i love a wide variety, not just political. i like a lot of different things but my top of both i'm recommending is mark steyn's book, for myself i'm reading this one on "mother of the groom," then my next book i'm recommending is "the israeli solution" by caroline glick and then also lynne cheney's book on the life of james madison. and again you can't go wrong with some light reading as well. so that's what i'm reading this summer. >> what are you reading this summer? tell us what's on your summer reading list, tweet us at the booktv, post it to our facebook page or send us an e-mail, booktv@c-span.org. >> up next on booktv norman finkelstein discusses his newest book, "old wine, broken bottle." it's a critique of ari shavit's best selling book, my promised land. you can watch and talk about his book on a website, booktv.org.

mr. finkelstein spoke at red emma's bookstore in baltimore. this is just under two hours. >> well, thank you for inviting me. and i want to use the time that is allotted me, is it fair to say this can go on roughly four in our? okay. i'm not sure who the organizers are. so i want to use the time that's allotted me to try to clarify exactly what's going on. and in this particular case it does require a certain amount of clarity because virtually everything that is being said about the current round of israel's massacre in gaza, virtually everything being said is not true. saying it's not true is just a euphemism for it's a lie. and i think it is important to

have some clarity on what actually is happening, what triggered it, what's happening now on the ground and where things are headed. so let me begin with the beginning, namely, the context of what's happening. it's important to get the point of departure right because you have to know what was the cause and what was the effect. we are told the cause was the kidnapping and killing of the three israeli teenagers and the effect was israel's harsh reaction in the west bank. that's the sequence of virtual every account begins by saying it all started with israel's, with the abduction and killing of the three israeli teenagers, but that is flat out false.

the only proper context to understand what happened is they begin april 2014 when hamas and the palestinian authority was formed a unity government. after the form they give the government prime minister netanyahu demanded that the united states and the eu break off relations with this new government because hamas was a terrorist organization. surprisingly, the united states and the eu said they would proceed, negotiate to work with the new government and would decide on a step-by-step basis whether or not to persist in this relationship. at this point, netanyahu was enraged. he was being consistently

ignored, first on the question of iran when he claimed that iran was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power and that iran was threatening a second holocaust against israel. the united states and the eu persisted with negotiations with iran. and now on his home ground and the question of israel and palestine, once again he was being ignored. he was saying hamas is a terrorist organization, you have to break off relations with it. both the eu and the u.s. said no, we are going to continue in our relations. in fact, when the gift fell into netanyahu's lap, the gift being the abduction and killing of the three teenagers, initially the abduction, even after that gift fell into netanyahu's lap, the u.s. continued to say we are not

going to break off relations with the new unity government. well, now netanyahu had a pretext. he knew full well from day one that, number one, the kids were dead. and number two, hamas had nothing to do with it. but he saw an opportunity. the opportunity was to exploit the abduction and killing of the three israeli teenagers to do what israel always does, and israel wants to break off with what israelis call a peace offensive. because no hamas had signed on into the unity government, and the unity government has said, he does prime minister abbas was the spokesperson still of the unity government, he said that

we are accepting as the unity government, we are accepting the eu-u.s. terms for negotiation. the terms were, number one, renunciation of violence. number two, recognition of the state of israel, and number three, just slip on my. i will come back to it in a moment. hamas have joined the government which excepted -- oh, recognition of all past agreements. so it was renunciation of violence, recognition of all past agreements and recognition of the state of her zeal -- israel. abbas said the new unity government accepts those terms. hamas have joined the new unity government, and then by inference, hamas was accepting

the terms of the eu and the u.s. so netanyahu has a big problem on his hands. it's one of those periodic palestinian peace offenses. and ask israel always does, and it's not peculiar, typical of the israeli government, whenever you have to deal, confront one of these peace offenses, the way he tried to deflect the peace offensive is you start pounding and pounding and pounding the presenters of the peace offensive until the react violently. and now netanyahu had his pretext. the abduction and killing of the three kids. even started going after hamas in the west bank, arrested about 700 palestinians, i guess about the majority of them being

hamas, ransacking homes, demolishing two homes, and carrying on as it always does in these moments like a hooligan state, caring on these rampages until hamas finally reacts. and when it finally reacts as it did, as anyone would under those circumstances, what does netanyahu say? look, you see, i told you, they are terrorists. you can't negotiate with them. in fact, this is a particularly on the situation because, in fact, it was not a palestinian peace offensive. ironically, this was a palestinian surrender offensive. prime minister abbas of the

palestinian authority, he excepted all of secretary of state conditions for ending the conflict during the negotiations that were carried on, what's called the kerry initiative, or the kerry process. abbas accepted that israel could annex the major settlement blocs. abbas accepted the nullification of the right of return, perfectly clear from the record, i what has been leaked from the record. he excepted everything. he excepted a defeat -- accepted a 50. but prime mr. netanyahu, because coalition politics, he wouldn't even accept a surrender from the palestinians.

and so now he was determined to wreck the unity government so at some point in the future he wouldn't have to accept not a settlement based on international law, because at some point in the future, he wouldn't have to accept a surrender from the palestinians. well, after the rampage in the west bank, it gradually escalated, and at some point it turned into the ground invasion. i made many predictions along the way before the whole conflict started, the current round, about what would happen. and many people will no doubt recall that one of my predictions was, i thought it

was impossible that israel would be able to repeat what it did during operation cast lead in 2008-nine, that the international community had drawn a red line. the red line had a name but it was called a goldstone report. even though the report of richard goldstone was eventually ignored, it set up a new standard. the standard was to israel, no, you can't do that sort of stuff anymore. you went too far. and for a long time, my prediction held up. in november 2012, israel launched operation pillar of defense. we would call it a lesser massacre in gaza, but that was a very different attack than 2008-nine. for those of you who recall,

during operation pillar of defense in 2012, november 2012, they didn't target schools. they didn't target mosques, and the death toll was individually different. it was about 170 people, operation cast lead, it was 1400. so up until that point, what i predicted turned out to be right. however, it's perfectly obvious now that i'm way off base in terms of the new massacre in gaza. it's more or less on the same magnitude as 2008-9. i know people have said it's much worse. my guess is, i haven't yet seen, the dust hasn't settled i don't know what the final reckoning will be, but roughly speaking it seems pretty much at this point,

and we can make perfect comparisons, he does operation cast lead lasted 22 days, and operation -- i think it's the 22nd or 23rd day, if i'm correct. is that right? i think it's 23rd. yes, that's what i thought. operation cast lead was about 1400 people killed. about 1200 were civilians. now it's probably around 1200 killed, a tent about 80% civilians. it's roughly the same period the targeting, not only the targeting of hospitals by targeting of the same hospitals, it's the same thing all over again. and now the question is, why was i so off base? and i'm not trying to defend myself. i'm trying to understand the situation, which is what we should try to do in order to enable us to actually accurately

predict where things are heading. politics can at best be political analysis and can best be about trajectories where things are generally headed. but politics itself is about taking advantage of opportunities, been skillful at exploiting the moment. and i mentioned it the number one that fell into netanyahu's lap, the abduction and killing of the three teenagers. and then to nuke yes fell into netanyahu's lap. -- to nuke gifts. gets number one was the vampire tony blair. tony blair, a clever politician and a vampire, at which you obviously are mutually exclusive. is also a high-priced call girl and those there are not mutually exclusive. tony blair, he dreamt up something clever.

he said, let's come up with a cease-fire proposal which hamas has to reject. and it comes up with this proposal. he hands it to that monstrosity, presidents easy, -- president sisi eric noll called the egyptian initiative, as if president sisi and even spell initiative. the initiative was quite clever. we're going to have a cease-fire, he said. and then he said, we will lift the blockade. well, that sounds reasonable, cease-fire in exchange for lifting the blockade. that's what hamas wants. but the language was very clever. we will lift the blockade when the security situation stabilizes in gaza.

we will lift the blockade when the security situation stabilizes in gaza. well, according to israel, hamas is a terrorist organization. so by definition the security situation in gaza can't stabilize until hamas is disarmed. so in effect tony blair's cease-fire was an ultimatum to hamas. we will lift the blockade if you disarm. if you don't disarm, then we are not lifting the blockade. of course, of course hamas has to reject those terms. that was gift number one. so now the whole world can be told that prince of peace, prime minister netanyahu, he wanted a

cease-fire. it was hamas that said no. and then gift number two was the downing of the malaysian airliner. when the malaysian airliner was bound, gaza was initially placed -- replaced and the top headlines by what happened to the airliner. and as i said, netanyahu, he's not, not genius but he's obviously a confident politician. and it was perfectly obvious what was going to happen then. in 1989, way before many of you in this room were born, lucky you, in 1989 there was the first -- and during the first comic giving russia a hard time there was the scene in massacre in china. and netanyahu, he's been around

a while, as have i, netanyahu gave a famous speech at the university and he said israel's big mistake was it didn't take advantage of the tiananmen massacre to carry out a mass expulsion and the occupied palestinian territories. so you know this guy knows how to connect unpredictable events with political initiatives. that's politics. when the malaysian airliner was bound, he saw the opportunity -- downed. the lost cause, the cease-fire and the malaysian airliner down in turkey now had the pretense to launch the ground invasion.

before get to what happened after, i want to dispose of all of the nonsense that has been said about hamas rockets, the miracle of iron dome, and now the tunnels that they have discovered in gaza. let's start with the first. does hamas have rockets? not, when i conjure up in my mind a rocket, i conjure up something pretty tall, pretty impressive, and pretty destructive. that's a rocket in my mind. maybe i have a quaint imagination, but that's what i see. so now let's use some simple, commonsense. gaza has been under an air tight blockade for seven years. israel doesn't let anything into gaza they can be remotely used

for military purposes. that's fact number one. now, some of those -- some of you are thinking, aha, he is defeating us. what about those tunnels that hamas has built or dug between egypt and gaza? fair enough. it was a sophisticated tunnel economy, and probably military or militarily related material was smuggled in. i don't doubt that. i have no problem with that. but then whatever they manage to smuggle in, whatever they manage to smuggle in, they exhausted in november 2012 joint operation build a defense. operation build a defense ends at the end of november.

seven months later is the coup in egypt. the first thing sisi get after the coup was blow up all of the tunnels. he blew up, the estimate, about 95% of the tunnels. nothing could get into gaza. nothing for the last year. so where are these rockets coming from? where was the material to make them? now as freely admitted, all of these rockets were all made by hamas with barely any micheel. -- any material. the reason these hamas rockets have caused all of three israeli casualties, civilian casualties, all of three israeli civilian

casualties is because they are not rockets. they are closer to firecrackers than rockets. now, some of you may say, aha, finkelstein is deceiving us again because we all know that miracle, that miracle of miracles, iron dome. these are very efficient rockets, but that miracle of miracles, iron dome, managed to knock them out of the sky. okay, what's the fact behind that? number one, the top person in the world in this particular area of research is at mit. he was the first person to expose the nonsense about the patriot antimissile system during the 1991 so-called, in

the first gulf war. at the time they are saying the patriot antimissile system was 80%, 90% effective. were those of you who remember, how did it turn out? it turned out that maybe, maybe one scud missile was reflected by the patriot antimissile system and that was revealed about a year or two after the first gulf war. well, he was then asked recently in the last month, the last of the has to be the last two weeks he was ask and what about iron dome? >> what is its efficiency? >> he put its efficiency on 5%, 5%.

it's not iron dome that is afflicting these humongous rockets. what's deflecting them is they are not rockets in the first place. now, how do we know that? there's such a simple way to know that. if you use your brain for half a minute, just use your brain. operation has led, 2008-9. it lasted 22 days. how many civilian casualties were there in israel? does anybody know? they were three. operation protective edge, it's lasted now 22 days. how many civilian casualties in israel? three. operation has led before iron

dome. operation protective edge after iron dome, what's the rational conclusion? >> iron dome did zilch. that's the rational conclusion. in fact, the rockets now being used, now being used by hamas are much more primitive than the ones they used in 2008-9 because at that point they have managed to smuggle something in. now it's nothing. well, now mr. netanyahu has a problem. he boasted so much about the efficiency of iron dome, this miracle of miracles, not the only conclusion to draw that is

so efficient, this work of genius by the geniuses of all geniuses, the is -- the israelis, only they could come up with such a brilliant contraption. if it is only so efficient, then why are you killing all these thousands? if it is -- gazans. if it is so efficient, none of your simply is are killed except three, then why did he carry on like maniacs and lunatics in gaza? so you have a problem. and he comes up with a new pretext. that's why "the new york times" has people like isabelle kershner. she's there to just copy out anything "the new york times" answer. excuse become anything the israeli counsel hands her, and there are only a few

differences. so what do they do? they come up with a new idea. the reason is because the rockets, so they don't want anymore, the reason we are attacking gaza is because of those tunnels. and day in and day out they keep saying this whole operation is because of the tunnels. and that's supposed to explain the rational -- to rational people while israel is doing what it's doing. not the rockets anymore. it's the tunnels. so when an israeli naval vessel kills four kids on the beach playing soccer, it's because of the tunnels.

and went israel targets the hospital, why? it's because of the tunnels, even though nobody claimed there were tunnels underneath the hospital. and when israel targeted another hospital and also targeted the playground nearby, well, it's obvious why they did that. it's the tunnels. and day in and day out, you keep hearing about the tunnels as if the tunnels can't in any way rationally explain why israel's decision weapons are constantly killing kids and targeting manifestly civilian sites. well, you could say that israel is doing it since it's obviously

not the tunnels, you could say israel is doing it because it's a lunatic state. it's a state that has gone over the cliff. and i myself have to acknowledge that on more than one occasion i said as much. i think it's a crazy state. it's not a failed state. it's a crazy state. but still views the shakespearean expression, there is a method in the madness, and it's not difficult to discern. number one, when israel launched operation has led in 2008-9, the orders that were given to the israelis compact, the orders were blast everything in sight, because we don't want combat and

casualties. israel in many ways is a reverse of conventional societies. most societies they tolerate combatant casualties much more than they're willing to tolerate civilian casualties. israel is a different kind of society. it's a kind of spartan society in which military or combat and casualties are a source of much greater anguish and torment than civilian casualties. so the first rule is, combatants are not supposed to get killed. ..

we would've had to absorb a large number of combat and casualties. and so they wiped the whole place out. it wasn't only because of that. the other reason was the day before, seven israeli soldiers have been killed and it became a kind of revenge operation that partly explained it. but that's not the larger part of the explanation because contrary to what you might

conceive, there hasn't been ground. it's not true. there has been an occupation a couple of miles into the border. it's only on the border area for the reason i mentioned to you already. there was and is a fear that if they were to conduct a real ground invasion, deep into gaza, they still might have a bit at this point there is the fear that they will suffer significant combat losses. said they are holding back at the border. so if they are still at the border and it's not to protect combat, why are they doing it? why have they seemingly gone mad? and the reason has been completely acknowledged by israelis. number one, it won't surprise

anyone in this room. they are hoping that a terror bombing will bring palestinians, palestinian causes to their needs. they are hoping they will destroy everything in sight. there's a humanitarian cease-fire. people come out and see there's nothing that must have a cease-fire because the devastation is so terrible. the longer-term goal is they hope with all the death and destruction people will eventually blame hamas for would have been and then will they seek to unseat hamas. does the calculation as well. there was some truth to it. the people of the state behind

the resistance in 2008 in 2009, but then a significant element of alienation and chaired when the people of god to ask themselves provide. all of this is left behind. 600,000 tons of robo. all of the deaths, all of the destruction, the blockade was still there. so there was a feeling of how moscow this into a mess. don't think that's accurate, but that is what will happen this time. that is the purpose behind a terror bombing and we should be clear about one point. there should be no doubt on one critical point. a couple of days ago it got so

just couldn't take it anymore. the spinning days in front of the computer watch this thing unfold 24 hours a day, seven days a week, you begin to go mad. my friend sara roy, who lives in gaza, noticed the people and she's a very decent human being. she sent an e-mail to me -- that's a personally, to people describing the attack on the playground. another kid just going to fragments. there is a very smart person in chief delicate person. she just distinguished scholar, come straight an impressive family. her mother was a survivor of a switch in the last line of the e-mail said i want to.

and that just struck a chord with me. no fancy language. no rhetorical curlicues. so i decided it was time to do something. i can't justify in my own mind sitting in front of a computer so i decided okay, get arrested, i don't know what it will do, but i want to do something. i said let's are part of the israeli consulate. after i announced it, i went to bed and i'm thinking, you know, you kind of made an error here. why are you attacking the u.s. mission? where you attacking the israeli mission? who is the enabler? who allowed it to happen?

every day, every day attempted to take, put suffocating insipid president. [applause] no, it is a fact. let's not kid ourselves. every single day that man came out and said israel has the right to defend itself, each time he said that he was giving israel the green light to continue to massacre. that is a fact. were it not for him that could not have happened. and it's very odd day. there are people here, not many, but there are people here whose memories go back to 1982, the israeli massacre in lebanon men. how many people remember it? raise your hand?

it is a very strange thing. but facts are facts that we have to acknowledge them. during the israeli massacre in lebanon in 1982 from israel killed between 15,020,000 palestinian and let the names overwhelmingly civilians in those three and a half men. but during the massacre, a one point, president reagan, the brain-dead monster, president reagan at one point had this picture of a child. how many people remember a childhood favorite and that the israeli attack in lebanon? and he took the picture of the child severely burned and put it on his desk. and then the prime minister at the time embarked on one of his

lunatic jihad. he was going to prove that child was not targeted by israel. and so i kind of little war of images, whatever you want to call it postmodern language, a row of narratives, whatever that means when i'm between prime minister dakin president reagan. the fact of the matter is if we want to be truthful to ourselves, ronald reagan showed more heart is barack obama. so what is happening in gaza. well, how was it going to end? there is an endgame in bright now there are two contending parties. hamas' position is clear. we want a cease-fire and the lifting of the blockade.

the israeli-american e.u. position is also clear. one cease-fire lifting the blockade and disarming hamas and that is where we now stand as a kind of stalemate. and so, the most important thing at this point is to prepare for that kind of public battle. so let's ask the obvious question. number one, must hamas be disarmed? segment and yahoo! shows the terrorist organization, look what it did. look how horrible it is. everyone nods their head in agreement. of course. as one condition for ending the hostilities, hamas has to be

disarmed. there's one problem with that narrative. i hate that word. as if there is a nazi narrative in a jewish narrative. it's really embarrassing. even though the law profession is an embarrassment. so must hamas be disarmed? okay, sure. i'm an ex-academic. i know what you're whispering. people are trying to impress you that they read nietzsche. [laughter] okay. so the first obvious question is

who started the hostility? in 2008 and 2009, and operation cath lab. it was a cease-fire in june. if you look even at the israeli terrorism since the publication. according now. they said hamas is careful. hamas is careful to respect the cease-fire. how the cease-fire ends. everybody knows, the november 4th election day in the united states when attention was riveted to the u.s. presidential election with barack obama and taking advantage of kids on november november 4th, 2008, israel invades gaza and for 6000 milliseconds from hamas amounts

of the whole thing started to fall apart. it was israel that broke the cease-fire. the cease-fire agreement 72,008 and 2009 -- excuse me, june 2008 the cease-fire set the blockade was supposed to be lifted. was it lifted? now, israel tightens the block a period so in the first massacre, who initiated conflicts? israel broke the cease-fire. israel didn't abide by the conditions of the cease-fire. so irrational person concludes it is israel that should be disarmed. they broke the cease-fire. it violated the conditions of the cease-fire. 2012 november ends with a cease-fire agreement. the cease-fire agreement says the blockade of god that is supposed to be lifted.

but the blockade of causal lifted? no, it was tightened because beyond the blockade of the tunnels have blown that they know is worse. in the last round, who broke the cease-fire? there were virtually no rocket attacks coming from gaza after the 2012 cease-fire agreement. it all began to escalate when and yahoo! tried to violate -- excuse me, try to promote our reaction should break up the government. so if any side is supposed to disarm it should be israel should be disarmed. what is international workers day? allies so clear. there's been enough textbooks written in international law on the topic to fill this room.

the laws under international law as people struggling for self determination has the right to use armed force to achieve its end. that's the law. some people say the law is mutual. you can make that argument. people like james crawford at oxford. but nobody says a member of the literature on the topic, nobody struggling for self determination do not have the right to use armed force to achieve their goals. nobody says that. it's the law. on the other hand, the international blood is clear. offensive power trying to suppress the self-determination struggle doesn't have the right to use force. a self-determination struggle is the most basic right under international law. the self-determination and statehood. if you're carrying on the struggle for statehood, no power

has the right to suppress that self-determination struggle. so again, on the basis of the law, if any side should be disarmed, if any side should be disarmed, it's israel. it is not hamas. that is the law. israel says it's defending itself, has the right to defend itself. pastor of international law. all sorts of caveats. everybody understands the country under armed attack is the right to defend itself. i'm not going to go into the qualifications now. the question is now very simple. is israel still defending itself? is it trying to defend itself or is it trying to maintain the

occupation? those are two very different things. the most basic fact about an occupation under international law, the most basic fact about an occupation under international law, the basic fact is occupations are supposed to end. that is what makes an occupation and occupation. occupations are supposed to end. it is 47 years since israel occupied the west bank, gaza and east jerusalem. one thing we can to include with virtually scientific precision, israel has no intention of ending the occupation. in fact, it is so determined not to end the occupation that it

turned down a palestinian surrender. now, an occupation that goes on through eternity is not an occupation. that is an annexation. annexations are illegal under international law. when israel says it wants to defend itself and the demands of hamas that it disarm what israel is really saying is that demands the right to maintain the occupation. it demands the right -- it demands of hamas that it cease resisting the occupation. that's what they're really asking. they want the right to maintain

through eternity the occupation. and that is twice the legal intern to national law. it is illegal number one because occupations are supposed to end. annexations are illegal and it's illegal number two, because hamas has no obligation whatsoever under international law to disarm until israel ends its occupation. as a practical matter, it is a very simple concept. persona, what is your name? dan is threatening, what is your name's? james. throttling is a fancy word for suffocation. suffocation is the fancy word for choking. if you don't know choking, you

don't belong and read ms. if the bookstore. let's use the fancy word. dns bloodily and james. james manages him being suffocated he manages to stop dna little. dan is now unreached. peace. and so beyond suffocating dan, he starts to batter him, beat him and pecan and beat him. and he says it's my right of self defense. he scratched me. it is my read of self defense. some people said dan has no

choice. james is scratching him. now anyone with common sense and decency knows full well that dan has a choice. if he doesn't want james to scratch him, all he has to do is to stop suffocating james. if israel does not want to be the subject of occasional scratches, which is all that these rocket attacks come to, it has a very simple option. they could stop suffocating the palestinians. it can pack up its bags, return

to that state, it's kind sure he, his supporters under international law and it can finally let the palestinians live in peace. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> okay. i have a rule. i was very simple. everything city was patient. everybody was decent. nobody chetumal soulmate, have gourmet.

i believe it's completely legitimate. dr. british whether the american. everyone is perfectly respectful mandate to reciprocate back. so i would like to take the first three questions from the center, people who strongly disagree with me. let them go to the microphone first and give them the opportunity to speak or ask me a question. [inaudible conversations] okay, that are you going to ask you questions? okay, go ahead. i didn't plant him. i mentioned earlier. >> my question is very basic beard with his international essay about the palestinian right of return?

>> i think there has to be two ways to address that question. the first is the question of what international law says about the palestinian right of return. let me try to address it fully. however, it's not a weasel caveat. it's an important one for me at for me in anyway. i've been working on the book with the palestinian scholar and comrade of mine and it's called how to sell the israel palestine conflict. i felt that there are certain issues, though we all try to be objective and reasonable, there's a certain question of moral authority. for me, only a palestinian in my view has the moral authority to address the question of the right of return. so i try to respect that

distinction. it's a subtle, moral distinction. it's a proper question for a palestinian microsoft of the particular chapter of the book he has accepted responsibility for crafting. having said that, what does international law say about the right of return? number one, under international law, palestinians have the right of return and compensation. have the right of return and compensation is not my opinion. it's the opinion of the human rights organizations. human rights in 2000 international 2001, both of them published position papers on the right of return. both mec, international at human rights first said palestinians were expelled from the homes in 1948 and 1967 in the feeding generations that have maintained genuine links at the land, they

have the right of return. that's the legal issue. there's two other issues that are right. number one, the question of does the right of return undergo a metamorphosis -- does that undergo modification in light of the two states of the international consensus for two state. an israeli state and the palestinian state. is there a clash between the principle of two states and the principle of the right of return. to those two principles come into collision? everybody knows it's often the case in the railroad that to outstrip its are legal principles come into conflict with each other and adjudicate how to reconcile two principles that come into conflict.

it's my impression from listening to the balmy develop his argument, the conflict does arise. you have to sign some sort of modification, reconciliation between the right of return on one hand and the principle of two states on the other. that's the first qualification. the second one is there's wanting to speak of what is legally right and it's another thing to say what is politically possible. if you look at the various documents that have been issued by various organizations and so forth, currently the way the united nations general assembly posted in its general resolution peace settlement, the way the u.n. resolution puts it, they speak of it just solution of the refugee question based on u.n.

resolution 194, right of return and compensation. said they don't say a implementation of 194 right of return compensation. they say a just solution based on, which obviously means something less than implementation, but how much less is very hard to say. i think you should use the microphone. >> thank you for the top. my question regarding the regional context of this issue, i mean, do you think there's any influence from neighboring countries in the region that this is now okay? for the muslim brotherhood in egypt, the notion was then use democratic means to promote undemocratic methods that they were supportive and there is a

chance now that any islamist kind of regime is not in the arab world by your governments. to the fear of government have a role in what's going on in supporting israel? >> there's no question about that. certainly egypt is not questionable whether or not they support hamas. that is a non-question. saudi arabia, all working with each to crush hamas. as a matter of fact, one of the big talking points now, the big talking point is that the vampire player cease-fire proposed that if presented was supported by the arab league. that is a fact. right now everybody is agreed that everyone including hamas who doesn't have much of a choice at this point regarding creating that the basic document

that has to be modified or not modified, the basic document is the peace initiative so everybody is accepting that is the starting point, a disaster for the palestinians. not that fear of states ever cared, but this time it's a disaster. >> again folks, if the other, there's a microphone right here. please form a line and keep your questions brief. thank you. >> thank you for coming and speaking and joining us at the rally earlier. my question sort of piggybacks off the first question in regards to right of return for palestinian refugees and i guess in your criticisms over the course of the last couple of

years you've also raised the flag of the two state solution be the only realistic solution. you criticize them for three demands i believe there was, which is the right of return, which i don't even know if they are official demands. but the right of return, equal rights for palestinians and i forget the third one. the end of the occupation. he said those around the real estate in pdf as to be honest about their approach to it. anyway, my question is how do you see a two state solution? why d.c. has a realistic solution to the crises in the occupation and as a means of bringing palestinians justice. i just their separate and unequal, which is what we have a clear history of in this country. how do you see as two state solution is palestinians will

not have the plaque says to resources as the state of israel is already guaranteed as a result of the two state solution and no equal rights within the two states. >> obviously those are the second question is a very large one. let me just try to address -- i'm not very tech savvy, but i know when i'm doing something and i was really. i think there's a certain essay understanding about my opinions, so let me just clarify them and you can check for yourself. i think i'd be pretty consistent. of course i support boycotts. and of course i support sanctions then i support boycotts and sanctions long, long before bbs came along. i've been involved in is now 32 years. i got involved in june 1982 and i have a long, long record of

being involved in various church initiatives calling for divestment. so the record is pretty clear that of course i support boycotts and sanctions. but boycott divestment and sanctions is something different than bbs. bds is not just a tactic of boycott sanctions. pdf is a platform and the platform begins as everybody who's looked at the platform would recall the 2005 the platform begins by saying that bds is anchored in international law. that is the first thing they say. in fact, the bds call came out in 2005, which is one year to the day after the international court of justice advisory opinion of the illegality building in the west bank the west bank and they timed it for

one year after the international court of justice. to point of factor we are looking at by five "old wine, broken bottle: ari shavit's promised land" three decision of the court. it is not being respected and we are going to fund this eds campaign in order to see that the law is implemented. okay, i agree with bds. the starting point for any campaign to try to change public opinion, the starting point has to be under international law. no quarrel there. no dispute there. the dispute is what does the international law say? international law says yes. is that has to end the occupation. that's true. israel arrested nagy the palestinian right of return. that's true. and there's basic principles of international law of equality

under the law. but that's not the end of the law. that's the law. you may not like outside you might save a life is imperialist, capitalist, impressive in all the other things you are certainly within your right to say that. you can say i don't want to have any truck with the law. but if you start off with your first document by saying where anchored in international law, how can you say you're anchored in international law and were used in israel, you sent bds takes no position on israel. how can he take no position? israel is a state. a member state of the united nations. the same rights and obligations as any other state under the law. don't claim that your anchored

in international law. for years, israel the same negotiations with the palestinians as they have to recognize israel and the palestinians and their supporters say you want a unilateral recognition of israel. you have to recognize us. that was the response of palestinians. now they are saying we want our rights recognized under international law, but we are not safe. we take no on is israeli rights. i way too old to be playing the suits of hypocritical games. i can't do it. if you want to say you want to work with the law, that probably is strongest tool the

palestinians have as professor edward said he said a long time ago and many others have said the strongest will palestinians have is international legitimacy, maybe the law. international legitimacy goes both ways. that is my primary agreement as they're well aware. i'm going to let you speak. i'm not the kind of person that cuts people off. would you rather they not address the second question? is your choice. would you rather respond to this or answer the second question about the two state solution? >> the second question to allow me to present forward ron with international law to fight injustice presented the focal point in the argument and

liberation. what would be wrong with a palestinians state with equal rights for all citizens witness a palestinians state's current historical palestine as it existed before 1947. >> there's nothing about with it and i think it's a fine idea. i also think it's a fine idea but are denying mexicans -- 30 million citizens of the united states. half of the entire mexican economy, a large chunk of it is depended upon remittances from mexicans living in the united states. you find the books here. we stole half of mexico so i think it's a fine idea and certainly rises to the standard of justice. it's a fine idea if we eliminate the border between the united states and mexico.

it's also a fine idea. [applause] it's also just is. we have to ask ourselves politically, does it have any possibility? is a serious issue on our border. several hundred mexicans are killed each year trying to enter the country. there's also a serious issue here of undock human mexicans and there's talk about what is called immigration reform. does anybody talk about eliminating the border one state? the answer is obviously not. politically it is beside the point. we are not talking about justice in the abstract. we are talking about what is politically possible. there is no basis whatsoever in the real world.

there's exactly zero support in the real world for a wednesday resolution of the conflict. let's start with basics. can anyone in this room name me one state, one state in the world that supports one state in palestine? don't name iran. every year around those the u.n. along with the rest of the world for two states. aranda said member of the islamic -- the organization of islamic cooperation. 57 islamic countries. iran is a member of the organization of the islamic country to inverse the two state settlement. there's no support him as to what are you talking about quiet i'm not averse to the idea. it's a fine idea. those of you john and ought not

to remember, why can't people get along? i believe that. i believe people can get along, but that's personal belief and nothing to do with politics. one of the problems often afflicted the palestine question if people confuse their own personal concepts and incentives of justice with what is politically possible in terms of justice. you can make any kind of -- of course it's a personal belief you are allowed to harbor anything. but you have to then assess what politically is realistic and possible. i know the obvious answer to an insane or what some of you are thinking as the two state settlement is not realistic and possible anymore. israel will never accept a two state settlement. but it's just such a novice dancer crying to be sad. israel will not accept a full withdrawal from the territories

that occupied in june 1967. if that's true, is there anyone here in the room who could possibly believe that they would be more willing to dismantle israel than to withdraw? does that make any sense? that israel would be more willing to dismantle itself into withdraw from the territories it occupied a. so when people say that two state settlement to his dad and therefore the only other possibility is the one day, the obvious rational answer is that two states is dead, then two states is twice instead.

yes. >> semitruck should relate -- you mentioned earlier the idea of a conflict of narratives. i think what a lot of us find frustrating is the fact that the social media we see a lot of what is going on in gaza at the ground level, but we see a very different narrative portrayed in the media and government. how do you see what the rest of this conflict backplane out and really what might happen from a ground-level and changing the narrative that make him a more equal. >> first of all, i famously said that whenever he hears the word culture he reaches for a god. i feel the same way about narratives. somebody is lying. it's very different. and if israel said it was hamas

rockets that film to what the school was empty and the rest of the world, bear in mind, every time the media says that palestinians say that the complete and total lie. it's not palestinians saying that. it's every human rights organization saying it. they say palestinians are using human shields. palestinians say it's not true. and so, the leaders supposed to throw up his or her hands in despair. who's telling the truth? it's not palestinians that are saying bad palestinians are not using human shield. and the international said

palestinians are not using human shields. human rights watch, no friend of palestinian said palestinians are not using human shields. jeremy bowen, the middle east editor for dbc, also not a friend of israel, he said the evidence the pilot unions are using human shields. so this is not to narratives. one side is lying on the other side isn't. [applause] now, now, how successful has this war between the competing narratives, but between truth and lies spin?

i have to say be somewhat old-fashioned i never look at anything on the web except my e-mail. but i am told that israel is having a very hard time on the web now, that the social media has been a massacre of israel, even though that is certainly metaphorical mike what is happening in gaza, which is later wrote. so i think it has been a very powerful, very important arena of conflict and the people who were on the social media doing battle or doing something important. the reason i conclude that it's israel has invested a huge amount of financial and human resources to trying to win the battle of the social media. because the israelis aren't integral part at any rate a

western world. they do care about their image. they don't like to be looked upon as child killers. that's not the way they want to be perceived. and so, if everybody in the room knows, it's not said is rose to a people go on the web in favor of israel. they are losing badly and not import arena and people should continue to do that. i'm not sure if this will be a significant turning point is to designate in 2009, but it will be significant. some of you may have noticed an article a couple days ago in which a journalist commented that exactly zero, exactly zero celebrities have come out in favor of israel. it's a disaster for them. there's been a lot of comment to

the palestinians of some stature. i've never heard of them. who? yet, the only celebrity they came out for israel is joan rivers. great israel i would probably try to conceal that fact. so those are all arenas. i don't think it is enough for sure, the suit by a place where i think it is good to keep up the fight. >> thank you for the work that you do. my question is about the way in which we as americans -- [inaudible]

and by supporting companies that regularly support us. you have some ideas to reverse that? >> i can't make a claim to having original ideas. i've been involved in long time and i'm not at all at first, in fact very happy to have knowledge there have been a lot of very important that therese could have been achieved by the activists in the bds movement. there's no question about that. i would be the very last person on god's eric to in any way want to diminish the significance of those actions and in particular, the energy, the decency of these

young people with given their role and achieved a lot. i do believe however that unless you fully situate the movement within the confines of international law, you're going to come up against real limit and actually the tactic at some point weekends to be self-defeating. so let's take two examples. there is a big battle in berkeley about a year and a half ago over divestment. in the bds activists in berkeley have to end up saying that our resolution has nothing to do with bds we recognize israel and on and on.

and the same thing happened recently with the presbyterian church. the presbyterian church as everybody in this room knows a great to divest for american companies involved in maintaining the occupation. but then what do the presbyterian church to? in its resolution it entered the plan that says this decision has nothing whatsoever to do with bds. you're just shooting yourself in the foot. you are turning bds into an albatross. if each sap ps of course international law in all of its facets, you would save yourself the trouble are trying to convince churches have something

they will never, ever agree to. namely the dismantling of israel. no church group in the united states will ever agree to that. that is just ridiculous. you will save yourself a lot of trouble in embarrassment. you save yourself a lot of trouble and embarrassment by not having the presbyterian church said this resolution has nothing to do with bds. bds claims it as a victory. and then he just started twisting your mind inquiry witnesses at turi for bds a resolution that says we do not support dds. that doesn't make any sense. the kind of dogmatism that

radical posturing, which i understand. i was there. i was there when i was in my 20s. i was. so i understand it. but you can't expect a person of my age to repeat were clearly the errors of my youth. you have to except where public opinion ends and then don't try to push it over the edge and pushing yourself over the edge into oblivion and irrelevance. [applause] >> i will try to keep the shore. i consider myself very ignorant about this topic and i came here for an education and so i had to pick the juiciest question i could. yesterday i was reading an

article that suggested that israel actually funded hamas to kind of create division and it may be create the behaviors that they wanted god to -- god the -- to have. you could explain about that. >> that is kind of subjective speculation. it is well known. any book you read on the history of thomas, every scholarly book will acknowledge that during the first intifada beginning to simmer seven, 1997 ,-com,-com ma during the first intifada, israel was some people say financing, but other people will say treating with gloves hamas in gaza in order to create a

counterweight to the plo back then. so there were far fewer arrests and far less repression inflict it on a monster in the series then was inflict good on what was called at the time the secular resistance movements. that is not a subject. it's speculation and of course perfectly obvious to create a counterweight to the plo. >> i've gotten old enough to have an idea of history and therefore the rack at the situation and say well, who actually started this mess? and of course that is the u.n. and england and the united states and they created the state of israel. mncs said, there's nothing you can do about it.

it's a lot. but what you cannot think now is put put the responsibility back on the people who created it in the first place to make the take responsibility and do something about stopping this. as you said, obama could staff tomorrow without a bit of trouble. literally tomorrow he could stop another place is good also. >> well, the powers that create messes were to accept responsibility for those messes the world would be obviously a very different place. i don't think that's a realistic possibility. i think it is a realistic possibility if the palestinians find the strength to carry out a

united, organized, courageous movement to end the occupation and if we do our job, i think it is possible to end occupation. as i want to have similar take me along time now to spell out exactly what i've been a bad. i think it is too late in the day for me to do it. i'm something of a diversion. but i still think the ball is in the court of the palestinians, which is if you excuse me, this is not meant -- if that were meant to say so, but this is not meant as another criticism of bds. it is just unrealistic to expect do you can liberate palestine from the outside. sometimes you hear spokespersons of bds speak about what they call we've reached a south africa moment. and that is just kind of

observed. anyone does anything about the history of the struggle in south africa knows that the primary mover, the momentum for change in south africa always came from the internal struggle. this sanction movement -- the sanctions movement was important, but of itself a subsidiary. the anti-apartheid sanctions movement takes off in 1960 after the sharp spell massacre. it then reaches another peak in 1976 after the soweto massacre. it then reaches another peak in 1984 after south africa, the apartheid regime beholden the state of emergency in south africa. the sanctions movement always has a function is subordinate to the internal movement.

no external force can let her a palestine and we can play a very useful role, for sure. but first it has to come from within. i haven't been personally an atheist. i'm not a fanatical atheists. i respect religious beliefs. people with religious beliefs and there's a lot of very smart people who are religious. so i don't go through this thing of the ways the pluralist secularists the ways liberalist secularist carry-on as if they are the smartest people in the room and anybody who believes that religion is an. sorry. i've met a lot of very smart religious people. if you allow me and in the go, the other day in bay ridge brooklyn, a large religious community and i met the guy who

i hadn't seen in 20 years. he was my lunch room operator and he's a very religious guy, religious muslim, very active in the muslim community, hadn't seen him in 20 years. my god, how are you? great, wonderful, everything is good. i thought actually had gotten arrested after 9/11 because he had been after had been active in charities trying to support people in palestine. in fact, he didn't get arrested. immediate to absolutely beautiful kids. ..

he said the third, the third is graduated harvard and is now going to chambers. the girls all where the headscarves. they're all muslims. they're all smart. we have in the room but he is probably left one of my favorite families in the universe, and they are practicing muslim. is he still here. [inaudible] okay. the univision chicago, ph.d.

he told me a funny story. he said, when is on trial most of the u.s. opposes gays. and put his family has a ph.d. except one brother so the prosecutor was trying to turn the jury against sammy during the case because he has a ph.d. this brother has a ph.d, and they came to another brother, and this one had to ph.d's. they can be very smart and they're honest about it and no one will be honest about it in terms of personal morals their very much superior to many secular liberals. i would take any muslim to build a -- [inaudible] -- over belmar.

let's be clear. i would trust any muslim with my children sooner than i would trust belmar. let me leave it at that. but leaving aside -- bill maher. leaving aside, as an atheist, they still say god help those who help themselves. if the palestinians don't get their act together, get a coherent strategy, have responsible leaders, people who have moral stature, personal integrity, then it is not much we can do. the last analysis, it's up to them and we can be a support group, but this notion that they will liberate palestine i think has nothing to do with the real world.

>> real quick. we'll have five more minutes and we've got to start closing up and stuff. he will still be selling books in norman will be signing books. there's an e-mail list both johns hopkins students, for upcoming events information and stuff like that. >> i just read an article that came out in the latest "nation" magazine and it was about debunking five of the favorite israeli talking points. i forget the author's name. i was impressed by an argument that was made in there, and it would what you thought about in terms of perhaps bring more people on board that are kind of not quite with this yet, and it had to do with international law of occupation. the article was saying that if a people is occupied, that the occupying power actually under

international law as different obligations. and this has not been really brought out and i thought oh, yeah, that makes a lot of sense that israel is by international law obligated to actually protect the people that under its occupation instead of on in the hell out of them. what you think of that in terms of an argument made we could use him bring up more with other people here? >> well, there are two things. you can make legal arguments which will convince lawyers, and you can make legal arguments that are going to convince the general public. obviously, the legal argument is you will have responsibility under occupation. you can make an argument to a general public, namely israel has no right to impose a blockade on gaza, which is causing significant damage to the gaza and economy and also to the gazan people, not letting medicine in 95% of the water is

unfit for human consumption and so forth. a general public would understand that canada legal argument. but a general public even if you made the argument that you proposed or what was proposed in the article, the general public wants an answer to the argument, what israel to do when rockets are being fired at it? and at that point you can't just make abstract legal arguments. you have to address a problem which makes sense to a general public. it's not enough to score legal points. you have to address both the common sense of the general public, and address head-on the problem that's raised. i think sometimes lawyers argue in a fashion that is perhaps appropriate in a brief, and perhaps useful in convention -- convincing a judge but may not

be as useful or as convincing when it comes to a general public. you have to make arguments that make sense to them. >> take you. i wanted to address this is something you bring up a lot from this question of what is politically possible. i have heard you before define it as sort of the set by human rights organizations, the outermost space but many would characterize what workstations like human rights watch and amnesty international say as abdicating for a better occupation. it seems as if there's a shift in public opinion about the justification for the occupation itself. so my question is, in that light do you think a public auction payment -- public opinion and what is politically possible is static, our is there room to move and are we seeing that moved? >> look, i totally agree with you on the question of how do you assess public opinion?

that's a perfectly reasonable question. because obviously we are not just addressing to your word coaches correct, not just addressing static public opinion. you are addressing also what you might call the subterranean forces at work. they are just below the surface and maybe just push them to the surface and get a little further. i agree with that, but i think you would also agree that there's a difference between some ideas which are just beginning to go i delete beneath the surface -- coagulate beneath the surface, and other ideas which don't have, as the expression has a, a snowball's chance in hell, i'm catherine public support. so you will agree with me, i'm

sure, that the idea of presenting to the public, let's solve the immigration problem with mexico by eliminating the border, you would say that goes well beyond an idea just beneath the surface that's on the verge of coming out. that's just fantasy, and so it has no political basis. and so i agree it's a matter of judgment, and you have to have a good sense of what's possible, what's just around the corner, and once on mars. and so -- what is on mars. so when i make my statements about how far you can push public opinion, i look at all of

the available data. i asked a simple question. there are 197 countries in the world today. can you name me one state, one of 197, that is even near the point of supporting one state? now, bolivia is nowhere near. look at its voting record. i mean, it has no connection with reality. there is no country on earth that's currently or nearly approaching the dismantling of the state of israel. there's none. [inaudible] >> okay, that's an excellent question. look, that's an excellent question. [inaudible] >> look, if you want to make a rhetorical statement you can. [inaudible] >> okay, i won't. now here's the answer. you said okay, the comparison of

south africa. in 1976, the first other than two states great by south africa, they declared independence formally. it went before the united nations. is it a state? the vote was 134 to zero. one abstention, the united states. the whole world agreed that the bantu scheme concocted by south africa had no legitimacy. the u.n., 134 with a zero, with one american abstention, declared a state could no longer would. okay? now, let's take the case of israel-palestine. every year there's a resolution called peaceful settlement of the palestine question.

comes before the u.n. every year. every year, the vote is exactly the same. in this past year the vote was 165 countries, 165 voted for two states on the june '67 border, and a just resolution of the refugee question. six opposed your united states, israel, canada, palau, micronesia and the marshall islands. so if you use the south african precedent as an example, the same overwhelming lopsided majority that declared the bantu scheme illegitimate, that same overwhelming lopsided majority declared the two state

settlement legitimate. so if you're using the south african president, the only rational conclusion from that question i can president is the two states is the best you can do with. that's what the argument tells you. [inaudible] >> south africa -- >> other folks have questions. >> under the theme of what's politically possible and keeping in mind the aipac lobby in america today, a couple of weeks ago before it ran an article commenting on the fact that the jewish left is dead. do you personally agree, yes or no, and why are why not? >> absolutely not. i think everything i've read,

added don't want to be self-promoting, but i've read a very large book on the subject, tells me that american jews -- americans views are either distancing themselves from israel or falling silent on israel. you don't see a support. i'll give you an example. just for five days ago i was at a demonstration in new york. now, i have the authority of age over you. in the 1980s when you went on a demonstration supporting palestinian rights in new york, i'm series, you're taking your life in your own hands. it was a very scary thing to walk down those corridors on 42nd street and chant slogans in support of the palestinians. it was very striking to me in this demonstration, i saw, it is a long route, made a mile and a half, two miles. i saw one juror came out of his jewelry shop, tackling. i saw one fellow holding a small

sign. there was nothing else. the passersby, you couldn't see one word peppering us, attacking us, nothing. there are only a few, i'll grant you because i don't want to exaggerate, you have to always be object of an observed the facts. there weren't that many are going like that, supporting us, but they were next to none critical. that's such a huge sea change. among american jews, the fundamental fact about american jews is they are overwhelmingly liberal. during the 2008 presidential election, 80% of american jews voted for barack obama. that's kind of amazing. more jews vote for barack obama than hispanics. among hispanics it was about 63% in 2008. now keep in mind american jews are by far and away the wealthiest ethnic group in the

united states. if they were voting by virtue of their pocketbooks, as most people say people do vote, they should have been voting overwhelmingly republican. but no, and american jews are liberal. even though they're the richest, wealthiest ethnic group in the united states, they vote democratic. the last election where support for obama across the board went down, still 70% of american jews voted for obama. now keep in mind in the last election, the head of state of israel, prime minister netanyahu was actively and obsessively campaigning against obama. say obama was bad for israel, obama is bad for the jews. he was actively supporting romney, even though head of state of the jewish state said vote romney, 70% of american jews still vote for obama. american jews are liberal.

liberal means you support human rights. you support international law. you support international institutions, and it's becoming progressively more difficult if not impossible for american jews to be liberal by their tenants, liberal by their credo, liberal by their belief, and at the same time lend support to what is plainly a lunatic state. and so you see clearly among young people in particular, and i've been around the block am i have lectured on college campuses for decades. there used to be a war zone. and i remember cases where the students would actually rush me. they didn't beat me but they made certain i couldn't speak. nowadays if you're on a college campus in the united states,

let's be honest because there are a lot of people who like to pose as martyrs to a cause, it's much more difficult on a college campus in the united states today to the pro-israel and pro-palestine. item in the anyone on a college campus trying to defend israel nowadays. the whole atmosphere has changed. and young american jews, what are they? they are on college campuses, liberal, idealistic, give peace a chance. and then you have this crazy state killing kids, blowing kids to smithereens. jews don't want to defend that sort of stuff. now it's true they are not rallying in huge numbers in support of palestinians. all the polls show no, they're not rallying in support of palestinians, that's correct,

but they're not supporting israel either. a lot of them will stay quiet because there's a thing in the jewish community about not airing dirty laundry in public, but in the privacy of their homes, no. jews do not like to see dead babies and israel being the executioner. so yes, there's been an enormous amount of progress. it's still a tough battle, but we shouldn't diminish the achievements almost entirely owing to the palestinians for the changes in public opinion. i think that's it. so, folks, thank you. [applause] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. 40 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend.

here's our primetime lineup for tonight. beginning at 6:30 p.m. eastern -- >> booktv asked what are you reading this summer? >> i brought some books that i've recently read that i thought people might really like. the fi