Lex Fridman: commitment

Transcript context

…That’s a good point. No, no, that’s a good point. Now, some people accuse me of speaking very slowly, and they’re advised on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to three times whenever I’m on. One of the reasons I speak slowly is because I attach value to every word I say. Norman say this all over and over and over again, “I only deal in facts. I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I only deal in facts. I only deal in facts.” And that seems to be the case except for when the facts are completely and totally contrary to the particular point you’re trying to push. The idea that Jews would’ve out of hand rejected any state that had Arabs on it or always had a plan of expulsion, it’s just betrayed by the acceptance of the 47 partition plan. I don’t think you understand politics. They forced the British to prevent immigration of Jews from Europe and reaching safe shores in Palestine. That’s what they did. And they knew that the Jews were being persecuted in Europe at the time. Was Palestine the only spot of land on Earth? Yes. Basically that was the problem. The Jews couldn’t immigrate anywhere else. What about your great friends in Britain, the architects of the Balfour Declaration? By the late 1930s- What about the United States? … they weren’t happy to take in Jews, and the Americans weren’t happy to take in Jews. And why are Palestinians who were not Europeans, who had zero role in the rise of Nazism, who had no relation to any of this, why are they somehow uniquely responsible for what happened in Europe and uniquely- Because maybe helping the cause is the only safe haven for Jews. Professor Morris, because of your logic, and I’m not disputing it, that’s why October 7th happened. Oh my God. Because there was no options left for those people. The Hamas guys who attacked the kibbutzim, apart from the attacks on the military sites, when they attacked the kibbutzim, were out to kill civilians and they killed family after family, house after house. Talk fast so people think that you’re coherent. I’m just reading from the UN. Yeah. But you think… I know you like them sometimes, only when they agree with you though. That you’ve lied about this particular instance in the past. Those kids weren’t just on the beaches is often stated in articles. Those kids were literally coming out of a previously identified Hamas compound that they had operated from. They literally… You could Google it. Mr. Bonnell. You could Google it. Mr. Bonnell. Mr. Finkelstein. With all due respect, you’re such a fantastic moron. It’s terrifying. The following is a debate on the topic of Israel and Palestine with Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani and Steven Bonnell, also known online as Destiny. Norm and Benny are historians. Mouin is a Middle East analyst. And Steven is a political commentator and streamer. All four have spoken and debated extensively on this topic. The goal for this debate was not for anyone to win or to score points. It wasn’t to get views or likes. I never care about those. And I think there are probably much easier ways to get those things if I did care. The goal was to explore together the history, present and future of Israel and Palestine in a free flowing conversation. No time limits, no rules. There was a lot of tension in the room from the very beginning, and it only got more intense as we went along. And I quickly realized that this very conversation in a very real human way was a microcosm of the tensions and distance and perspectives on the topic of Israel and Palestine. For some debates, I will step in and moderate strictly to prevent emotion from boiling. For this, I saw the value in not interfering with the passion of the exchanges because that emotion in itself spoke volumes. We did talk about the history and the future. But the anger, the frustration, the biting wit, and at times, respect and comradery were all there. Like I said, we did it in an perhaps all too human way. I will do more debates and conversations on these difficult topics and I will continue to search for hope in the midst of death and destruction, to search for our common humanity in the midst of division and hate. This thing we have going on, human civilization, the whole of it is beautiful and it’s worth figuring out how we can help it flourish together. I love you all. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani, and Steven Bonnell. First question is about 1948/ for Israelis, 1948 is the establishment of the state of Israel and the war of independence. For Palestinians, 1948 is the Nakba, which means catastrophe or the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes as a consequence of the war. What to you is important to understand about the events of 1948 and the period around there, ’47, ’49, that helps us understand what’s going on today and maybe helps us understand the roots of all of this that started even before 1948. I was hoping that Norm could speak first, then Benny, then Mouin, and then Steven. Norm? After World War II, the British decided that they didn’t want to deal with the Palestine question anymore and the ball was thrown into the court of the United Nations. Now, as I read the record, the UN was not attempting to arbitrate or adjudicate rights and wrongs. It was confronting a very practical problem. There were two national communities in Palestine and there were irreconcilable differences on fundamental questions, most importantly, looking at the historic record on the question of immigration, and associate with the question of immigration, the question of land. The UN Special Committee on Palestine, which came into being before the UN 181 Partition Resolution. The UN Special Committee recommended two states in Palestine. There was a minority position represented by Iran, India, Yugoslavia. They supported one state. But they believed that if forced to, the two communities would figure out some sort of modus vivendi and live together. United Nations General Assembly supported partition between what it called a Jewish state and an Arab state. Now, in my reading of the record, and I understand there’s new scholarship in the subject which I’ve not read, but so far as I’ve read the record, there’s no clarity on what the United Nations General Assembly meant by a Jewish state and an Arab state, except for the fact that the Jewish state would be, demographically, the majority would be Jewish, and the Arab state demographically would be Arab. The UNSCOP, the UN Special Committee on Palestine, it was very clear and it was reiterated many times that in recommending two states, each state, the Arab state and the Jewish state, would have to guarantee full equality of all citizens with regard to political, civil, and religious matters. Now, that does raise the question if there is absolute full equality of all citizens, both in the Jewish state and the Arab state with regard to political rights, civil rights, and religious rights. Apart from the demographic majority, it’s very unclear what it meant to call a state Jewish or call a state Arab. In my view, the Partition Resolution was the correct decision. I do not believe that the Arab and Jewish communities could, at that point, be made to live together. I disagree with the minority position of India, Iran, and Yugoslavia. And that not being a practical option, two states was the only other option. In this regard, I would want to pay tribute to what was probably the most moving speech at the UN General Assembly proceedings by the Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko. I was very tempted to quote it at length, but I recognized that would be taking too much time. So I asked a young friend, Jamie Stern-Weiner to edit it and just get the essence of what Foreign Minister Gromyko had to say.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.