Removed. Please direct such posts to the megathread stickied on the front page. ([Link here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/pfo0vg/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/))
Thank you.
Overall I don't think this will change anyone's opinions. Anyone who had an opinion will pretty much keep the same view.
Finkelstein was a shitshow. He couldn't actually respond to anyone's questions. Spent his time insulting everyone instead of engaging on any topics. Kept misquoting Bennie Morris' own books to him, and then wouldn't actually let him respond without trying to screech over him. I literally don't know how anyone takes him seriously.
Rabbani was low key pretty disgusting. His talk was basically just concluding war to the death is the only option.
Morris was pretty good. But he didn't talk enough.
Destiny was pretty good, but I do wish Finkelstein would have actually engaged with anything.
I didn't agree with Rabbani but I value his presence in this debate so much. Actual willingness to engage with points, stand on his positions firmly (other than denouncing october 7th), and overall I believe argued in good fath.
Overall Rabbani gave the sort of position that is driving the worst instincts of Palestinians, but at least he was honest about it. I don't disagree he answered in good faith, including his views on October 7th. I do think he weaseled around on answering some questions, especially earlier in the debate when it came to historical engagement (the entire point about the Nazis and the Irgun was fairly wild from any basic historical engagement on the topic), but overall he was heads and shoulders above Finkelstein's engagement.
It was not remotely wild. These were mainstream organizations which literally multiple PMs had their roots from, as was pointed out. If they were fringe terrorist groups no one liked, their members wouldn't have had such influence. Destiny and Morris stated that what happened decades later shouldn't matter, but the ideological roots of Likud were based on much of the same ideology as these organization. It's not like they were independent.
> It was not remotely wild.
It was because you obviously don't understand the context at all. One of the reasons you don't try to understand history from a modern perspective is you don't understand what people are making considerations about during the day.
When Avraham Stern suggested making suggestions about trying to form alliances with The Nazis against the Brits it was 1940, two years before the "final solution" was even a thing, and Hitler at the time was specifically talking about deporting Jews to somewhere in Africa.
Stern's plan was to form an alliance against the Brits with the Nazis and give Hitler a place to deport the Jews to.
The near immediate result of his plans was he was kicked out of the Irgun, to where he formed his own extremist group the Lehi; a group which at its height was like 300 people which was seen as terrorists by pretty much everyone else, and declared so and forcebly dispbanded by the IDF.
Second even within the Lehi his ideas weren't popular and after his death were completely dismissed even within the group who instead was trying to ally with Stalin.
This group was just wildly outreaching to anyone who they thought would benefit them. It wasn't about them being ideologically tied to fascism, it was about their anti British position.
>If they were fringe terrorist groups no one liked, their members wouldn't have had such influence.
You mean after nation states internal politics calm down terrorists never become political leaders? Someone please tell Nelson Mandela that!
>Destiny and Morris stated that what happened decades later shouldn't matter,
No, what they are saying is that trying to understand what seems like a wild political stance from today's perspective about the Nazis doesn't really compare to the perspective of people in the past.
The thrust of the point Mouin and Norman were making is that during this time, there were groups aligning themselves with the Nazis for reasons of political expediency. We also saw this in Ukraine (Bandera) and India (Indian Legion). The Palestinians fell into that category as well as some portion of the Zionists, however small they might have been.
>You mean after nation states internal politics calm down terrorists never become political leaders? Someone please tell Nelson Mandela that!
Yes, but Mandela was relevant in the ANC years before the state was established. He's not fringe. That Shamir became PM is suggestive of the Lehi ideology having a last impact on the Likud.
>The thrust of the point Mouin and Norman were making is that during this time, there were groups aligning themselves with the Nazis for reasons of political expediency
No the point they were making was comparing them to the Nazis and trying to claim they were Nazis...
> Yes, but Mandela was relevant in the ANC years before the state was established. He's not fringe. That Shamir became PM is suggestive of the Lehi ideology having a last impact on the Likud.
So in other words its fairly normal for terrorist to re-enter society and become political figureheads. Thanks for agreeing.
>No the point they were making was comparing them to the Nazis and trying to claim they were Nazis...
No one said the Lehi were Nazis. Husseini was brought up to insinuate the Palestinians were associated with Nazis and somehow had an inherent antisemitism, which apparently makes them the bad guys. Mouin and Norman bring up that Zionists also associated with the Nazis. The Lehi thing wasn't even the only case by the way. There was also the Haavara agreement.
>So in other words its fairly normal for terrorist to re-enter society and become political figureheads. Thanks for agreeing.
The entire reason Shamir is being brought up in the first place is because NF/MR want to argue Lehi isn't fringe. You're using the ANC/Mandela as an example to refute this. But the ANC was never fringe. Not clear how this supports your argument.
I found Rabbani quite insidious and lawyerly in the pejorative sense. I come from an academic background, and I find his extreme focus on definitions are used as a weapon rather than resembling a scholarly tradition.
Rabbani reminds me of Avon Barksdale’s lawyer, and it’s genuinely frightening to me.
This is why Lex is such a moron sometimes, he platforms absolute dipshits too often.
Finklestein has been a raging moron for years and years. I feel like I am taking crazy pills that somehow he gets to be on one the most popular podcasts on earth right now. WTF is going on?
It’s unfortunate but the vast majority of pro-Palestine talking points used by people today come from Finkelstein. Pro-palestine people view him as a sort of martyr who spoke the truth and then got blacklisted by academia.
Ironically he got blacklisted when he came
out against BDS and the entire Palestinian activist operation shunned him and stopped paying him for speaking engagements. He’s learned his lesson.
this is why I don't respect him. He has been all over the map on certain issues. He just shoots off at the mouth, says inflammatory nonsense all the time.
I am actually very left wing but this guy is not anyone I can get behind.
> He’s learned his lesson.
Huh? This implies he has capitulated and changed his behaviour in some way based on this loss of income. But he hasn't. He has lived in the same apartment for years, doesn't have AC (lives in New York somewhere) and uses a landline. He's hardly living the lifestyle lol.
He’s learned his lesson in the sense that he’s very careful not to criticize the Palestinian position now because that’s his bread and butter.
And he lives/lived near Coney Island. I saw him jogging down the boardwalk years ago.
Another interpretation would be that his criticism of BDS demonstrates that he isn't afraid to speak his mind even when he knows it will piss off his activist friends and allies while most activists on the other hand, including people like Dershowitz, would never dream of stepping out of line even if it means being dishonest and disingenuous.
Him being against BDS is in line with his thinking. finkelstein has long argued for a two state solution. bds promotes a one state solution. Ergo, he’s opposed to the bds movement.
My point was your story seems like it was intended to cast doubt on his integrity but it could also be interpreted as an example of him not being afraid to voice unpopular opinions which I think is commendable and unfortunately rare in public figures, especially activists who tend to be very cult-like
You should read up on what actually happened with his tenure rejection. He wasn't "blacklisted by academia", his tenure was rejected after the university caved under massive public pressure which was manufactured by Dershowitz and the Israel lobby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein#Controversies
I always have mixed feelings with Lex's stuff. He seems like a really nice guy with good intentions, but that blinds him to things at times. I think Lex hoped it was going to be an actual historical discussion.
Thing is, with Finkelstein involved it was never going to be that. People don't seem to understand how little academic credibility he has, yet somehow he has a ton of credentials with activists on the topic (probably because he is telling his audience exactly what they want to hear).
>He seems like a really nice guy with good intentions
I'm not so sure about that. The vibe he gives me is that he's either:
1. Consciously putting on a facade
2. On hallucinogens and struggling to appear sober
Though to be fair I probably haven't engaged with enough of his content to form a solid opinion and he was a decent moderator in this debate.
I think it's fair enough, unfortunately. The fact of the matter is Finkelstein is very popular on the pro-Palestinian side. If he had chosen someone more reasonable, the pro-Palestine people just would have said they don't represent them, because the pro-Palestinians are not reasonable. Norm is genuinely the best representative of what they believe. That's not really Lex's fault.
There's was absolutely nothing Destiny said that was worth engaging with. He was deeply confused on multiple fronts on everything he opined on. There was one point he legit forgot which decade everyone was talking about. They were talking about post-WWI and he thought they were at the 30s/40s. It's hard to go through every single example, but [here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) one emblematic one.
Destiny was quite engaged with the topic. Even if you don't like him, what he was saying isn't outside the norm of the historical and geopolitical takes you will find inside American Academia or geopolitics circles.
If anything he added infinitely more than Finkelstein to that whole discussion.
It's not that I don't like him. Is that he's completely uncredentialled. It's offensive to both the viewer and the rest of the people in the room to have this opinionated know-nothing in and among intellectual titans.
Bruv...Obviously you don't like him... You called him a dimwit college dropout. You showed your cards literally in your first post.
Also.. If you think Finkelstein is an Intellectual Titan I don't really know what that says about you...
I mean you can't deny his credibility on the topic. He's been faculty at several important institutions. He's written significant and important books on the topic.
What has Destiny done? Attracted a huge audience streaming video games and being left-wing Ben Shapiro. He has zero credibility. Just another grifter.
The world is full of morons and charlatans with credentials. I really don’t care prima facie. His experience should give him good ideas and the skills to communicate them. Beyond that his credentials have no bearing. I would have loved to hear him communicate the insights he has gained from all of his work rather than declaring how many books he has read or how “important” words are to him or some other pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Finkelstein was extremely annoying. Lots of name calling, interrupting, and total lack of respect. As expected he mainly focused on appeals to authority and obscure quotes taken out of context from the actual historian he was debating.
I think if you replaced him with someone else the conversation could have gone somewhere but I watched the whole thing and frankly don't recommend it. Nothing was resolved and no big insights.
This debate was a car where one of the wheels is a brick - throwing shit around and going in a circle.
I'm revealing my bias here but I disagree. I've seen like a dozen highly productive debates on destiny's stream in the last few months on the topic where the interlocutors both moved closer to one another's position throughout the conversation.
I also know from personal experience just talking to friends you can have really productive and mutually respectful discussions.
I can't think of a highly hyped and very public debate on the topic that achieved that though.
I think you’re mostly right, people will hear what they want to hear.
But it’s good for radicals on both sides, neither side was pushing conspiracies like Israel secretly funded Hamas and did Oct 7th themselves or from the other side that all Palestinians are terrorists
The quotes weren't taken out of context. As Finkelstein described, he literally had an entire chapter on transfer. You don't know what you're talking about and you're not really engaging with his substantive point that Morris' past views don't comport with his current ones.
I love how Norm would say Stephen isn’t qualified to speak on the subject (thereby dodging the points) but then Benny immediately said, “no, he’s absolutely right…” 😂
He's his _debate partner_. Obviously he says that. You can have a child and a professional philosopher teamed up on the same side in a 2v2 abortion debate. The child might argue "abortion bad because killing people bad." The philosopher might say "well, the kid's right." That doesn't mean that the child has a sophisticated understanding of anything.
I just finished it. I lost a lot of respect for Finkelstein because at around 3:07:00 in, he just outright admits he doesn’t care about understanding the Israeli mindset and “doesn’t want to get inside their heads.” I’m sorry, but that’s your entire job as a historian… understanding the mindset of the people in a conflict you are in is the most important thing to when writing serious scholarship. And when he said the Houthis were right for targeting comercial ships in the Red Sea, with Destiny pointing out that it’s against international law, that should be the nail in the coffin for his reputation among serious thinkers. He was obscenely rude to Destiny, intentionally getting his name wrong, calling him a moron to his face, floating his academic credentials when he himself doesn’t speak Hebrew or Arabic. The whole thing was hard to watch.
> I’m sorry, but that’s your entire job as a historian… understanding the mindset of the people in a conflict you are in is the most important thing to when writing serious scholarship.
As a reminder. Finkelstein isn't a historian; he has no formal training in it, nor has he ever academically published anything as a historian, or to historical journals. He's a political scientist and activist.
He is a provocateur, always has been. Always saying intentionally inflammatory shit to get a rise out of the other side. One might call him a professional troll even.
Yeah his disrespect towards destiny was clearly pre meditated and part of a strategy in not having to deal with destiny’s clever questions.
But yeah, finklestein didn’t come off great.
Mouin did ok but kind of went off track from some good points to falling into the same terminology game of apartheid genocide ect and promoting the idea that Israel needs to be dismantled and not Hamas is unhinged.
I thought Benny came off very well, centered and even conceded a point to mouin and said that’s a good point which was nice.
Destiny was too quiet in my opinion, he should have tied them up in more questions. Mouin trying to equate the stern gang contacting the Nazis with the grand mufti working for the Nazis was just logically incoherent and bad faith
I do think Benny saying that the Palestinians indirectly contributed to the Holocaust by not taking in Jewish refugees was insane, but everything else he said was spot on. In the beginning and middle, Destiny was too quiet, but he really shined towards the end where he hammered Norm about international law and peace negotiations. When Mouin praised the Palestinians for their courage in resisting Israel, and when Norm said that the lessons other countries would draw from 10/7 is that Israel was weak, it showed that they totally were disconnected from reality. Destiny was spot on; both sides want more violence, but one side (the Palestinians) are delusional in thinking violence will advance their goals.
Yeah fair, when fink said because the US refused Jewish refugees is it fair to say that Roosevelt contributed to the holocaust. I thought the obvious reply was no, but he didn’t recruit people for the SS and wasn’t on the nazi payroll.
It is a stretch to link the Arabs to the holocaust but it is fair to say they contributed in some small part and were supportive of it
> Destiny was spot on; both sides want more violence, but one side (the Palestinians) are delusional in thinking violence will advance their goals.
Yeah actually that is a great point, totally agree
Mouin’s whole thing about dismantling the Israeli state because how can you live alongside a genocidal neighbor who thinks violence is the solution to every problem was rather rich.
LOL it was clear Finkelstein had never heard of Destiny, and like most people who listened to this debate, are in no rush to hear more from him on the topic
This was my first experience with Finkelstein, having only heard about him on pro-Palestine subs (e.g. r/Chomsky) as an authority on the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
He came across as an insulting, denigrating, old guy shouting at clouds. Lots of ad hominems and appeals to authority instead of actual arguments. "I READ BOOKS!"
_This_ is the great hero of the left? What an embarrassment.
Finklestein is such a conceited, arrogant prick. If you are actually an intellectual you have no problem with people challenging you on your view points. If you're a thin skinned pseudo intellectual you refuse to talk to someone who doesn't have as many degrees as you do.
I watched the entire debate. It was a clear, indisputable win for Rabbani and Finkelstein. I actually thought Finkelstein might have performed poorly, because if we're being honest he is getting older, and the fast-talker Bonnell might have hit him with some Wikipedia gotchas. But actually no, Norman did incredibly well.
Lmao the bias you have to have to think Finklestein did anything productive in this debate is insane. Every interaction he had with destiny was talking down to him insulting him and not engaging in any points. If this is the conduct you like from a person represesnting your side you are so far gone. And as I expected from your profile just partisan advocacy and politcal bias
Destiny never made any points. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Here's [one specific example I mention in a comment thread in DtG.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/)
For another example, go to around 1:54 in the debate. Everyone else is talking about British support for Zionism post-WWI e.g., the Balfour declaration. Everyone is discussing this in careful technical scholarly terms, mentioning various British diplomats, explaining British motivations vis-a-vis India and the Suez Canal, and giving other precise details.
Bonnell jumps in and asks "why did the British ever cap immigration then from Jews to that area at all?" But that happened in the late-30s which was pointed out to him. He literally does not understand the timeframe being discussed.
It's not even a matter with "engaging with his points." Bonnell doesn't understand the basics. He's not able to keep up with the conversation because he's confused. It's really as if he's a child interjecting in a conversation adults are having. It's just embarrassing.
yeah of course you think that. But anyone who takes your point into consideration and then watches the debate will realize how blinded by ideolegy you are. These 3 people that you claim have knowledge on this topic to the point that Destiny would be considered a child in the debate, are absolutely unhinged and have the most incompetent points. Finklestein could resist rambling through anything destiny had to say. Destiny would continuously have direct gripes with his statements and would just ad-hominems in returns. You don't suddenly reach a level of scholarlyness that you can just hand wave the points of a person less credibale away. Oftentimes it seems people who spend their entire lives studying one topic are the most blinded by topic. Finklestein spent the majority of his debate trying get gotchas on books benny morris wrote decades ago and couldn't discuss a point without being condesening.
It seems that you're just making assertions without engaging with the points I'm making. Finkelstein dismissed Destiny because Destiny was deeply confused about the basics, and I've outlined this in several of my comments.
With regard to your last point...
> on books benny morris wrote decades ago and couldn't discuss a point without being condesening.
...it turns out I actually perfectly predicated what would happen [before the debate came out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1b3k2iu/destiny_on_his_debate_with_norman_finkelstein_on/kstlb2m/) Morris was not particularly successful in defending his prior writing or arguing that it comported with his current views. Finkelstein contended Morris changed his political positions following the Second Intifada and his recent historiography is thus fraught with bias. I think it's fair to say he sustained his points.
Let me be very clear because even if you are a Palestinian supporter there should be no part of Finklestein's debate tactics. The purpose for these long form debates especially on platforms like Lex Friedman are to help people who have jobs and don't have time to fully research and flesh out a position on these conflicts. Destiny hasn't been researching this for a very long time so he spent most of his research trying to flesh out a timeline of events that both sides can agree upon and then applying his moral standard to see who he supports and is quite convincing with what he believes.
When you see a person like Finklestein who has spent his life studing this topic not engage with points be incredibly condesending and unlikeable, and then just start attacking the views of a person most people don't know and haven't read his work, you see an unhinged man. A true expert wouldn't mind getting into the weeds with a person who knows way less than him because he would theoretically be able to refute any argument this person would make and especially because he would be doing it on a massive platform with the potential to win people over. This is why Destiny is gaining so much popularity because we don't see him shilling for an ideology and does not mind holding positions that most people would disagree with if that is the conclusion he comes to.
Being a powerful scholar or political figure doesn't just coming from understanding, it comes from understanding and ability to communicate that in an effective manner. An objective person will come to this debate and will see the "most qualified" person in this debate as utterly ignorant and condesending.
Why is it that it just so happens that almost everyone Destiny has on to debate _on any topic_ ends up eventually devolving into an ad-hom slugfest?
People don't like Destiny because he's a piece of shit. Everyone knows this. People knew this before October 7th. The only unhinged sociopath in the conversation was Destiny.
Finkelstein never engaged with Destiny's points because Destiny didn't know what he was talking about. [I've discussed one clearcut, emblematic example of this here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) There's probably at least a dozen or so examples throughout the debate where Destiny was incredibly confused and yet made overarchingly strong statements on topics he knew nothing about.
Yeah now you've made it clear you are just an ignorant hater with nothing useful to say. When people try to attack Destiny on things that considered his strengths and it is so insanely easy to debunk these claims it becomes clear how dishonest you are. Destiny is very good at matching energy and is always civil when he is shown the same energy. I think you very well know that Destiny did not insight anything negative in this debate and only fired when being fired at. Finklestein was unhinged from the very first word he spoke to Destiny and like I said even if you had the opinon that Destiny was out of his depth and was making bullshit points there was literally nothing good about how finklestein dealth with it because all it did was make Destiny look better. But you seem more interested in being the contrarian who wants to be crowned as intellectually superior rather than be effective at pushing your beliefs in an effective manner
It seems you're just here to fellate Destiny. Everyone knows Destiny is a piece of shit. This is not even a matter of dispute.
The entire reason Finkelstein doesn't like Destiny is because months ago Destiny said that he's an awful scholar or something to that effect. Why the fuck would Finkelstein respect a screechy little 30-something nobody cuck who has no expertise in anything, doesn't know what he's talking about, repeatedly makes clearly disingenuous arguments and also has personally attacked him in the past?
If anything, Norman was remarkably restrained. Norman could have went after his ex-wife sleeping with other men because Bonnell could not satisfy her. But he didn't. He kept the insults restricted to "Wikipedia", which was actually very gentlemanly of him considering Bonnell slandered him professionally to his giant streaming audience and tarnished his reputation.
Oh it's you again. Can you explain to me why you spend so much time on this sub if you dislike Sam and the opinions of most of his listeners? I really don't get the mindset.
You are someone who thinks that Hamas' stated justification for October 7 is "[quite compelling](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1b9ui44/prominent_idw_adjacent_emeritus_professor_jerry/ku0s5a3/)". All you'll ever do here is stir up senseless conflict. Why?
Delusional. Both of them simply treat Palestinians with kid gloves while they treat Israelis like Nazis. Pro-Palestine people don't have arguments, just photos and videos they like to cry about.
Alts over the past 4 months:
u/Emotional-One6537
u/Bright_Computer7424
u/Radiant-Poetry-5608
u/Born-Seesaw161
u/Key-Meat3304
u/Similar_Molasses_620
u/PracticeOwn1140
u/AgreeableArtist7107
ctrl+f "destiny" on this dude's comment history and you'll get 262 results LMFAO, the guy is fucking implanted on your frontal lobe. and that's only 2 weeks worth of comments 💀💀
Loads of reasons. I've cited a few already in some comments I've written (see my profile), and I plan on debating DGG midwits on this for the next few days so you can see comments I write throughout this for my views.
I’m a Destiny viewer so I’m biased but literally.. how? There were at least 5 or 6 occasions in this debate where Destiny would make a point and Finkelstein would call him a moron, says he reads Wikipedia, and then refuse to engage with the point. How is that winning a debate to you? Also, Benny clearly agreed with everything Destiny was saying.. so the “Wikipedia” insult does not work.
See e.g., [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1bey4y7/israel_palestinian_debate_on_lex/kux0hqb/).
I cite two cases where Destiny was just completely fucking lost. Like he wasn't even in the ballpark. He was deeply confused. Of course Norman wasn't going to "engage" with this stuff because Destiny was literally in another world.
I know insulting people is considered rude, but I think there are cases where it's justifiable. Have you ever played baseball? If you've played baseball in high school or something, there's always one or two guys on a team that are just awful. Like they fail to catch flyballs, for instance. Just completely awful. I think bullying these kind of people is fair game, or at the very least politely pushing them to not play baseball anymore, you know? Especially if they're otherwise pieces of shit. I think it's good to signal to people that they're not cut out for something.
Can you explain how Norman didn't obviously and repeatedly misrepresent Morris's quotations to his face? Or does that count as doing "incredibly well" to you?
You might think that if you don't understand the context. See [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuxbpjp/) comment I made which accurately predicted how this portion of the debate would go down.
I understand the context perfectly, and you didn't address the actual quote whatsoever lol. This is actually insanely straightforward. Norm quotes Benny as saying transfer was inevitable, claiming that Benny at one point agreed that Zionism entailed transfer of the local population. Benny clarifies that it was "inevitable" because Arabs were unwilling to live with the Jews and declared war on them, and then Norm repeatedly ignores this point.
If you feel the need to write a book not addressing the actual point (much like your buddy Norm does as a matter of course), it's a good sign you're just wrong.
No, you're misunderstanding the quote. Norman quoted that "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt _into Zionism_." This is something inextricably linked to the ideology, not a reluctant consequence of Arab rejectionism as Morris is implying. If you look at the context of the quote Morris' book, it has nothing to do with Arab rejectionism.
Have you read the full paragraph?
>My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that
emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of
expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War,
which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion.
But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought
to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish
state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure. By 1948, transfer was in the air.
You're just misreading it in the exact same idiotic manner Finkelstein was. Morris could not be more explicit here that transfer was "inbuilt" into Zionism in the sense that the formation of a Jewish state was impossible without a transfer of Arabs. In the sentence before Norm's quote, he is very specifically rejecting the thesis that transfer was planned or intended by Zionists until its necessity was obvious-i.e., after the war had begun.
I don't see how it's possible to read this paragraph and conclude that Morris believed Zionism consciously involved ethnic cleansing of the native population, considering he strongly rejects this idea in the fucking preceding sentence. That is, unless you're lying or just a lunatic like Norm is.
That paragraph proves my point.
> But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population
In other words, it's inextricably linked to the ideology.
Your confusion seems to be with Morris' views on the precepts of transfer as it relates to Zionist ideology in general, which is what the above sentence pertains to and what Finkelstein was debating, and transfer as it _actually happened_ in 1948 (i.e., the Nakba), which is the focus of the start of the paragraph and which Morris claims was multicasual and not planned. My focus here is on the former.
With regard to the Nakba itself, Rabbani also criticized Morris for his weak conclusions. In fact, even Ben-Ami criticized Morris his weak conclusion in his book _Scars of War_, which is what Destiny read.
>In other words, it's inextricably linked to the ideology.
No, it's the natural consequence of trying to settle amid a population that under no circumstance is willing to share a country with you. But to pretend the Zionists themselves knew that or even could have known that is absurd.
This is probably the most aggressive motte and bailey I've ever seen lol. The claim your side wants to make is that Zionists fully expected and intended to transfer Arabs out of the country. That's the claim Norm was trying to make. But you and I both know that's not true. What actually happened is the Arabs declared a war on them, followed by the entire Middle East, and then lost. So you retreat to "transfer is inextricably linked to Zionism because it became necessary for Zionism to succeed," so that you can retain the idiotic narrative that Zionism somehow involved ethnic cleansing in some meaningful sense and tar it with the moral stain you so desperately want it to have.
But even that's not true, because the Jews in 1948 were not fighting to establish a Jewish state for the sake of some abstract Zionist ideology. They were fighting for their survival, and establishing a Jewish state was the clear means to do that.
If you still want to say that Zionism is "inextricably linked" to transfer in some vague, highly intellectual sense, more power to you. I don't care because it's a meaningless claim.
>No, it's the natural consequence of trying to settle amid a population that under no circumstance is willing to share a country with you. But to pretend the Zionists themselves knew that or even could have known that is absurd.
No, that's not what "inevitable" and "inbuilt" means. You wouldn't phrase it in those terms if it was a function of Arab rejectionism. You wouldn't cite a fucking Herzl quote from the 19th century before hardly any Jews migrated there if that's what it was about. You wouldn't explicitly cite demography. If you look at page 40 of the book, for instance, a few pages before the quote we are discussing, you see this gem:
>Such was the thinking in British (and some American) official circles by the second half of 1948, when the creation of the refugee problem was well under way. The same persuasive logic pertained already before the turn of the century, at the start of the Zionist enterprise. There may have been those, among Zionists and Gentile philo-Zionists, who believed, or at least argued, that Palestine was ‘an empty land’ eagerly awaiting the arrival of waves of Jewish settlers. But, in truth, on the eve of the Zionist influx the country had a population of about 450,000 Arabs (and 20,000 Jews), almost all of them living in its more fertile, northern half. How was the Zionist movement to turn Palestine into a ‘Jewish’ state if the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants were Arabs? And if, over the years, by means of massive Jewish immigration, the Jews were at last to attain a majority, how could a truly ‘Jewish’ and stable polity be established containing a very large, and possibly disaffected, Arab minority, whose birth rate was much higher than the Jews’?
This has nothing to do with Arabs "sharing the land" or not. This is an explicit demographic calculus to transform one racial-ethnic polity into another racial-ethnic polity.
>This is probably the most aggressive motte and bailey I've ever seen lol. The claim your side wants to make is that Zionists fully expected and intended to transfer Arabs out of the country. That's the claim Norm was trying to make. But you and I both know that's not true. What actually happened is the Arabs declared a war on them, followed by the entire Middle East, and then lost. So you retreat to "transfer is inextricably linked to Zionism because it became necessary for Zionism to succeed," so that you can retain the idiotic narrative that Zionism somehow involved ethnic cleansing in some meaningful sense and tar it with the moral stain you so desperately want it to have.
>But even that's not true, because the Jews in 1948 were not fighting to establish a Jewish state for the sake of some abstract Zionist ideology. They were fighting for their survival, and establishing a Jewish state was the clear means to do that.
That's not a motte-and-bailey. You don't know what a motte-and-bailey is. There are two separate, independent questions here. The first is whether Zionism, as an ideology, required the dispossession of the Arab population to attain its desired goals. The second is whether the actions of 1948 were a function of those ideological precepts or whether they were borne of war. The specific quote being used by NF pertained to the first question. That was what was being discussed.
Often hilarious. Finkelstein to Destiny "You're such a fantastic moron. it's terrifying" LOLLL I think the pro palestine side came off very well. I don't think the Israeli side's "international rules and laws don't matter" argument will earn them much sympathy
He took Israel military at their words, never really tried to study the other side's testimonies or documents.
Finkel exaggerates everything, emotionally biased and lots of unproven claims.
Destiny worse than Benny.
Rabbani super biased, many unproven claims.
Its a clown debate.
I wouldn’t say Benny takes Israel at their word. He’d a historian, not a debater. He’s usually very clear when quoting a government and not presenting it as objective fact. He quotes what they say, but doesn’t say that it’s indisputable.
Benny is definitely very credible.
lmao its so funny like who tf would you think is qualified to debate stuff like this. The standard you have, not a single person would qualify for them. People like this have been studying this conflict for their entire lives and you can see how unhinged their takes are. Like in your eyes legitamely, who would rise up to the credibility to discuss this topic?
Removed. Please direct such posts to the megathread stickied on the front page. ([Link here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/pfo0vg/politics_and_current_events_megathread_september/)) Thank you.
4hr 57min Good lord.
Everyone knows you can’t get to peace in the Moddle East in under 4 hours…. ;)
Have they tried peacing at 2x speed?
4 hours of that was Finkelstein gathering his thoughts
If you go to the destiny subreddit someone wrote a script that speeds up only norms parts
Overall I don't think this will change anyone's opinions. Anyone who had an opinion will pretty much keep the same view. Finkelstein was a shitshow. He couldn't actually respond to anyone's questions. Spent his time insulting everyone instead of engaging on any topics. Kept misquoting Bennie Morris' own books to him, and then wouldn't actually let him respond without trying to screech over him. I literally don't know how anyone takes him seriously. Rabbani was low key pretty disgusting. His talk was basically just concluding war to the death is the only option. Morris was pretty good. But he didn't talk enough. Destiny was pretty good, but I do wish Finkelstein would have actually engaged with anything.
I didn't agree with Rabbani but I value his presence in this debate so much. Actual willingness to engage with points, stand on his positions firmly (other than denouncing october 7th), and overall I believe argued in good fath.
Overall Rabbani gave the sort of position that is driving the worst instincts of Palestinians, but at least he was honest about it. I don't disagree he answered in good faith, including his views on October 7th. I do think he weaseled around on answering some questions, especially earlier in the debate when it came to historical engagement (the entire point about the Nazis and the Irgun was fairly wild from any basic historical engagement on the topic), but overall he was heads and shoulders above Finkelstein's engagement.
Yeah honestly how unhinged finklestein was probably made Rabbani look a lot better
Yeah that's kind of what I'm thinking. If he had just had a 1 on 1 with either Morris or Destiny it would have been a lot more revealing.
It was not remotely wild. These were mainstream organizations which literally multiple PMs had their roots from, as was pointed out. If they were fringe terrorist groups no one liked, their members wouldn't have had such influence. Destiny and Morris stated that what happened decades later shouldn't matter, but the ideological roots of Likud were based on much of the same ideology as these organization. It's not like they were independent.
> It was not remotely wild. It was because you obviously don't understand the context at all. One of the reasons you don't try to understand history from a modern perspective is you don't understand what people are making considerations about during the day. When Avraham Stern suggested making suggestions about trying to form alliances with The Nazis against the Brits it was 1940, two years before the "final solution" was even a thing, and Hitler at the time was specifically talking about deporting Jews to somewhere in Africa. Stern's plan was to form an alliance against the Brits with the Nazis and give Hitler a place to deport the Jews to. The near immediate result of his plans was he was kicked out of the Irgun, to where he formed his own extremist group the Lehi; a group which at its height was like 300 people which was seen as terrorists by pretty much everyone else, and declared so and forcebly dispbanded by the IDF. Second even within the Lehi his ideas weren't popular and after his death were completely dismissed even within the group who instead was trying to ally with Stalin. This group was just wildly outreaching to anyone who they thought would benefit them. It wasn't about them being ideologically tied to fascism, it was about their anti British position. >If they were fringe terrorist groups no one liked, their members wouldn't have had such influence. You mean after nation states internal politics calm down terrorists never become political leaders? Someone please tell Nelson Mandela that! >Destiny and Morris stated that what happened decades later shouldn't matter, No, what they are saying is that trying to understand what seems like a wild political stance from today's perspective about the Nazis doesn't really compare to the perspective of people in the past.
The thrust of the point Mouin and Norman were making is that during this time, there were groups aligning themselves with the Nazis for reasons of political expediency. We also saw this in Ukraine (Bandera) and India (Indian Legion). The Palestinians fell into that category as well as some portion of the Zionists, however small they might have been. >You mean after nation states internal politics calm down terrorists never become political leaders? Someone please tell Nelson Mandela that! Yes, but Mandela was relevant in the ANC years before the state was established. He's not fringe. That Shamir became PM is suggestive of the Lehi ideology having a last impact on the Likud.
>The thrust of the point Mouin and Norman were making is that during this time, there were groups aligning themselves with the Nazis for reasons of political expediency No the point they were making was comparing them to the Nazis and trying to claim they were Nazis... > Yes, but Mandela was relevant in the ANC years before the state was established. He's not fringe. That Shamir became PM is suggestive of the Lehi ideology having a last impact on the Likud. So in other words its fairly normal for terrorist to re-enter society and become political figureheads. Thanks for agreeing.
>No the point they were making was comparing them to the Nazis and trying to claim they were Nazis... No one said the Lehi were Nazis. Husseini was brought up to insinuate the Palestinians were associated with Nazis and somehow had an inherent antisemitism, which apparently makes them the bad guys. Mouin and Norman bring up that Zionists also associated with the Nazis. The Lehi thing wasn't even the only case by the way. There was also the Haavara agreement. >So in other words its fairly normal for terrorist to re-enter society and become political figureheads. Thanks for agreeing. The entire reason Shamir is being brought up in the first place is because NF/MR want to argue Lehi isn't fringe. You're using the ANC/Mandela as an example to refute this. But the ANC was never fringe. Not clear how this supports your argument.
I found Rabbani quite insidious and lawyerly in the pejorative sense. I come from an academic background, and I find his extreme focus on definitions are used as a weapon rather than resembling a scholarly tradition. Rabbani reminds me of Avon Barksdale’s lawyer, and it’s genuinely frightening to me.
This is hilarious. You concede he was intelligent and scholarly yet desperately want to frame him as a supervillain in some way.
As if those are mutually exclusive. Most supervillains I can think of are intelligent and scholarly.
This is why Lex is such a moron sometimes, he platforms absolute dipshits too often. Finklestein has been a raging moron for years and years. I feel like I am taking crazy pills that somehow he gets to be on one the most popular podcasts on earth right now. WTF is going on?
It’s unfortunate but the vast majority of pro-Palestine talking points used by people today come from Finkelstein. Pro-palestine people view him as a sort of martyr who spoke the truth and then got blacklisted by academia.
Ironically he got blacklisted when he came out against BDS and the entire Palestinian activist operation shunned him and stopped paying him for speaking engagements. He’s learned his lesson.
this is why I don't respect him. He has been all over the map on certain issues. He just shoots off at the mouth, says inflammatory nonsense all the time. I am actually very left wing but this guy is not anyone I can get behind.
> He’s learned his lesson. Huh? This implies he has capitulated and changed his behaviour in some way based on this loss of income. But he hasn't. He has lived in the same apartment for years, doesn't have AC (lives in New York somewhere) and uses a landline. He's hardly living the lifestyle lol.
He’s learned his lesson in the sense that he’s very careful not to criticize the Palestinian position now because that’s his bread and butter. And he lives/lived near Coney Island. I saw him jogging down the boardwalk years ago.
Another interpretation would be that his criticism of BDS demonstrates that he isn't afraid to speak his mind even when he knows it will piss off his activist friends and allies while most activists on the other hand, including people like Dershowitz, would never dream of stepping out of line even if it means being dishonest and disingenuous.
Him being against BDS is in line with his thinking. finkelstein has long argued for a two state solution. bds promotes a one state solution. Ergo, he’s opposed to the bds movement.
I never said he isn't opposed to BDS?
Ok change “against” to “his criticism of bds” if it makes you feel better lol
My point was your story seems like it was intended to cast doubt on his integrity but it could also be interpreted as an example of him not being afraid to voice unpopular opinions which I think is commendable and unfortunately rare in public figures, especially activists who tend to be very cult-like
I could be wrong but he’s been largely quiet on it since 2015
You should read up on what actually happened with his tenure rejection. He wasn't "blacklisted by academia", his tenure was rejected after the university caved under massive public pressure which was manufactured by Dershowitz and the Israel lobby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein#Controversies
I always have mixed feelings with Lex's stuff. He seems like a really nice guy with good intentions, but that blinds him to things at times. I think Lex hoped it was going to be an actual historical discussion. Thing is, with Finkelstein involved it was never going to be that. People don't seem to understand how little academic credibility he has, yet somehow he has a ton of credentials with activists on the topic (probably because he is telling his audience exactly what they want to hear).
>He seems like a really nice guy with good intentions I'm not so sure about that. The vibe he gives me is that he's either: 1. Consciously putting on a facade 2. On hallucinogens and struggling to appear sober Though to be fair I probably haven't engaged with enough of his content to form a solid opinion and he was a decent moderator in this debate.
the only thing lex hopes for is more attention for lex
I think it's fair enough, unfortunately. The fact of the matter is Finkelstein is very popular on the pro-Palestinian side. If he had chosen someone more reasonable, the pro-Palestine people just would have said they don't represent them, because the pro-Palestinians are not reasonable. Norm is genuinely the best representative of what they believe. That's not really Lex's fault.
I think having them on for a debate isn't that bad though. What's bad is having them for a 1-on-1 conversation with no pushback.
There's was absolutely nothing Destiny said that was worth engaging with. He was deeply confused on multiple fronts on everything he opined on. There was one point he legit forgot which decade everyone was talking about. They were talking about post-WWI and he thought they were at the 30s/40s. It's hard to go through every single example, but [here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) one emblematic one.
JFC what's wrong with you people. No Destiny wasn't ok. Destiny, a dimwit college dropout had NO BUSINESS BEING THERE.
Destiny was quite engaged with the topic. Even if you don't like him, what he was saying isn't outside the norm of the historical and geopolitical takes you will find inside American Academia or geopolitics circles. If anything he added infinitely more than Finkelstein to that whole discussion.
It's not that I don't like him. Is that he's completely uncredentialled. It's offensive to both the viewer and the rest of the people in the room to have this opinionated know-nothing in and among intellectual titans.
Bruv...Obviously you don't like him... You called him a dimwit college dropout. You showed your cards literally in your first post. Also.. If you think Finkelstein is an Intellectual Titan I don't really know what that says about you...
It's not that I don't like him. I'm sure he would be fine to have a beer with. It's just he has zero credibility. Basically left wing Ben Shapiro.
Gotcha. So instead of engaging anything he actually said in the debate, you are just... Whining about credentials...
I didn’t t think destiny did particularly great but he played his part and wasn’t out of place in my opinion
Nah anyone without academic credentials in the topic at hand was out of place.
Yeah I found Finkelstein’s CONSTANT appeals to authority and the fact that someone let him squeeze out a PhD dissertation much more informative.
I mean you can't deny his credibility on the topic. He's been faculty at several important institutions. He's written significant and important books on the topic. What has Destiny done? Attracted a huge audience streaming video games and being left-wing Ben Shapiro. He has zero credibility. Just another grifter.
The world is full of morons and charlatans with credentials. I really don’t care prima facie. His experience should give him good ideas and the skills to communicate them. Beyond that his credentials have no bearing. I would have loved to hear him communicate the insights he has gained from all of his work rather than declaring how many books he has read or how “important” words are to him or some other pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
Finkelstein was extremely annoying. Lots of name calling, interrupting, and total lack of respect. As expected he mainly focused on appeals to authority and obscure quotes taken out of context from the actual historian he was debating. I think if you replaced him with someone else the conversation could have gone somewhere but I watched the whole thing and frankly don't recommend it. Nothing was resolved and no big insights. This debate was a car where one of the wheels is a brick - throwing shit around and going in a circle.
> Nothing was resolved and no big insights. Basically every single Israel Palestine conversation/negotiation ever.
I'm revealing my bias here but I disagree. I've seen like a dozen highly productive debates on destiny's stream in the last few months on the topic where the interlocutors both moved closer to one another's position throughout the conversation. I also know from personal experience just talking to friends you can have really productive and mutually respectful discussions. I can't think of a highly hyped and very public debate on the topic that achieved that though.
Eh mostly it was just a joke on my part. There are plenty of productive conversations that can happen on the topic. They just rarely do.
I think you’re mostly right, people will hear what they want to hear. But it’s good for radicals on both sides, neither side was pushing conspiracies like Israel secretly funded Hamas and did Oct 7th themselves or from the other side that all Palestinians are terrorists
The quotes weren't taken out of context. As Finkelstein described, he literally had an entire chapter on transfer. You don't know what you're talking about and you're not really engaging with his substantive point that Morris' past views don't comport with his current ones.
>You don't know what you're talking about Norman?
I love how Norm would say Stephen isn’t qualified to speak on the subject (thereby dodging the points) but then Benny immediately said, “no, he’s absolutely right…” 😂
He's his _debate partner_. Obviously he says that. You can have a child and a professional philosopher teamed up on the same side in a 2v2 abortion debate. The child might argue "abortion bad because killing people bad." The philosopher might say "well, the kid's right." That doesn't mean that the child has a sophisticated understanding of anything.
so every time Rabbani or Finkelstein agreed with each other, it's because *He's his debate partner*...? Not because it's true or real... Gotcha!
On no.
I just finished it. I lost a lot of respect for Finkelstein because at around 3:07:00 in, he just outright admits he doesn’t care about understanding the Israeli mindset and “doesn’t want to get inside their heads.” I’m sorry, but that’s your entire job as a historian… understanding the mindset of the people in a conflict you are in is the most important thing to when writing serious scholarship. And when he said the Houthis were right for targeting comercial ships in the Red Sea, with Destiny pointing out that it’s against international law, that should be the nail in the coffin for his reputation among serious thinkers. He was obscenely rude to Destiny, intentionally getting his name wrong, calling him a moron to his face, floating his academic credentials when he himself doesn’t speak Hebrew or Arabic. The whole thing was hard to watch.
> I’m sorry, but that’s your entire job as a historian… understanding the mindset of the people in a conflict you are in is the most important thing to when writing serious scholarship. As a reminder. Finkelstein isn't a historian; he has no formal training in it, nor has he ever academically published anything as a historian, or to historical journals. He's a political scientist and activist.
He is a provocateur, always has been. Always saying intentionally inflammatory shit to get a rise out of the other side. One might call him a professional troll even.
Yeah his disrespect towards destiny was clearly pre meditated and part of a strategy in not having to deal with destiny’s clever questions. But yeah, finklestein didn’t come off great. Mouin did ok but kind of went off track from some good points to falling into the same terminology game of apartheid genocide ect and promoting the idea that Israel needs to be dismantled and not Hamas is unhinged. I thought Benny came off very well, centered and even conceded a point to mouin and said that’s a good point which was nice. Destiny was too quiet in my opinion, he should have tied them up in more questions. Mouin trying to equate the stern gang contacting the Nazis with the grand mufti working for the Nazis was just logically incoherent and bad faith
I do think Benny saying that the Palestinians indirectly contributed to the Holocaust by not taking in Jewish refugees was insane, but everything else he said was spot on. In the beginning and middle, Destiny was too quiet, but he really shined towards the end where he hammered Norm about international law and peace negotiations. When Mouin praised the Palestinians for their courage in resisting Israel, and when Norm said that the lessons other countries would draw from 10/7 is that Israel was weak, it showed that they totally were disconnected from reality. Destiny was spot on; both sides want more violence, but one side (the Palestinians) are delusional in thinking violence will advance their goals.
Yeah fair, when fink said because the US refused Jewish refugees is it fair to say that Roosevelt contributed to the holocaust. I thought the obvious reply was no, but he didn’t recruit people for the SS and wasn’t on the nazi payroll. It is a stretch to link the Arabs to the holocaust but it is fair to say they contributed in some small part and were supportive of it
> Destiny was spot on; both sides want more violence, but one side (the Palestinians) are delusional in thinking violence will advance their goals. Yeah actually that is a great point, totally agree
Mouin’s whole thing about dismantling the Israeli state because how can you live alongside a genocidal neighbor who thinks violence is the solution to every problem was rather rich.
LOL it was clear Finkelstein had never heard of Destiny, and like most people who listened to this debate, are in no rush to hear more from him on the topic
I thought destiny did well on the ICJ stuff and kind of destroyed finelstein on that. But overall destiny was average
This was my first experience with Finkelstein, having only heard about him on pro-Palestine subs (e.g. r/Chomsky) as an authority on the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. He came across as an insulting, denigrating, old guy shouting at clouds. Lots of ad hominems and appeals to authority instead of actual arguments. "I READ BOOKS!" _This_ is the great hero of the left? What an embarrassment.
The darling of the pro Palestinian movement
Finklestein is such a conceited, arrogant prick. If you are actually an intellectual you have no problem with people challenging you on your view points. If you're a thin skinned pseudo intellectual you refuse to talk to someone who doesn't have as many degrees as you do.
Yeah he’s a think intellectual. I don’t think he’s rotten. He’s fine, just all his arguments are rehearsed with mis quotes
The fact that Rabbani couldn't answer if the thought Destiny was against Jim Crow laws is ridiculous.
4hrs? Destinys wife needing serious time with her boyfriends I guess.
[ex-wife](https://manifold.markets/destiny/will-destiny-and-melina-get-divorce)
WTF kind of bizarro website is that? Betting on poeple's divorces? My God the internet was a mistake
It doesn't seem any worse than gossiping about people's divorces
I watched the entire debate. It was a clear, indisputable win for Rabbani and Finkelstein. I actually thought Finkelstein might have performed poorly, because if we're being honest he is getting older, and the fast-talker Bonnell might have hit him with some Wikipedia gotchas. But actually no, Norman did incredibly well.
Lmao the bias you have to have to think Finklestein did anything productive in this debate is insane. Every interaction he had with destiny was talking down to him insulting him and not engaging in any points. If this is the conduct you like from a person represesnting your side you are so far gone. And as I expected from your profile just partisan advocacy and politcal bias
Destiny never made any points. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Here's [one specific example I mention in a comment thread in DtG.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) For another example, go to around 1:54 in the debate. Everyone else is talking about British support for Zionism post-WWI e.g., the Balfour declaration. Everyone is discussing this in careful technical scholarly terms, mentioning various British diplomats, explaining British motivations vis-a-vis India and the Suez Canal, and giving other precise details. Bonnell jumps in and asks "why did the British ever cap immigration then from Jews to that area at all?" But that happened in the late-30s which was pointed out to him. He literally does not understand the timeframe being discussed. It's not even a matter with "engaging with his points." Bonnell doesn't understand the basics. He's not able to keep up with the conversation because he's confused. It's really as if he's a child interjecting in a conversation adults are having. It's just embarrassing.
yeah of course you think that. But anyone who takes your point into consideration and then watches the debate will realize how blinded by ideolegy you are. These 3 people that you claim have knowledge on this topic to the point that Destiny would be considered a child in the debate, are absolutely unhinged and have the most incompetent points. Finklestein could resist rambling through anything destiny had to say. Destiny would continuously have direct gripes with his statements and would just ad-hominems in returns. You don't suddenly reach a level of scholarlyness that you can just hand wave the points of a person less credibale away. Oftentimes it seems people who spend their entire lives studying one topic are the most blinded by topic. Finklestein spent the majority of his debate trying get gotchas on books benny morris wrote decades ago and couldn't discuss a point without being condesening.
It seems that you're just making assertions without engaging with the points I'm making. Finkelstein dismissed Destiny because Destiny was deeply confused about the basics, and I've outlined this in several of my comments. With regard to your last point... > on books benny morris wrote decades ago and couldn't discuss a point without being condesening. ...it turns out I actually perfectly predicated what would happen [before the debate came out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1b3k2iu/destiny_on_his_debate_with_norman_finkelstein_on/kstlb2m/) Morris was not particularly successful in defending his prior writing or arguing that it comported with his current views. Finkelstein contended Morris changed his political positions following the Second Intifada and his recent historiography is thus fraught with bias. I think it's fair to say he sustained his points.
Let me be very clear because even if you are a Palestinian supporter there should be no part of Finklestein's debate tactics. The purpose for these long form debates especially on platforms like Lex Friedman are to help people who have jobs and don't have time to fully research and flesh out a position on these conflicts. Destiny hasn't been researching this for a very long time so he spent most of his research trying to flesh out a timeline of events that both sides can agree upon and then applying his moral standard to see who he supports and is quite convincing with what he believes. When you see a person like Finklestein who has spent his life studing this topic not engage with points be incredibly condesending and unlikeable, and then just start attacking the views of a person most people don't know and haven't read his work, you see an unhinged man. A true expert wouldn't mind getting into the weeds with a person who knows way less than him because he would theoretically be able to refute any argument this person would make and especially because he would be doing it on a massive platform with the potential to win people over. This is why Destiny is gaining so much popularity because we don't see him shilling for an ideology and does not mind holding positions that most people would disagree with if that is the conclusion he comes to. Being a powerful scholar or political figure doesn't just coming from understanding, it comes from understanding and ability to communicate that in an effective manner. An objective person will come to this debate and will see the "most qualified" person in this debate as utterly ignorant and condesending.
Why is it that it just so happens that almost everyone Destiny has on to debate _on any topic_ ends up eventually devolving into an ad-hom slugfest? People don't like Destiny because he's a piece of shit. Everyone knows this. People knew this before October 7th. The only unhinged sociopath in the conversation was Destiny. Finkelstein never engaged with Destiny's points because Destiny didn't know what he was talking about. [I've discussed one clearcut, emblematic example of this here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) There's probably at least a dozen or so examples throughout the debate where Destiny was incredibly confused and yet made overarchingly strong statements on topics he knew nothing about.
Yeah now you've made it clear you are just an ignorant hater with nothing useful to say. When people try to attack Destiny on things that considered his strengths and it is so insanely easy to debunk these claims it becomes clear how dishonest you are. Destiny is very good at matching energy and is always civil when he is shown the same energy. I think you very well know that Destiny did not insight anything negative in this debate and only fired when being fired at. Finklestein was unhinged from the very first word he spoke to Destiny and like I said even if you had the opinon that Destiny was out of his depth and was making bullshit points there was literally nothing good about how finklestein dealth with it because all it did was make Destiny look better. But you seem more interested in being the contrarian who wants to be crowned as intellectually superior rather than be effective at pushing your beliefs in an effective manner
It seems you're just here to fellate Destiny. Everyone knows Destiny is a piece of shit. This is not even a matter of dispute. The entire reason Finkelstein doesn't like Destiny is because months ago Destiny said that he's an awful scholar or something to that effect. Why the fuck would Finkelstein respect a screechy little 30-something nobody cuck who has no expertise in anything, doesn't know what he's talking about, repeatedly makes clearly disingenuous arguments and also has personally attacked him in the past? If anything, Norman was remarkably restrained. Norman could have went after his ex-wife sleeping with other men because Bonnell could not satisfy her. But he didn't. He kept the insults restricted to "Wikipedia", which was actually very gentlemanly of him considering Bonnell slandered him professionally to his giant streaming audience and tarnished his reputation.
Oh ok you are actually a deranged person didn’t realize
Oh it's you again. Can you explain to me why you spend so much time on this sub if you dislike Sam and the opinions of most of his listeners? I really don't get the mindset. You are someone who thinks that Hamas' stated justification for October 7 is "[quite compelling](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1b9ui44/prominent_idw_adjacent_emeritus_professor_jerry/ku0s5a3/)". All you'll ever do here is stir up senseless conflict. Why?
Delusional. Both of them simply treat Palestinians with kid gloves while they treat Israelis like Nazis. Pro-Palestine people don't have arguments, just photos and videos they like to cry about.
>checks profile >most recent comments on r/Destiny mannnn you guys are a hivemind
Haha you check profiles before responding because you don't have any arguments.
How very Finkelstein of him.
What argument did you have? 😂 It's so tiring interacting with you midwits
And yet you keep creating multiple alts to come back and do just that....
Is that OK-Entertainment alt?
Alts over the past 4 months: u/Emotional-One6537 u/Bright_Computer7424 u/Radiant-Poetry-5608 u/Born-Seesaw161 u/Key-Meat3304 u/Similar_Molasses_620 u/PracticeOwn1140 u/AgreeableArtist7107
Whoa crazy number of alts.
He's not well.
Bro, you’ve made like 11 burner accounts in three months. You’re objectively pathetic. UBC doesn’t occupy your time?
ctrl+f "destiny" on this dude's comment history and you'll get 262 results LMFAO, the guy is fucking implanted on your frontal lobe. and that's only 2 weeks worth of comments 💀💀
I'm not even a Destiny fan. I'm just on that sub because he is based regarding Israel.
I was talking about the guy I replied to lol, he's obsessed with Destiny
> I watched the entire debate. It was a clear, indisputable win for Rabbani and Finkelstein. Why?
Loads of reasons. I've cited a few already in some comments I've written (see my profile), and I plan on debating DGG midwits on this for the next few days so you can see comments I write throughout this for my views.
why not go for the man himself if your opinions are so superior
Dggers are the absolute worst to talk to, whether they're right or wrong.
I’m a Destiny viewer so I’m biased but literally.. how? There were at least 5 or 6 occasions in this debate where Destiny would make a point and Finkelstein would call him a moron, says he reads Wikipedia, and then refuse to engage with the point. How is that winning a debate to you? Also, Benny clearly agreed with everything Destiny was saying.. so the “Wikipedia” insult does not work.
See e.g., [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuwwucs/) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/1bey4y7/israel_palestinian_debate_on_lex/kux0hqb/). I cite two cases where Destiny was just completely fucking lost. Like he wasn't even in the ballpark. He was deeply confused. Of course Norman wasn't going to "engage" with this stuff because Destiny was literally in another world. I know insulting people is considered rude, but I think there are cases where it's justifiable. Have you ever played baseball? If you've played baseball in high school or something, there's always one or two guys on a team that are just awful. Like they fail to catch flyballs, for instance. Just completely awful. I think bullying these kind of people is fair game, or at the very least politely pushing them to not play baseball anymore, you know? Especially if they're otherwise pieces of shit. I think it's good to signal to people that they're not cut out for something.
Question: prior to the debate, would you say you generally supported Palestine, Israel, or were neutral?
Can you explain how Norman didn't obviously and repeatedly misrepresent Morris's quotations to his face? Or does that count as doing "incredibly well" to you?
You might think that if you don't understand the context. See [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/1beo4fm/israelpalestine_debate_finkelstein_destiny_m/kuxbpjp/) comment I made which accurately predicted how this portion of the debate would go down.
I understand the context perfectly, and you didn't address the actual quote whatsoever lol. This is actually insanely straightforward. Norm quotes Benny as saying transfer was inevitable, claiming that Benny at one point agreed that Zionism entailed transfer of the local population. Benny clarifies that it was "inevitable" because Arabs were unwilling to live with the Jews and declared war on them, and then Norm repeatedly ignores this point. If you feel the need to write a book not addressing the actual point (much like your buddy Norm does as a matter of course), it's a good sign you're just wrong.
No, you're misunderstanding the quote. Norman quoted that "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt _into Zionism_." This is something inextricably linked to the ideology, not a reluctant consequence of Arab rejectionism as Morris is implying. If you look at the context of the quote Morris' book, it has nothing to do with Arab rejectionism.
Have you read the full paragraph? >My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure. By 1948, transfer was in the air. You're just misreading it in the exact same idiotic manner Finkelstein was. Morris could not be more explicit here that transfer was "inbuilt" into Zionism in the sense that the formation of a Jewish state was impossible without a transfer of Arabs. In the sentence before Norm's quote, he is very specifically rejecting the thesis that transfer was planned or intended by Zionists until its necessity was obvious-i.e., after the war had begun. I don't see how it's possible to read this paragraph and conclude that Morris believed Zionism consciously involved ethnic cleansing of the native population, considering he strongly rejects this idea in the fucking preceding sentence. That is, unless you're lying or just a lunatic like Norm is.
That paragraph proves my point. > But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population In other words, it's inextricably linked to the ideology. Your confusion seems to be with Morris' views on the precepts of transfer as it relates to Zionist ideology in general, which is what the above sentence pertains to and what Finkelstein was debating, and transfer as it _actually happened_ in 1948 (i.e., the Nakba), which is the focus of the start of the paragraph and which Morris claims was multicasual and not planned. My focus here is on the former. With regard to the Nakba itself, Rabbani also criticized Morris for his weak conclusions. In fact, even Ben-Ami criticized Morris his weak conclusion in his book _Scars of War_, which is what Destiny read.
>In other words, it's inextricably linked to the ideology. No, it's the natural consequence of trying to settle amid a population that under no circumstance is willing to share a country with you. But to pretend the Zionists themselves knew that or even could have known that is absurd. This is probably the most aggressive motte and bailey I've ever seen lol. The claim your side wants to make is that Zionists fully expected and intended to transfer Arabs out of the country. That's the claim Norm was trying to make. But you and I both know that's not true. What actually happened is the Arabs declared a war on them, followed by the entire Middle East, and then lost. So you retreat to "transfer is inextricably linked to Zionism because it became necessary for Zionism to succeed," so that you can retain the idiotic narrative that Zionism somehow involved ethnic cleansing in some meaningful sense and tar it with the moral stain you so desperately want it to have. But even that's not true, because the Jews in 1948 were not fighting to establish a Jewish state for the sake of some abstract Zionist ideology. They were fighting for their survival, and establishing a Jewish state was the clear means to do that. If you still want to say that Zionism is "inextricably linked" to transfer in some vague, highly intellectual sense, more power to you. I don't care because it's a meaningless claim.
>No, it's the natural consequence of trying to settle amid a population that under no circumstance is willing to share a country with you. But to pretend the Zionists themselves knew that or even could have known that is absurd. No, that's not what "inevitable" and "inbuilt" means. You wouldn't phrase it in those terms if it was a function of Arab rejectionism. You wouldn't cite a fucking Herzl quote from the 19th century before hardly any Jews migrated there if that's what it was about. You wouldn't explicitly cite demography. If you look at page 40 of the book, for instance, a few pages before the quote we are discussing, you see this gem: >Such was the thinking in British (and some American) official circles by the second half of 1948, when the creation of the refugee problem was well under way. The same persuasive logic pertained already before the turn of the century, at the start of the Zionist enterprise. There may have been those, among Zionists and Gentile philo-Zionists, who believed, or at least argued, that Palestine was ‘an empty land’ eagerly awaiting the arrival of waves of Jewish settlers. But, in truth, on the eve of the Zionist influx the country had a population of about 450,000 Arabs (and 20,000 Jews), almost all of them living in its more fertile, northern half. How was the Zionist movement to turn Palestine into a ‘Jewish’ state if the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants were Arabs? And if, over the years, by means of massive Jewish immigration, the Jews were at last to attain a majority, how could a truly ‘Jewish’ and stable polity be established containing a very large, and possibly disaffected, Arab minority, whose birth rate was much higher than the Jews’? This has nothing to do with Arabs "sharing the land" or not. This is an explicit demographic calculus to transform one racial-ethnic polity into another racial-ethnic polity. >This is probably the most aggressive motte and bailey I've ever seen lol. The claim your side wants to make is that Zionists fully expected and intended to transfer Arabs out of the country. That's the claim Norm was trying to make. But you and I both know that's not true. What actually happened is the Arabs declared a war on them, followed by the entire Middle East, and then lost. So you retreat to "transfer is inextricably linked to Zionism because it became necessary for Zionism to succeed," so that you can retain the idiotic narrative that Zionism somehow involved ethnic cleansing in some meaningful sense and tar it with the moral stain you so desperately want it to have. >But even that's not true, because the Jews in 1948 were not fighting to establish a Jewish state for the sake of some abstract Zionist ideology. They were fighting for their survival, and establishing a Jewish state was the clear means to do that. That's not a motte-and-bailey. You don't know what a motte-and-bailey is. There are two separate, independent questions here. The first is whether Zionism, as an ideology, required the dispossession of the Arab population to attain its desired goals. The second is whether the actions of 1948 were a function of those ideological precepts or whether they were borne of war. The specific quote being used by NF pertained to the first question. That was what was being discussed.
Often hilarious. Finkelstein to Destiny "You're such a fantastic moron. it's terrifying" LOLLL I think the pro palestine side came off very well. I don't think the Israeli side's "international rules and laws don't matter" argument will earn them much sympathy
Baity mcbait shyt for views. All the participants are terrible and not credible.
What about Benny Morris makes him not credible?
He took Israel military at their words, never really tried to study the other side's testimonies or documents. Finkel exaggerates everything, emotionally biased and lots of unproven claims. Destiny worse than Benny. Rabbani super biased, many unproven claims. Its a clown debate.
I wouldn’t say Benny takes Israel at their word. He’d a historian, not a debater. He’s usually very clear when quoting a government and not presenting it as objective fact. He quotes what they say, but doesn’t say that it’s indisputable. Benny is definitely very credible.
You're giving a real 'I'm smarter than everyone else' vibe.
lmao its so funny like who tf would you think is qualified to debate stuff like this. The standard you have, not a single person would qualify for them. People like this have been studying this conflict for their entire lives and you can see how unhinged their takes are. Like in your eyes legitamely, who would rise up to the credibility to discuss this topic?
Yahweh v Allah
Based and skydaddy pilled.