Speaker unverified: uncertainty

Transcript context

…If you paint a picture of the future, now is a good moment for both Palestine and Israel to get new leadership. Netanyahu’s on the way out, Hamas possibly is on the way out. Who should rise to the top such that a peaceful settlement can be reached? And I’d love to [inaudible 04:16:33]. The problem is, as Benny said, yeah, it’s difficult because Hamas enjoys so much widespread support amongst the Palestinian people. I think that… Well, I don’t know. There’s opinions on whether democracy or pushing them towards elections was the right or wrong idea. But with an Islamic fundamentalist government for Hamas, I don’t know if a negotiation with Israel ever happens there. And then when the international pressure is always ’67 borders, infinite right of return for refugees, and a total withdrawal of Israel from all these lands to even start negotiations, I just don’t see, realistically, on the Palestinian side, no negotiations are ever going to start in a place that Israel’s willing to accept. If you want to dismiss international law, that’s fine, but then you have to do it consistently. You can’t set standards for the Palestinians but reject applying those standards to Israel. If we’re going to have the law of the jungle, then we can all be beasts and not only some of us. So it’s either that or you have certain agreed standards that are intended to regulate our conduct, all of our conduct, not just some of us. So that’s a fundamental- [inaudible 04:17:46] I’m saying to abandon? Well, you’re saying international law and the millionth UN resolution, you’re being very dismissive about all these things. Well, I’m saying [inaudible 04:17:54]- And that’s fine. I’m not being dismissive. But then you have to be dismissive across the board. I’m just saying, for instance, 242, that was a Chapter VI resolution. That’s non-binding. But 242 [inaudible 04:18:01]- It’s binding. It’s absolutely not binding. It’s binding. What is binding? Do you know anything about how the UN system works? If you read the language of the resolution, binding is typically if it commits you to upholding a particular international law or if it establishes [inaudible 04:18:13]. What is Chapter VI? You just throw out words. You hear binding, not binding. Does 424 mention a Palestinian state? Norm- Of course not. That’s part of the problem. Yeah, exactly. That was the reason why the Palestinians didn’t want to recognize 242 because they only referred, at the very end, the refugee problem. Sure, but the PLO recognized 181 and 242 [inaudible 04:18:31]. Yeah, but hold on. Hold on. Every United Nations Security Council resolution, irrespective of under which chapter it was adopted, is, by definition, binding. Binding not only on the members of the Security Council but on every member state of the UN. Read the UN Charter. It’s black and white. Sure. People can look that up [inaudible 04:18:53]- Yes. … but the language even of 242 is kept intentionally vague such that it doesn’t actually provide, again, the final [inaudible 04:18:59]- It’s actually not that vague- It’s incredibly vague. … because the term “land for peace” originates in 242. The idea is- e such that it doesn’t actually provide, again, the final [inaudible 04:18:59]- It’s actually not that vague- It’s incredibly vague. … because the term “land for peace” originates in 242. The idea is- Sure, but the part about territorial acquisition and Israel’s need to give it up was kept vague. That’s why, in ’79, Israel thought that they fulfilled their obligations under 242 [inaudible 04:19:13]- You asked a separate question. Allow me points of information. The first principle in UN Resolution 242 is that the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force- Which is meaningless. It may be meaningless to you, Mr. Bonnell. It was meaningless to everyone in the region. Okay. Mr. Bonnell, that principle was adopted by the Friendly Nations Resolution, the UN General Assembly in 1970. That resolution was then reiterated in the International Court of Justice ruling, advisory opinion in 2004. That was the basis of the coalition against Iraq when it acquired Kuwait and then declared it a province of Kuwait. Which Arafat supported. That’s what’s called- That’s true. Arafat did- Arafat did support it. Arafat did support it. [inaudible 04:20:11]. It’s not accurate. I’m not going to go there. I’m not going to go there. It’s not accurate that Arafat endorsed- Okay, I’m not going to go there. Okay. [inaudible 04:20:18]. It’s called, under international law, jus cogens or peremptory norms of international law, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That is not controversial. It’s not vague. You couldn’t put it more succinctly. You cannot acquire territory by force under international law. On the West Bank before ’67, who owned the Gaza Strip before ’67? Mr. Bonnell, don’t change the subject. If you don’t know what you’re talking about- It’s not about [inaudible 04:20:50]- … at least have the humility- How close has 242- You talk about Chapter VI- How close has 242 gotten- You don’t know Chapter VI- How close has 242 gotten the Palestinians to peace? You don’t know Chapter VI from tweet five. You have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s just so embarrassing. At least have some humility. Between us who have read maybe 10,000 books on the topic and you’ve read two Wikipedia entries and you start talking about Chapter VI. Do you know what Chapter VII is? Answer me. Answer the question. Do you know what Chapter VII is? Norm, answer the question. How close has 242 gotten the Palestinians to a state? Let me ask you this. How close has the 2004 advisory opinion gotten the West Bank settlement [inaudible 04:21:26]? What’s your alternative? The alternative is not this, whatever this making money off the conflict is. The actual alternative- [inaudible 04:21:33] making money- The actual alternative- Destiny should talk about making money off of idiocy. Yes. Yeah, you’re a media [inaudible 04:21:37] when you go and talk to 50 million different people about your awesome [inaudible 04:21:40]. But he has a point, though. What point? But the issue is you have to negotiate- All these resolutions have gotten the Palestinians no closer to a state. Nothing. Yeah, but hold on. Because they haven’t been enforced because of the US veto.…

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