Benny Morris: An Apartheid State?, Judicial Overhaul, Gaza Occupation and other matters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2023
- Israel's preeminent historian, Benny Morris, discusses the latest Israeli controversies.
References:
He signed this letter accusing Israel of apartheid: sites.google.com/view/israel-...
He had also written this last year defending Israel against the same charge: www.wsj.com/articles/the-isra...
06:00 Israel is not and Apartheid state but the occupation is similar
15:45 Some Israelis are racist
20:00 Why is Israel not MORE rightwing?
29:21 Would Israel make peace?
36:17 Judicial Reform
42:36 Is this the elite vs. the deplorables?
50:00 Israeli civics are different than American
53:00 What if the '48 war had never happened?
57:18 Thoughts on the protests
1:00 Is Israeli democracy in danger?
1:07 Can America force Israeli concessions? 
Развлечения
Who was listening to Benny before the Israel Palestine think ramped up last weekend
I read Benny Morris's book in either 1999 or 2000 and I've seen him as a historical beacon on the issues of the Arab-Israel conflict.
Shame the interviewers don’t seem to understand Dr Morris’s answer. Seems the distinction between the Occupied Territories and Israel are lost on these guys 😂
No, it's lost on Benny Morris (or rather likely he pretends that it is, to satisfy his zionist overlords) that the state of Israel controls all of Palestine, including the West Bank and the Gaza strip via blockade; you cannot say that - in this here section of the country we control, behind this wall we built, we are instituting apartheid; but over here in this section we're gonna have democracy. LOL. Are you insane? No, you are then *not* a democracy.
Simple to understand seems like willful ignorance
@@L0rdLo55 seems like correct intuition that Benny Morris is full of shit.
It Seem to be a pattern with Thise guys not reflecting the point their guests are making. Knolledge and debunking propaganda both sides is the Way to peace I think.
Yeah I think they do understand the distinction but what I think they are not understanding is how he can accept a letter and you know sign his name to that letter that basically calls Israel and apartheid state and they're trying to really like see if his position has changed on that concept as applied to Israel Orpheus maintaining his position because it is a really big deal on the left because they've been calling Israel and apartheid state for over a decade I think now and he's always been against the use of the word, apartheid as applied to Israel and so it becomes this kind of football and they're trying to pass it so that it's understandable I think it's more for the audience than for themselves but possibly I think they just you know as interviewers and as people you know discussing these issues a lot of people don't know you know what all of this means they don't know exactly what a part-time means from South African point of view because they're looking at it from an American point of view or through a jim crow kind of history, purely race based. I have heard Coleman Hughes on his own podcast discuss this issue for like 2 hours with Benny Morris and I'm quite confident that Coleman Hughes knows the difference between how Palestinians in Israel are treated as Israeli citizens and how Palestinians in the West Bank are being treated and how that relates to the word and the use of the concept of the word apartheid.
You asked him like the same question about apartheid 5 times
Completely refusing to acknowledge his very clear answer each time. Just kept on saying "but people might get the impression that it's Apartheid" after Morris confirmed that yes, indeed he thinks it is (in the Occupied Territories).
He wasn’t getting the answer he wanted. He wanted Morris to say “No, Israel isn’t an apartheid state.”
The host probably has morals and he finds the uncomfortable truths about Israel conflicting.
He cannot accept the same answer-
Weird watching this after the events over the weekend.
They had no idea what was about to hit them in 2 days.
benny had to say the same stuff 5 times
right, he made it clear the first time. But apart from that, a good discussion.
Great podcast. Thank you for these honest conversations.
Thank you for this conversation. When was this recorded btw? Before or after October 7?
Before
Appetaid question is so he can sleep better at night be a Jews defending how they treat the Palestinians anyway doesn't matter after oct7 the question wnt matter he will want revenge on the Palestinians
So we don't want to call it occupation because there is no end date.
That was very enjoyable. You have to invite Benny Morris again now to hear his take in the war! Even better together with Noam Finkelstein or Aaron Mate
Norm is a psyco and soooo boring
I believe it now exists
Benny Morris is good, when i hear him talk about the IS / PAL problem, i get the feeling i'm getting a reasonably balanced summary of the history of the conflict, albeit it seem through a somewhat pro-Israeli lens.
Pro Israeli? He said it was a terrible thing that Orthodox Jews in Israel don't wear condoms and increase in population.
Pro-Israel more likely to criticize lsrael , pro-palestine also criticizes Israel 🤣
Please read his interview with Ari Shavit. His bias runs deep.
I think it's fair to say the bias of all stakeholders in the ISR/PAL conflict run deep, no?@@letsybetsy
@@letsybetsy Morris isn't pro-Israel in its current government form and their ambitions, the guy has gone to prison for refusing to serve at the West Bank.
To be completely fair, given that the interview happens right after the end of second intifada, I am not surprised to read Morris say what he says. I don't agree with the statements, but I understand why. Second Intifada was started after the best proposal for 2 state solution was rejected by PLO (Palestinian Authorities at that time) and caused 4 years of continuous terrorist attacks within Israel borders (if you average the attacks out, every 4th day you would watch the news and see a new suicide bombing case with multiple casualties),
It wasn't just Morris having a meltie due to that revolt. Sari Nusseybeh - a moderate Palestinian - who at that point of time has spend of his political career pushing for a two-state solution, by the end of second intifada was referring to it as a 'fantasy'.
The center / moderates in Middle East politics got wiped away in the politics after that event.
If israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is apartheid, the state of israel is apartheid, is that so difficult to see ?
Late to the party but totally apartheid. As a south african who lived the final 20 years of apartheid. Apartheid is afrikaans and literally means "separation" or "separate hood".
It does have to be about race. Apartheid in the way we lived it was about race. But it could as easily have been separating blondes from brunettes, and having different rules and laws for each of them. And that one will have more rights than the other.
For instance we had separate beaches, bathrooms. Different education systems. As a Colored i had a slighter better education than my Black brothers and sisters but far below the White person. There was a distinct hierarchy.
Hope that helps explain why a good majority of South Africans stand with Palestine.
But inexist apartheid between two states. Hamas and Fatah were elected to take care Palestinians lives and received billions of dollars to to it. You also can blame Israel for starving in Africa and all Asia
@@Alexdorio-kc9yf oh please read a book or something. Or do you not realize how stupid you sound? Issy says jump and all the little lemmings follow.
Benny Morris is an extremely interesting historian and he is really worth listening to.
Yes. If you want to stay ignorant though, just say that.@@kapu7064
Actually very interesting interview. I disagree with everybody here on many many of their stances but it was at least a level and good faith discussion that was worth sitting in on.
Great podcast. Helps to see the big picture of such a complicated conflict.
"The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid defines “the crime of apartheid” as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them” (Art. 2 of Apartheid Convention).
Apartheid stemming from ethno nationalism is good actually thinks the host 😂. I like how he doesn’t understand Beni Morris coz this claim was made in Righteous Victims 😂
This actually points to the actual ridiculous part of saying Israel is an Apartheid. The issue and real problem is not apartheid, the issue is the dispute on borders and the historical regional conflict. Without the occupation, there is no relevancy to apartheid, so the issue is the occupation, the historical reasoning of which must be studied to extrapolate how a solution can be reached.
The word apartheid elicits a certain emotional response from people which is why it is being used for rhetoric against Israel, but since the actual problem has a long historical context which most people don't care about, it's simply easier to use the term Apartheid so you have the emotional baggage of the word supporting your rhetoric.
It is an appartheid regime., its more or less incorporated most of the west bank and exerts total control over it. @@Firstname_Surname
FYI: The URL at the top of the description is broken.
1:04:00 Was this a miscommunication where Colman's question was about the more distant future based on the growing numbers of the ultra orthodox and Benny Morris's answer was about the near future based on the Judicial overhaul?
I didn't expect to have the Comedy Cellar RUclips channel to be one of my most informative follows so I really have to say thank you guys
"My name is Hershy Fishman. I love to eat fishes."
he answered both questions, saying that the orthodox population is expected to grow to roughly 30% of the population by 2060 because of the high birth rate and government subsidies, and that the younger liberal population would likely leave in the short terms if illiberal judicial reforms made isreal more like hungary or poland. interestingly, i have seen statistics that as many was 450,000 israelis have fled the country since the war, so morris's prediction may have become true for other reasons.
Damn, this interviewer doesn't understand English, does he? Morris repeated himself at least three times
Super interesting to listen to post 10/7. Your comment at 103:40 is ominous. Would love to hear his take now pursuant to the recent tragic events.
Benny morris used to say the truth but he’s deathly afraid of the truth about the brutal disgusting occupation
If you interview a historian, why not bootstrap the conversation with his view of the roots of this conflict, starting somewhere at the end of the 19th century so that your audience understands his lense through which he does his analysis.
So one could then watch another historian and check the differences and maybe you could even cross-check the views in the future interviews.
Also, please interview Ilan Pappe.
Ilan Pape is a complete misrepresenter of the historical whole picture by cherry picking facts. There was never was a Palestine and Pape conveys as if there was. The 1947 UN partition even talks about having a Jewish state and an Arab state ( not a Palestine state )
Ilan Pappe is a populist fact twister
I'm fairly confident he has covered the earlier periods in other interviews. It depends on the questions.
Unless Israel annexed the WB, how can it be an apartheid? It cannot be both occupied/disputed terrorities and an apartheid at the same time. Where in history does an occupying power extend citizenship rights to an occupied people?
It's the matter of settlers.
An occupying force has every right to do so as a matter of war, but to move in populations (i.e., transfer of Israelis into Judea/Samaria, or the West Bank) is what makes the situation untenable. On technically legal grounds you might be correct, but the population transfer of settlers is what creates the untenable situation of "settler only roads," etc., and leads to the conflicted notions around apartheid. Meaning, the troops stationed there are not the problem, but the settler population continues to create an uneven balance/'apartheid'. At the same time, Dr. Morris brings up a number of points that makes the situation especially difficult to resolve, including the number of Israelis living beyond the green line in the West Bank. However, the FLN-French War in Algeria led to over a million pied noirs moving back to France. So, who knows?
@j.r.kropsky3509 yes but benny morris stated in 2007, when there was still israeli settlement:
"As to the occupied territories, Israeli policy is fueled by security considerations (whether one agrees with them or not, or with all the specific measures adopted at any given time) rather than racism (though, to be sure, there are Israelis who are motivated by racism in their attitude and actions towards Arabs) - and indeed the Arab population suffers as a result. But Gaza’s and the West Bank’s population (Arabs) are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect to benefit from the same rights as Israeli citizens so long as the occupation or semi-occupation (more accurately) continues, which itself is a function of the continued state of war between the Hamas-led Palestinians (and their Syrian and other Arab allies) and Israel."
It's been "occupied" for decades and many consider it to be annexed territory due to the settlements. Just look at a map, the place is divided into Bantustans.
@@Ssalamanderr its not annexed territory
@@jcou6541 Then why are half a million settlers living there?
18:30 Benny Morris “The occupation began as a temporary measure … because Jordan started shooting “
Israel could have given the West Bank back to Jordan after the Six-Day War or allowed the Palestinian refugees to return. Refugees were allowed to apply to return but of the 120,000 only about 17,000 were allowed back.
Morris does not say when the Israel government decided it was to be permanent. This, as we know from the Israeli cabinet minutes, was worked out in the months after the war. It was suggested, by the right wing, to annex the West Bank then but this was rejected by the national unity cabinet in favour of occupation and a perpetual peace process.
At 24:35 Morris says “some people didn’t want to give up the West Bank” but it was a majority of the national unity cabinet. For a historian whose meticulous research has exploded myths of the 1948 war this is either sloppy or tendentious.
What does Dr Morris say about 13 October 2023 and the Gaza situation
I recall apartheid translating to “apartness” when I looked the word up over two decades ago.
then everything is apartheid. girls teams are apartheid, boys bathrooms are apartheid, Sports are apartheid.... the problem is people redefining terms in such a ridiculous way (usually politically) and normally only for one side rather than as a general description. Example is called Arab refugees refugees when those living in the Gaza Strip or "west" bank (Judan hills) do not fit the description.
Fantastic episode. Subscribed. I’ve become a big fan of Benny Morris and have his books. However, I must strongly disagree with the use of the word “apartheid for a couple different reasons:
1) I don’t think the meaning of Apartheid is changing, nor should it. It’s a rather careless use of the word as applied to Israel-and an unfair word choice. If we widen it from its core meaning re ethnic discrimination, then it misconstrues what’s really happening in Israel. We are not at all like South Africa.
2) The word is cheerfully weaponized by Israel’s detractors, and antisemites paint the inaccurate picture of Jewish supremicism, and other vilifications like “they think they’re the chosen people, and our country’s (the US, for example) tax dollars actively support it. Words are incredibly important and their sloppy use has direct consequences. We in the diaspora are on the receiving end of those consequences, and Israelis have no idea how much damage they cause to both Israel and the diaspora.
I believe the proper word is “occupation,” which refers to a national conflict re the suppression of certain freedoms by an occupying power. A couple racist ministers doesn’t make it occupation, just as a far right wing member of Congress doesn’t make the United States an apartheid state. Police departments discriminating against minorities isn’t apartheid, either. There is no official Israeli policy or doctrine to racially discriminate. However, yes, in the territories, people live under the conditions of occupation (in areas B and H2 especially)
However, it could even be argued that the occupation as a description has some gray areas. To begin with, Israel has essentially been at war with the Palestinians for 75 years. 75% of Palestinians were found to support Hamas in an October poll by Birzeit University. In a state of low intensity war, conditions make for occupation.
Redeploying would present a massive security risk to Israel, making it vulnerable to being bisected and flanked in a war- vulnerable on four fronts (including the 9 mile foank). Four from the West Bank, and another two in Gaza. So occupation is a necessary evil until leaders can figure out a way to ensure Israel’s security dilemma. It hasn’t happened in 75 years, and with 90% of Palestinians responding to the poll that co-existence is impossible, the conflict may continue for another 75 years.
Second, Palestinians in, say, East Jerusalem can theoretically apply for Israeli citizenship as far as I know-something that wouldn’t be an option in either an occupation or an apartheid state. How easy it is to obtain is another matter that I’m in no position to answer.
I really like and appreciate Coleman's input.
Really?! Does it really matter that it is an apartheid in one area but less than apartheid in another ?! So twisted
What part of this did you not understand? The intention of Apartheid in South Africa was driven by race, the thought of a superior white race. In Israel what you can call Apartheid is referring to the mechanisms in the occupated area of the West Bank and the conditions those who live in the West Bank live under. The reason for this condition is a occupation, that has happened because of wars driven by nationalism from both sides, and the countries around this area. So the most important thing here, is that the solution for the Israel/Palestine conflict can never be the same as the solution that ended the Apartheid in South Africa. Because the root of the problem is fundamentally different.
@@Cradleling It's not that different, the root is, but the problem is the same, one side has power and the right to determine themselves, the other doesn't. It doesn't really matter how each side feel. It might be that the palestinians would smash and kill Israel if given power, but one thing is for sure, they're going to try their best to do that without power, and more have died with them completely locked down than ever did when they were more free.
@@ephre The root of the problem is completely different. Any other claim, just seems like the white man trying to whitewash his history.
The internal problem of a apartheid system is not that one side has power and another doesn't, because that dynamic you basically have alot of places in the world. It's the matter of oppression based on your origin, and those mechanisms are absolutely at place when a area is occupied for this long. But again, just forcing Israel to "resolve" the situation will not solve the situation. Please read about the history of this place. The world needs to learn more about this conflict to help resolve it. Throwing out the apartheid label is honestly nothing more than virtue signalling at this point. If one actually wants to help Palestinians, do some reading. And apply your knowledge to the world.
@@Cradleling not sure where to start from because you bring so many unrelated ideas and somehow you make a conclusion.
Between river and sea it is an Apartheid AND a a half century occupation that BTW includes Gaza According to the UN and according to HRW, Amnesty, and Israel’s own B’Tselem, which says is “based on Jewish supremacy”.
In Gaza and west bank it is indescribable, Desmond Tutu himself said it is WORSE than SA. Chomsky says it is a bad analogy since in Palestine it is MUCH worse. I would listen to them not to you.
In Israel, currently a family from Europe lives in my grandfather’s own house he built himself. In Jerusalem , a Jewish religion school occupies my wife’s grandfather’s house. In Israel by law our grandfathers are lesser race to have the right to go to their own houses. But someone from NYC has the right to live in his house and the right to self determination. Palestinians in Israel do not have the right to self determination.
One solution is for the world to pressure Israel to stop all these human rights abuses through economic pressure. Otherwise Israel will keep doing the atrocities it has been doing for 75 years
@@khaledzurikat7190 The point is that you can't use the analogy from SA. Because its a totally different circumstance. That is the point.
What needs to happen is a two state solution based on the borders of 67. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza needs to end for that to happen. And this is where my point arises again, remove the occupation(of 1967 borders) and you remove the conditions that would qualify as an apartheid. Therefor the distinction from SA is important.
And no, no one has seriously ever used the term apartheid to describe Israel from the river to the sea. There are a large population of arabs living within Israels border as citizens of Israel. The apartheid conditions is happening in the occupied areas (from 1967), as defined by the UN.
I would start listening to Israeli historians, the likes of Benny Morris. He knows more about this situation than Chomsky or Tutu ever will. Chomsky is pretty clueless when it comes to anything outside of US policies.
Lastly, I feel for your families loss. But start learning the history of most countries around the world, and you would start to see some trends. People are just hypocrites or ignorant. Violence and occupation is the cradle for most nations, sadly.
What about inviting Avi Shlaim and/or Ilan Pappe?
2 charlatans
Wow. This was Oct 5th. Crazy.
*It is by **_every definition_** an Apartheid state.*
Jewish settlers and Palestinians live under different rules, privileges and protections under the law in the Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem, based solely on ethnicity and/or religion. And there are specific laws governing the treatment of the groups differently.
In one word: Apartheid.
Did you not listen to the first 15 minutes? It’s not based on ethnicity or religion. Any Israeli citizen (Jewish/Muslim/Arab) has the same rights. Palestinian citizens (who live under PA governance) have different rights. It’s specifically NOT based on race. You can still say it’s unjust. But get your facts right.
This actually points to the actual ridiculous part of saying Israel is an Apartheid. The issue and real problem is not apartheid, the issue is the dispute on borders and the historical regional conflict. Without the occupation, there is no relevancy to apartheid, so the issue is the occupation, the historical reasoning of which must be studied to extrapolate how a solution can be reached.
The word apartheid elicits a certain emotional response from people which is why it is being used for rhetoric against Israel, but since the actual problem has a long historical context which most people don't care about, it's simply easier to use the term Apartheid so you have the emotional baggage of the word supporting your rhetoric.
@@Firstname_Surnamejust said a whole lotta nothing
@@jonathanmack1831he’s referring to rights within Palestinian Territories. There are different rights for settlers vs Palestinians. Watch some on the ground videos to understand the reality on the ground. It’s pretty shocking.
@@jonathanmack1831
I'm talking about the occupied territories. Looking forward to your denial.
You got my sub for this interview. Excellent questions!
It’s notable that Mr Morris says of Palestinian citizens of Israel “they are treated fairly well.” He doesn’t say they enjoy equal rights. This is equivalent to saying “they should shut up and be happy that they have a better life than in the West Bank” which is in itself racist. And of course, the discrimination documented by Amnesty among other human rights organizations in Israel toward Palestinians is completely driven by race, not by nationality, since those Palestinians are citizens of Israel. Of course it is the same in the West Bank, despite what Mr Morris says.
@standwithpeace
Two points:
- the reality is that Israel’s Arabs have equal rights, whether Morris mentions it or not.
- I just listened to another video of Morris (sorry. I don’t know how to link) took place about 3 months ago, about 20 minutes long. He does say, Israeli Arabs have equal rights and makes the distinction of No apartheid in Israel but yes apartheid in the West Bank.
@@aaronfarkas6890 I notice that you’ve given nothing but a RUclips video reference as evidence of this assertion. See my second comment on this video which lists just a few of the ways in which Arabs do not have equal rights in Israel, as documented by Amnesty International in a 280 page report.
8:50 Semantics. This historian keeps using the term "Arab", so of course the apartheid is based on race. In fact, many South Africans veterans will openly tell you the Israeli system in West Bank and Gaza is even worse. I'm giving up on this interview and I suggest you do too.
Maybe the term Jim Crow would fit better?
No, not really. African-Americans were still US citizens, just monstrously discriminated against. Palestinians outside Israel are stateless.
37:00 on never getting to the constitution. _JC
This Noam loves being a victim. You can see a sample of it around 21 minutes.
Benny Morris is talking in circles burying the lead. It's obvious it's true. "Israel is not apartheid state, it's just practices it" GTFOOH
The term “apartheid”, an Afrikaans word, derived from the French term “mettre à part”, literally translated to “separating, setting apart.” Apartheid is a policy that is founded on the idea of separating people based on racial or ethnic criteria.
The international law standard on Apartheid isnt restricted to a states internal actions and laws. It also applies to its actions wuth external factors. In 76, Israel was declared an Apartheid state based on its actions with its own citizens (who were under military rule till 67) and its actions in the occupied territories.
Absolutely 💯
This actually points to the actual ridiculous part of saying Israel is an Apartheid. The issue and real problem is not apartheid, the issue is the dispute on borders and the historical regional conflict. Without the occupation, there is no relevancy to apartheid, so the issue is the occupation, the historical reasoning of which must be studied to extrapolate how a solution can be reached.
@@deficrypto1234 The word apartheid elicits a certain emotional response from people which is why it is being used for rhetoric against Israel, but since the actual problem has a long historical context which most people don't care about, it's simply easier to use the term Apartheid so you have the emotional baggage of the word supporting your rhetoric.
@@Firstname_SurnameYeah people should also remember that the only reason Israel controls the West Bank is Jordan attacked them during the 6 Day War.
If I am mistreated based on race or similarly mistreated based on nationality as you proclaim, what's the difference to me? I'm still being mistreated in a similar way or as South African black people that visited Gaza and the West Bank said: "It's worse than our Apartheid!" This is why people criticize you, you want to simultaneously appease your Zionist critics and your anti-Zionist critics but instead you have to pedantically pretend like one mistreatment is somehow less because it's not race-based. Many people do see Palestinians as Arabs and think of Arabs as a different race, so even with that argument your logic doesn't check out, Morris. You are the voice of the "enlightened centrist" in a matter of injustice, making you like the white liberal MLK and Malcolm X disdained for their appeasement of injustice by playing the centrist.
Whether or not it's legally based on race or nationality, Israeli leaders sure love fearmongering about "arabs."
Ok so are you just going to ignore the 2 million Arabs living in Israel with full rights as citizens?
ruclips.net/video/i_MfnpuafBg/видео.html
As Dominique de Villepin said: of course you can move out 500T settlers from the WestBank, you have to, like we did with 1 miljoen France people from Algeria
54:46 Crazy how even his hypothetical makes sense.
A comment that stood out was saying the west bank is an apartheid state might sound like you're criticizing Israel.
Oh my goodness you shouldn't be critical of Israel. Mercy me, I better clutch my pearls.
I just read that Jordan doesn't want the West Bank
They relinquished their claim to it in the 1990s, yes.
Okay it's about nationality rather than race. The main point is apartheid is apartheid regardless.
Why is this a conversation the comedy cellar of all institutions is having?
"Israel is not and Apartheid state but the occupation is similar" - It was not a murder, just a homicide
Yeah seems very pedantic. It's not apartheid we just rule over millions of people who have no rights or say in our government. We force them to live in little enclaves though so you can't call us an apartheid state!
I don’t know why people don’t get this. morris is saying Israel proper is not apartheid.
What is going on on the West Bank is similar. The West Bank is not part of Israel. They have not annexed it. They foolishly constructed settlements. But the borders are not set. What was proposed in late Dec and January 2000-2001 and in 2008 over 90 percent of the West Bank would be part of a Palestinian state.
Morris rejected serving his military service in the West Bank. He does not think it is part of Israel.
This actually points to the actual ridiculous part of saying Israel is an Apartheid. The issue and real problem is not apartheid, the issue is the dispute on borders and the historical regional conflict. Without the occupation, there is no relevancy to apartheid, so the issue is the occupation, the historical reasoning of which must be studied to extrapolate how a solution can be reached.
@@Firstname_Surname What's your opinion on the Nation State law?
It is de facto annexed, the ruling coalition is explicitly concerning themselves all the time with “preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state” at all costs.
The Likud founding charter calls for one Israeli state “river to the sea”
Illegal settlements in West Bank are among other things, an effective attempt at destroying the viability of the viability of a Palestinian state
It is the longest occupation in the world, as an anomaly it necessitates the scrutiny as to whether it’s a de facto annexation
How many years in the captains chairs does a coalition, which explicitly holds annexationist sentiments, need before it demands scrutiny as to whether the longest standing occupation in the world is de facto annexed. What percent of the government or what levers of power have to be held by annexationists before the intentions of the state at large can be said to be annexationist? How many people calling for “greater Israel” before it undermines the temporary nature of an occupation? It seems obvious the political will for annexation is there, in vital positions of power, is ascendant, and this will is manifest in state policy.
What do we need exactly before we can say the territories are de facto annexed?
The establishment of Israel was a very flawed affair, but it was never corrected. It should have been corrected immediately! This is not the way things work. If the foundation of a building is not resilient, then sooner or later it will collapse.... - Covering your ears, closing your eyes and singing lalala does not change the reality!
If we want to solve the Palestine problem once and for all, Israel must shrink significantly and a state for the Palestinian Arabs must finally be created on at least 50% of the territory. Otherwise, the status of permanent crisis and war will remain.
It is a highly pathological situation, this cannot be allowed to continue. It has highly destructive effects on the whole world, right from the beginning. The UN must finally intervene decisively: Stop the willful ignorance, stop the unnecessary suffering. This problem must be solved NOW.
The Israelis want the entirety of historic Palestine. They never wanted peace. Obviously. They've built settlements every day of their existence. They've built settlements during peace talks. Most presidents have loathed Israel's leadership. Netanyahu announced a settlement expansion plan the day Biden arrived on his last visit to Israel before this recent conflict.
56:00 to the victor goes the spoils
Thanks for this!
A lot of times the focus on apartheid is placed on East Jerusalem, but interestingly the majority of Palestinians living there would prefer to have Israeli citizenship than Palestinians under a hypothetical two state solution. It’s really hard to imagine that people would choose to live in a supposed apartheid state, rather than have their own.
In essence, this poll says the majority of Palestinians seem to recognize that it isn’t apartheid, but occupation in the absence of a peace plan that is the problem.
Life in a rich apartheid state can be better than life in a poor non apartheid state. Why is that hard to imagine? Does this make the apartheid state not an apartheid state? Obviously not.
@@chrislesner you say “rich apartheid” state and the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank say “country I would still prefer to have citizenship of, over that of my current country” and I bet you still claim to be a “defender of Palestinians.”
Remember when they polled the ANC in South Africa and a majority of their members said they would prefer to live under the white apartheid regime? Oh wait no, that literally never happened because they prob would have rather lived in abject poverty than in a true apartheid state.
Typical vanguardist leftist, I’m sure.
“I, Chris lesner, who feels (probably from the comfort of a western nation) that I know what is truly best for the poor Palestinian people, says Israel is still an Apartheid state! They are simply confused because Israel has made Palestine so poor. When they say they would prefer to live as Israelis rather than Palestinians, they KNOW NOT WHAT THEY SAY. Me, IM EDUCATED on the complexities of power structures and can see from thousands of miles away what they can not see on the ground with their own eyes!
Nothing says “I care about Palestinians” more than ignoring the majority of them just to dunk on Israel. Literally: “fuck what the majority of Palestinians say, my entire worldview hinges on the fact that Israel must be bad, and those Palestinians aren’t gonna take that away from me with their silly, WRONG opinions!”
Funny, the arab nationist/Muslim brotherhood movement is also a vanguardist movement led mostly by non-Palestinian wealthy people who also think they know what is best for the Palestinian people and ignore their needs and wants to ensure they promote the sole a narrative that “Israel bad.”
Am I supposed to believe you haven’t bought their propaganda hook, like and sinker when you come into the comments to push aside Palestinians who say “we would prefer to be Israeli” and your first response is “but Israel bad!!”
Apartheid or not is so beyond the pale that it’s sad you would choose to focus on that rather than the majority of West Bank Palestinians telling you that living under what you call “apartheid” is better for their quality of life.
It seems like a true supporter of Palestinians and not someone caught up in Arab nationalist rhetoric would put a bit more focus on the actual opinions and wants of Palestinians rather than focusing solely on how bad Israel supposedly is. But I digress. You do you.
interesting at 21:00 or so the host talks about the glee in which the Palestinians celebrate the terrorist attacks, and this was posted 2 days BEFORE 10/7, which was the epitome of that glee, including by the terrorists themselves. Unreal.
If you google for the etymology of the word "apartheid", you will find that it has nothing to do with race. It is an Afrikaans word, meaning simply "separateness". In South Africa, the separateness was based on race. In Israel, it is based on nationalism. That is all the difference. Hence, it was apartheid in South Africa until it was ended and it is apartheid in Israel now at least in the occupied territories. Morris is just ignorant of the etymology of the word, "apartheid", period.
You gotta be stupid. We’re not going by “etymology” we’re going by international law. And even with nationalism, Israel got a lot of Arabs and Palestinians in Israel, therefore can’t be apartheid.
Benny Morris is my hero. He can speak without emotion, factually from a historical standpoint. Everything is so heated. He is not, and therefore I can hear ALL that he has to say.
So it’s not an apartheid state. Just what it does in Gaza and West Bank is🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
So it’s an apartheid state
Just a completely idiotic interviewer. Begins with "this guy is the highest authority on this subject" and then as soon as he says something you disagree with, you're like "Hm, how can you say that?"
Uh, perhaps because he's an authority on the subject.
They’re still in recovery mode after Norman’s episode
if multiple human rights organizations determine that you reach the threshold for apartheid, you probably are an apartheid state. Did anyone read the 280 page report by Amnesty International?
😂😂😂
Try using the word Palestinian instead of "arab".
They were Arabs historically, Palestinian national identity is a relatively new concept in history
@@Firstname_Surnamecheck the old testament, replacing P with an F
@@marygarrapa3537 Haha, that's so hilarious that you think the Philistines are somehow related to modern-day Palestinians. Do you have any evidence to support that apart from the obvious naming comparison which is completely redundant considering Palestina is what the Romans called the region over 1000 years after the existence of the Philistines?
@@Firstname_Surnamewe're not talking historically, we're talking today!
@@marygarrapa3537 Do you consider your comment an adequate response to me asking you for evidence for your claims?
Morris doesn't like you less Noam he just agrees with Coleman more often. Maybe check what you say and how you say it rather than taking disagreements personally.
Add about a minute 28 I I start thinking anytime I've heard anymore is talk about this in this way where if the land had been split pretty evenly like Jews on the west and and Arabs on the East that is the West Bank essentially as all Arab probably more than the West Bank but maybe not including Jerusalem or splitting Jerusalem East and West. I think that I've heard in the past that the jordanians and the Egyptians did not want that many Palestinians and that that was one of the reasons why Gaza remained part of Israel and why the West Bank remained part of Israel in a sense and according to international law Israel could not annex those two pieces of land and Israel also didn't want that many Palestinians in a Jewish Democratic State because it wouldn't be majority Jewish anymore. I mean as far as I know from the past not only Benny Morris but other people have said and I've read that Israel tried to give Gaza back to Egypt and Egypt refused it. Also the West Bank the well they tried not to attack it and because they won they acquired it it's all seemingly very passive. yeah it's like the Palestinians always seem to fall through the cracks you know with the initial land deals and whatnot that happened before 48 it seems like the Palestinians were you know a mixture of almost leaderless and when they were with a leader they chose the wrong side (the Nazis) but you know the League of Nations the UN and England and France seem to almost completely disregard the Palestinians. I think that all of the Arabs would fall in line with the hashemites and except for in Jordan they did not. It's very funny there's the sense of pan-arabism when they tried to use you know like a family like the hashemites that were considered to be all related to the family of Muhammad which could have helped with this whole Pan-arab idea but it largely failed. I think part of the reason why it failed so badly with the Palestinians was because they considered themselves as Syrian Palestinian they didn't consider themselves as you know anything close to the hashemite idea and they also were sick and tired of the Ottomans and they didn't want to be ruled over by Ottomans or Jews or hashemites. The other reason I think that did it largely failed in the region is also that you know they tried to kind of replace the Ottomans with the hashemites. Even though nationalism was a transplanted European idea I think that it gave different regional groups means of self-identification after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I think so if they had tried to lie the Palestinians with Faisal in Syria then it might have worked better instead of trying to align the Palestinians with Jordan. I also think that if the mufti of Jerusalem had not been so opposed to the Jewish immigration to the degree to go to the Nazis instead of working things out with the British and the syrians I think this whole situation would have been different. I think it's a real tragedy that King Fisal, I think it was in Syria got assassinated. I don't know these are just things I'm getting between the lines of all the stuff I've read and seen and heard specially from Benny Morris but not exclusively for sure it's just kind of a synthesis of ideas that I've gotten I'm trying to understand the overall conflict between Israel and the Levantine Arabs.
Now invite Ilan Pappe. He was in California just a few weeks ago, you could have flown him to New York and have him in person.
Why
@@hmmmmmmminteresting Because one is zionist and the other is anti-zionist. Both are Israeli and on the opposite sides of the so called "new historiography". They both based their works about the events around 1948 on the same declassified archives; but interpret it differently. Namely Benny Morris accuses Ilan Pappe of being an activist historian and of relying too much on oral history. Ilan Pappe doesn't deny that his morality and politics inform his approach to historical works, and doesn't think that it changes the facts; and accuses Benny Morris of being too much of a purist who relies exclusively on written archives and doesn't correlate them with witness testimony in order to paint a more complete historical picture; and of essentially being a zionist apologist.
It’s funny how everyone is blaming settlements except the Palestinians who live in those areas and work for them. Benny starts with saying Arabs want all of Palestine but then turns around to blame settlers. Just confused about how Morris views this. Important to know in order to move forward somehow
Benny Morris makes sense. I don’t think the host got what he said even though he clearly said what he said 5 times.
Morris refused to serve in the Israeli reserves about 30 years ago when he was supposed to serve in the West Bank. He makes a clear distinction between Israel proper and the West Bank
He is a minority. As fas as Israel is concerned, they own the West Bank.
@@deficrypto1234 Same goes for the Palestinians, they think they own all the land including internationally recognized Israel
@deficrypto1234 you don't know what you are talking about. Have you polled the entire Israeli population regarding to the west Bank occupation that you say it with such confidence? Most of the Israelis won't set foot or work near the west Bank settlements.
@@smarinay If u don't know what I am talking about don't comment. The Likud charter is clear if sole Jewish sovereignty from river to the sea. The word Israel in this context refers to the major policy makers.
Semantic volleyball. If it walks like a duck... It's brutal colonialism. It's a problem. This is a worthless discussion. How about call it Apartheid light? Apartheid plus?
Propaganda prize? Facts based analysis isn't propaganda. Bibi saying Amalek describes exactly what Israel wants to do.
Interesting.
I remem er that Beguin wanted to return Gaza to Egypt but Egypr didn't accept
Pronunciation is apar-tide.
I love how they talk about illegally occupied land like their “giving 🇵🇸 something”
While Israel recognizes marriages from abroad. A Jew and a Muslim cannot get married in Israel. People say it's because Israel doesn't have civil marriage, but it's the government which controls which religious authorities are allowed to perform marriages.
interesting
Why don’t you obsess on the meaning of terrorism. Who invested it. Who has committed it for a hundred years. And who leads in it today?
this interview didn't age well
Best comedy show I've seen in a while
Benny Moriss is a true historian unlike the biased so-called historian Ilan Pappe
There was no Israel in 1930 what are you talking about?
Colmen talling rubbish. BM is impressive.
Noam can be so dense.
Noam brought Morris on to comfort his conscience as an Israel loving liberal but Morris can't help slapping Noam with facts. What a massive amount of cognitive dissonance Noam must suffer from 😅
Noam trying to sh*t a log called apartheid 😅
Benny Morris is very balanced. Thank you.
He should really interview Prof Ilan Pappé. He's kind of the left-wing Israeli antidote and is considered also a seminal 'New Historians' who sees the same evidence from a different lens.
Benny morris has attacked pappes legitimacy, rightfully so
Pappe is a nut.
Well, than yoy have a WAR, and the rest is history :/
Benny is no Rambam.
Benny Morris is very clear: West Bank military government has a kind of apartheid system, Israel does not, therefore ISRAEL is not an apartheid state, but the West Bank has aspects of it.
West Bank government this, Israel proper this. Two different places with two different systems.
How do the podcasters not understand this? They seem to be baffled constantly like Israel can only be one or the other, like Israel is one entity and not many with different rules based on Israel proper, Area A, Area B or Area C (and Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, etc.)
I find this especially embarrassing considering that the United States also had two systems in place: The Southern segregationist systems and the rest of the country. New York wasn't Mississippi, Harlem wasn't Montgomery, Alabama. The United States was not an apartheid segregationist government, all federal amendments and systems were openly saying that you cannot discriminate based on race.
So, dear podcasters: Was the US an apartheid state or was it a completely equal democratic state? Can only be one or the other, or do you see why this is stupid?
Also, I find it really short-sighted how little these Americans know about the peace process. They seem to think that left-wingers will always be for unconditional peace and that everyone who criticizes the Palestinians will be a right-winger. Morris knows what he's talking about, he isn't naive. The Israelis gave a lot to the Palestinians as a compromise, and the Palestinian factions saw that as a weakness to exploit and to fight on until the whole "liberation/decolonisation of Palestine", meaning 7th October events...
There's a fascinating interview with Benny Morris where he equates the ethnic cleansing and subsequent relocation into concentration camps of Palestinians during the war, to the same having been done to the indigenous people of the Americas, which is obviously a correct observation. But instead of condemning it, he says that both were necessary and good. I guess I can respect the ideological consistency and honesty of such a dark and ugly realpolitik philosophy.
Idiotic attempt at an analogy. It would sort of work if the US military troops were enforcing the segregation in the southern states as a matter of federal policy.
The state of Israel controls all of Palestine, including the besieged Gaza strip, and all the invented alphabet areas of the West Bank. Yes, it is all or nothing, period; you cannot be an apartheid over here, but a democracy over here; very fucking convenient.
The Israelis gave a lot? What's a lot? 20% of a country that was stolen? And without full sovereignty either. That's an insult, not a compromise. Who are you kidding? Of course Benny Morris isn't naive; he thinks the rest of us are, to believe that there was ever any intent on the part of the zionists to share the land equally.
The United States was an appartheid segregationist government. Of course it was
It's not an Arab Israeli conflict. I don't know if he stated it that way as propaganda, out of ignorance or to bolster the lie that I've heard for years that there is no Palestine.
It's a Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
No, it's not propaganda nor out of ignorance to bolster a lie. In fact Benny Morris is one of the most well-respected historians on the matter regardless of your political stance, he is quoted in almost all academia regarding this subject. The reason it's first and foremost the Arab-Israeli conflict is because Palestine was a name of a land, a region, occupied by various forces and empires throughout the years, there were also Palestinian Jews, for example. All the major wars that occurred after Israel's formation were by SURROUNDING ARAB STATES, not simply by Palestinians, and therefore historically it has been called the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Its religios. As long as we live. People will know islam is a fraud
I like Morris because he doesn't try to simplify the very complexity of the issues around the Arab-Israel conflict, which eventually evolved in the Israel-Palestine issue or conflict. The fact is that the Arabs lost war after war. And both Palestinians and Jews have a claim to the land, religious, ethnic or otherwise. In the end, it's complex because Israel won. Had the Arabs won those wars, it would have been a lot simpler, the Jews would have killed or expelled and end to the story.
He also admits that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in the Nakba and he says that it was a good thing. Palestinians living in Israel aren't even allowed to learn about the Nakba in school or commemorate it
The Jews would not have been killed.
Don't put your own bloodlust on other people.
Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in harmony for over 1,000 years. Jews and Muslims even fought together against the invaders during the First Crusade against the barbaric, animalistic European Christian invaders.
European Zionist settler Jews have no claim to the land. What is their claim based on?
@@coolbugfacts1234 Many Palestinians fled, many were ethnically cleansed. They were ethnically cleansed because many of them were either militants themselves who killed and fought against the Jews or actively supported them. The Palestinians who stayed are now Israelis and enjoy full rights under the law as citizens.
@@Firstname_Surname how many? Out of the 750,000, how many fled on their own, were militants, and "actively supported them" (as if that's a good reason to be robbed and expelled, but let's put those in there too, if you can quantify them). How many?
Too much comparisons to America, which is silly
So good. Noam you are a good dude. Honest and open and a good interviewer. Coleman might be to most knowledgeable non-Jew in the podcast game. A title once held by Michael Moynihan.
Noam, you are a racist
Thank you for having Benny Morris on. We should all read his books.
USA have a big problem, when shall US pay back a lot of thing to the lakota and dakota people and so on. I listen to Russel Means, John Trudell and Oren Lyons on RUclips and have learn from their situation.
Coleman Hughes is wonderful to add to your mix. He is thoughtful. He is measured. He is not attacking. He seeks to understand without judgement… that doesn’t mean is that he is not judgemental… He surely has his opinion, but he does not seek “gotcha” moments. I learn when I listen to him… I cringe when I listen to the other’s attacking. Afterall, isn’t the purpose to seek an understanding???
If you want to know everything that Coleman Hughes believes, just read Thomas Sowell. Both have fantastical ahistorical analysis of the world. Neither of them have produced a single peer reviewed work.
Judicial overhaul would have turned Israel into a minority Jewish theocracy
Not the most famous , famous along with Avi Shlaim and Ilon Pappe.
The fact that any person living ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, can automatically achieve citizenship BASED SOLELY ON THEIR ANSCESTORY. Very similar to 1930s Germany more than South Africa at its worst…
"putin is acting like hitlar"
well, netenyahu is acting worse...... how about we be concerned more about that ?
Only he’s not acting worse
Israel offered a full Palestine State on numerous times. In 2000 Arafat and Hamas responded to an offer of statehood with suicide bombers in Israel. Security is not apartheid if the "controlled" population rejects its own independance?