Norman Finkelstein Cuts Through Israel’s Propaganda: Gaza Genocide, Oct. 7 & Netanyahu’s Corruption

So the October 7th attacks happen and for those of us who are not really following Gaza,

I was definitely in that category, it seems to kind of come out of nowhere and the main

“question that I had was, well, how could Israel not have seen this coming?”

But what I didn't think enough about is why did the attack happen? What was the context for that? Which is not to excuse it, I just want to be clear, I'm not excusing that that or any killing of innocence. But what was happening in Gaza right before that?

Well, it's not just the right before that. Gaza becomes Gaza in 1948 after Israel expels roughly 750,000 Palestinian Arabs from the area that becomes Israel.

“Of those 750,000, 300,000 are expelled to Gaza and they become roughly 80 percent of”

Gaza's population, obviously swamping the original Gaza's population, now there are all these Gaza's, it's an old Egyptian citizenship at that point. In 1948, Gaza is simply part of Mandate Palestine, okay, a British Mandate Palestine.

So about 80 percent of the population are now refugees.

If you go back and look at the literature, it's quite interesting that already in the 1950s, one of the issues were stationed in Gaza. This is when Gaza is under Egyptian control, okay, because Egypt gains a administrative control over Gaza after the 1948 war.

“Already it's being described as a concentration camp.”

Now this is under Egyptian control. We fast forward to 1967. In July 1967, Al Gore Senior, the father of the person sent her from Tennessee. Correct. Al Gore Senior, he goes to visit Gaza, that's correct.

And then he comes back and he testifies, before Congress on what he observed. And he describes Gaza as, quote, a concentration camp on the send, if you will. So already beginning in 1948, outside observers coming to Gaza, that's their reference. Now in 2004, the head of Israel's national security council, his name is Giora Island. Giora Island is not a peacemaker.

He's still among the links, still very active advising, right, as we speak, is really government. He was the one who said around 2024, he said, if epidemics break out in southern Gaza, that's a good thing. It's a good thing for the epidemics. Epidemic of disease?

Yes. And now, in 2004, he's having Congress a conversation with senior U.S. officials. And he describes Gaza as, quote, a huge concentration camp.

Now, bear in mind, the first individual, as I mentioned, that's 50s, early, mid-60s, concentration

camp had a very definite resonance. And yet, those are the words that left to mind, or those are the descriptives that left to mind. Giora Island is Israeli, he's Jewish, he's the Chief of Israel's, the head of Israel's national security council, as a Jew, and as an Israeli, surely he knew the resonance of describing a parcel of land as a concentration camp.

That's the descriptive he used. Now, here is the not-footnote, but here is the big qualifier. That was Gaza in its best days.

In 2006, our President George Bush, he embarked on what he called democracy promotion. He might remember that phase.

“And part of democracy promotion was, he told the Gaza Palestinians, they had to hold elections.”

Hamas did not want to participate in the elections, because they saw it as part of what was called the Oslo process, namely when Clinton, President Clinton, Yasah Arrafat, and it's Hacra being signed in agreement in 1993, which Hamas felt was a sellout. So they didn't want to participate in the elections, because they thought it was part of what was called the Oslo process.

Pressures put on them, pressures put on them, they finally agreed to participate.

Well, they run on a reform platform, because the Palestinian Authority is hopelessly corrupt, and they win the election. Well, the wrong side won. Hillary Clinton later said, "We made a big mistake. We should have made sure that Hamas didn't win, which is her concept of a democratic election."

So the moment Hamas gets elected, Jimmy Carter, who observed the election, he called it, quote, "free," and completely free and fair elections. That's how he described it.

It was actually the first free and fair democratic elections in the Arab world.

The first time.

“Some people say Tunisia before, but I think it's credible to say these were the first”

for the free and fair elections. Israel at that moment, in imposes, and then followed by the U.S. and the EU, imposes this medieval blockade on Gaza. It draws up this long list of things that you can't allow, into Gaza. You can't allow in chocolate.

You can't allow in baby chips. You can't allow in potato chips. You can't allow in any condiments. You can't allow in musical instruments. You can't allow in notebooks.

And they said they were very open. Well, I shouldn't say they were very open about it, but the documents were eventually released. They were going to put the people of Gaza on a quote, "humanitarian minimum diet," which is another way, is the euphemistic way of saying a starvation plus diet. And they said they were very open about their goal.

We're going to keep the Gaza economy on the precipice of collapse so the people will

ultimately remove how much from office, what was called the view, remember, and Elon

called back that far, but when the popular unity government came into power in Chile in 1971, and the US was very upset about that, and they said that we're going to turn the screws

“on Chile until the economy screams, and that's what Israel attempted to do in Gaza.”

And by 2008, the UN humanitarian chief, Mary Robinson, she visited Gaza, and she said, "a whole civilization is being destroyed. I'm not exaggerating, a whole civilization is being destroyed. By October 6th, I think it was the Economist magazine described Gaza as a sinking ship. A UN official described it as a toxic slum, it was a disaster, a disaster zone, a human

made disaster zone, that illegal inhuman blockade of Gaza, and then every few years Israel launched what it called an operation in Gaza. They used the term "we're going to mold the one in Gaza," which is a kind of humorous metaphor until you factor in that one half of Gaza's population are children.

are cracking the skulls of the children of Gaza." So how do you pray?

Well, for a lot of people, the answer is complicated, or friends at the Hallow app, ready to

help make it much simpler. If you're uncertain about where to start your prayer journey or what to say when you talk to God, then Hallow's newest prayer challenge is perfect for you. It's 21 days of prayer designed to help you intentionally make time for faith. Probably the most important thing, it will change your life.

21 days of prayer, you will hear from people from totally different backgrounds and how they pray, pastors, nurses, athletes, like Dion Sanders, all answering the same critical question of how they communicate with Jesus. It's on abstract theological exercise, it's a comprehensive experience that brings you closer to God.

That's the point. So if you're not sure what to begin in your relationship with God, if it seems kind of intimidating, answer this invitation. It got 21 days with Hallow and see what happens. Download Hallow for three months for free at Hallow.com/talker Hallow, H-A-W-O-W.

Why are men coming to a urologist to talk about their marriages?

I'm Dr. Justin Humin, a urologist practicing in Beverly Hills, and the answer is, because

ED doesn't stay in the bedroom. I get it, this isn't just physical, it's person.

“That's why I recommend Rujiat Ready, a 3-in-1 treatment that works on your body and your”

brain, fast acting, long-lasting, prescribed by a licensed physician. Get started at rujiat.com/justin-tiday. That's R-U-G-I-E-T.com/justin. So most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to feel horrible, exhausted, foggy, disconnected from themselves, but it does happen and it happens slowly.

You're working hard, you're showing up and in your energy disappears by midday, your focus is dull, your weight won't move, a lot of people are told, that's just getting all, that's what it is, but that's not actually true. For many men and women, these are not personal fears, they are signals tied to your metabolism, your hormones, and nutrient in balances that go inditected for years, you don't

even know, you're deficient.

“And that's why we're happy to partner with Joian Blokes, a company that was built for”

people who were old, done guessing and ready to figure out what exactly is going on. And that starts with comprehensive lab work and a one-on-one consultation with a licensed clinician. And actually human being explains what's happening inside you and builds a personalized plan, which includes hormone optimization, peptide therapy targeted supplements.

So don't settle, go to JoianBlokes.com/tucker, use the code Tucker for 50% off your lab work, and 20% off all supplements that's joy and blokes.com/tucker, use the code Tucker, 50% off labs, 20% off supplements, JoianBlokes, get your edge back, dot com slash Tucker. So, you had operation, cast led in 2008, nine, operation pillar of defense in 2012, operation protective edge 2014, these high-tech killing sprees.

And operation protective edge ended in 2014, it was 51 days.

“I believe it began July 7th and ended August 26th, I'm pretty sure.”

When it ended, the head of the international committee of the Red Cross, his name was Peter Moore, he went to Gaza, now bear in mind the job description of the head of the ICRC, the international committee of the Red Cross, is basically the tour more zones.

He walked out of Gaza and he said, "Never in my life have I seen the level of destruction

that I saw in Gaza." Now just to give your listeners a juxtaposition, that means placing side by side, an operation protective edge, 18,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. And Moore said, "I've never seen levels of destruction like that." In Gaza, now, 325,000 homes were destroyed since October 7th. In protective edge, there was left behind roughly 2.5 million tons of rubble.

in 2014. Now, it's not even a blip on the screen compared to what Israel has done. What do we have a reliable estimate of the number of people all aggregate number of people killed in Gaza since October 7th? No, I mean, there are all sorts of projections on the number of persons killed, everything from the numbers in the Gaza Ministry of Health give to, as I said, there are so many different

projections that's hard to know which are credible, which are not credible. And also, how do you calculate it? Are they deaths from bombing artillery shells, but then what about all the deaths from people who, because of hunger, they're immune system, the children, they're immune systems are significantly compromised and they die technically, not from direct fire, they die from medical reasons.

So I don't think there is a good number. I want number which I found interesting, I've not made the common publicly, I only recently started to think about it. There are all sorts of denials that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, and I'm happy to engage with you on that question, but on a strictly statistical level, the most recent

UN report on Gaza deals with the targeting of children in Gaza, and also the West Bank, or the targeting of children in particular in Gaza.

“Now, if you take the case of the Nazi, and they also say that's a key indicator of whether”

or not we're dealing with a genocide or we're dealing with a war. If large numbers of children are being targeted, then the argument that this is a war begins to questions are raised about whether it's a war or whether it's a genocide. The percentage of the current statistics we have, the Gaza Ministry of Health, the percentage of children killed is put at 30%, roughly 30%.

And the Nazi Holocaust, the estimates are 6 million Jews were killed, of whom 1.5 million

were a children. So roughly 25% of those killed were children.

“Now, if it's correct, I believe there's certainly a plausible argument that the number”

of children killed a percentage is an indicator of whether we're dealing with a war or whether we're dealing with a genocide, I would say, if 20, if we're all agreed, what happened during the Nazi Holocaust was a genocide, and 25% of the victims were children, then certainly by analogy, a plausible case is in Gaza, if 30% are a children, that's a strong argument that it's a genocide.

I should warn you that the AHRAe definition of anti-Semitism includes comparing the actions of these really government to those of the Nazis, so you just committed anti-Semitism.

Well, the problem is that the AHRAe definition is, Israel's, all the, Israelis are all

the time comparing their enemies to Nazis. What? That's a great point. Why do they get to do it?

“Why do they get to make the comparison, but nobody can compare them to Nazis?”

That's just totally inconsistent. You go back into history.

They said, Nasser in Egypt, the first president of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser, they said he

was Hitler. They said Saddam Hussein, you might recall, ahead of state, in Iraq, they said Saddam Hitler. They all the time saying they're actually saying the Moos in Iran are worse than Hitler. Netanyahu said, Prime Minister Netanyahu said, the Hitler only wanted to conquer Europe, but

A hamas is Hitler, everybody is Hitler, but the moment you say they carry on, like Nazis, it suddenly becomes a taboo, a red line, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Imagine it's 3am, you're dead asleep, you wake up to a weird noise, it sounds like it's coming from inside your house, what's terrifying, is it a home invasion? How do you react?

By panicking?

“Well, not if you have stop box pro, stop box pro is probably the best way to store”

your firearms. It's built for actual people who want real protection without giving up speed or control,

for no keys and there are no batteries, and that means you'll always be able to get the

stop box open, just a five button interface that gives you and just you immediate access when you really need it. That means your firearms can be 100% secure, but always right within reach. That box pro is made in the United States by Americans, real jobs, no child labor in some weird country.

It's totally American. For a limited time, this shows listeners can get 10% off at stop box when using the code Tucker at checkout, if it's at stopboxusa.com and use the code Tucker for 10% off the whole order, after you purchase feel free to say that you heard about it right here on this show.

“So you think it is fair to say that Israel's committing genocide in Gaza?”

I would say the following, if you take the accumulation, the cumulative effect of what Israel

has done, you don't look at it discreetly, this action, this action, this action, this action, you take the total picture. So Israel's the density and the rate of Israel's bombing in Gaza unprecedented in modern conflict. In some cases, even as far back as world were to, if you take the worst cases in world

were to, like, dressed in the intensity and rate of destruction is higher in Gaza. That's a fact. Then dressed in, that's correct. That's correct. Not just dressed in this dressed in a couple of other major cities, but they slipped my

mind. Are of children killed? Are that shocking? What you just said? Yeah.

Number of children killed. If you take all combat zones in the world, combine for the years say, 2020, 2021, 2020, 2021 and combine them, all the combat zones, more children killed in Gaza. Appuities, child amputees, I'm not sure if it's child or maybe it's old amputees. It's now the densest concentration of amputees anywhere in the world.

Schools, 97% of Gaza schools have been destroyed or severely damaged, targeting of hospitals targeting of medical personnel, targeting of UN workers, targeting of journalists. They're all in a totally different category.

They're in a totally different universe than the closest second closest, third closest, fourth.

So then what do you conclude when you add up, as I said, you take the cumulative picture? I don't see how you can possibly reach any other conclusion.

“The one qualification I would make is, and so that's how much of qualification, it's a clarification.”

I don't believe Israel's goal is genocide. It's goal is empty out Gaza. They're very clear about that. They want to ethnically cleanse Gaza. But the means they are using, they're modusaparendi, is the destruction of the Gaza population

until they leave. And now you can say, but they can't leave because the border is sealed, and nobody wants them, and that's true. So they will continue killing until they achieve their goal. And if it's to kill everybody, they will kill everybody.

They are dead said on, for once and for all, solving the Gaza question.

For them, solving the Gaza question means the expulsion of the population.

“And the only way they can persuade the population to leave and persuade neighbouring countries”

of the world at large to take them in is to commit a genocide. So I have spent quite a lot of time going through the human rights supports and various other documents, and when you see the cumulative effect of what's been done, I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion, which is why, as I'm sure you know, not only many, if not most, leading authorities in international law, not a few of them, Jewish,

even Israel's major human rights organization for the occupied territories that seldom.

It's like I believe Arya Nayar who founded a human rights watch, Kenneth Roth. Arya Nayar is a refugee from the Nazi Holocaust. Kenneth Roth, who was the former head of human rights watch, in various venues, they've all concluded that it's a genocide. But there's another factor.

Now I'm not saying it's authoritative, but I would certainly say it's indicative.

The estimates are 30% to 40% of American Jews believe it's a genocide, but that's a kind

of astonishing fact, bombarded as they are from youth to love Israel, attending synagogues

“where support Israel is a key, a tenet of belonging and yet, and to their absolutely eternal”

credit, it's genuinely a sight to behold. And maybe I should, I kind of rebel against the take pride in Israel, 30 to 40% believe Israel's committing a genocide. It's a credit to that community, and I would add, as I'm sure you're aware, because you told me before the interview that you have been in, so to speak, a Jewish milieu, a large

part of your life, very educated. These are not people who are easily bamboozled or duped or tricked, and yet they have reached that conclusion. So here, again, I say, if you look at the cumulative picture, experts, human rights organization, international court of justice, which reached the preliminary conclusion that Israel was

plausibly committing a genocide that was back in January, 26, 24, so it's long for the horror that unfolded since January 26.

“And I think it's the other side that has to make a case.”

The broad consensus is there now. It's a horrible consensus. What's going to make in the case, what I see happening is attacks in notches verbal attacks, but attacks on people's employment against anybody who says, "Wait, this is cruel and awful."

The Trump administration stripped them of their green cards in a bunch of cases. So I don't see anybody trying to make the case for Israel. I see supporters of Israel attacking anyone who questions Israel, I guess it's what I'm saying. Absolutely correct.

When there would be events and gods, I won't call them flare-ups because it was high tech

Not much more than a flare-up, when there were before, usually Jewish organizations, Jewish

supremacists, billionaires, they operate behind the scenes.

“They would call the university president, "I don't think you should give that guy ten year."”

Or, "Oh, did that happen to you?" Yes. Just kidding. No, famous famously. But I think it happened with a certain amount of frequency, but it was behind the scenes.

But changed after 2007, for the reasons that you just suggested, it was very hard anymore to make a case in public. Too much was known, too much was seen on the social media, and too much of it Israel carried on in such a flagrant and praising fashion with its own citizens in their citizen army, posting on the social media.

The horrors they were committing, it had become so flagrant and brazen.

“It was impossible to conceal the big difference, I think.”

I'll just allow me, yeah, I want to give you a chance. And so they started in a very brazen and flagrant way to play the black male weapon, people like Bill Akman, and there were many others, but he sort of was the public face. They would call up, they would say publicly there would be petitions that were publicized saying, if you don't crush the encampments, the students who were supporting Gaza were

withholding alumni contributions, we're not going to give you money. Now, it's true places like Harvard have large endowments, very large endowments. However, it's also true to say that that alumni money was not small change.

“People like Bill Akman, he gave Harvard, I believe, $50 million to alumni, who Jewish alumni”

of Harvard gave it respectively one gave $200 million, one gave $300 million.

That was big money though, I say, still next to the endowment, it's not so big, but still absolutely, it's money. And then they went from school to school by the end of the end of 2024, the encampments were in the spring of 2024. They had succeeded in outsting Claudine Gay at Harvard, Elizabeth McGill at U of P, Chaffik at Columbia, and then there were many, many, many others. I'm just giving it to Ivy League, the big names. When McGill was

outstit from U of P, I happened to be friends with somebody who knows her well from business connections, and he met her, and he conveyed to her his sympathies. And two words came forth from her mouth, quote, "Money talks." Cost of living is already making it hard to live here, and it's not getting any better. Unfortunately, it's likely to get worse, and a lot of Americans fill the gap with credit cards, not just for fancy dinners, but

to cover things like groceries and bills. That is a disaster, it's understandable, but don't cut down that road, because there is a tax, in effect, a survival tax, if 20% interest or more. Why would you do that? Why would you hand money to the big banks when you can keep it for your family? Our friends at American Finance have a better way. If you're

looking to buy your first home or refinance or current one, they're helping Americans achieve

the dream of a ownership with monthly mortgage rates, currently in the Fives. American Finance saves its customers and average of 800 bucks per month. That's nearly 10 grand every year back to you. This isn't just a loan. It's a total financial reset. So debt is tough, but there's a smart way to do it in a reckless self-destructive way to do it credit cards. So we recommend American financing. They're salary based, not commission based, which means

they actually work for you, not the banks. They're called America's home for home loans for a reason call 800, 685, 56, 96, 800, 685, 56, 96 are visit American financing.net/tucker. It wasn't just universities by the way. I have friends who work in hospitals. Everybody was

I have friends at Lincoln Center. The good side of the Jewish tradition is, they give generously

“to cultural institutions, libraries, arts institutions, universities, and so forth. You can walk”

into a library in New York City. They list the main donors, 95% Jewish. And it's true across the board. Hospitals, obviously, but the bad side is, it's a lot of cultural power. It's a lot of cultural power. And it was then used for, in my opinion, nasty sinister purposes. You mentioned, and it's true,

of course, the Trump administration went after people threatening deportation, disappearing them,

throwing them into places of confinement, which were not accessible.

“But here's the thing, that was all spearheaded by the Jewish supremacist billionaire class.”

And here's another thing, did they ever protest it? Did they ever say what was done to Machmus Khalil from Columbia was wrong? Did they register a single word of the sent? This was the most audacious and stupidest assault on academic freedom. I am ready to argue with anybody. I've studied academic freedom in our country of written, a large amount on it. There's nothing like it in the modern history of the United States, the concept of academic freedom begins at the

beginning of the 20th century, the early 1900s. And there have been waves of assault on freedom in general and academic freedom, the red scare in the early part of the 20th century. Obviously,

the McCarthy era where alleged communists were persecuted and lost their jobs, but there's never

been anything, I know people are going to say I'm engaging in hyperbole, but I ask you the question and I ask the listeners, three Ivy League presidents were outstit. They were all women, two of the three were women of color, so they had all the so-called, you can call it, ideological protections of a wall culture. They had all the protections. Do you know how the New York times

“would have screamed to high heaven at three women, two women of color, being outstit, not a peep?”

And that reign of terror, it is a reign of terror, that continues to this day. I can tell you, factually, since that spring of 2024, I've only been invited to speak at two colleges in the United States. That's a fact. Two, what's your normal rotation? I mean, it's gone up and down for various reasons, which are not worth going into, but there were periods where I spoke at 40 schools a year. That's true. Wow, roughly, these schools a year. And I'm talking about collectively, I was,

I spoke at University of Massachusetts that was last year. I actually was in a nicely greeted Cornell University and the president of the University showed up and he introduced me, which is I thought courageous on his part. He was actually friendly to me. I was very tough. I was very tough, but he seemed to believe in the principle of free speech, the John Stuart Mill principles, and he had me there, but that's it. Now, remember, I've not been invited anywhere in New York,

Well, I think it's perfectly rational. I mean, I have to be honest with you. Look,

“let me give you a couple examples at Harvard University, okay? As you probably know,”

the Israel supporters, they rented trucks, put students pictures on the trucks and went through blasting Cambridge, calling them terrorists, okay? Students who were mad at these really government, students who were active in the encampments. Now, let me tell you something. They also went to the

neighborhoods 500 miles away, where the kids' families lived. Do you get that? Yeah,

if collective punishment we call it. That truck came to my parents' house, my parents would kill me. Now, my parents were in the far, but I'm serious. My parents were in the far left. I told you, they were stown as the die-hards till their last breath. But could you imagine a truck going up and down the Jewish neighborhood saying, Norman Finklestein terrorist? With my picture there? No. So,

when you ask me, why did they capitulate? It's amazing. Remember these schools cost $80,000 a year.

And the kids are being threatened with suspension, expulsion, and even deportation.

“So, what do you think is going to happen? Now, on that point, where's there any grounds for it?”

These claims about these students being supporters of terrorism, or terrorist, or anti-Semites? Let me give you one example, an exemplary case, and that's Harvard. Harvard produces a report 312 pages. On anti-Semitism, on Harvard campus, in the wake of the crushing of the incontinence. I sit down. I read it. I'm curious. I'm ready to believe. Maybe an incident here, maybe an incident there. I go through the report. There's nothing there. It's a nothing burger. There's nothing there.

So, I said, no. I must have gone in with a prejudice die. I mean, I said, I must have gone with a prejudice. I, let me reread it. I reread it. They said, at the incampment, somebody had a picture of Alan Garber, the president of Harvard, as a devil, as a devil, somebody at a poster in the incampment. They said, that's obviously anti-Semitic. Well, sure where that came from. They said another person had a map of Palestine where Israel

“wasn't there. So, I think to myself, well, Mr. Netanyahu holds up not 12 times in the UN,”

and there's no Palestine there. There's just Israel there. So, that can be really anti-Semitic. So, what is the anti-Semitism? What is it? And here, I'm going to tell you what it is. It's that they said that Israeli Jewish students, in particular, Israeli Jewish students, don't feel wanted at Harvard. They feel shunned. They feel like they're paris. And then they said, Harvard has to be pluralistic. Harvard has to be inclusive.

So, in order to correct for anti-Semitism, in Harvard, we have to embrace diversity, embrace everyone. I'm thinking to myself, well, I'm all for being inclusive. I'm all for being pluralistic. I'm all for a big tent, which you know what? My big tent does not include child killers. I'm not going there, you lose me. Well, if people are using peptides to get in shape, not all peptides are the same, if you take them, do you really know what you're ingesting?

then, if necessary, your license-clenishable order comprehensive lab work to understand exactly

“what prescription is best for you, not everybody, just for you. It's a complete review to ensure”

the best results. Your peptide protocol is built specifically around you. So, there's no guess work. There's not a one-size-fits-all plan. It's totally customized. Prescriptions are filled by American-based pharmacies using ingredients sourced from FDA registered facilities, tons of quality testing, no stone unturned. You're getting the best. You don't have to gas about what's

going in your body. Starting now, this shows listeners can get 65% off labs plus 20% off peptides

and supplements by going to joyenblokes.com/tucker and using the code Tucker at checkout. This is one of the biggest discounts any of our partners have ever offered. That's joyenblokes.com/tucker.

“Hey, it's Tucker Cross. We launched Alphabet a year and a half ago, and people are”

voracious for it. They can't get enough. Everywhere you go, you get the same question. When are you making more flavors? Well, we are not in the business of disappointing people. Instead of the

business of satisfying them. So, we have made at least three more flavors. Introducing the

Alphabet Frontier Collection. They are campfire cinnamon, sunset mango, and cowboy coffee. Available in four milligrams and eight milligrams, because if you're going to use nicotine, you don't have some options. Get the new Frontier Collection out out pouch.com/tucker. After World War II, for all I know, this are that guard in a Nazi concentration camp, went back to school to get a degree. You want me to be inclusive of the people that exterminate

my family? I'm not going there. And it's the same thing. You're going to have to bear that burden. I'm not going to be inclusive of child killers. Israel has become a nation of child killers. The killed children for play, and there's ample at this point, ample documentation of that of snipers killing children, of drones killing children. Even in March 2018, during the great March of return when the people of Gaza attempt to non-violently, to end that medieval siege,

the UN report found that Israel was targeting children, journalists, medics, brace yourself, targeting double amputees, who were 300 meters away from the perimeter fence. That's 2018, before the horror that was unleashed after October 7th. And now you're telling me that I have to be inclusive and pluralistic with these child killers, a nation of child killers,

“who it's credit, Israel has a citizen army. And that's how it should be.”

Because everybody, I know this two of your producers or tech people, they were in the marines, they mentioned to me. Everybody should have to bear the burden of the ultimate sacrifice to keep their country free of foreign occupation. So in my opinion, that's a correct principle. Unlike in my day, during the war in Vietnam, we're students got that the ferment, college the ferment, and so was overwhelmingly a poor army. And then it became an even

overwhelmingly poor army because it was a volunteer army, who volunteers overwhelmingly, those who don't see a future otherwise. So that's to its credit. But then it becomes to its discredit if the army is committing genocide. Because that army is a cross-section of Israel's society. You can't, as I did when I was a young man, think of those who are carrying out the murder and they hadn't yet known as having nothing to do with me.

You know, we were anti war. But this is not the Israeli army. The Israeli army is representative

And so they are a nation of child killers. And even Barbara admitted, it was about six months ago, or a little more. He said, a large part, I mean, that's his phrase, a large part of what was called anti-Semitism, he said, it was just criticism of Israel. He acknowledged it.

“Now you might say, what about slogans like from the river to the sea, okay?”

We're Americans. We're Americans. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled its legal to advocate the violent overthrow of your government. That's our jurisprudence. In our country, it's legal to burn the American flag. That's our jurisprudence. In our country, I was going to give a couple of other examples, but you can criticize the United States, so you want. You can criticize, you know, listen, you cannot only criticize, you can call for its violent

overthrow. And you're completely protected by the law. So the slogan from the river to the sea is so pale by comparison. I mean, even in our country, there was a case, a fellow walked into a local courthouse with a t-shirt and blazing on it, fucked the draft. It went into the Supreme Court. I said it's protected speech. So next to our jurisprudence from the river to the sea is so pale

“by comparison, how could it possibly be illegal to shout that slogan in the United States?”

So the word, there was no basis for these claims. The problem is, as I'm sure you understand,

the other side doesn't care because by the time these cases make their way through the courts, right, it's all over. They succeeded in their goal. They silenced all the scent on our college campuses in our cultural institutions, in our hospitals, they succeeded in their goal. It won't be upheld. I'm confident that there have been several rulings of supporting the dissentaries. It won't be upheld, but it already did the damage. It'll be too late once it's undone.

So you said the President of Harvard later conceded that a large part, a large part of what some said was anti-Semitism is merely criticism. That's when he said criticism of foreign governments. That's obviously true. Why would it seems very short-sighted, in fact, self-destructive to to equate criticism of a foreign government, a foreign politician Netanyahu, specifically, who's not even that popular within Israel, to say that's the criticizing him as the same as

hating all Jews. Why would anybody make that case? That seems crazy. Well, on the one hand, it's to delegitimize all criticism, of course. Obviously, the other thing is, I think we have to be honest about these things. Netanyahu is the longest sitting crime minister in this rally history. Every few years, or even every few months, he's going to be involved, he's going to

be voted out of office. This is the end, the end, the end. And it never happens. And the reason why,

in my opinion, it never happens, because Netanyahu is the perfect reflection of Israeli society. He's an obnoxious, self-righteous, Jewish, supremacist. That's Israeli society, obnoxious, self-righteous, Jewish supremacists. So when they see him, they see themselves.

“And that's why he keeps winning despite all of these corruption allegations and despite all these”

other attacks on his person. It's really, don't really care. Do you go to Israel? I, I went there on the route to the occupied Palestinian territories at the time. I was denied entry in 1989.

And then I did get in. And then in 2004, I was denied entry again, and I never returned,

the right. So I decided it was pointless to follow. How could you be denied entry into Israel? I thought that all Jews had a right to return. In fact, I thought it was called the right of return. I'm not sure on what a particular law I was denied entry. There must have been some security

exception to the right of return. I never really investigated it. It wasn't important enough to me.

I just accepted acquiesced. Ha! Seems a little strange, though. No. Like you're not Jewish anymore,

“because the government doesn't like you or something. What do they get to decide?”

I recognized that they could, they would be displaced with the things I said, so I wasn't all together. Shocked, gradually I started to deny entry to a lot of Jews. I may have been the ahead of the queue. Is that true? Yeah. There were a large number of Jews who were active in one way or another, opposing the occupation who were denied entry. My recollection is a couple of years later, Professor Chomsky was denied entry, and there were many other people I know, personally,

who were denied entry. I never considered it particularly significant.

What is it done to your life here in the United States to take the positions you have?

“I would say, at first of all, I'm not Edith Pia. You should never regret. I have my regrets,”

but the overall trajectory, this is what I resolved to do as a young man, probably around the age of 16, not having to do it as well, Palestine, but fighting for a more just world.

And the people who were important in my life as to use the corny expression,

role models, they had committed themselves to the cause, many of them passed overkill early in life because of their commitment, and those were the ones who inspired me. And so I recognized that I would pay a price and I was prepared to pay it, and

“in a great scheme of things, now 72 years old, I still have a roof over my head. I am not”

wanting for the basics in life, and I lived most of my life of sound body, and I like to believe also of sound mind. So I can say, it's caused me any by comparison to the people I admired and the suffering of others. I can say, I've paid a big price. I would say the only frustration, if I can put it that way is, I happen to like to teach. I like the interaction with the young people who are old enough to think for themselves, which comes with roughly college age 18 to 22.

And also, they are not yet jaded or cynical about the real world. They still have ideals. So it's a wonderful age to interact with and also to teach the excitement of the life of the mind. Ideas, thinking through problems, not tweets. A tweet is not an argument. Oh, it's not. No. An argument is quite complex. Yes. It has major premises, minor premises. It's very complicated to work out and it requires a classroom to do that and it requires a text to go over

together. And so it's a really a wondrous experience to be a college professor. It's a responsibility what it's also an experience. And I was significantly denied that opportunity. Now, I don't take it so much personally as I think I could have inspired many more young minds.

stickler about that and not propaganda is them, but trying to convey to them the joys of the life

“of the mind. And I think I was deprived of that right because of political considerations.”

Why are you against propaganda in the classroom? Because a select alert term is not a cell box. There is a place if you have political convictions when you're trying to persuade others of your beliefs. But I don't believe that's the place of a classroom. You're not trying to persuade you're trying to get people to think for themselves. And getting people to think for themselves in my opinion is making the best arguments on both sides. If the student is decidedly of

“one political end of the spectrum to make the best arguments from the other end of the spectrum”

and forced them to work through an argument and reach a conclusion based on the evidence.

I think Bertrand Russell, the great British philosopher, he once said there are always good

arguments to be made on both sides. Yes. There's always good arguments to be made on both sides. It's rarely the case that an a major issue of contention, let's say it's abortion or affirmative action. It's rarely the case that all the arguments are on one side and there are no arguments

“on the other side. There are always arguments on both sides. And then you have to make the best”

case and let each student decide for him or herself not who is right and who is wrong. No. What the student has to do is weigh the arguments on both sides and decide on which side is the

preponderance of better arguments. It's never like this the scale. The scale is usually like this.

That's always arguments on both sides. You have to weigh the arguments and then decide who has the better case. So that's your view. Yes. It's my view based on, you know, I read the supreme court decisions. I thought I know this will sound like sacrilege. I thought plusy versus Ferguson, which legalized separate but equal in our country was a much better argument than brown the yes. 54 decision that ended separate but equal brown wasn't even really a court decision. It wasn't

a administrative decree. It was so poorly done and I they call it liberals like to call it. The Mona Lisa of Supreme Court decisions. No. It was very poorly done. The abortion, the role case is in my opinion. It's a complete disaster. It's a disaster for very obvious reason for anybody who reads it. The role says a woman has a right to deal with her body as she pleases until another life enters the picture or what they call potential life. So they say of course

woman has the right to do for with her body as she pleases. That's protected by the 14th amendment. The due process clause of our constitution, liberty, the liberty, they sometimes call it the liberty clause and this is a personal right. The clause under the liberty clause of the constitution. But it says you have to take into account when a potential life enters the picture.

Is it at virility? Yeah, right. When does it enter the picture? The court says

“physicians disagree. Theologians disagree. Doctors disagree. Philosophers disagree. The court says”

we can't take a position. We don't know when they do because nobody knows when life begins. Well, we have a problem here. If nobody knows when life begins. But if it's a potential life or a real life, then you lose your right to abortion. How do you decide? How do you decide when a woman has the right to her body? And when the state has the right to interfere,

you said you don't know when life begins. So they say we'll decide its viability.

When the fetus can survive on its own outside the mother's body. But that's a technical question. It just means when machines can keep the fetus alive. Doesn't tell you when life begins. No. So the whole row case is so poorly argued. And you can see I go over it with the class. And by the end, there's probably a large amount of agreement that it should be viability. But there's a recognition that as a legal issue, it's a disaster. And so it was pretty easily overturned. And I would say

the bocky case, the affirmative action case, I thought that was pretty well argued. I granted. But it's also was a very complicated case. I'm not going to go into now how it was finally decided.

“But in general, as a general principle, I believe that one of my important”

responsibilities as a professor to the extent I was able to practice my profession

is to show students that you're always arguments to be made on the other side.

So I think we have different politics where I thought we did, but I would be thrilled to have you teach my children if the attitudes you just explained are your attitudes in the classroom. I think it is. Now, I will tell you something, except I believe for two classes when I was at the pool university, which eventually denied me tenure, I was never allowed to teach the Israel Palestine conflict. What? Yeah, I was never allowed to teach it. Why?

I think that's pretty obvious. I was at Brooklyn College, Hunter College, those are city and the University of New York. The pool, I recall there were two senior seminars where I taught the Israel Palestine conflict. Then I was unemployed from 2007 to about 2020. I had no work, no one period in my life. You were totally unemployed? Probably unemployed. 13 years?

“Yes, it was a dark period for me because most people, their structure in life is determined externally.”

Yes, I have a job. I have to get up exactly go to the work of them. I had to every more knee, wake up, and try to rationalize a purpose to my existence. And it was not easy. How did you not go crazy? I forgot in those years. I forgot in those years. But I was saying they were a dark period. And then I was doing some adjuncting. That's a substitute teacher for those of you who are in the academic world. And at Hunter College again, they let me go

and then recently at Brooklyn College. So it was scattered. It was very demeaning Yeah. You know what? An adjunct allowed me to explain to your viewers is usually graduate students. So they higher at the last minute to fill a class because a professor got a grant. This had a family tragedy. So you're higher. And it's usually a graduate student.

and to be treated. I know I shouldn't say this, but I don't much care.

“At Brooklyn College, this last semester, I hadn't been paid. I get paid,”

patents, patents. They didn't pay me for six weeks. I was so incensed, so in rage treated like garbage. So it was very humanly demeaning position for a person. Let's leave aside my quote unquote, academic achievement, just my age to be an adjunct. No. We're also not to be vulgar, but the most famous person in Brooklyn College by a lot. I rather than not say that. It's for others to say. Well, that's my characterization. You're certainly, I don't know of anyone else in Brooklyn

College's more famous than you are. How did that happen? I mean, can you get specific? One, the default case about 20 years ago was relatively well-covered as much as it should have been,

but basically the department and then the college voted to give you tenure pretty overwhelmingly

and then a bunch of outside forces including donors and Allen Jesuits intervened and the university,

“the president. If I'm remembering this correctly, to not you ten years, I correct?”

I think the final decision was made by the president for the whole Schneider. I believe. I'm not sure in the allocation of responsibility who makes that last decision. That too is kind of a blur. In my life, it was not the last year, it was really pretty terrible. Do you have any idea in specific terms how you were prevented from being a college professor? Remember, we're living in very different times now. It's really on the defensive

and those who are supporting the rights of Palestinians and opposing the various Israeli

aggressions, they are on the offensive. When I first got involved in the conflict, which was in

“June 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon, we're talking about a handful of, I think it's fair to say,”

you know, the Yiddish expression, a machuga? Yeah, crazy people. Yeah, a handful of Jewish machuga folks, these real sections. The only notable exception was Professor Chomsky, who sort of gave a stature to our cause, but it was just a handful of people. Early on, I had written my doctor of this citation on the theory of Zionism. And while writing the doctor of this citation, there was a book that came out, way before your time. It was called from time in memorial.

And the major thesis of the book was that Palestine was empty. The Jews came, made it flourish, and then all these Arabs from neighboring states infiltrated into Palestine and pretended to be indigenous to it. The book became an instant national bestseller. It was endorsed by the whose who of the American intelligentsia, which largely consisted of Jews at that period within 1883. And the book was a sensation, it was a national sensation, because now we've proven that this whole

thing about Palestine has been contrived by anti-Semites in order to discredit the Jews and so forth. I sat down, and I read the book. I should also say the book was certified for its accuracy by a fellow, a fellow named Philip Houser, who was the head of population studies at the University of Chicago, which is an imposing title, definitely. Yes, I sat down. I worked at that point a part time job.

numbers, tables, numbers, tables. I would sit at home and take out my pattern paper, I then use

calculators, and I'm flipping the pages. The tables are in the back. The text is in the middle. Going back and forth, back and forth. I'm going to figure this out. I'm going to figure this out.

“And then one night, I discovered one key number, one key number in the tables,”

with fake, with a fake. It was a eureka moment, a eureka moment. Shills down my spine.

I lived in this tiny studio apartment, like Rascão of course. And I'm pacing the apartment,

back and forth, back and forth. I did it. I did it. I was just overwhelmed. It was like going to clock in the morning. Who can I call? Who can I tell? Well, I'm Jewish. I call my mother. I said, "Mom, I did it. I did it." It was one of the morning, and she said, "No, I'm so happy for you. What did you do?" Now, there was no way I can explain to her how I proved this is demographic fraud. In a case, then it became a real battle because I had the goods as they say nowadays,

I had the receipts, and that was going to mean, I was just a graduate student. And all of these experts had lent their name to the book. All of these authorities, these so-bellow, illegal, barbra-tuckman, Lucido with which they don't mean anything to you. They do. Yeah, well, they were very big names. And so, I remember, I sent out my findings to several around 20 prominent people who support the rights of Palestinians. It was a different era.

“You type it up. You have to zerox it. You send it in the mail. Most of these people,”

I'm not going to give the time of day to a graduate student. They get too many other pieces of correspondence from important people. And once Saturday morning, I got a call. And the call was, "Hello, is this Norman Finkelstein?" I said, "Yes." And the person then said, "This is Norman Chomsky. I have read what you wrote and I found it convincing." And that was the beginning of a whole new chapter in my life. He became a friend, a close friend,

and most importantly, a mentor. But he warned me on the very first correspondence. He said, "Be aware that if you continue on this path, there will be many brick bats coming your way."

“Honestly, I am not the same. I am very far from the same. As Gandhi with Ols,”

Loft and say, "I have 10,000 faults, and I do, and I will never pretend otherwise."

But of one thing, I can say, with a certain amount of conviction, I cannot be bored. And I attach a lot to truth. I attach a lot to justice. And I'm not open to compromising those values. So with all due regard to my mentor, the great-known Chomsky, it was not a tough decision at all.

She would occasionally say that she was, and she liked me. She sympathized with my situation.

“She would occasionally say, "I'm angry at Norm, that he didn't discourage you." Because I paid,”

you know, relative, I paid some price, okay? And I would say, "No, Carol, you're wrong." He did warn me. But it was no way I wouldn't persist. At the beginning, I was called up by Robert Silvers. I'm not sure that name means anything to you.

He was the editor of the New York Review of Books. And the New York Review of Books was by a wide

margin. The most influential journal among the intelligence here, okay? And he called me down to his office. A door was opening. A big door. You know, I was so excited. My heart was palpitating. And he said to come down in like two hours. It wasn't in the appointment in the future. I had to had to come down. So I went out for a run. Okay. It was in Washington Heights. The bodegas

“with the aluminum onines. If you remember what they looked like. Yeah. And I ran on the one”

and I cut a gash in my skull. I'm here to hear. Oh, come on. I swear. I cut a gash.

A long gash. And it started to bleed. I'm not going to miss this appointment. I'm not going to miss it. This is it. My chance in life, you know, like they say in Britain's Got Talent of Simon Taule says, this is those, these three minutes might change your life. So I stopped bleeding. I went. And he told me to meet his friend, a fellow named author, or rabbi burger. No, rabbi hurts work. Author hurts work. Who was in a rabbi and an academic a Columbia.

“I go down to meet Hertzberg and he says, we Zionists. Where did that we come from?”

We saw it like me and him. And then he said he'll be my dissertation advisor. I said, no, I'm a Princeton. You're a Columbia. He says, I'll take care of that. And then he asked me a question. He said, I'm quoting now, long time ago, 1984, but I remember. He said, are you in Shamskis stable? I didn't know what that expression meant, but I said, I've got the idea. And I know, you know, it's what you call the do or die moment. I knew what I said. Yes, the door was going to shut in my face.

But there was no way on God's earth that I was going to say, no, that's not going to happen. And I said, I consider him my mentor and a friend. It was the last time I ever heard from the New Yorker view of books. So to answer your question, to answer your question, everybody knows those moments where you know the door may open or it may shut in your face. Yes. And everybody faces those moments in life. It's called life. And they doors kept shut in

and I tell you, I was bitter because I like to teach. I was bitter because it was so

class at that time long before to your viewers, long before electronic, you know, send a syllabus

and everything through electronic technology. And one of the professors came into the offices at night said, what are you doing here? I said, well, I'm an adjunct. I'm just zeroxing some stuff for the class. She called security on me. I was already in my 50s. No. And just for the just to establish for viewers, I mean, I know you were at Princeton, what were you educated? On the ground, I went to Binghamton University, then Princeton,

and then I studied at the Eco-Partique. They saw the E2Dem Paris. That was my three periods of education. Otherwise, I basically didn't home. So that's the story. And are you bitter about it now? Now I laugh. Even though I laugh now, I know it's not a bitter laugh. But let's say, I wrote the only scholarly book, the only scholarly book in Gaza's political history, the only one. Sarah Roy of Harvard University. She wrote the only scholarly economic history of Gaza,

excellent book. Okay? I wrote the only political history. I came out on 2018.

Okay? It's still the only one. Not review anywhere. No, never mention. You know how

sometimes newspapers like the New York Times when a event becomes from page news,

“they'll have a little list of books you should read. You know, background books. Never mentioned.”

Never mentioned. So now I laugh. So Gaza's grave diggers, which you've written. How do you expect that to be received? No, it's a question mark. Because of the social media, it's very hard to pretend I don't exist. Yes. It's a challenge. Places like New York or magazine, no possibility. Atlantic magazine, no possibility. Maybe the times will do a hit job. It's possible. But in general, on pessimistic,

but on the other hand, there is the, I think what they call the alternative media has now sort of become the mainstream media. And the mainstream media has become the alternative media.

“So I think there are, there are prospects. It's a, I think it's a good book. It's an easy book.”

Well, I believe it's a good book. And I do think I do a kind of research that nobody does. You know, the philosopher John Stuart Mill, he once said, "The more value will it become to yourself, the more value will it become to others." Which is another way of saying, "The more you home, your God-given gift, and I believe I'm old-fashioned. I believe everybody has a God-given gift." Yes. It's most people. They go through life.

It's latent. Yes, I see. They don't have the opportunity. Yes. To discover,

they never find out what it is. They never find out what it is and some who do find out,

never find the time or resource they can apply it to apply it. So I have a skill. It's a small skill. It's an attention to detail. It's checking every footnote. It's applying my mind

“where I think something is implausible to finding the errors in the argument.”

The great advantage that truth has overforced is this truth holds together. Because it's true, falsehood, if you apply your eye in a conscientious, almost maniacal way,

because at the end of the day, it doesn't hold together. And that's been kind of my life. I want to say vocation. It's my gift. It's not a big gift. But what I like to say is, what I do is not much. I acknowledge that. But what I do,

I do well. I can take any text which is implausible at first glance,

progaphacy, implausible. I can put my eye to it, page by page sentence by sentence,

“and I can demonstrate this is not true. And that's what I largely do in this book.”

For example, one example that will be familiarity listeners. There is no question that atrocities of a significant magnitude were committed by Hamas and other melting groups on October 7th. Yes. And I am not a denier of any sort of atrocity. So far as the evidence shows, as of now, it happened. But then there were claims made as all of your listeners know. That Hamas had weaponized rape and sexual violence. I found that for reasons not worth going into,

“right now, I found that implausible. And then I started to go through the evidence. And there is”

no material evidence to support that claim. I devote the first chapter of the new book,

God, this is rape. There is the chapter called rape fantasies. I go through all the alleged evidence, and I find it not only non persuasive, I find the evidence non-existent. So it's just totally made up. Yes. Yes. I have to be careful about my words. You asked me the question, is it totally made up? I would say the evidence based on the evidence that's been

“reduced. Yes. It's totally made up. So let's give you one example. And then you judge for yourself”

assuming what I'm telling you now. It was true. Is accurate. Okay. After my book came out, this is sorry. I should start it up. The claim has been widespread. I mean, the widespread you hear it everywhere. Right. And I'll get to that. Just remind me, as I continue, and that remind me of the name Cheryl Sandberg, which I'll get to, if you remind me. I know Cheryl Sandberg. Okay. Good. So let's take, after my book came out, this new Israeli report was published by

what they call a civil commission. And the main author of the report is some of the name Dr.

Coach of, I forgot, uh, Levy her last name. Oh, come back to me. So here's what she says. Okay.

She says Hamas committed widespread rape on October 7, widespread systematic sexual violence on October 7. You're familiar with those claims, of course, as is your viewers. And then she said, the Hamas had weaponized this sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, in order to shatter the Israeli national spree spirit. So it posted all of these acts of rape and sexual violence on the social media, even contacted the families of the victims using their own cellphones,

the family cellphones, which they seized and so forth, iPhones. Uh, and disseminate all the servants. Okay. That's an interesting claim. So what do you discover? I hope your, uh, viewers are all ears.

10,000. They also say that if you were to view it, it would take 1,800 hours to view all of their

photographic and digital evidence. It would take 1,800 hours. That means if you're a single researcher and you go through this evidence, it would take you and you did eight hours a day, eight hours a day, every day of the week. It would take you more than seven months to go through all of the

photographic and digital evidence of October 7. Now here is the kicker. There isn't one

single image, one single frame of Hamas committing rape or sexual violence on October 7. How can that be? How is that possible? Not one image. They say Hamas was posting the images of sexual violence in order to demoralize shatter the national spirit. They said,

we have Hamas, excuse me, we have Hamas dash cams, we have Hamas body cams, we have Hamas

go pros, we have it. They said we have extensive images from Hamas, but none of those images show sexual violence who rape. There has not been one image, not one put forth by Israel and I'm

“Mr. International said, nobody even claims they have such an image. How is that possible?”

By there, I should also add, they have CCTV imagery, digital evidence, they have traffic camera evidence, they have iPhone evidence from October 7. There's no image. How can that be? How is that possible? So, they have no physical evidence. Now, part of it seems plausible to me. They said we have no forensic evidence because they weren't prepared for a massacre of the magnitude of October 7. So, they processed the bodies very quickly to prepare them for Jewish burial in the virtual burial

and they didn't preserve any or then preserve significant forensic evidence. That seemed plausible to me. But no, digital evidence. That didn't sound right. That didn't even sound, not only didn't

“sound plausible. It didn't sound possible. The only thing they have is witnesses. So, they have this”

witness. She says, "I was sitting in a little room. I was hidden." The room was sealed. They called a caravan, a caravan. The room was sealed. A vehicular hiding place. She said, sitting in the room, I heard, this is her words. I'm calling her. I heard the gang rape here, I heard a rape here, and I heard another rape there. Then, she starts giving more details of these rapes. How is that possible? She heard in the room, a rape here, she said, "Here, here, and here,

there, there, and there." That's their best evidence. Did she identify the victims of these rapes?

“She was sealed in the room. There were no windows. There was no windows. You have to ask her,”

did she hear the Vienna Boys choir here and Boston Pops here and the Beatles reunion there?

I mentioned you, the 300 page report. She's listed first. Of the survivors, there are two

“alleged survivors, one of October 7th. One, a hostage survivor. But if you look at the report,”

neither of them said they were raped. They did not read what they said. The woman hostage survivor, she became quite prominent. Anat Susana, she said something terrible was done to me.

Maybe I'm not going to dispute that. Something awful was done to me, but she never said she was rape.

She does not. There's a claim by a nail that he was raped on October 7th. When if you read his testimony to the so-called Civil Commission,

“there's no, he doesn't say he was raped. So we're stuck with the following problem.”

No forensic evidence, no digital evidence, no photographic evidence, and of the survivor testimony,

the one survivor of October 7th who's touted as a victim of rape, he doesn't say he was raped.

The one survivor of hostages, Anat Susana, she doesn't say she was raped. I'll tell you, you know, at my age, the memory can slip. The name, the author of the report, is Dr. Coachav, Elkheim Levy. She's the author. And I want to say, look, your program has reached. Obviously, it's not BGT neither three minutes nor three hours are going to change my life

“because my life is over. It's in the past, but it has reached. So I say, you disagree with me.”

Dr. Elkheim Levy, let's debate it. Let's go to a public venue and debate it. I say the same thing to Sheryl Sandberg. Now of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg was the mate meta, CEO of chief

operators officer. And she's a bright woman. No question about it. I never deny people. I can

load them, but I never deny people their achievements. She attended Harvard. She was an economics major. She was the top student in her economics class for her year. That's how significant achievement. Now, she makes a film, a documentary. She calls it. It's called screens before silence. And it's claims that it was mass systematic rape and sexual violence on October 7, committed by Hamas, systematic widespread sexual violence. And she stars in the film and she emotes

and she's in tears and she's going on in my God. She's looking at these images of sexual violence and rape on an iPhone. But Sheryl, I hope you're listening. You're a bright woman. But excuse my English, you're full of shit. There were no images. It was one image, but the independent, um, or they called forensic specialists, whatever they're called. They said you couldn't tell anything from those images.

Screens before silence should be called shalak before shice. Your listeners can go to their, go get a dictionary to find out. Yeah, you know shalak before shice. These are Jewish supremacists

And the cause is more important than any passing fact. She attended horror. She was in the economics department. She knows what evidence is. She knows what evidence she every standards are. It's the cause is real must live.

“So, last question pertains to what you just said. Outside the United States, I think it's very,”

there's a consensus globally, pretty much, that what Israel is doing is totally indefensible. These are crimes, but the question is, will there ever be a reckoning? So, your parents were polls and were both put in Nazi camps, including Auschwitz, and your family was murdered, but there was a reckoning of a reckoning. I mean, some of the people who committed those crimes were held to account, will that happen in this case? Well, let's start from basics.

When the whole society is implicated in a genocide, apart from a few senior figures,

“it's impossible for there to be a reckoning. That's why places like South Africa,”

pioneer the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission, because if you're going to prosecute everybody, implicate in the apartheid, it's a large portion of society. So, as a general rule, even the best of cases, it's just only a handful of people who are going to be held accountable. In the case of Israel, nobody will ever be held accountable. That that's for that to me is

pretty transparent. Why? Well, because, first of all, the United States want a lot to happen,

part of it, as you know, is the domino effect. If they're held accountable, Trump is in a very first of all, Biden and Blinken are in a very difficult situation, because they enable the genocide. If it weren't for Joe Biden and Tony Blinken, they couldn't have been a genocide. In Gaza,

“it was funny the New Yorker magazine wrote this article. I believe it was the New Yorker”

in which this is very recent in which it claimed that it was written by a fellow Fitzpatrick, his name just, I think it was David Fitzpatrick, a former times reporter, and he said, "Oh, they tried so hard, they tried so hard, they couldn't do anything, you know, meaning Biden, Blinken and the others, Jake Sullivan, to prevent the genocide." And then, in the course of the article, they have a line that reads 70% of the weapons for the Gaza genocide came from the United States.

You certainly had one option. Yeah, don't say the weapons. Don't say the weapons.

So there's always the fear of the domino effect. Right. It's really so indicted,

where there's that leave the Biden administration. So that makes it improbable, that's going to happen. Same thing with Donald Trump because the attack on Iran was the most brazen, flagrant, aggression in the modern history. There's not been to my knowledge, no, my knowledge is not unlimited. To my knowledge, there's never been a case in the modern world of a state attacking without a pretense of a pretext, a pretense, even Hitler in 1939 when he

attacked Poland. He fabricated a border incident. Of course, you always have to claim self defense.

Got a golf tongue, can it? Yeah. I was just going to say, you, you beat me to the draw. In 1964, the U.S. had to essentially fabricate, or LBJ, Lyndon Johnson, the president of fabricate the golf tongue in resolution in order to, for those of you who don't go back that far,

that a North Vietnamese vessel attacked in the American vessel. And that was then there were only two

“senators who voted against it. It was Ernst's growing, groaning, and I forgot the second. And that”

became the peace of legislation that enabled the ground war in Vietnam. The U.S. has already heavily involved during the Kennedy years, but it enabled the ground war in Vietnam. In the case of Israel and the U.S., there wasn't a pretense. There wasn't a pretense of a pretext. It was the most brazen flagrant breach of the U.N. charter in modern history in the middle of the negotiation. In the middle of negotiations, I was listening to your interview with Darrow Cooper, and that was

emphasized in the middle of a negotiation. It was outrageous, but you know what's also, dishonorable in outrageous. There was no reaction by the U.N. Security Council. Nothing,

“nothing. You could hear a pin drop in the silence. You know what else was dishonorable?”

On November 17, 2025, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2803, and you know what that

resolution did? And it stole the horror that the God for a second people of Gaza have endured

since back in 1948. The concentration camp in which they have been emure for 80 years. After the genocide over the past three years, the U.N. Security Council, I know this will sound like hyperbally, exaggeration. The U.N. Security Council handed the deed of Gaza to Donald J.E. Trump. He got the deed to Gaza. He was designated the head of the Board of Peace. He was subsequently given total veto power over any decision made by the Board of Peace,

and the U.N. Security Council only put one condition, one. Every six months, the Board of Peace should, and I have to, should report to the Security Council on the situation in Gaza. He owns Gaza. He owns Gaza. So there have been many shameless episodes, and in fact,

“that's what the purpose of my new book is to preserve for future generations, assuming there will be”

future generations, and as you discussed with Darryl Cooper, there are also types of apocalyptic scenarios that are plausible in the case of the current aggression against Iran, but assuming, and those by the way, they are plausible. I've written about them. Oh, it's definitely possible. There are two crazy people at the helm. Yes, one in Tel Aviv, and one in the Oval Office. And it's absolutely impossible to predict what they might do. But assuming the worst doesn't

come to the worst. What I've written is to preserve the record of that infamy, of what has been done to the people of Gaza. But with the recognition that unlikely,

anyone is going to be held legally accountable for what was done to those got for second people.

Sad. Well, in the absence of that, I'm glad you wrote this, and I'm grateful that you took the time for this conversation. Well, thank you so much. And I hope that you are vindicated.

Oh, my, thank you. Thank you.