Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion 20140809

Discusses his newest book book if they critique of correspondent best selling book my Promised Land of the triumph and tragedy of israel. You can watch them talking about the book on the website booktv. Org. He spoke out another bookstore in baltimore. This is just under two hours. Thank you for inviting me. And i want to use the time that is allotted to me. I could go on for roughly an hour. I want to use the time that is allotted to me to try to clarify exactly what is going on in this particular case. It does require a certain amount of clarity because virtually everything thats being said about the current round massacring gaza virtually everything that is being said is simply not true. Saying its not true is just a euphemism. I think its important to have some clarity. What actually is happening and what triggered it and what is happening now in the ground and where things are headed. Let me begin with the beginning mainly the context of what is happening. Its important to get the point of the departure right because we have to know what was the cause and what was the effect. It was the killing and kidnapping and the effect was the harsh reaction in the west bank that the sequence virtually every account begins by saying that it all started with israel with the abduction and the killing of the teenagers. But that is false. The only proper context to understanding what happened is that it began in april of 2014 when the Palestinian Authority formed a union government. The Prime Minister of israel demanded that the United States and the eu break off relations with the government because hamas is a terrorist organization. Surprisingly, the United States and the eu. But then they would decide on the stepbystep basis whether or not to persist in this relationship. At this point, nothing out who was enraged and was being consistently ignored first in the question of iran when he claimed that iran was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. On the question of israel housed on is once again he was being ignored. He was saying hamas is a terrorist organization. You have to break off relations with it. Both the eu and the u. S. Said no. We are going to continue in our relations. In fact, when the gift so into nothing out netanyahu it was initially the abduction. Even after that gift fell into netanyahus lap, the u. S. Continued to say we are not going to break off relations with the new unity government. Now on netanyahu had the pretext. He knew full well from day number one do that the kids were dead and number two, hamas had nothing to do with it but he saw an opportunity to exploit at the abduction and the killin killine three israeli teenagers to do what israel always does. Hamas signed on to the unity government, and the unity government had said because the Prime Minister abbas was the spokesperson still a unity government, he said that we are accepting as the unity government we are accepting the terms for the negotiations because the enunciation of violence, number two, recognition of the state of israel, and number three it slips my mind that it will come back to me in a moment. The hamas had joined the government accepted on the recognition of the past agreements. Succumb it was the mmc asian of the violence, the recognition of the past agreements and recognition of the state of israel. They said the new unity government accepts those terms. Its one of those Palestinian Peace offenses. The way that you try to deflectt peace offensive is you start pounding and pounding the presenters of the peace offensive. Now imagine al imagine all you s pretext. The objection coming after kids he started going after hamas in the west bank and arrested about 700 palestinians and just about the majority of them being hamas ransacking homes demolishing the two homes and carrying on as it always does in these moments like the food and state. When it finally reacts as anyone would under those circumstances what does nothing out and say, look, you see i told you they are terrorists you cant negotiate with them. This is particularly odd situation because in fact it was not a Palestinian Peace offensive. Ironically this was a palestinians are under offensi offensive. The Palestinian Authority accepted all of the secretary of state conditions for ending the conflict during the negotiations that were carried down in the Kerry Initiative or the carrying process. Abbas accepted that israel could annex the major settlement blo blocs. They accepted the nullification of the right of return perfectly clear from the record or what has been leaked from the record he accepted everything. He accepted the defeat. But because of the coalition politics, he wouldnt even accept a surrender from the palestinians and so now he was determined to wreck the government so that at some point in the future he would and have to accept not a settlement based on International Law because at some point in the future, he wouldnt have to accept a surrender from the palestinians. After the rampage in the west dually escalated,ome point it t the Ground Invasion. I made many predictions along the way before the whole comp but started to cover them about what would happen. And many people would know that recall. One of my predictions was i thought it was impossible that israel would be able to repeat what it did in the Operation Task that was led in 2008 and 2009 that the International Community had drawn a red line. The red line had a name and it was cold but goldstone report. Even though the report was eventually ignored, it set up a new standard. The standard was that israel knew you cant do that sort of stuff anymore. He went too far. And for a long time, my prediction held up in november of 2012 israel launched the operation of defense that caused a larger massacre in gaza but that was a different attack than 20 of eight and 2009. For those of you that recall during the operation pillar of defense and 2012, november 2012 they didnt target schools or mosques and the death toll was significantly different about 170 people in operation 1400. So until that point what i had predicted would be right. However, its perfectly obvious now that im way off base in terms of the new massacre in gaza. Its more or less on the same magnitude as 2008 and 2009. The dust hasnt settled so riddled with a final reckoning would be but it seems pretty much at this point and we can make perfect comparisons because the operation lasted 22 days and i think it is the 22nd or the 23rd day if i am correct. The operation was about 1400 people. About 1200 were civilians and now its around 1200 again about 80 of civilians. Its roughly the same. The targeting, not only the targeting of hospitals but its the same thing all over again. And now the question is why was i so off base . And im not trying to defend myself but im trying to defend the situation which is what we should try to do and that will enable us to accurately predict where things are heading. Politics can add thi at best be political and can access the trajectories where things are generally headed but the politics itself is about taking advantage of opportunities being skillful at exploiting the moment and i mentioned the gift number one but fell into netanyahus lap the abduction and killing of the three teenagers and then the two fell into netanyahus lap. Gift number one was tony blair. Hes a clever politician and the two obviously are usually exclusive. [laughter] hes also a high cross and those are not mutually exclusive. Tony blair dreamt of something clever. He said come up with a ceasefire proposal that hamas has to be checked. He comes up with a proposal through the monstrosity of the president its now called the Egyptian Initiative as if they can even spell initiative. The initiative was quite clever we are going to have a ceasefire he said. But then he said we will lift the blockade. That sounds reasonable. Ceasefire in exchange for the blockade. That is what they want. But the language was very clever. We will lift the blockade when the security situation stabilizes and gaza. We will lift the blockade of the security situation stabilizes and gaza. Well, according to israel, hamas is a terrorist organization. So by definition the security situation in gaza cant stabilize until hamas is disarmed. So in effect, tony blairs ceasefire was an ultimatum to hamas. We will lift the blockade if you disarm. If you dont disarm, then we are not lifting the blockade. Of course hamas has to reject those terms. That was gift number one. So now the whole world can be told without prince of peace, president Prime Minister netanyahu wanted a ceasefire and it was hamas that said no and then gift number two was the downing of the malaysian airliner. When the malaysian airliner was bound to come in gaza was immediately the place of the top headlines by what happened to the airliner. Net netanyahu is not a genius, but it was perfectly honest it was going to happen. In 1989, way before many of you in the room were born, in 1989 there was the french and during the were giving israel a very hard time doing the massacre in china and netanyahu has been around a while as have i. Off netanyahu gave a speech and said the big mistake is that it didnt take advantage of the massacre to carry out the occupied houston and territory. So you know that this guy knows how to connect unpredictable events with political initiatives. Thats politics. When the malaysian airliner was down, he saw the opportunity between the fake claim that have lost had rejected the reasonable ceasefire and the malaysian airliner he now had the pretext to launch the Ground Invasion. Before i get to what happened after, i want to dispose of nonsense and now the tunnels that theyve discovered. Lets start with the first. Do they have rockets . When i conjured up in my mind a rocket, i conjured up something pretty tall and impressive and pretty destructive. That is a rocket in my mind. Maybe i have a quaint imagination but thats what i see. So now lets use some simple common sense. Gaza has been under a an airtight blockade for seven years. Israel doesnt let anything into gaza that could be remotely used for military purposes. That is fact number one. Some of you are thinking he is defeating us. What about those tunnels come off has built or dug between egypt and gaza. It was a sophisticated tunnel economy and probably militarily related material was smuggled in. I dont doubt that or have a problem with that. But then whatever they manage to smuggle in, they exhausted in november of 2012 the joint operation pillar of defense. Operation pillar of defense and iendsat the end of november. Seven months later is that true in egypt, the first thing after wise blow up all of the tamils. They blew up an estimated 95 of the tunnels. Nothing for the last year. Where do these rockets come from . Where was the material to make them . Now it is freely admitted all of them were homemade with barely any materials. The reason these rockets have caused all of those civilian casualties, all of the casualties is because they are not rockets. They are closer to firecrackers than rockets. Now, some of you may say ha ha it is defeating us again because we all know that miracle of miracles iron dome. These are very efficient rockets but that miracle iron dome managed to knock them out of the sky. Okay. Whats the fact behind that. Number one, the top person in the world in this particular area of research is the coastal mit. They were the first person to expos a nonsense about or the patriot of the antimuscles system during the 19,911th gulf war. It was 80 , 90 effective. It turned out that maybe. But that was revealed a year or two after the first gulf war. They were then asked recently in the last month, no it has to be the last two weeks sh he was asd what about the iron dome wax what is its efficiency . He put its efficiency on closing him at 5 . 5 . Its not the iron dome that is deflecting these humongous rockets. What is deflecting them is that they are not rockets in the first place. Now, how do we know that . There is such a simple way to know that if you use your brain for half of a minute just use your brain. It was led from 20 of eight to 2009. It lasted 22 days. How many civilian casualties were there . There were three. Its lasted now 22 days. The operation led before the iron dome. Operation protected edge. What is the rational conclusion . The iron dome did nothing. That is the fact in fact now the rockets being used by hamas are much more primitive than the ones they used in 2008 and 2009 because at that point they managed to smuggle something but now its nothing. Now mr. Netanyahu has the problem. He bolstered so much about the efficiency of the iron dome, this miracle of miracles that the only conclusion that you could draw that it is so efficient, the work of genius by the geniuses of all genius only they could come up with such a brilliant contraption if it is so efficient, then why are you killing all of these in gaza . If it is so efficient, none of the civilians are being killed then why do you have to carry on like maniacs and lunatics in gaza . So you have a problem. And he comes up with a new pretext. Thats why the New York Times have people like isabel kershner. Shes there to copy out anything the New York Times hands to her, excuse me come anything the counselor hands to her and even the differences. So what do they do . Bakeoff with a new idea. The reason that we are attacking us because the rockets so they do not fly anymore. The reason that we are attacking and a day in and day out they keep saying this whole operation is because of the titles, and that is supposed to explain to the rational people by israel is doing what its doing. Its not the rockets anymore. The tunnels. So when an Israeli Naval vessel pills for kids on the beach playing soccer, its because of the tunnels. And when they target the hospital wide . Because of the tunnels even though nobody claimed that there were tunnels underneath the hospital. And when israel targeted the hospital and the playground nearby well, its a yes way they did that. Its the tunnels. And a day in and day out you keep hearing about the tunnels as if in any way they can rationally explain why israels precision weapons are constantly telling kids and targeting manifest civilian sites. Well, you could say that israel is doing it since its obviously not the tunnels. You could say israel is doing it because it is a lunatic state. Its a state that is gone over the cliff. And i myself have to acknowledge that on more than one occasion i said as much. I think its a crazy state. Its not a failed state. Its a crazy state. But, still to use the shakespeare express and there is a method in the mad max and its not difficult to discern. Number one. We dont want to have the combat and casualties. Its in many ways a reverse of conventional society is. In most societies they tolerate combat and casualties much more than they are willing to tolerate civilian casualties. Israel is a different kind of society. Its the kind of Spartan Society in which military or combat and casualties are the source of much greater anguish and torment than civilian casualties. So, the first rule is combat since are not supposed to get killed and so the operation was led in 2008 and 2009 and none of it was published. If you see a building in the distance you dont ask any questions. You demolish everything in sight, so there will be nobody to even take a sniper shot at you. So one of the reasons was to demolish everything in sight and that connects playing some of what israel has been doing now. So the big massacre to date was freely admitted they said we level the playing because if we have to go in street by street, fighting we would have had to absorb a large number of combat and casualties and so they wiped the whole place out it wasnt only because of that, but the other reason was the db for this event Israeli Soldiers had been killed contrary to what you might conceive, there hasnt been a Ground Invasion. There has been an occupation a couple of miles into the border. Its only on the border area for the reason i mentioned to you already there was and is the fear that if they were to conduct a real Ground Invasion deep into gaza, they were going to they are and they still might at this point theres the fear that they would suffer some significance, and so they are holding back. If they are still at the border and its not to protect the combatants, why are they doing at . Why have they seemingly gone mad . And the other reason hasnt been completely acknowledged by the israelis. Number one, it wont surprise anyone in the room you were hoping that a terror bombing will bring palestinians to their knees. They are hoping that he will destroy everything in sight. There is a humanitarian ceasefire. The people come out and see there is nothing and then they say lets have a ceasefire and end it because the devastation is so terrible. And the longerterm goal is the hope that with all of the death and destruction people will eventually blame hamas for what happened and then seek to help seat hamas and thats the calculation during the task and there was some truth to it. The people stood behind the resistance in 2008, 2009 but then a significant element of alienation and heard when the people of gaza asked themselves for what. All of this debt that israel left behind a 600,000 tons of rubble after the operation. All of the deaths and the destruction, the blockade was still there so there was the feeling of hamas got us into a mess. I dont think thats accurate that ibut that is what they areg will happen this time. Thats the purpose behind the bombing. And we should be clear about one point. There should be no doubt on one critical point. A couple of days ago, i got so i couldnt take it anymore 20 days in front of the computer watching this unfold 24 hours a day seven days a week to begin to go mad. They are describing the attack on the playground and other kids just blown two fragments and as there is a very smart person and elegant person. [inaudible] they said they want to vomit and that struck a chord with me. No fancy language, no queues i want to vomit by the way they are carrying on in gaza. So, i decided that it was time to something. I cant justify in my own mind just sitting in front of the computer slight decided lets do a sit in and do something. So lets do it in front of the council at for the un. After i announced that i went to bed and im drinking in my bed and it kind of made an error why are you attacking the mission . Who was the enabler . Who allowed it to happen . Every day that participating in said president [applause] every day no, its a fact. Lets not kid ourselves. Every single day that that man came out and said israel has the right to defend itself, each time he said it, he was giving israel the green light to continue the massacre. That is a fact. If it were not for him it couldnt have happened and that is an odd thing. There are people here whose memories go back to 1982 in the massacre and lebanon. How many people remember it . It is a very strange thing but the facts are facts and we have to acknowledge them. During the massacre in lebanon in 82 that was quite a shame they. They killed between 15 to 20,000 palestinian and lebanese civilians in those three and a half months. But during the massacre, at one point president Ronald Reagan had a picture of a child how many people remember the child that was a victim of the attack in lebanon and he took the picture of the child that had been severely targeted and put it on his desk. He was going to prove that target was not by israel and is so a kind of middle or of imag images. The prime investor and the fact of the matter is if we want to be truthful to ourselves, Ronald Reagan showed more heart than barack obama bandwidth happening in gaza. How was it going to end . And right now there are two contending parties. The position is clear. We want a ceasefire and the listing of the blockade. The position is all so clear. If they want a ceasefire lifting the blockade and disarming hamas and thats where we now stand. Its kind of a stalemate. The most important thing at this point is to prepare for that kind of public battle. Number one must hamas be disarmed . So netanyahu shows the world that Service Organization look what it did and how horrible it is so everybody not their head in agreement. One condition for ending the hostilities hamas has to be disarmed. And the narrative, i hate that word as if there is a nazi narrative of the holocaust and the jewish narrative. Its really interesting. Must they be disarmed . I know what youre whispering. They are trying to press you. [laughter] the first obvious question is who started the hostilities. In 2008 and 2009 the operation led. There was a ceasefire in june. If you look at the Terrorism Center publication they said hamas was careful to respect the ceasefire. November 4 the election day in the United States when attention was riveted to the u. S. President ial election with barack obama base of every competent taking advantage of the gifts november 4, 2008 israel invades and kills 6,000 militants from hamas and thats when the whole thing starts to fall apart. It was israel that broke the ceasefire. That ceasefire agreement said in 2008 and 2009 excuse me, junior, 20 of eight that ceasefire said the blockade was supposed to be lifted. Wasnt gifted . Dont swear in the first massacre, who initiated the conflict. Israel broke the ceasefire. They didnt abide by the confines of the ceasefire. So the rational person concludes it is israel that should be disarmed and they violated the conditions of the ceasefire. The 2012 november it ends with the ceasefire agreement and it says the blockade of gaza is supposed to be lifted. It was the blockade lasted . Though in fact it was tightened because beyond the blockade the totals were blown up and it was worse. In the last round who broke the ceasefire . There were no rocket attacks coming after the 2012 ceasefire agreement it all began to escalate when netanyahu tried to violate and provoke the reaction to break up the unity governme government. Rationally speaking if any fight is supposed to disarm, it should be israel that should be disarmed. What does the International Law say . If there hadnt been textbooks to fix this room the law is under International Law to people struggling for the selfdetermination has the right to use the armed force to achieve its end. Thats the law. Some people say that its neutral. Okay, fair. You can make that argument. Fair enough. But nobody says, and ive read d the whole topic, nobody says people struggling for selfdetermination do not have the right to use the armed force to achieve their goals. On the other hand the International Law is clear and it says that howard is trying to suppress itself it doesnt have the right to use force. The selfdetermination struggle is the most basic right on the International Law and the right to selfdetermination and statehood and if we are carrying on the selfdetermination and statehood no power has the right to suppress that selfdetermination struggle. As of again on the basis of the law if any side should be disarmed, if any side should be disarmed its israel. Its not hamas. Thats the law. Israel says it is defending itself and has the right to defend itself. Thats true on the International Law there are all sorts of caveats, qualifications. The country has the right to defend itself. Im not going to go into the qualifications now the question is very simple. Is israel defending itself and iis ittrying to defend itself ot trying to maintain the occupation . Those are two very different things. The most basic fact that the occupation under the International Law, the most basic fact about the occupation under the International Law and the most basic fact his occupations are supposed to end. Thats what makes the occupati occupation. Occupation for supposed to end. Its 47 years since Israel Occupied the west bank and east jerusalem. One thing we can conclude with virtually scientific precision for israel has no intention of ending the occupation. In fact, it is so determined not to end the occupation that it turned out turned down a palestinians render. Now an occupation that goes on through eternity is not an occupation. That is an annexation and they are illegal under International Law. When israel says that it wants to defend itself wha was israels really saying is that it demands the right to maintain the occupation. It demands the right of hamas that it ceases resisting the occupation. Thats what they are really asking. They want the right to maintain through eternity the occupation. And that is illegal under International Law. It is a legal number one because the occupations are supposed to end. The annexation for illegal and it is illegal number two because cox has no obligation whatsoever under the International Law to disarm until israel ends its occupation. As a practical matter, it is a very simple concept. Person a is grappling and suffocating the suffocating is a fancy word for choking. And if you dont know choking, you dont belong. It is a bookstore. But lets use the word. James manages in the course of being suffocated humanity is to scratch him a little. Hes now enraged. He is furious at the scratches, and so beyond suffocating them he starts to beat him and beat him and he says its my right of selfdefense. He scratched me. Its my right of self defense. Some people said he has no choice. James is scratching him. Anyone with common sense and decency knows full well that he has a choice. If he doesnt want james to scratch him, all he has to do is to stop suffocating james. If israel does not want to be the subject of occasional scratches, which is all that these rocket attacks coming to it has a very simple option. It could stop suffocating the bostonians, it could pack up its bags and return to its state. The borders under the International Law and it can finally let the palestinians live in peace. [applause] okay. I have a rule and they are very simple. Everybody was patient. Everybody was decent. Nobody tried to heckle me and ideally tackling is pretty legitimate to style but that is beside the point. But everyone was respectful and i would like to be i would like to reciprocate that. So i would like to take the first three questions from the centers people who strongly disagree with me and let them go to the microphone first and give them the opportunity to speak okay. Are you going to ask a question . Okay. Go ahead. I met him earlier. My question is very basic. What does International Law say about the palestinian right of return . I think there has to be two ways to address the question. The first is that the International Law says about the palestinian right of return. But we try to address it fully. However i want to enter one caveat. Its important for me at any rate. Ive been working on the book with a palestinian scholar and comrade of mine and its called how to solve the israel palestine conflict. And i felt there were certain issues they try to be objective and reasonable. For me only a palestinian in my view has the moral authority to address the question of the right of return. So i try to respect that distinction. Its not a legal distinction is a moral distinction and i think it is a proper question for a palestinian, not myself into that particular chapter in the book is accepted. Having said that, what does the International Law say about the right of return . Obviously under the International Law, palestinians have the right of return and asian, not for compensation. Its not my opinion. Its the opinion of the major human rights organizations. The Human Rights Watching 2000 Amnesty International in 2001. Both of them published what they call the position papers and the right of return both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both said that palestinians in the homes of 1948 and 1967 and the expression iexhibitionis in the succeedings they have maintained genuine links and have a right of return. Thats the legal issue. There are two other issues that are right. Number one, the question does it undergo a modification, doesnt undergo a modification in light of the two state International Consensus in the two states the israeli and the palestinian state. Is there a clash between the principle of the two states and the principle of the right of return. Do those principles come into collision and everyone knows it is often the case in the real world that the two abstract principles or the legal principles can come into conflict with each other and then you have to add adjudicated to reconcile the two principles that come into conflict. Its my impression from listening to the developed argument he thinks the conflict does surprise and that means you have to find some sort of modification, and adjudication, reconciliation between the right of the return on the one hand, and the principle of the two states on the other. Thats the first qualification. The second one is theres one thinthere is onething to speak s legally right and there is another thing to say what is politically possible. If you look at the various documents in the issue of the various organizations and so forth, currently the way the United Nations generally Assembly Puts it and its annual resolution peace with the settlement of the palestine question with a Un Resolution General Assembly resolution puts it, they speak of the just solution of the refugee question based on your resolution 194 compensation. So, they dont see implementation of the 194 right of return compensation. They say a just solution based on, which means something less than implementation, but how much less is very hard to say. Yes . I think you should use the microphone. My question is regarding the region of the context of this issue. Do you think that there is any influence from the neighboring countries in the region that this is now okay . When the Muslim Brotherhood won the election the notion is that the democratic means to promote the undemocratic methods they were supportive of the coup that happens as easy and there is a trend now that any islamist kind of regime is not wanted by the arab government. Do you think the era of government has a role in what is going on in supporting israel . Right now everybody is agreeing, everyone including hamas unfortunately because they are so much of a choice at this point are agreeing that the basic document that has to be modified or not modified the basic document is the Egyptian Peace Initiative so everybody is accepting that thats the starting point. Its a disaster for the palestinians. This time around they are all in. Not that the arab states ever cared but this time its a disaster. Again folks if you have questions as a microphone right here. Please come and form a line and please keep your questions brief. Thank you. Thank you for coming and speaking and thanks for joining us at the rally earlier, but i guess my question sort of pivots off of the first question in regards the right of return for Palestinian Refugees and i guess in your criticisms of bds over the course of the last couple of years i guess you have also raised the flag of a twostate solution as being the only realistic solution. One thing of bds you criticize them for three demands i believe it was which is the right rate of return which i dont know if they are bds demands that the right of return, equal rights for palestinians. And the end of the occupation. You said those were unrealistic and they need to be honest about their approach to it. Anyway my question is how do you see a twostate solution and why do you see it as a realistic solution to the crisis and to the occupation and as a means of bringing palestinians justice . Ijc are separate and equal which is what we have a very Clear History of venice country and how do you see a twostate solution playing out as being a just solution that palestinians one will not have equal access to resources is the state of israel is sorry to guarantee as a result of the twostate solution and two that there is no equal rights within the two states. So yeah. Okay. Obviously the second question is a very large one. Let me just try to address excuse me. Im not very techsavvy but i know when im doing something really stupid and that was really stupid. Okay. I think theres a certain misunderstanding about my opinions on bds so let me just clarify them. You can check for yourself. I think i have been pretty consistent. Of course i support boycotts. Of course i support divestment and of course i support sanctions. I support boycotts digestion and sanctions before bds came along. I got involved in june 1982 and i have a long record of being involved in various church initiatives calling for divestment so the record is pretty clear. I have course support boycott divestment sanctions but boycott divestment sanctions is Something Different than bds. Bds is not the tactic of boycott of sanctions, dds is the platform in the platform begins as everybody has look at the platform with the 2005 bds coup as everyone knows the platform begins by saying that bds is anchored in International Law. Thats the first thing they say. In fact, dds poll came out in july of 2005 which was one year to the day after the International Court of justice advisory opinion on the illegality of the war that israel has been building in the west bank. They timed it for one year after the International Court of justice to point out the fact that we are looking at the advisory opinion of the court. The courts view, the conclusion that the war was illegal is not being respected and so we are going to form this bds campaign in order to see that the law is implemented. Okay, well i agree with bds. The starting point for any campaign to try to change Public Opinion and to rollback israel, the starting point has to be under International Law. It has to be International Law. No quarrel there, no dispute there. The quarrel and dispute is what is the International Law say . The International Law says yes, israel has to end the occupation. Thats true. Israel has to acknowledge the palestinian right of return. Thats true and there are basic principles of International Law about equality under the law but thats not the law. The law also says israel is a state under International Law. Thats the law. Now you may not like that line you might say oh the law is imperialist capitalist oppressive and all the other things and you are certainly within your right to say that. Then you could say i dont want to have any trouble with the law but if you start off your first document by saying we are anchored in International Law, how can you say you are anchored in International Law and then when youre asked what you stand for israel you save bds takes no position on israel. How can you take no position . Thats a lot. Israel is a stay. Thats a lot. Its a member state of the United Nations. It has the same rights and obligations as any other state under the law. You may not like that. I said fine, but dont claim that you are anchored in International Law. For years is a real blessing a condition for negotiations with the palestinians if they have to recognize israel. And the palestinians and their supporters said, but you want a unilateral recognition of israel. You have to recognize us. That was the response of palestinians. But now pbs is saying the same thing as israel. They are saying we want our rights recognized under International Law but we are agnostic. We may take no position on israeli rights. They are the same thing. Thats just hypocrisy. I am way too old to be playing those sorts of hypocritical games. If you want to say you want to work with the law i think that probably is the strongest tool that palestinians have as professor edward saeb said a long time ago and many others have said. The strongest tool they need to have his International Legitimacy meaning the law. International legitimacy goes both ways. Thats my primary disagreement with the bds is they are well aware. Now im going to let you speak, i promise. Im not the kind of person who cuts people off. Would you rather me not address the second question and you just respond to this because theres a long line. Its your choice. Would you rather respond to this or me answer the second question about the twostate solution . Yeah the second question was just in the side that you allowed me to present is what would be wrong with i guess International Law and justice presented as the focal point in the argument point position and liberation. Would it be wrong with a palestinian state with equal rights for all citizens within that palestinian state, historical palestine as it existed didnt before 1947. Theres nothing wrong with it and i think its a fine idea. I also think its a fine idea that 30 million mexicans, 30 million citizens of the United States are of mexican origin. Half of the entire mexican economy, a large chunk of that is dependent on remittances from mexicans living in the United States. We stole, and you will find the books here, we stole half of mexico so i think its a fine idea and certainly rises to the standard of justice. Its a fine idea if we eliminate the border between the United States and mexico. [applause] its also a fine idea. Its also justice. But then we have to ask ourselves, politically doesnt have any possibility . There is a serious issue on our border. Several hundred mexicans are killed each year trying to enter the country. Theres also a serious issue here of undocumented mexicans and there is talk about what is called immigration reform. Does anybody talk about eliminating the border, one stayed . The answer is obviously not. Politically its just beside the point. We are not talking about justice in the abstract. We are talking what is politically possible and there is no basis whatsoever in the real world. There is vague exactly zero support in the real war for a one state resolution in the conflict. Lets start with basics. Can anyone in this room name me one state, one state in the world that supports one state in palestine . Name iran. No, you dont name iran because every year irans votes u. N. Along with the rest of the world for two states. Iran is a member of the organization of islamic cooperation. 57 islamic countries. Iran is a member and iran as a member of the organization of islamic countries endorsed the two state settlement. Theres no support for it so what are you talking about . Im not averse to the idea. I think its a fine idea. Im like rodney king for those of you old enough to remember. Why cant people get along . Yeah i believe that. I believe people can get along but thats a personal belief. It has nothing to do with politics. I think one of the problems often afflicting the palestine question is that people confuse their own personal concepts and senses of justice with what is politically possible in terms of justice. You can make any kind of course as a personal belief you are allowed to harbor anything but you have to then assess what politically is realistic and possible. Now i know the obvious answer is, the obvious answer to what some of you are thinking is the twostate solution is not realistic and possible anymore. Thats the standard argument but theres just such an obvious answer crying to be said. If israel will not accept a full withdrawal from the territories it occupied in june 1967, if thats true, is there anyone here in the room who could possibly believe that they would be more willing to dismantle israel banned to withdraw . Does that make any sounds . That israel would be more willing to dismantle itself than to withdraw from the territories it occupied . So when people say the two state settlement is dead and therefore the only other possibility is the one state, the obvious rational answer is, if two states is dead then one state is twice as dead. Yes. So my question relates, you mentioned earlier the idea of a conflict of narratives and i think what a lot of us find frustrating with this conflict is the fact with social media we see a lot of whats going on in gaza at the ground level but we see a very different narrative portrayed in the media through our government. How do you see with the rest of this conflict that playing out and really what might happen from a groundlevel in changing that narrative and making them more equal . Well first of all i say, its famously said of whenever he hears the word culture he reaches for a gun. I feel the same way about narratives. There are not two narratives. Somebody is lying. Its very different and if israel said it was hamas rockets that fell on and on the ross school or school was empty and the rest of the world, bear in mind every time the media says that palestinians say, thats a complete and total lie. Its not palestine is saying it. They say israelis say that palestinians are using human shields. Palestinians say its not true. And so the reader is supposed to throw up his or her hands in despair. Who is telling the truth . Its not palestinians that are saying that palestinians are not using human shields and Amnesty International said this past week that palestinians are not using human shields. Human rights watch, no friend of palestinians, said palestinians are not using human shields. Jeremy bowen the middle east editor for bbc also not a friend of israel, he said no evidence that palestinians are using human shields. So this is not two narratives. Its one side is lying and the other side isnt. [applause] now, how successful has this war between not competing narratives but between truth and law has been . I have to say being somewhat oldfashioned, i never look at anything on the web except my email. But i am told that israel is having a very hard time on the web now. The social media, its been a massacre of israel even though thats certainly metaphorical. Unlike whats happening in gaza which is literal. So i think its been a very important arena of conflict and i think the people who are on the social media i think they are doing something important. The reason i conclude that is israel has invested a huge amount of financial and Human Resources in trying to win the battle of the social media because israelis are an integral part of at any rate the western world. They do care about their image. They dont like to be looked upon as child killers. Thats not the way they want to be perceived. And so is everybody in this room knows palestine said israel is paying people to go on the web to tweet in favor of israel. They are losing very badly and i think thats an important arena and people certainly think they should continue to do that. Im not sure this would be a significant turning point as 2009 but i think it will be significant. As some of you may have noticed there was an article a couple of days ago by horowitz in which a journalist commented that exactly zero, exactly zero celebrities have come out for israel. Its been a disaster for them. There have been a lot who have come out for the palestinians of some stature. Ive never heard of them. Who . Yes, the only celebrity that came out for israel is joan rivers. [laughter] israel, i would probably try to conceal that. So those are all arenas. I dont think its enough for sure but its certainly a place where i think its good to keep up the fight. Thank you for the work that you do. There were some questions about. [inaudible] by supporting companies that regularly support the occupation. Do you have ideas and a practical sense that we can take to reverse that . I can make a claim on the original ideas that have been involved for a long time. Im not at all a first, im very happy to acknowledge i think i have been a lot of very important victories that have been achieved by the activists in the bds movement. And there is no question about that. I would be the very last person on gods earth to in any way want to diminish the significance of those actions and in particular the energy, the decency of these young people who have given their all and achieved a lot. I do believe however that unless you fully situate the movement within the confines of International Law you were going to come up against the limits and actually the tactic at some point begins to be selfdefeating. So lets take two examples. There was a big battle in berkeley about a year and a half ago over divestment. The bds activists in berkeley had to end up saying that our resolution has nothing to do with bds and we recognize israel and on and on. The same thing happened recently with the Presbyterian Church. The Presbyterian Church has everybody in this room knows, it agreed to divest from for American Companies involved in maintaining the occupation. But what did the Presbyterian Church due . In its resolution it entered the plank that said this decision has nothing whatsoever to do with bds. Youre just shooting yourself in the foot. You are turning bds into an albatross. If he just said eds supports International Law and all of its facets, he would save yourself the trouble of trying to convince churches of something they will never ever agree to. Namely the dismantling of israel. No church group in the United States will ever agree to that. That is just ridiculous. So you would save yourself a lot of trouble and embarrassment. He would save yourself a lot of trouble and embarrassment by not having the Presbyterian Church say this resolution has nothing to do with bds and then bds claims it as a victory for bds. And then you just start twisting your mind into knots. You are claiming is a victory for bds a resolution that says we do not support the bds. That doesnt make any sense. There is a kind of dogmatism and radical posturing which i understand. I was there. I was there when i was in my 20s. I was. So i understand it but you cant expect a person at my age to repeat what were clearly the errors of my youth. You have to accept where Public Opinion is and then dont try to push it over the edge because all you end up doing is pushing yourself over the edge into oblivion and irrelevance. [applause] yes. I will try to keep this short. I consider myself very ignorant about this topic and i came here for an education. So i had to pick the juiciest question i could. Yesterday i was reading an article that suggested that israel actually funded hamas to kind of create division and maybe create the behaviors that they wanted gaza to have. So could you just explain if you know anything about that . That is not a subject rarely of speculation. Its wellknown. Any book you read on hamas, every scholarly book will acknowledge that during the first intifada, the first intifada dissent beginning december 7, 1987 during the first intifada israel was some people say financing that other people will say treating with kid gloves hamas in gaza in order to create a counterweight to the plo back then so there are far fewer arrests and far less repression inflicted on hamas during those years that than was inflicted on the scope of the time the secular resistance movements. As i said thats not a subject of speculation. Everybodys knowledge is it and the goal was perfectly obvious to create a counterweight to the plo. I am old enough to have an idea of history and therefore i look back at the situation and say well you know who actually started this mess and of course that is the u. N. And england and the United States. They created the state of isra israel. As you said thats now a state accompli and theres nothing you can do about it. Its law but what you can either think thing to do now is put the responsibility back on the people who created it in the first place and make them take responsibility and do something obama could stop it tomorrow and literally he could stop at samarra and other places also. The powers that create masses are to accept the responsibility the world would obviously be a very different place. I dont think thats a realistic possibility. I think it is a realistic possibility if the palestinians find the strength to carry out a united organized courageous movement to end the occupation and if we do our job i think it is possible to end the occupation. Those are a lot of ifs and it would take me a long time now to spell out exactly what i mean by that. I think its too late in the day for me to do it in a something of a diversion but i still thi think, i think the ball is in the quarter the palestinians which is if you will excuse me and this is not meant, if the word meant i would say so but this is not meant as another criticism of bds. Its just unrealistic to expect that you can liberate palestine from the outside. Sometimes you will hear spokespersons of bds speak about what they call, we have reached a south africa moment. Thats just kind of observed. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the struggle of south africa knows that the primary mover, the momentum for change in south africa always came from the internal struggle. [applause] the sanctions movement, the sanctions movement was important was always subsidiary. The antiapartheid sanctions movement takes off in 1960 after the sharpeville massacre. It then reaches another peak in 1976 after the soweto massacre but then it reaches another peak in 1984 after south africa Apartheid Regime imposed a state of emergency in south africa. The sanctions movement always was a function of an and subordinate to the internal movement. No external force can liberate palestine and we can play a very useful role for sure but first it has to come from within. I happen to be personally an atheist. Im not a fanatical atheist. I respect religious beliefs. People with religious beliefs and there are very a lot of very smart people who are religious so i dont go for the state of the way liberal secularists carryon as if they are the smartest people in the room and everybody who believes religion is an idiot, and no, sorry. I have met a lot of very religious smart people. If you will allow me an anecdote the other day i attended in his start in bay ridge in brooklyn a large religious community. I met the guy who i hadnt seen in 20 years. He was my laundromat operator, and hes a very religious guy, religious muslim, very active in the muslim community. Hadnt seen him in 20 years and i said oh how are you . Great, wonderful, everything is good. I had heard he had been arrested after 9 11 because he had been active with charities in supporting palestine and in fact he did get arrested. He had to absolutely beautiful kids and i asked so, how was your son, the little boy with curly hair . My son is now doing rotation and he is a doctor. A doctor, oh thats pretty impressive. Being a little bit of a chauvinist myself, ill be honest i said he probably went to an inferior medical school because this guy runs a laundromat. I said what happened to his his sister . Said shes right over here. She graduated colombia and is going to Albert Einstein medical school. Whoa, thats pretty good. He said im the father of six now. I said six . Thats pretty good. What happened to the third . He said the third . The third graduated harvard and is now going to cambridge. The girls wear the headscarves they all are muslims and they are all very smart. We have in the room one of my favorite families on the universe. They are practicing muslims. Its always still hear . Ali university of chicago ph. D. He told me a funny story. He said when he was on trial most in the u. S. Know the area in case. Everybody and his family has a ph. D. Except one brother. So the prosecutor was trying to turn the jury against him and turned the case so sammy has a ph. D. His brother has a ph. D. And then they came to another brother and this one has to ph. D. s. Religious people can be very smart and if we are honest about it and nobody will be honest about it, in terms of personal morals they are very much superior to many secular i would take any secular to [applause] let me put it this way. I would trust any muslim with my children sooner than i would trust bill maher and i will leave it at that. But leaving aside, leaving aside that is an atheist i still say god helps those who help themselves. If the palestinians dont get their act together, get a coherent strategy, have responsible leaders, people who have moral stature and personal integrity then theres not much we can do. The last analysis is its up to them and we can be a support group but this notion that bds will liberate palestine think has nothing to do with the real world. Real quick. We only have five minutes and we have to start closing up. We will be selling books and norman will be signing books. On the way out theres the folks for Upcoming Events and information and stuff like that. Hi. I just read an article that came out in the latest nation magazine and it was about debunking five of the favorite israeli talking points. I forget the authors name. Anyway i was impressed by an argument that was made in there and i wondered what you thought about its cogency in terms of perhaps bringing some more people on board that are kind of not quite with us he had . It had to do with International Law of occupation. The article was saying that if a people is occupied that the occupying power actually under International Law has different obligations. This has not been really brought out and i thought oh yeah that makes a lot of sense that israel is by International Law obligated to actually protect the people that are under its occupation instead of bombing the hell out of them. What do you think of that in terms of an argument that maybe we could use bringing out more with other people here . There are two things. He could make legal arguments which will convince lawyers and you can make legal arguments that are going to convince the general public. Obviously the legal argument israel has responsibilities under occupation. You can make an argument to the general public namely israel has no right to impose a blockade on gaza which is causing significant damage to the gazan economy and the gazan people. Not letting medicine and 95 of the water is under consumption and so forth but the general public would understand that kind of legal argument. But the general public even if he made the argument that you propose the general public wants an answer to the argument. What is israel to do with rockets that are being fired at its . At that point you can just make abstract legal arguments. You have to address a problem which makes sense to a general public. Its not enough to so to speak score legal points. You have to address so to speak the common sense of the general public. And address headon the problem that is raised. I think sometimes lawyers use appropriate brief thats useful in convincing a judge but may not be as useful or as convincing when it comes to the general public. You have to make arguments that make sense to me. Thank you. I wanted to address said the something you bring up a lot this question of what is politically possible. Ive heard you before defined that as sort of being set by human rights organizations at the outermost space but many would characterize what organizations like Human Rights Watch and amnesty say. It seems as though theres a shift in Public Opinion about the justification for the occupation itself. My question is in that light do you think that Public Opinion and what is politically possible is static or is there room to move better and are receiving it move . I totally agree with you on the question of how do you assess Public Opinion . Thats a perfectly reasonable question. Because obviously we are not just addressing static Public Opinion. You are addressing also what you might call the subterranean forces at work. They are just below the surface and maybe to just push them to the surface and get them a little further, i agree with that but i think you would also agree that theres a difference between some ideas which are just beginning to coagulate beneath the surface and other ideas which dont have as the expression has it, a snowballs chance in hell of gathering public support. So you will agree with me im sure that the idea of presenting to the public lets solve the immigration problem with mexico by eliminating the border, you would say that goes well beyond an idea just beneath the surface thats on the verge of coming out. Thats just fantasy and several it has no basis. And so i agree its a matter of judgment and you have to have a good sense of what is possible, what is just around the corner and what is on moores. When i make my statements about how far you can push Public Opinion i look at all of the available data. I asked a simple question. There are 197 countries in the world today. Can you name me one state, one of 197 that is even near the point of supporting one state . Bolivia is nowhere near. Look at its voting record. I mean it has no connection with reality. There is no country on earth that is currently or nearly or approaching the dismantling of the state of israel. There are none. Okay, thats an excellent question. Thats an excellent question. Look, if you want to make a rhetorical statement you can. Okay, i wont. Now heres the answer. He said okay the comparison of south africa. In 1976 the first of the bantu created by south africa declared independence formally. Went before the United Nations. His trance died a state . The vote was 1340. One exception the United States. The whole world agreed that the bantu scheme by south africa had no legitimacy. The u. N. , 1340 with one american abstention declared statehood null and void. Now lets take the case of israelpalestine. Every year theres a resolution called for peaceful settlement of the palestine question. It comes before the u. N. Every year. Every year, the float is exactly the same. In this past year the vote was 165 countries, 165 voted for two states on the border and a just resolution of the refugee question. Six opposed. The United States, israel, canada, palau, micronesia and the ivan so if you use the South African precedent as an example the same overwhelming lopsided majority that declared the bantustans schemed illegitimate that same overwhelming lopsided majority declared the two states settlement legitimate so if you are using the South African precedent the only rational conclusion from that question is that two states is the best we can go with. That is what the argument tells you. [inaudible] under the theme of what is politically possible and keeping in mind the aipac lobby in america today, a couple of weeks ago before it ran an article commenting on the fact that the jewish left is dead. Do you personally agree, yes or no . Absolutely not. I think everything i have read, and i dont want to be selfpromoting but i wrote a very large book on the subject, tells me that americans use American Jewish are either distancing themselves from israel or falling silent on israel. You dont see the support. I will give you an example. Just four or five days ago i was on a demonstration in new york. Now i have the authority of age over me. In the 1980s when he went on a demonstration supporting palestinian rights im serious you are taking your life into your hands. It was a very scary thing to walk down those corridors on 42nd street and chant slogans in support of the palestinians. It was very striking to me in this demonstration. I saw and it was a long route, maybe a mile and a half, two miles. I saw one jeweler who came out of his jewelry shop tackling. I saw one fellow holding a small sign. There was nothing else. Passerby is, you couldnt see one word peppering us, attacking us, nothing. There were a few granted because i dont want to exaggerate. You have to always be objective and observe the facts. There werent that many that they were going like that, supporting us that they were next to none critical. Does such a huge sea change. Among the American Jewish the fundamental fact about American Jewish is they are overwhelmingly liberal. During the 2008 president ial election 80 of American Jewish voted for barack obama. Thats kind of amazing. More jewish voted for barack obama than hispanics. Among hispanics it was 63 in 2008. Now keep in mind American Jewish are far and away the most wealthy ethnic group in the United States. If they were voting by virtue of their pocketbooks as most people say people do but they should have been voting overwhelmingly republican but American Jews are liberal. Even though they are the richest and wealthiest ethnic group in the United States they vote democratic. The last election where support for obama acrosstheboard went down, still 70 of American Jews voted for obama. Now keep in mind in the last election the head of state of israel Prime Minister Prime Minister netanyahu was actively and obtrusively campaigning against obama. Saying obama was bad for israel. Obama is bad for the jews. He was actively supporting romney even though head of state of the jewish state says vote romney, 70 of American Jews still vote for obama. American jews are liberal. Liberal means you support human rights. You support International Law. You support International Institutions and is becoming progressively more difficult if not impossible for American Jews to be liberal by their tenants, liberal by their credo, liberal by their beliefs and at the same time support what is quite plainly a lunatic state. So you see clearly among young people in particular and i have been around the block area i lectured on College Campuses for decades. There used to be a were some and i remember cases where the students have actually rushed me. They didnt beat me that they made certain i couldnt. Nowadays if you are on a College Campus in the United States, lets be honest because there are a lot of people who like to pose as martyrs to a cause, its much more difficult on a College Campus in the United States today to be proisrael and propalestine. I dont envy anyone on a College Campus trying to defend israel nowadays. The whole atmosphere has chang changed. Young American Jews, what are they . They are on College Campuses. They are liberal, they are idealistic, give peace a chance. And then they have this crazy state killing kids, blowing kids to smithereens. Jews dont want to defend that sort of stuff. Now its true they are not rallying in huge numbers in support of palestinians. All the polls show they are not rallying in support of palestinians thats correct but they are not supporting israel either. A lot of them will stay quiet because there is the thing in the Jewish Community about not airing dirty laundry in public but in the privacy of their homes, no. Jews do not like to see dead babies and israel being the executioner. So yes there has been an enormous amount of progress. Its still a tough battle but we shouldnt diminish the achievements almost entirely owing to the palestinians for the changes in Public Opinion. I think thats it. Folks, thank you. [applause] [applause] we are lucky to have George Liebmann with us tonight. George is an attorney in private practice and his stories is specializing in american and International Diplomatic history. His publications include diplomacy between the wars five diplomats and the shaping of the modern world. Tonight he is here to talk to us about his new book, about u. S. Ambassador John Negroponte. Welcome george, thank you. [applause] thank you. The book is called the last american diplomat not because John Negroponte was in any literal sense the last american diplomat but because in some respects he is the last diplomat of a type and of a generation. He entered the Foreign Service immediately on graduation from yale. His education was essentially in the humanities on International Relations theory. He thought the most valuable course he took in college was a course in economic geography which is not taught anymore either in colleges or high schools. He was required as a yale to take a course in dealing with the english civil service. No one pays any attention anymore to english constitutional history. And when he entered the Foreign Service, his first assignment was in hong kong in 1960. Hong kong in 1960, its hard to remember this, was a place that existed in almost total isolation from china. There were millions of refugees in hong kong but no american and there was no trade. It was a listening post but not a very informative one. But the experience that he had their used to be typical of the experience that Foreign Service officers had. He was assigned to interview visa applicants. He learned rudimentary Mandarin Chinese and it was a undoubtedly a broadening experience for a graduate of exeter yale to suddenly find themselves interrogating an impoverished and desperate people. And its an experience