that hamas is... is many things, a social movement, it's a militia, there's a political movement. and it's also just an idea.
can i just ask couter a question about just picking up from norman's point point? the... declaration that israel makes time and again to eliminate hamas once and for all. the the feasibility of that, because you do refer to that in your essay, the fact that hamas is... is many things, a social movement, it's a militia, there's a political movement. and it's also just an idea.
Colter Louwerse
yeah, the short answer is it's completely impossible for israel to eliminate hamas, even if we were to accept, which i don't, that eliminating hamas is morally unobjectionable, practically, it's not going to happen. hamas is not just based in the gaza strip, it is based all throughout the occupied territories. and outside of them. and furthermore, even if you can destroy hamas's military capabilities, israel claims that it has more or less wiped out hamas's military capabilities in the northern part of the gaza strip. even if it does invade rafah and comes back with the severed heads of sinwar and other hamas leaders, what it will not have done is done anything about the source of palestinian grievance, which we've been talking about and which is so obvious, decades now of occupation of apartheid, massacre, even if what arises out of those ashes doesn't call itself habas, it'll be the same problem.
yeah, the short answer is it's completely impossible for israel to eliminate hamas, even if we were to accept, which i don't, that eliminating hamas is morally unobjectionable, practically, it's not going to happen. hamas is not just based in the gaza strip, it is based all throughout the occupied territories. and outside of them. and furthermore, even if you can destroy hamas's military capabilities, israel claims that it has more or less wiped out hamas's military capabilities in the northern part of the gaza strip. even if it does invade rafah and comes back with the severed heads of sinwar and other hamas leaders, what it will not have done is done anything about the source of palestinian grievance, which we've been talking about and which is so obvious, decades now of occupation of apartheid, massacre, even if what arises out of those ashes doesn't call itself habas, it'll be the same problem.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
i think we're going to have to wrap up unless somebody's got an urgent, pressing question that there's a hand going up here. i really can't see all the way to the back of the room. why don't you take this one here?
i think we're going to have to wrap up unless somebody's got an urgent, pressing question that there's a hand going up here. i really can't see all the way to the back of the room. why don't you take this one here?
Audience Member (Nicaragua/Germany question)
i have a question. i was wondering, why did, in your opinion, don't know wants reply, why did nicaragua bring a case against germany and not against the usa? who seems to be the prime supporter of israel, either with the weapons, than with financial support.
i have a question. i was wondering, why did, in your opinion, don't know wants reply, why did nicaragua bring a case against germany and not against the usa? who seems to be the prime supporter of israel, either with the weapons, than with financial support.
Mouin Rabbani
i think because nicaragua's in central america and germany's in europe.
i think because nicaragua's in central america and germany's in europe.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
yeah.
yeah.
Mouin Rabbani
and.
and.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
i want to go right to the back of the room... is there a hand that's gone up? not the person who asked about the tel aviv question, because you've already had a question. sorry, sir.
i want to go right to the back of the room... is there a hand that's gone up? not the person who asked about the tel aviv question, because you've already had a question. sorry, sir.
Audience Member (US impunity question)
well.
well.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
yeah. in the front. i'm just...
yeah. in the front. i'm just...
Audience Member (US impunity question)
for any of you, is there any chance of that relationship of total impunity, of total toleration and support? between the united states and the world. i mean, public opinion has changed significantly. is there any chance of that shifting in any way, even small? in... in the future.
for any of you, is there any chance of that relationship of total impunity, of total toleration and support? between the united states and the world. i mean, public opinion has changed significantly. is there any chance of that shifting in any way, even small? in... in the future.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
who wants to take that?
who wants to take that?
Mouin Rabbani
well i think the changes that norman lin and others have been talking about. of profound importance and will be of profound political importance.
well i think the changes that norman lin and others have been talking about. of profound importance and will be of profound political importance.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
but it's going to take time.
but it's going to take time.
Mouin Rabbani
for them to have an impact on the types of questions that you're asking. my response to that question, if you're asking about it in the short term, is biden, lincoln, netanyahu, all of them. they're not going to be held accountable. they're going to get away with their crimes. that's the way the world unfortunately works. but having said that, uh. lincoln's grandchildren. whenever they want to study the gaza genocide of the 21st century, they will know that any study of that genocide that doesn't assign a starring role to their grandfather is an incomplete. account unfortunately, i think that's probably the extent of accountability. karim khan is still decorating his christmas tree. um... icc is not going to get involved. the icj can take clear decisions, but they can't be enforced. the way the international system is currently structured, there's unfortunately no accountability for criminals in the sense that you're asking.
for them to have an impact on the types of questions that you're asking. my response to that question, if you're asking about it in the short term, is biden, lincoln, netanyahu, all of them. they're not going to be held accountable. they're going to get away with their crimes. that's the way the world unfortunately works. but having said that, uh. lincoln's grandchildren. whenever they want to study the gaza genocide of the 21st century, they will know that any study of that genocide that doesn't assign a starring role to their grandfather is an incomplete. account unfortunately, i think that's probably the extent of accountability. karim khan is still decorating his christmas tree. um... icc is not going to get involved. the icj can take clear decisions, but they can't be enforced. the way the international system is currently structured, there's unfortunately no accountability for criminals in the sense that you're asking.
Razia Iqbal (moderator)
what a grim note on which to end, but we are going to have to draw it to a close. buy the book and keep talking. thank you very much indeed for coming. and i didn't say thank you to the panel. that was so rude of me. norman finkelstein, moonin ri, slavoy, jk and k. thank you very much.
what a grim note on which to end, but we are going to have to draw it to a close. buy the book and keep talking. thank you very much indeed for coming. and i didn't say thank you to the panel. that was so rude of me. norman finkelstein, moonin ri, slavoy, jk and k. thank you very much.
Norman Finkelstein
thank.
thank.
Audience Member (US impunity question)
yeah. thank you very much. thanks joining. when they plan out.
yeah. thank you very much. thanks joining. when they plan out.