Transcription
Israel will fight until we destroy Hamas's military capabilities, end its rule in Gaza, and bring all our hostages home. Since Hamas's attack on October the 7th, Israel has been laying waste to the Gaza Strip. Tens of thousands are killed, and the Israeli government is now accused of committing genocide. But what can the history of the conflict tell us about how we got here? My guest tonight is the famous, provocative Israeli historian Benny Morris. His work once documented many of the crimes committed by Israel in 1948, but his critics say he now justifies those crimes.
I'm Mary Hassen, and I'm here in London's legendary free speech society, Conway Hall, to go head-to-head with Benny Morris. I'll challenge him on his support for the war on Gaza and ask him why he thinks accusations of genocide are [Music] absurd. Tonight, I'll be joined by our panel of experts: Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and president of the U.S. Middle East Project; Dianna Buu, the Palestinian lawyer and former adviser to the PLO; and Emanuel Naan, an Israeli lecturer of diplomatic studies at Tel Aviv University. [Applause]
Benny Morris, thank you for joining me on Head-to-Head. You are a supporter, a defender of Israel's current war in Gaza, which began in its current form after the atrocities on October the 7th and which has since killed uh more than 38,000 Palestinians, including 15,000 children, displaced more than a million people, made Gaza uninhabitable per the UN, and is being investigated as a possible genocide at the International Court of Justice. A lot of people around the world think it's a genocide. I happen to think it's a genocide, but you have called that accusation absurd. Why?
Well, I once investigated a real genocide by Muslim Turks against the Christian communities of Turkey around the year 1900. Some 2 million Christians were killed at the time by Muslim Turks, um, and that's what a genocide actually looks like. What's happening in Gaza is a war. It's a war in which there are a lot of collateral um deaths among Gazans. The war started, of course, by the Hamas from Gaza in a giant massacre um on October 7th, and the only way to um respond to that—and any country would have responded to that more or less in the same fashion, I think—was to try and go after the Hamas. But the Hamas was embedded in the population, as you know, used the schools, the UNRWA schools, the um hospitals as bases, as places where they stocked their ammunition, their guns, themselves, hid in tunnels underneath these schools, in apartment buildings, and this all involved collateral damage, which of course the Hamas knew it was going to ignite by killing 1200 Israelis on the 7th of October. I myself have problems with the war as it's being waged, but um genocide—it definitely isn't. The aim here is not to kill as many Palestinians; that's not the definition of genocide. You wrote a book on genocide; that's not the definition of genocide.
It's one of the definitions. Try and kill—it's not based on numbers. The definition based on intent and on numbers—it's based on the intent—yes, to destroy, to kill in whole or in part. There's no intent here. That's as—as I'm not—I'm not—I just want to just—I'm not—no, I'm not a government spokesman. You seem to be presenting me as a government spokes—how I present you in a govern—I asked you for your view on—I asked you for your view on the war. I didn't say anything. We'll come to the government. I'm just asking about your view right now, the definition of genocide. You wrote a book on it; it's nothing to do with how many people you kill, so it's not a numbers game.
It's also a numbers game. The ICC Chief Prosecutor has asked for arrest warrants not just for Hamas leaders, but for the Israeli Prime Minister and the defense minister for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and he says he has mountains of evidence. We've all seen with our own eyes the Israelis in Gaza commit war crimes on camera, kill unarmed people who are carrying white flags, blow up apartment buildings, drop 2,000 bombs on crowded refugee camps. Can we at least agree, Benny, even if we're going to agree on genocide, that Israel has committed numerous war crimes since the Hamas war crimes on October the 7th?
I'm fairly sure there have been war crimes, but the war itself is not a war crime, as the Hamas attack on Israel on the 7th of October was. It was a war crime from beginning to end. The aim was to kill as many civilians as possible, which they did in accordance with the Hamas Charter, which is to kill basically every Jew you can get hold of in Palestine. But I didn't ask about the aim; I asked about the acts that being committed. As I said, probably there have been—as in all wars—war crimes. You accept there've been war crimes? Yes. So you would support an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu? I didn't say that. Why? Firstly, there hasn't been an arrest warrant. I know there's been a request from the IC prosecutor; so far they haven't issued it. I don't know if you can hold a prime minister responsible if a sergeant kills several unarmed people intentionally. You don't think the Israeli Air Force bombing apartment buildings, refugee camps, mosques, cemeteries, hospitals, schools, universities, libraries—firstly, it hasn't bombed, as far as I know, hospitals. They have attacked—as literally—no—literally no—no expert agrees with you on that. That's not—that's not true. What you're saying is not true. The only hospital which I remember being bombed was by a rocket fired by the Islamic Jihad by mistake; that's as far as I remember. Israel has raided hospitals. Let Israel—let—let me—let me talk. Israel has raided hospitals, but with infantry. Let me ask you—found Hamas people in there, Hamas headquarters inside hospitals, under hospitals. Actually, we've never seen the headquarters that Benjamin put a beautiful Bond movie video out for; we've never actually seen that from underneath Al Shifa. It's been several months; we're still waiting for that.
So on the 31st of October, according to Human Rights Watch, Israeli forces unlawfully attacked a six-story residential building, killing 106 civilians, including 54 children, without warning. Four strikes completely demolished it. Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a military target in the vicinity, making the strike unlawful, indiscriminate. Under the Israeli authorities have provided no justification for the attack. The Hamas always hides their own—even the Israelis didn't say that they were hiding in the apartment building. I—I don't—you said you don't want to be a spokesman for the government; you're offering a better defense of the government than the government is. I—I don't know—I don't know the particulars of that particular attack. It could be that there was a war crime committed there; it could also be that there were hundreds of Hamas fighters in the building, alongside—alongside—it could be—you—have you ever seen footage—wait—have you ever seen footage coming out of the Gaza Strip which shows a Hamas fighter dead? Have you ever seen that? All you see is civilians because they're hiding; they're hiding. I'm not a Palestinian journalist; I'm a foreign journalist, and guess what—we're not allowed in by the Israelis. They are hiding their casualties. So let me ask you this question—so then I agree we should allow people in. Do you agree with me? I agree with you. Let me tell you something about the Israeli Air Force. If we're talking about this, each mission of the Israeli Air Force—and it's probably the most—most accurate and um efficient arm of the Israeli military—is checked beforehand by a lawyer, etc., to see if—if there—actual um—is there evidence—there actual evidence of—I'm so glad you're pointing this out because it's not a rogue operation; it goes all the way up, so we can indict Netanyahu for these attacks because it's gone up the chain of command. It's not a rogue sergeant. It's not a rogue sergeant. We agree. All right. You say it's not genocide. Can we at least agree that it's genocidal rhetoric and genocidal intent from various members of the Israeli government?
We agree that the rhetoric from Netanyahu and Herzog and Smotrich—it's—this is genocidal rhetoric. Some of the ministers—I'm not sure about Herzog's quotes, and I'm not sure about what Netanyahu said, but some of—said—Amal—Benny, you know what—I don't know if that's the same as genocide, but killing every man, woman, and child—and the donkeys—you listen—there's something—there's something really—there's something absurd about this line of questioning. If Israel was intent on genocide—if—let me talk—hold on—can you let him speak? Would you let me talk? Can you let—can you let him speak? Yes. Guys—guys—guys—we are going to have to stop the entire show, and you will all have to go home if we do not have some order. The Benny, please finish your point. If there was a genocidal intent in the war-making in Gaza, there would be not 30,000—or, incidentally, the numbers are all issued by Hamas; we don't know how true—how true they are—but if there was genocidal intent by the Israeli government, with the Israeli military machine, to commit genocide in Gaza, there would not be 30,000 or 20,000 Gazans dead; there would be hundreds of thousands of Gazans dead. I'm sure that's—I'm sure that is called—that is called genocide, and that's not what's happening in G—we've already discussed—that's not the definition of genocide, but okay. Let me ask this—that's not your definition. The 1948 genocide convention—of—different—forget it—forget the 1948; there are lots of definitions. That's not true; there's only one; there's only one; it's the 1948 genocide convention. That sounds dogmatic. There's only one; there's only one truth—the Hamas truth. Sound the same—is the 1948 genocide convention a Hamas Charter? Are they—is everything Hamas, Benny? If there's a genocidal side in this battle, it is the Hamas. Let me ask this—just look at its Charter. Read the words; there reads what it says about what they intend to do to the Jews; that's what is—I've interviewed people from Hamas, and I've asked them about the charter. I'm interviewing you right now, and I want to tell you it's a nice document. I'm sure they do.
Israeli Minister called Avidict, a member of the security cabinet, he said, "We're now rolling out the Gaza Naba." He was referring to the Naba, the catastrophe of 1948, when an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes. You famously documented a lot of that back in the 80s; you undermined a lot of Israeli propaganda that said they just fled on their own. So whether it's the 1948 Naba or the 2024 Gaza Naba, to quote Avidict, for Palestinians, Zionism is Naba; it is ethnic cleansing. Surely you, of all people, can recognize that.
I'm not sure I can recognize that. No. Yeah, you keep putting words in my mouth. Zionism's intent was to establish a Jewish state in the area called Palestine, or the land of Israel. Um, initially, the Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state on the whole land of Israel, or all of Palestine. 1937, 1938, Zionism changed and said, "We can't have all of the land; there are lots of Palestinians here; let's share it with the Palestinians." In 1937, the British Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine between the two peoples living in it. The Palestinians said no and continued their war against Britain and the Zionists. The Zionists said yes to the partition proposal. Um, by Peel, the international community repeated the idea of the partition of Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs in 19—1947, November, the famous Resolution 181. The Jews said yes to the UN partition resolution of 1947, accepting it; they would get some of Palestine; the Palestinian Arabs would get the other part, and the Palestinians said no and started shooting the next day, killing Jews. So this is one of the reasons I wanted to interview you because—cuz I know some of the history. You do know some of the history, and you said they all sh—but the problem is I don't know which Benny Morris I'm speaking to because you're saying they all wanted to share the land, and yet I have a book here that says, "On the most basic level, Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement. Zionist ideology in practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist. Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology that's righteous victim," by Benny Morris, and I—you can respond. I'm glad that the audience is cheering things I've written because—because you were right in 2001, wondering about what happened to—I agree with every word in there, but as I said, Zionism changed its objective and goal in the 1930s and agreed reluctantly, um, resigned to the idea of partitioning the land, and from that point on, the Zionists—a number of times—in '37, '47, the year 2008—proposed partitioning Palestine with the Palestinians, and the Palestinians consistently have rejected partition under the Hamas Palestinians and under the PLO, fat as well. Let me ask you this—that's the truth, the basic truth of the conflict. Zionist many—let me ask a question. Zionists willing to compromise, and the Palestinians always say no. Yes. Go ahead. I want to read a quote out to you. Yes. You keep saying lots of positive stuff today—sharing, dividing—I want to read a quote to you. "There are circumstances in history—yes—that justify ethnic cleansing." Yes. That is not a quote from Slobodan Milošević; that is not a quote from a Rwandan genocide—your quote—and a lot of your critics say you no longer—you no longer just document ethnic cleansing; you apologize for as well. What the context of what I quote—what you—the context is—the context is you're asked—you condemn what they did in 1948, Zionist militias; you say no. You're asked—they perpetrated ethnic cleansing; you say, "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing." What was the circumstance? I'm talking about—you say—I know that this term is—I'm reading your quote—"I know that this term is completely negative, but when the choices between ethnic cleansing and genocide, the annihilation of your people, I prefer ethnic cleansing." So the Jews understood in '48—the Jews were under threat of annihilation by the Arabs, and that, in my view, legitimized—justified—cleansing Arabs from Palestine. The Jews—the Jews were threatened with death by a second genocide after the Na—genocide. The Hutus said exactly the same thing about the Tu—in 1994. They were talking about the Zionists. No, they said, "We can ethnically cleanse and kill these people because they're threatening us." Everybody who's ever done bad things says we're doing it defensively, right? Say threatening—I said the Arabs of Palestine attacked the Jewish community in Palestine from 1947 on. That doesn't J—they joined—you can't justify a war crime—a crime against humanity. Ethnic cleansing is not regarded as a war crime by any—a—so you're fine with it? It's not a matter of fine; it's not a happy—we're not—I prefer ethnic cleansing of the other to being massacred—a—my—my own people. Yes, sure, even if that involves innocent people being driven from their homes and not allowed to come back. Yes. If you—if you—how does that fit—Zionists wanted to share the land because, of course, the Zionists wanted—no, you're—you're mixing—you're mixing up the—the—the times—the chronology. The Zionists were willing to share the land; the Arabs said no; the Arabs attacked them, and from that point on, the Jews, to defend themselves properly, they would have to drive out Arabs from certain areas from which the Arabs were attacking the Jews. So it was—it was a pragmatic thing in the heat of war; it wasn't ideological; it was pragmatic, even though you yourself say that transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism—your words. It depends—it depends what you mean by transfer. A transfer depends what you mean by transfer. You're the one using the euphemism. It depends—no, no, no, it depends what part of the population we're talking about. Total transfer was never any part of Zionist—partial transfer—partial transfer from areas in which the Jews wanted to establish their state in part of Palestine and from which the Arabs were busy attacking the Jews. Okay. I want to bring in the panel before I do—a lot of talk about whether Zionism is a form of colonialism. If I said to you, "Zionism is something colonial," what would you say to that?
I would say there's some partial truth in it, but in on large it's wrong; it's not a correct interpretation. Those are the H's words. He wrote a letter to Cecil Rhodes, the founder of Rhodesia in Zimbabwe. He said it's something colonial. Okay, so maybe you should take it up with—found—I can't take it up with Herzl. Herzl may have said—said that in order to ingratiate—no, no, in—in—in—in an effort to ingratiate himself with the great colonizer Rhodes. It's possible. That's not the point. The point is this—understand—you don't allow me to finish a sentence. No, you do continuously interrupt, trying to do what Trump did to Biden. Wow. I've never been compared to Trump before; that's the first—in order—but please—but you've actually eaten up more time saying that, so please finish sentences. Zionism intended to liberate the Jews from the um alienation and oppression under which they lived in Eastern Europe, also later Central Europe, by establishing a state of the Jews, with the majority of Jews, with Jews ruling over themselves. They ended up—they ended up in—in part realizing that dream—dream—at the expense of Palestinians. This is correct; this is what happened, as it turned out. We'll end on a point of agreement. Bring in our panel. Uh, we have Diana, a Palestinian lawyer in Israel, former adviser to the PLO; Emanuel Naan is an international relations lecturer at Tel Aviv University; Daniel Levy is a former Israeli peace negotiator, president of the U.S. Middle East Peace Project. Diana, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about genocide because we started the show talking about genocide. Benny very adamantly says it's absurd; there's many definitions. You're a lawyer; what do you make of that?
Look, Benny is exactly what I expect him to be, which is a genocide denier and a genocide apologist. Every human rights organization has been defining this as—as a genocide. We have the ICJ that has come out and said that there's a plausible case for genocide, and yet we're to believe the Israelis—the only people who say that it isn't a genocide. Israel is allowed to be a colonizer; Israel is allowed uh to do what it pleases, and that Palestinians just have to sit by idly and take it, and this is the fundamental problem with Zionism. But we Palestinians are the ones who feel Zionism on our bodies; we paid for it with our lives; we paid for it with our land. This attempt to redefine Zionism will go nowhere because you know—and the world—I'm going to bring all the panel—it's a colonial—all right. Emanuel, you teach international relations in Israel. Is there a recognition there that a lot of the world—world governments, allies of Israel, as well as the usual human rights groups, are very critical, at a minimum, of the way that Israel has prosecuted what's going on in Gaza?
Well, first of all, Di said, "We are feeling Zionism." You're right; you're feeling it because the only place in the Middle East where Arabs are free is Israel, and so the freedom that you have, Diana, is because the only country in the Middle East where there is freedom is the state of Israel, from which you benefit, and you should be thankful for it. I—I'm not grateful because the only—the only country—the only country in the Middle East where Arabs can elect their officials, be elected, be judges at the Supreme Court, be president of a university—the only free country in the Middle East is Israel. Dan, do you want to respond to that? I find it staggering that the gentleman to my right is telling the Palestinian citizen of Israel how she is experiencing the reality under which she lives. It's—it's a staggering moment for me. Now, you know, there were different strands to Zionism. Okay, there was a cultural Zionism; there was a binational Zionism. This could have gone in different directions. From the perspective of 2024, 75-plus years in—the idea that this is just something benign doesn't match with the reality that has been lived. Now, I would say it's clear what this has meant for Palestinians, but I would argue it's not doing what was written on the tin for Jews either. I don't think either Israeli Jewish or global Jewish safety is best served by the actions we see day in day out in Gaza. Would you like to respond to what you've heard from the panel, please?
I—I think there's a misunderstanding here. There is a separation between Israel and the West Bank, Israel and the occupied territory largely populated by the Palestinians, and the state of Israel. In Israel itself, there is a rule of law; there is generally equality between the Jews and the Arabs, and you're misrepresenting it when you say that they are persecuted. And he's damn right in what he says: all the Arab states are dictatorships which do not allow their citizens any freedom, and Israeli Arabs enjoy most of the rights they may—
Be discriminated against in certain things, but they may may enjoy certain rights which Jews do not have. For instance, not serving three years, wasting three years in the Army, for example. Israeli Arabs don't do that; it's fine. Palestinians are desperate to serve in the Israeli military, right? I'm sure, I'm sure you're right.
For leing should be in pre-1967 Zionism in Israel. It was not a colonial Enterprise. In the West Bank, there is a colonizing and Colonial framework, which is even AP partid like in its actual workings, but in pre-1967 Israel that was not the case. And for the first 100 years or so of Zionism, it wasn't a colonial Venture; it a venture of an extension of an imperial—let me just Define colonialism. Since you're so busy defining genocide, imperialism and colonialism were matched together in which a imperial Empire sent its children to dominate and take over a third world country and exploit its riches and its people. This is not what Israel did until 1967.
Emanuel, do you agree with Benny that there is a colonial aspect and a par aspect to the occupied West Bank?
No. Um, Zionism is a National Liberation movement that freed its land from Arab Muslim colonialism. How do you think Islam expanded itself from the Arab peninsula to Indonesia, from Indonesia to Morocco? Not from the holy spirit; this was conquest and colonialism.
Okay, we are out of time, and I'm going to give di the last word before we go take a break. Okay, so now we have a neba denier and a neba apolog, as well as a genocide denier side apologist. The point of the matter is is that Palestinians have always paid the price for Israel's Colonial Adventures. My family hailes for hundreds of years from Palestine, and what happened in for 1948 was my family was ethnically cleansed from Palestine, where from fromel never able to return back to their to their home. My father died unable to return back to his village because of the colonialism that is called Zionism. There is no place for Zionism. We are way over on time, Daniel. 30 seconds, you want to come in?
What's remarkable to me is we've gone from denying the knba, and Benny Morris actually helped get past that, to threatening a second nakba, and that's the narrative in Israel today, without going through what's most necessary, which is acknowledging and healing and redressing, and Palestinians actually getting their rights. Because without that, not only will Palestinians never see peace and security and the achievement of freedom, but Jewish Israelis will always live in the knowledge that that wrong will create a blowback, and there's no security. That is it for part one of head-to-head with our special guest Benny Morris. In part two, uh, we'll be talking about what is happening inside of Israeli Society. We'll be talking a bit more about Benny Morris's views, and we'll hear from our—I was going to say patient audience at Conway Hall, but they're not so patient tonight—that's in part two of head dead.
Welcome back to head-to-head on Al Jazeera English. I'm with my guest Benny Morris, one of Israel's most famous historians. We have a panel of experts, and we have a live audience here in London's Conway Hall, who we will be hearing from shortly. Benny Morris, in part one of the show, we argued you and I about genocide, about ethnic cleansing, about the NABA. Can we start part two, Benny, by agreeing both of us on something—that Israel has seen in recent years a pretty serious, severe, brazen shift to the right, some would say far right, uh, with the likes of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir in the cabinet, uh, a lot of fanatical settlers inciting violence in the occupied West Bank. According to some polls, 60% of Israeli Jews say it's better for there to be segregation between the two societies; 48%, according to one poll a few years ago, supported the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel. What is going on in Israel?
Israel is turned definitely to the right. It's partly to do with demography; more religious people are born more than secular people. I would say also, unfortunately, more Sephardi people are born than Ashkenazi secular people. I would say that in addition to the demographic shift which has taken place in the last 20, 30, 40 years, um, continuous Arab terrorism and Arab reluctance to reach a compromise has also driven Israelis to the right. Uh, you've also been critical of the far right in Israel, as we just heard you say, very critical. You've called Netanyahu cowardly and incompetent, but you yourself have been criticized by some on the left, both in Israel and abroad, for your own views, and I just want to get through some of them with you because you've said what many would say are racist things about Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, uh, you've called them barbarians, you've said they have no moral inhibitions, uh, you've said they ought to be caged, you've said Palestinian citizens of Israel are a time bomb, a fifth column, emissary of the enemy. I got the GI, but the audience need to hear it. Um, you say you're a liberal and you believe in the peace process. A lot of Palestinians would say, how do we make peace with people who say they're liberal Zionists and they think of us in this way?
It's quite a question of quoting out of context, which you are indulging in. Those who blew up buses and um, restaurants in Israel during the second Intifada—I'm talking about both Hamas and Fatah terrorists—um, I called barbarians, and and they behaved—and I did no—no, I called them barbarians, and they behaved like barbarians. You didn't call—no, I didn't. You did actually. In 2004, in Haaretz, you said the Arab world as it is today is barbarian. That's true. The Arab world—I didn't say all Arabs are barbarians. I said the Arab world is barbarian in its behavior. Have a look at Syria, where the regime killed about half a million people in its Civil War trying to suppress an uprising. Look at Sudan, where the Arabs are busy killing blacks in Darfur. Look at Libya, where they are killing each other; they throw bombs at funeral cages. Look at Iraq; they behave like barbarians. If somebody said to you—and I would say this is anti-Semitic—if somebody said to you, the Jews are barbarians, the Jewish world is barbarian, I think you would agree that's anti-Semitic. And if somebody said, well, I'm not being anti-Semitic because I'm just talking about the IDF, I don't think it would be anti-Semitic; it would be false. That's the point. You don't think it would be anti-Semitic for me to say the Jewish world is barbarian? It would be false, not necessarily anti-Semitic. And when you say the Israeli Arabs are a time bomb, they are a potential fifth column—that's all of them. You didn't say some terrorists. I said Israel, Israel's Arab um, minority, which identifies in large measure with the Palestinian cause, is in the long historical perspective a potential time bomb. Yes, I would agree with that. You said there are potential fifth column or a potential fifth column? Yes, an emissary of the enemy that is among us. This is—I—I don't remember using the word enemy. What whether you remember it or not is irrelevant; you said it. The slide is their slide into complete Palestinianization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us during the second Intifada when there were riots by Israeli Arabs, blocking of roads, etc., um, they behaved like an emissary of the enemy. This is correct. It depends on context. You keep quoting things without explaining the context. I'm not sure there is any context for dismissing an entire people as a fifth column. Nobody is—okay, go ahead.
All right, let's talk about some other views of yours which are somewhat controversial. Many you would say you're not just somebody who said some—you don't actually want any facts from me or any any explanations of anything. You just—you just explained yourself very well. You said you just want to accuse. I'm not accusing, actually. It's not an accusation; it's a fact. This isn't really an interview; this is basically—I'm able to defend my views, but you come up with these quotations which are out of context, don't explain the historical context; the audience doesn't understand what you're talking about. I just read the entire quote to you. I read the entire—the word racist which you used at the beginning when you introduced this. You said yeah, you said when—okay, this here's something else you said. You said, "We're talking about murder in far larger numbers; it's not a matter of money," referring to Palestinians in Israel. "It's the society's nature." Yes, I would say that's a racist comment to say an entire soci—murder during the second—this was said in 2019, Benny, not in the second Intifada. That's not my fault if you can't remember when you said things in 2019. You said, "This is not about—this is—we're talking about murder; it's the society's nature." You could—the murder of who? The murder rates in Israel. You said Arabs have higher murder—explain to the audience what we're talking about. I'm sorry to break it to you; that's not—that doesn't get you out of it; you said it. "It's the societ—" Let me explain; let me explain what was going on. Um, the murder rates by Israeli Arabs of their fellow people, basically—not of Jews, but of fellow Arabs—is much much higher; it's about 100 or 200% higher than the murder rate among Jews. The same applies, incidentally, the killing of women; the same applies to honor honor murders, which are called their honor killings when a woman shows too much leg or looks at a man the wrong way. This is unfortunately inherent in Arab societies in general in the Middle East and among Israeli Arabs as well. That's the context. My my problem is there's no context for making sweeping stat—you know that's true. Let me ask you this—racist—let me ask you—true or not, you are racist. Will bring—racist is it bring—racist is it—I want to ask one—racist—forget the word racist—you actually just made a racist com—you said—I will let—respond in a moment—let—you can't tell me that you don't want heckling from the audience and engage when we're talking; you can't have it both ways. So I'm talking to you; we'll come to the audience. Okay, one—one last—you can do what you like—one last question; it's—it's a free country, as they say. U—let me ask you this; it's not just the racism that you've been accused—have you also been accused of warmongering? You just recently wrote a Haaretz column in June where you said Israel should consider nuking Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not even Benjamin Netanyahu has said that. You've said it. Well, he's more responsible; he's a prime minister, so you're irresponsible. Yes, I mean, nuking an entire country—that is not what's written in the article; you misquote everything. You say—you say—okay, I'll say what—what the context is—destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities; that's the context. Nuk—yes, with nukes, but not destroying Iran, as you just said. I said—you think dropping a nuke on Iran would have limited—not on Iran—on small nuclear bombs can destroy facilities like Natanz, and you know that it's not to do—I mean, you've been advocating this for 15 years, right? I've been advocating Israeli—an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear project because Iran says that its policy is to destroy Israel if they ever nuk—if they ever achieve nuclear weaponry, Israel will be immortal. You didn't say that. You said bum them now. You said in 2008—no, no, no, no—now—now in 2008—you're not telling the truth; you know that. You didn't call for the nuking—you didn't call for a nuclear strike in 2008 on Iran. No, I didn't. In 2008, I said Israel should destroy the Iranian nuclear installation with a nuclear strike. No, I didn't say that. This is my problem, Benny; you keep saying I—you don't remember the New York Times, July the 18th, 2008: "An Israeli Nuclear Strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps towards getting the bomb is prob—" I—I didn't say I supported it; I said it's probable. You said the alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb; it's very clear what you were—come now, who's playing word games? Israel does not have as part of its policy and doesn't announce as its policy the destruction of Iran, but Iran does say that its policy is to destroy Israel, and they are working diligently to get nuclear weapons. And if the Iranians do achieve nuclear weapons, Israel will be basically—will be finished. That—that's what the Iranians are aiming at. And using nuclear—tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear installations before they achieve nuclear weaponry makes sense to me; it may not make sense to you because you're not as an Israeli, so you don't care, but I'm a human being, so I care about nuclear—I don't—what to care about—I don't know what to care about. Well, you just assumed—uh, let me go to our panel here. We have Dibua, Palestinian lawyer in Israel, former adviser to the PLO; we have Daniel Levy, former Israeli peace negotiator at the US Middle East Project; uh, we have Emanuel Navon, who is an international relations lector at Tel Aviv University. Um, Diana, I got to bring you in first since we got started earlier—potential fifth column—this is exactly the problem is that he's a racist; he espouses these racist views; that's the problem with Israel. Israel is a—is a society, a country that is based on this idea of Jewish supremacy, and anything that they do or say goes, which means therefore that as a Palestinian who lives in that country, who is not enjoying any benefits of so-called democracy, that they get to espouse and tell me how I feel; they get to make statements like, "We are fifth column," and they actually treat Palestinians as though they are a fifth column. It's very important, Matti, for people to understand that Israel came to us—is—we didn't immigrate to Israel. Israel is a colonial movement, and as a colonial movement, its aim is to not only get rid of Palestinians, but it's to—to transform the entire place, to erase and replace.
Okay, Emanuel, I want to ask you this: Do you recognize the shifts that Benny was agreeing on at the start of this segment about what's happening inside of Israeli Society?
Well, allow me to respond to what Diana just said. She's not telling the truth; what she's saying is not true. Uh, first of all, the—the Jewish country—I mean, there are over 190 states in the world; most of them are nation-states. It's not about supremacy; it is about national self-determination and freedom. Now, we didn't come to you—this is our land; this is a Jewish way that the state was created—our—first of all, when you take—"We came to you"—it's not—I did not interrupt you; let him finish this point. IND—Okay, first of all, when you say we've been there for hundreds of years—the word Palestine—it's an invention of British colonialism; it was invented in 1920; it did not exist under the Ottoman Empire when this story starts; it's an—it's a colonial invention. So when you said Palestine—and you can't even pronounce it in Arabic because there's no P in Arabic—that's why we say we did not con—
All right, Emanuel, I'm going to—I'm going to bring you back to my question and then move on. What do you make of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir referring to Arabs—the most dehumanizing race? Are you going to deny that as well?
Like every society, we have our extremists. Okay, uh, it's a democracy; I don't agree with them, but we have—like every society, we have our extremists. And you are in government? Yes. Well, I didn't vote for this government; I wish they were not in the government.
Daniel hasn't spoken. Daniel Levy: When I was in a Zionist youth movement and president of the World Jewish Students, being pumped with the talking points and the propaganda points, I really think they were more sophisticated, and I may be misremembering this. I cannot genuinely—cannot believe that this is what now constitutes an Israeli attempt at defending and putting your best foot forward, but then I look at the reality in Israel today, and of course, that's what it should look like, because what's the reality we're living in? And let me take two snapshots: First of all, it's really not that surprising that we've got to at this point when you consider the impunity with which the external community and Israel's allies and the West and the US treat Israel, despite the litany—the entire spectrum of violations of international law and of human rights—and yet every time there's an excuse, there's a veto at the United Nations, then there's more arms. And in that respect, don't expect Israelis to come up with better talking points when they don't have to, because you're willing to run cover for them and create completely the wrong incentive structure.
Please respond. I must protest; you've brought three um, people in a panel, two of whom are pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist. That's the purpose of the—yes, they—it's supposed to be two against one; that's the—that's the way you've organized. We did ask you to watch the show before you came. I consider myself pro-Jewish, pro-Palestinian, pro-human. I consider—okay, all right—no, let me finish; let me finish. You are a pro-Palestinian propagandist; that's all you've become, just so that you know that. Let's go around the audience; we're going to try and see where we've got some hands up. We're going to go to the gentleman here, third row, with the jacket on, uh, just if you could say something more from an Israeli perspective in terms of the threat they face from Hamas as an Islamist movement which is pledged to slaughter all the Jews in Israel; that's what it says in its charter—never voted charter—if you could explain that more detail, please.
The Hamas is a small organization with a small army of terrorists; um, it doesn't represent, in my view, an existential threat to Israel, but as part of the larger um, Muslim radical Arab world, that part of it, including Iran, together they do represent an existential threat to Israel. Israel is not fighting merely the—it's fighting the Houthis; it's fighting militias in Syria and Iraq; it's fighting the—orchestrated by the Iranians at the moment, which wants to destroy Israel. Yes. Lady here in the third row on the second—my question is to Diana or Daniel because I want an honest and truthful answer. Given the decades-long brutality against the Palestinians by the Israeli government, without much regard for international law or consequences, should we have seen the escalation in this genocide coming? And what could be the global implications when states disregard international law to justify and even normalize genocide?
Danna, briefly. We've gotten to a point in this world where the world tells us that nothing can justify October 7th, and yet everything that Israel has done since October 7th can be justified by October 7th. That's a distorted world, and we have to understand what the—what this occupation has meant; it's been violent from the—from day one. The Nakba was violent, and what we're seeing today is a continuation of that. For world order to be restored, we need to have a system where all states are held to account, not where we get to have a country that says it's time to bomb Iran because they might have a nuclear weapon—big secret—Israel has a nuclear weapon too. Gentleman, the brown jacket, and then the gentleman here in the blue jumper. Um, I know that we're on Al Jazeera, a Qatari station. What do we think about the fact that Qatar has funded Hamas for so long, persecuting Gaza Palestinians? And also, we haven't heard one mention of the 120 hostages still being kept. What pressure could Qatar be putting on Hamas to release those hostages immediately, regardless of all the rest of this? Take that. Well, Qatar has been supporting the Hamas for de—for at least a decade with money, propaganda, etc., etc., probably using Al Jazeera also in—in that fashion. Um, this should end; I think normal states shouldn't support what the world regards—or at least the Western world regards uniformly—as a terrorist organization. Um, it's true that Hamas is holding—still holding 120 Israeli hostages, women, children, octogenarians, 2-year-olds, and whatever—they had 250 in the beginning; now it's been reduced to 120; many of them killed by Hamas people, um, many of them killed by is—and by Israelis—and by Israelis also. Israelis also killed some of the hostages. Hopefully, they will be released. I'll go—we all—we—we hope they will be released. Um, I would just say one thing: Why did the Israeli government prop up Hamas for so long and encourage Qatar to send money to Gaza stupidly? Out of—they're not—they're not hearing my answer. I'm just wonder—question. So let me ask—answer—you give a long answer—that the answer is that the Israeli government under Netanyahu behaved stupidly, and this was part of the incompetence of—of Netan—I don't think it was incompetence. Uh, let's go to the gentleman here in the blue jumper; let take his microphone. I'm—I'm not insure—and I
I wrote a book called What is Genocide? to bring Benny back to Gaza because you said it’s a war, it’s and there’s collateral damage, and that Hamas knew, and that may be true. But I mean the real point is that Israel knew, isn’t it? That if you uh bend the rules of War so that 100 people can be killed for one militant, if you do that thousands and thousands of times with 2,000 bombs, you know that the whole of Gaza is going to be a ruin. You know that you’re going to destroy that society, and that the the only way we can understand that in overall sense, it’s not a series of war crimes, it is one big crime, and I think the name for that is genocide. Absolutely.
You want to respond to that? Hold on, let him respond. I think I’ve already made the point. The Hamas, when it attacked Israel on the 7th of October, knew that Israel would retaliate with bombing and knew, knew that lots of Gazan civilians would die. They were hoping for that, cuz that looks good on Western television images. But they say that killing a lot of Gaza civilians is good because they go to heaven; they they become Martyrs. So this is this is Benny. Can I ask you a question? Can I hold—Can—did I say something wrong? No, no, I just I just I I just want to follow your logic here. Hamas knew that—I just want to follow your your argument is Hamas knew if they did this we’d do a genocide, so we did a genocide? Genocide? No, you’re—they knew that we come and kill lots of people. They knew that Israel would kill lots of—they knew that Israel would kill lots of Gaza—not a great—they that going after theas—they knew that lots of Gazan civilians would be killed, and they were happy with this because of international pressure which would result—Okay, we’re running out of time. On to take—gentleman in the suit. Yes.
Benny Morris, you say that the ICC should issue an arrest warrant against the Israeli Prime Minister and the Israeli War Minister, you have Galant, but on the 9th of October they imposed a total Siege on 2.3 million civilians in Gaza, depriving them of water, medicine, food. That is what they’re accused of—starvation as a weapon of War, something that the Syrian and the Russian regimes were accused of. Do you condemn that? Has anybody been died in Gaza of starvation? This is—yes. Yes, this this is—this is to—this is total nonsense. The Israeli—the Israeli—you want me to answer? Yes, I do. You want me to—but I want some evidence. You can’t just say things that are false. I’m not going to let you say that the Israeli government—I think—think the ministers debated whether to cut off water, cut off electricity, etc., etc. They eventually resolved not to do that. And though though lots of reporters have been saying, and the United Nations, that Gaza is on the verge of starvation, on the verge of famine, etc., etc., that is not happened. How do you know that? How do you know that? Hold, hold on, stop heckling. How do you know that, Ben? And please—any report of anyone dying of—reports I haven’t read any. So that makes it nonsense because you haven’t read any. I haven’t heard of anybody of starvation. You don’t think there’s a famine? There’s a a food problem? There people—food is—you me—there’s a famine in Northern Gaza. I don’t know what the word famine means. There is a food problem. There’s a l—there’s there’s malnutrition. This this I have heard, but nobody’s died. They will conveni—stay alive. As far as I know, nobody has died of starvation in G—no. I’ve read quotes saying—you’re a historian, you look at the sources, you find the evidence, and now you’re like, I don’t know what famine means. I haven’t seen anything—mean, it’s a big claims you’re making. You should back it up with some evidence because I’m—you should back it up—tell me a report in which somebody has died of starvation. Cindy McCain—who’s Cindy McCain? Is the head of the World Food Programme. She’s a widow—she wait—she said she—the widow—she said she’s the Widow of Senator John McCain, the most pro-Israeli senator of my lifetime. She said Northern Gaza is a full-blown famine and that there are children, women and children in skeletal states. There—did she say somebody died of starvation? I’m asking you, did anybody die of starvation? Yes, there have been documented cases. Read the newspapers, read the humanitarian—you just quoted—didn’t talk about St—you said there was no famine a moment ago. I didn’t say—I said I don’t know what famine is. Well, that’s a good get out, and it’s at the core of the discussion. Let’s take another question. Gentleman in the green jacket’s been waiting a while. Hi, my question is to Benny. I just want to know um if you were Palestinian, right, and you were born in Palestine, would you, given the circumstances, support a Palestinian right to resistance in the form that they have—the form—I would support Palestinian resistance if I was living under Israeli occupation. Yes, which is what the Palestinians are. Yes. Benny—Benny, we’re out of time. I do—it’s a very interesting question he posed, very interesting answer. I do want to ask about—because I watched a recent uh discussion you did, and you were telling your opponent, you need to have empathy, you need to put yourself in other people’s shoes. So let’s just continue on. Gentleman’s very good question. I thought—I mean, if you were a kid in Gaza right now, and you saw your home blown up by the Israeli Air Force, you saw your parents incinerated in front of you, you’re starving, what’s your view of Israel going to be? It’ll probably be very negative, but it might also be negative towards the Hamas who generated this conflict and led to that home being born—think the kid of thinking when he sees his parents killed by Israeli—he might think both things. He probably—he—what would you think if you were that kid? Probably I would describe the death of his parents to an Israeli bomb and to the Israelis, but I might on reflection later think maybe the Hamas shouldn’t have slaughtered so many Israelis on the 7th of October which led to this. I’m genuinely asking, is that your talking point, or is that as a human being, that’s how you would feel? As a human being, I think I would feel anger towards those who had just killed my parents, but I think growing up and on reflection I might think that theas had led to this. I might quite the empathy I was looking for, but uh we will—I mean, if that’s your honest answer, I’ll take it. That’s my answer. I appreciate that, Benny Morris. Thank you for joining me on the show today. Thank you to our audience in London’s Conway Hall. Thank you to our panel of experts uh who joined the discussion. That’s all we have time for. Thank you for watching at home. Good night. [Applause]