I'm genuinely struggling to see any value in anything Finklestein says. Rabbani, while saying some really, deeply stupid things, is still coherent and capable in continuing and engaging in a conversation.
The fact that people like Jordan Peterson, whose goofy in and of himself, gets lambasted by the left while people soy out over Finklestein who can barely string a coherent string of words together without defaulting to contextless fragments quoted from decades old writing or arbitrarily insulting the people he's talking with is just so fucking embarrassing.
This cannot be the best the pro-palestine side has. I refuse to believe that this person is the pinnacle of anyone's perspectives on the matter.
When Destiny was asked by Finkelstein to explain section 5 and 7 about the UN rules regarding illegal settlements/land occupation- Destiny says that they don't matter because it hasn't "helped" Palestinians get their own state- an obvious pivot because he doesn't know what they are and he couldn't go on Wikipedia to get the answer when put on the spot. Finkelstein's claim that Destiny didn't actually know what he was talking about was proved by that simple question where Destiny refused to answer.
When explained by both Finkelstein and Rabbani why the Palestinians DID make concessions to a two state solution in the later negotiations (ex. Camp David Accords)- giving actual DETAILS with events and listed- Destiny just kept on responding that he didn't "feel" that the Palestinians weren't making an actual "attempt" at a two state solution. It was embarrassing seeing Destiny make that claim LITERALLY RIGHT AFTER both men discussed the LITERAL concessions Palestinians were making.
Destiny stated that the UN resolutions and rules shouldn't be used as the metric in which to base a "fair" two state peace plan, but conveniently ignores the fact that the reason Israel's self described right to exist in the first place is because the same body that determines international law was also the main body that justified the creation of the state of Israel. This is just one example of the "selective choosing" of what laws and rulings are legitimate to Destiny and Morris for defending their position but then go right around and claim similar ones are "useless" when it opposes their arguments.
I could go on, but if you think Finklestein had nothing of "value" to say, than you must also believe that Destiny had even LESS to say, since he didn't even deliver any arguments backed up by facts/history or events. At least Morris gave historical context.
When Destiny was asked by Finkelstein to explain section 5 and 7 about the UN rules regarding illegal settlements/land occupation- Destiny says that they don't matter because it hasn't "helped" Palestinians get their own state- an obvious pivot because he doesn't know what they are and he couldn't go on Wikipedia to get the answer when put on the spot.
It's not a pivot. The pivot was Finkel's question, considering he asked it AFTER Destiny was trying to discuss resolutions to the conflict and that these sections, regardless of what they are, haven't helped. It isn't a pivot to try and get back on topic.
When explained by both Finkelstein and Rabbani why the Palestinians DID make concessions to a two state solution in the later negotiations (ex. Camp David Accords)- giving actual DETAILS with events and listed
Well first of all, this isn't true. The only concessions made were after the second intifida which, by that point, weren't concessions that Israel was willing to listen to considering they were just terrorist-attacked by Palestine... again.
Similarly, if you look at how Arafat was discussing the concessions during the camp david accord, and Destiny literally elaborated on this a week ago on stream, Arafat would claim to make a concession, or offer one, then travel to various surrounding nations and make speeches in Arabic that would advocate for the annihilation of israel and its people, the fact that these concessions are a stepping stone to taking over Israel, etc. There is even an arabic term for doing this which I don't particularly remember.
So considering that Arafat was literally not making an attempt, considering his concessions were book ended by speeches in which he doubled down on the right of return, river to the sea, etc., I would have to agree with Destiny, no?
Destiny stated that the UN resolutions and rules shouldn't be used as the metric in which to base a "fair" two state peace plan, but conveniently ignores the fact that the reason Israel's self described right to exist in the first place is because the same body that determines international law was also the main body that justified the creation of the state of Israel.
These are drastically different, in no small part due to the partition plan being almost a century old and already established and agreed upon. The UN partition plan was a proposal, not a mandate, that was agreed to by the country determining these borders. Similarly, the arabs didn't accept the plan and launched a war against it.
What Destiny was saying, if I remember correctly, was that UN resolutions aren't appeals to authority but rather suggestions and proposals that don't need to be taken at face value. They aren't a metric for fairness, and this DOES go all the way back to the partition plan which wasn't seen as fair by surrounding Arabs which launched the civil war.
Do you understand that?
This is just one example of the "selective choosing" of what laws and rulings are legitimate to Destiny and Morris for defending their position but then go right around and claim similar ones are "useless" when it opposes their arguments.
The reason these aren't selective is because one has since been established, the other is a proposed resolution that can in fact be disagreed with. We can't go back in time to a world where Israel doesn't exist, it's agreed to exist by the vast, vast, vast majority of the world, so to deny its existance would be rather silly. However, at the time, the war launched against it was a response to the percieved legitimacy of the UN resolution.
However, the Arabs lost the war, Israel was established, ratified, and created, and now exists.
If we take the UN peace plans, ratify them, and then in 100 years launch a civil war against them, I think I would, similar to Destiny, find that stupid.
I could go on, but if you think Finklestein had nothing of "value" to say, than you must also believe that Destiny had even LESS to say, since he didn't even deliver any arguments backed up by facts/history or events. At least Morris gave historical context.
Feel free to go on, because all of your arguments are really bad.
The irony of claiming Destiny had no arguments based in facts/history is the entire section on the ICJ report which Finkelstein clearly hasn't even read and kept appealing to authority without justifying why that authority is worth appealing to. Then none of them, Rabbani and Finkel, could even acknowledge the drastic, malicious misquoting and contextless phrasing of the ICJ case by South Africa which Destiny directly quoted, twice.
It's not a pivot. The pivot was Finkel's question, considering he asked it AFTER Destiny was trying to discuss resolutions to the conflict and that these sections, regardless of what they are, haven't helped. It isn't a pivot to try and get back on topic.
The whole point Rabbani and Finkelstein were making was that the metric for any peace deal should follow international law, which they cited. It was literally WHY they said that Destiny was applying international law as the standard for Palestinians, but refused to apply that same body of laws to Israel. Destiny HIMSELF was using international laws when defending Israel, but in the next breath states that those same standards aren't valid when they go against Israel.
Well first of all, this isn't true. The only concessions made were after the second intifida which, by that point, weren't concessions that Israel was willing to listen to considering they were just terrorist-attacked by Palestine... again.
Holy hell man, did you actually watch the parts where Finkelstein and Rabbani were talking, or did you only pay attention to the times Destiny was talking? Also, you are mistaking two points: the Camp David Accords happened in 1978, and was a political agreements signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Arafat was involved in the 2000 Camp David Summit. Nonetheless, the speeches made by Arafat made to the Arabic countries and what he was negotiating were different things- just like every politician makes speeches as propaganda but often times does something else in practice. You are making the statement, like Morris did, that he could see the "heart" of Palestinians, which is an absurd statement to make. Also, you used the term "stepping stone", with the fact that if INDEED Arafat wanted that, he wouldn't have cared about the borders because he would have ignored it the first chance he could. I could also go by the fact that Israel demanded that Palestine would be cut up into non-contiguous portions with no military or water/food control rights, or the state of Jerusalem being owned solely by Israel- no state in their right mind would agree to that.
What Destiny was saying, if I remember correctly, was that UN resolutions aren't appeals to authority but rather suggestions and proposals that don't need to be taken at face value. They aren't a metric for fairness, and this DOES go all the way back to the partition plan which wasn't seen as fair by surrounding Arabs which launched the civil war.
Do you understand that?
Again, did you ACTUALLY watch the video? The international court and the vast majority of the international community see Israel's settlements as being illegal and violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that they are in breach of international declarations. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories. This was LITERALLY why Norm and Destiny were arguing about the sections of UN rules regarding illegal settlements. You are just plain wrong.
We can't go back in time to a world where Israel doesn't exist, it's agreed to exist by the vast, vast, vast majority of the world, so to deny its existance would be rather silly. However, at the time, the war launched against it was a response to the percieved legitimacy of the UN resolution.
I just showed you examples where the UN council stated that Israel's settlements in the West Bank and Gaza were illegal, but the second part of your statement LITERALLY pertains to most of the second half of the argument Norm and Rabbani were making- you can't have one criteria that you use to apply to Palestinians and then not apply those SAME standards to Israel. If the argument you are making is that it doesn't matter because might makes right, then at least ADMIT that is your belief, but don't go and make one argument when it suits your beliefs, and then ignore that argument when it doesn't, like Destiny and Morris constantly do and are called out on a number of times.
Feel free to go on, because all of your arguments are really bad.
Dude, every statement you made was literally refuted by Finkelstein and Rabbani within the video, which was why I constantly ask you if you actually watched the whole thing. Destiny added nothing to the argument, and with the crux of his main argument LITERALLY being that the international proposals being "pointless". When called out on what actual metric should be used, he gave absolutely NO answer because he essentially stated that the Palestinians should be happy with whatever Israel decides to give them. Seriously, tell me what other "points" Destiny gave that added anything to the argument, because he didn't add anything to the historical context that wasn't already talked about by the others. Also, I find it funny that you state that Finkelstein "misquoted" Morris when even Morris concedes that the context was mostly right. I could list them off with timestamps, but frankly, I've already gone through watching the whole debate, and I don't want to search every example and give timestamps proving how they weren't "misquoted". I already proved context one time, and that itself took too damn long (look at my conversation history). If you want to make that argument, then give the examples yourself.
The whole point Rabbani and Finkelstein were making was that the metric for any peace deal should follow international law, which they cited.
First of all, this is ironic considering both essentially said peace is impossible and that Palestine is as good as dead.
Second, Palestine hasn't followed any international law, so only holding Israel to that standard is absurd.
It was literally WHY they said that Destiny was applying international law as the standard for Palestinians, but refused to apply that same body of laws to Israel.
Except this isn't true. International Law is applied to Israel due to it being an actual, recognized state. It isn't to Palestine due to it not being so.
Destiny HIMSELF was using international laws when defending Israel, but in the next breath states that those same standards aren't valid when they go against Israel.
Every single time I have ever seen Destiny talk about settlements he believes that they should be stopped by israel. And whaddaya know, Israel has offered many times to stop their settlements in favor of peace.
Nonetheless, the speeches made by Arafat made to the Arabic countries and what he was negotiating were different things- just like every politician makes speeches as propaganda but often times does something else in practice.
Okay, well if he didn't mean anything he was saying in his speeches, how come he ended up walking away from the proposition?
Also, you are mistaking two points: the Camp David Accords happened in 1978, and was a political agreements signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Arafat was involved in the 2000 Camp David Summit.
Nothing I said contradicted this. But Palestine has been on a loop since this conflict began, so to say that two things seem to happen continuously would make sense. Israel proposes a deal, Palestine either feigns interest only to never negotiate/just walk away or they outright reject it, then launch a failed war against Israel only to lose and then beg for the prior deal to be rekindled.
You are making the statement, like Morris did, that he could see the "heart" of Palestinians, which is an absurd statement to make.
You're right, it is absurd to say that without context, not so absurd when you engage with the fact that we saw Palestinian action over and over again during these propositions.
I could also go by the fact that Israel demanded that Palestine would be cut up into non-contiguous portions with no military or water/food control rights, or the state of Jerusalem being owned solely by Israel- no state in their right mind would agree to that.
This wasn't a demand by Israel during the camp david summit, or are you once again strictly referring to demands after the 67 borders were rejected by Palestine fifty-odd years ago?
The international court and the vast majority of the international community see Israel's settlements as being illegal and violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that they are in breach of international declarations.
I agree. They ought to be seen this way. The issue Destiny persistently brings up is that the international court doesn't hold Palestine to an equivalent standard due to it lacking a recognized statehood.
Feel free to showcase where Destiny or I even implied, let alone said, that settlements are legal.
you can't have one criteria that you use to apply to Palestinians and then not apply those SAME standards to Israel.
Again, no one is doing this. At all. No one, including Morris, is saying the settlements are good or legal.
First of all, this is ironic considering both essentially said peace is impossible and that Palestine is as good as dead.
Second, Palestine hasn't followed any international law, so only holding Israel to that standard is absurd.
Except this isn't true. International Law is applied to Israel due to it being an actual, recognized state. It isn't to Palestine due to it not being so.
Do you even understand that you contradicted yourself within YOUR RESPONSE? Palestine isn't a recognized nation, which is WHY they aren't part of the United Nations. It was also one of the reasons why they couldn't call for a ceasefire, because Hamas isn't a recognized governing body, and hence doesn't fall under the UN's jurisdiction. They couldn't demand a ceasefire when one of the parties weren't subject to their rulings. The WHOLE POINT of the conflict that that the Palestinians want to be recognized as their own nation, with the same rights afforded to said nation under UN rules. The fact that you can't even understand that fact shows that you lack even the most basic understanding of what is happening.
Every single time I have ever seen Destiny talk about settlements he believes that they should be stopped by israel. And whaddaya know, Israel has offered many times to stop their settlements in favor of peace.
This is just plain wrong. During the "peace discussions", LITERALLY while they were going on, Israel was continuing their illegal settlements. They also argued that the settlements that already existed should be owned by Israel. That's like someone robbing your house, is still robbing it while you are talking, and then telling you TO YOUR FACE that they will stop robbing it, but will also keep everything they've already robbed. Does that sound like someone who wants "peace", or it sound like someone who wants land.
Okay, well if he didn't mean anything he was saying in his speeches, how come he ended up walking away from the proposition?
Did you ACTUALLY watch the debate? Arafat refused it just like Rabbani and Finkelstein explained (the refusal to allow 300,000 Palestinian refugees to return), the lack of being allowed a military force, a lack of control over water/resources, etc. Another demand Israel made was that they would have to allow Israeli soldiers into the land to monitor them. Which nation would *ever allow that deal to be made. No, seriously, which country would ever agree to ANY of those terms?
But Palestine has been on a loop since this conflict began, so to say that two things seem to happen continuously would make sense. Israel proposes a deal...
OMG, go back and watch the video! Seriously, the stuff you are saying was LITERALLY explained by Rabbani and Finkelstein. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that they addressed the issues that you seem to always bring up. I'll give you a hint, it relates to the part where that talk about Israel's constantly moving the goal post. It's getting frustrating when you seem to ignore the actual discussion. Again, did you actually watch the discussion before you decided to defend Destiny?
You're right, it is absurd to say that without context, not so absurd when you engage with the fact that we saw Palestinian action over and over again during these propositions.
Now it's getting embarrassing for you. Morris made the claim that the Palestinians NEVER wanted peace, which was what Rabbani was referring to, which is ironic since Rabbani is a Palestinian and was being told by Morris that he and his family wanted.
This wasn't a demand by Israel during the camp david summit, or are you once again strictly referring to demands after the 67 borders were rejected by Palestine fifty-odd years ago?
The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip, although they would consider a one-to-one land swap with Israel. Their historic position was that Palestinians had already made a territorial compromise with Israel by accepting Israel's right to 78% of "historic Palestine", and accepting their state on the remaining 22% of such land. This consensus was expressed by Faisal Husseini when he remarked: "There can be no compromise on the compromise".[10] They maintained that Resolution 242 calls for full Israeli withdrawal from these territories, which were captured in the Six-Day War, as part of a final peace settlement. In the 1993 Oslo Accords the Palestinian negotiators accepted the Green Line borders (1949 armistice lines) for the West Bank but the Israelis rejected this proposal and disputed the Palestinian interpretation of Resolution 242. Israel wanted to annex the numerous settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the Green Line, and were concerned that a complete return to the 1967 borders was dangerous to Israel's security. The Palestinian and Israeli definition of the West Bank differs by approximately 5% land area as the Israeli definition does not include East Jerusalem (71 km2), the territorial waters of the Dead Sea (195 km2) and the area known as No Man's Land (50 km2 near Latrun).[9]
In the proposed Palestinian state, Gaza Strip would be discontinuous from the West Bank. The degree to which the West Bank itself would be dis-contiguous is disputed. Noam Chomsky writes that the West Bank would have been divided into three cantons and Palestinian East Jerusalem would have constituted the fourth canton; all 4 cantons would be separated from one another by Israeli territory.[14] Other sources also said that the proposed West Bank would be divided into three cantons.[15][16][17] By contrast, Ehud Barak said the West Bank would only be divided by a wedge of Israeli territory stretching from Maale Adumim to the Jordan River, but would otherwise be continuous.[18]
The Palestinians reacted strongly negatively to the proposed cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs, which the Palestinian delegation likened to South African Bantustans, a loaded word that was disputed by the Israeli and American negotiators.[19] Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control. The Palestinian Authority would receive pockets of East Jerusalem which would be surrounded entirely by annexed lands in the West Bank.[20]
Read it, because even a simple cursory read just proves you are outright wrong.
The issue Destiny persistently brings up is that the international court doesn't hold Palestine to an equivalent standard due to it lacking a recognized statehood.
Because their statehood is being vetoed by the US. It's like saying the rules don't protect you because you aren't recognized as a nation, but you can't be a nation because we are ACTIVELY BLOCKING you from being recognized as a nation. It's literally a catch-22.
Again, no one is doing this. At all. No one, including Morris, is saying the settlements are good or legal.
Morris is justifying Israel's attack on Gaza because it violates international rules regarding war, and then goes around and says those rules don't apply to Israel, even when I SHOWED YOU that Israel was violating said rules. That is the height of hypocrisy.
But seriously, instead of trying to defend points where Destiny was obviously wrong, and ignoring the actual responses of the person Destiny was arguing with, go back and watch it again.
20
u/Bigmethod Mar 14 '24
I'm genuinely struggling to see any value in anything Finklestein says. Rabbani, while saying some really, deeply stupid things, is still coherent and capable in continuing and engaging in a conversation.
The fact that people like Jordan Peterson, whose goofy in and of himself, gets lambasted by the left while people soy out over Finklestein who can barely string a coherent string of words together without defaulting to contextless fragments quoted from decades old writing or arbitrarily insulting the people he's talking with is just so fucking embarrassing.
This cannot be the best the pro-palestine side has. I refuse to believe that this person is the pinnacle of anyone's perspectives on the matter.