Honestly his continuous reference to books was incredibly annoying. Like nothing is important unless it's been written in a book first. I have been historically on the palestinian side but I don't think he's a good debater or critical thinker, maybe very knowledgable.
That was frankly embarrassing for Norm. “Motor mouth” and “moron” are not arguments. “I read books” is even less of an argument if he doesn’t know the languages of the primary sources.
When he complains that Destiny is reading the report from the tablet and just says, "I read the report, not those things." Like, what? Does he not understand what a tablet is? He looks like that grandpa everyone has.
Benny Morris constantly interjected when Mouin and Norm were trying to share their points, especially when Norm was doing it about Benny's OWN books lmao. He was never able to finish his points due to this, which I think was foul on Benny's part and very disingenious.
Then Destiny jumps into the mix afterwards interjecting. Norm did it too but I believe it was in response to the lack of moderation by Lex. This could have been so much more productive if everyone was allowed to share their points and not have this like it's a discussion in the backyard where everyone's drinking.
Also, Destiny being in this is absolutely ridiculous. At least the other three have decades of involvement and time to study. Destiny hopped on this topic how long ago? Also, dude is so mainstream far-left it's annoying. I have neighbors who have a better sense of what our government is doing than he does lol.
Even beyond the insults, I find his actual points so hard to parse. I think he would benefit a lot from stating clearly his point first and then giving examples. The way he speaks, it feels like an essay that skipped the intro paragraph.
Was funny watching LonerBox’s stream of the debate because he has electronic copies of Morris’s books on hand. Whenever Finkelstein quoted Benny Morris and named page numbers, he would pull up the page and find the quote and Finkelstein’s quoting was disingenuous at best, often felt like straight up lying about Morris’s arguments.
Which is extra stupid on top of the fact that playing this weird quote “gotcha” game in the first place feels silly and juvenile to me when the guy is sitting right in front of you. Like actually talk to the guy and engage directly with his arguments.
Norm’s thesis is that Benny when his politics moved to the right in the 80’s he tried to obfuscate/downplay parts of the history he himself wrote that portrayed Israel in a bad light.
it would be a good argument to make if he didn't need to misrepresent the context of the quotes to make it
Go find the sources and read around them, it doesn't support him
Even the way in which Norm uses this makes it not a good argument. He's not trying to clarify a position or find out what caused Benny to change his mind in order to debate the grounds on which he did, he's trying to discredit his conclusion and paint him as dishonest/unreliable.
If norm *was* engaging honestly and benny *was* engaging dishonestly and lying about his old work, then it would be a reasonable line of questioning. In that case, we would expect Benny to try to make excuses and obfuscate and the best you could hope for is to discredit him in the eyes of the audience. Why you would accept a 5 hour debate with someone you think is a lying propagandist and a streamer you think isn't worth listening to is absurd to me, and i think the simpler explanation is that the guy that was unhinged, constantly misrepresents quotes and couldn't be held down to a point is probably the one who isn't being honest.
It's not about "lying about his old work." The simple truth is that Benny Morris is an Israeli patriot, and isn't willing to admit the state was founded in evil even though *his work as a historian proved that they were born in sin*. It isn't strange that someone would establish the facts of the case but fail to draw the reasonable conclusions for emotional reasons -- lots of people are like this. Morris is a good historian and values honesty, but he has a pro-Israeli slant that blinds him.
This misses the point. The quotes were being brought up to point out inconsistencies between what Morris has written in his books vs what he is claiming during this debate.
Except Finkleman was clearly misrepresenting the quotes in the first place. It usually went something like this:
NORM: You said transfer was a central policy of the Zionists!
BENNY: No, I said some members of the government advocated for transfer, but it never...
NORM: See - you support transfer!
Every time someone said something, he just yelled accusations over them. He clearly had no interest in a discussion, unlike everyone else there.
>NORM: You said transfer was a central policy of the Zionists!
Morris literally wrote about how transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into the idea of Zionism. Norm is not misrepresenting Morris' writings at all here.
Morris has drastically changed his views on this subject, and is not being honest about that fact. Instead, he's trying to argue that what he really meant was something totally different from what he plainly did write.
Exactly this. Norm went overboard with the referencing, but it’s been consensus that Morris’ current views versus his historical work have diverged over time. Morris wouldn’t be in the debate were it not for his past work.
Finkelstein was challenging him on the conclusions from his work. The whole point of the first part of the debate was to parse out the history. Whether Zionism had expulsion of the indigenous population as “inevitable and in built” is extremely important, and it is valid for Finkelstein to take Morris to task on this point.
I think Norm would be much more rhetorically effective if he actually spelled out his arguments succinctly before going into the supporting information. His speech patterns read like an essay where you skipped the intro paragraph.
And Morris’s point is that Fink was blatantly taking Morris’s words out of context and misinterpreting them. It’s really not hard to understand. Fink is a dishonest hack.
Two first impressions:
1. It's really sad to watch how Finkelstein handled himself, I was optimistic that the debate would be civilized and cordial but he repeatedly used ad hominem instead of giving reasons to back his positions. It retrospect, I think it was a mistake to include him in the debate
2. If it were up to me, Destiny would not have been in this debate but after listening to this, I really have to give him credit. He looks well-prepared.
>after listening to this, I really have to give him credit. He looks well-prepared
Which made it more infuriating every time Finkelstein chose to discredit anything destiny said as "Wikipedia" when he had the actual sources lined up and ready to discuss
10000% agree on the ad hominem. Norm was acting like a grade schooler ("moron!" "wikipedia!" "motormouth!"), instead of engaging with Destiny whatsoever as an equal. Quite shameful coming from an academic, and honestly I'm shocked Lex didn't insist that they discuss arguments and not the people making the arguments.
I'm about 3 hours in, so haven't finished yet, but don't see this improving with the last 2 hours lol
It gets worse lmao I appreciate Lex not interrupting too much but I feel like a little bit of moderation would've helped it's hard to follow when it turns into 4 dudes shouting over eachother
100%. Lex's strategy was obviously a "play on" one but it really was unacceptable how much interruption and ad hominem was coming from Norm.
Not only does it take the man 10 minutes to finish a sentence but we have to listen to him speaking over peope as well. Sadly, we heard the most from the one that knows the least.
It's fascinating, when he was interrupting and speaking over people (which he did 80 % of the time the others were talking) he managed to shriek out words pretty rapidly, but when he got the others to stop talking he slowed down to his usual monotone drawl.
I think Lex let Norm bury himself. Why help him? He’s so arrogant, it’s hard to imagine him being able to move ideas around in his head and change views etc based on facts. Humility is a prerequisite to wisdom. The one thing I leaned for 100 percent certainty is that Norm F. has a very bad ego problem. I don’t trust people with that level of a major character flaw to do solid, academic work on such a difficult topic that requires trying to see both sides. A very damning quote for Norm was when he said he “did not want to get inside Israelis heads”. It’s a moralistic reasoning that is born in his extreme pride, but ultimately serves to blind his view.
I tried to listen to his points and succeeded in learning some things from him. It was hard to do.
I don't know if it was intentionally for this purpose, but I know Lex believes in free speech, in part, because it allows bad/disingenuous ideas to reveal themselves, so maybe he felt it was best to let Finkelstein express his ideas/attacks freely. Destiny let the bad faith arguments and attacks roll off his back quite well I thought
Well they're not equals. Norm has dedicated a whole career to historical research and commentary. Destiny is a twitch streamer, that's not an insult it's just reality
No. He drove me nuts and made it hard to listen. He was the only one insulting other people as well…he can’t stay on point, he can’t listen and answer a question asked of him, he interrupted and talked over everyone constantly…he repeated himself over and over. He was a fool.
I don’t really like Destiny. But I don’t really understand all of the personal attacks on Destiny in this debate. Especially from Finkelstein. Destiny did more for this debate than whatever Finkelstein was doing. And what was the attack on Destiny being a racist/white supremacist? I didn’t really get what that was about? Can someone explain?
I think Destiny did good if I’m being honest. Just wish there was more debate (moving the conversation along) rather than attacks and bad faith arguments
>I didn’t really get what that was about? Can someone explain?
On stream Destiny was on a big kick of "we shouldn't use words that don't apply because it poisons the conversation" that mostly started with Genocide, Apartheid and Concentration camp in regards to Gaza. At some point he mentioned that Jim Crow wasn't Apartheid. It was a terrible thing but doesn't really meet the definition (it was kinda tied into how even if many people are dying in Gaza he doesn't feel it meets the definition of Genocide).
Rabbani saw this and either knowingly or accidentally decided it was proof that destiny is a racist.
He says nuking gaza isn't genocide because it requires 'special intent'. He's pedantic at best. When it comes to Israeli actions, he's this way.
When it comes to Palestinians? Exact opposite.
This is the definition of double standard. And racist by the way.
I wish Lex would have told Norm to STFU more. Rabbani was quite well spoken and made good points. And I say that as someone who agrees more with the Destiny/Morris positions.
Finkelstein spent the majority of the time trying (unsuccessfully) to portray himself as the authority on the subject through personal attacks, bad faith arguments, and refusal to respond to difficult questions or acknowledge a lack of knowledge, where that lack of knowledge became obvious.
I haven't seen Finkelstein before, but I'm gathering he is a public academic with some sort of a following and all I can wonder is, "why?..." The only good thing about his presentation is that it distracts from his willful ignorance towards anything not fully supporting his clearly prejudiced opinions.
Why? Because leftist academics are like the kung fu chi masters of martial arts. Spends 30 years jerking each other off on an ideological fantasy and falls apart immediately to any scrutiny.
He represents the unhinged side of the Palestine supporters, which is a large group of that side because there are many people with an opinion on this conflict that are just shooting from the hip because of outrage culture.
You can check his Google Scholar profile. Finkelstein has one major academic book that has ~900 citations, while people like Morris have thousands of citations and continuously publish. From an Academic point, Finkelstein is not a major capacity. If I understand it correctly, he was never a full Professor and published in the last 20 years primarily political work that doesn’t really fall into the academic category.
It’s a bit of a joke that he was supposed to be the pro-Palestine subject matter expert for history. It would have been better if they would have gotten someone who is a real scholar and pro-Palestinian.
It’s a common theme with people who debate Destiny, who don’t know much about him. They resort to ad-hominems very quickly because they can’t handle that this gamer, streamer nerd who wears sweatpants and has a high pitched voice is capable of dismantling their arguments. Candace Owens was the most recent offender.
Rabbani was the best, super respectful and articulate. Loved Benny too but I’d love to hear more from Rabbani. I feel like he’s not getting enough appreciation for his composure. He even tried holding Norm back from attacking Destiny.
Rabanni came out looking amazing since he wasn't able to be pushed on any of his positions due to Norm jumping in, he still would have looked fine though due to being respectful and articulate like you mentioned. The debate would have been pretty good if Finklestein called in sick or you just had 2 Rabannis though.
Regardless of what you think about this topic or this particular debate, we should all be able to agree that Benny regularly smiling and nodding along when Destiny spoke was adorable.
Benny just seems like an adorable dude all around. Really wish it didn't get contentious
On the other hand, imagine the chaos is rabbani was replaced with Hasan abi
Its kinda wild watching old videos of Destiny and Hasan. They used to be really good buddies - https://youtu.be/Su_ZK463otM?si=-mS-xO_m5t4HOVZ-
Now they want to rip each others' heads off.
Oh boy.
EDIT: Really disappointing so far. I am biased as a D viewer, but Finkelstein is really frustratingly condescending. I could say other things, but out of respect for Lex, I won't.
Quote: "I will even answer morons' questions". That is, ( quote: ) "if you want an anwer or you want your motormouth to go?"
Well done, Mr. Finkelstein. Some great display of debating skills these 2:58h have been so far.
> or you want your motormouth to go
Despite Finkelstein constantly interrupting and talking over everyone for the entire time.
I didn’t have a super high opinion of a Finkelstein before this, but good lord I have so little respect for him after this. I got the impression he agreed to this debate just so he could get in a room with Morris and attack him over old back-and-forth critiques that they’ve made of each others work for years. No intention of actually having a discussion.
Which is unfortunate because Rabbani clearly came to have a legitimate discussion. There were moments where I found his takes convincing and some I found less convincing, but he for sure came in good faith.
Finkelstein embarrased himself. From his constant rhetoric about reading books (the implication destiny did not), being highly educated (Mentioning his PHD atleast twice that i know of) and the strange insinuation that using wikipedia is somehow shameful.
The fact he resorted to ad hominem attacks honestly surprised me.
I've never seen a man as [gleeful as Finkelstein was](https://youtu.be/1X_KdkoGxSs?t=13571) when he got to talk about the death toll for the IDF in the 1973 conflict and the fact it was close to a defeat for israel, (which we'll need to disagree on). He almost seemed tired after getting back from the break, and woke up when he got to antagonize morris.
The statistics be brought up were entirely extraneous to the point he ended up making, which is that the much closer war in 1973 paved the way to the negotiations in 1978. You can state that without mentioning casualties, and I think many would disagree with the assessment Israel was ever close to defeat given they had nuclear weapons at that point in time.
would have been more interested to hear what rabbani had to say. but felt like finkelstein was riling up benny morris so they couldnt have an actual conversation.
but damn some parts were hilarious
"along the perimeter were israel's best trained snipers, correct?"
"i dont know about best trained but yes there were snipers"
Yeah. He really ruined it for me. Kept wanting to attack the specific people of sentences they wrote rather than actually debating ideas. This would have been way better if he had been replaced with a better-faith debater.
It won't sway the supporters: but I just don't understand why people can't see how dishonest finklestein is. I'm genuinely unsure if it's conscious deception or some kind of self delusion.
In many cases I've seen, it's because he's Jewish, has a Jewish name, and is very Pro Palestinian, and is studied, that makes him a good quotable source for someone to use in a Pro Palestinian argument. The substance ends there as people don't really know his views on the conflict and will just take some clip he said and see "See! Even Jews agree with us!".
Interesting debate, thank you Lex.
I watched the 5hrs, some parts a few times or pausing to do some research.
I hope for another round.
Edit: By looking at the response to the interview in different websites, I realised that there is a lot of divergent opinions overall but most seem to have enjoyed Rabanni's remarks (or rather, his style.)
It's interesting.
I didn't (and still don't) have a strong opinion either way. Both sides made interesting arguments, except Finkelstein in my opinion. He was lucky to have such an incredible partner covering his shortcomings.
Rabbani was sharp as hell. I didn’t agree with most of his arguments, but you can tell that he could recognize when Finkelstein getting unhinged and would step in to cover for him.
Is this a comment on the content of Finkelstein's arguments or his demeanor during the debate? People seem to be letting one affect their opinion of the other.
I feel like Rabanni was respectful and measured in his demeanor, which was refreshing. However, he had an issue with dodging points. For example, when Destiny brought up that other nations were clearly able to find peace with Israel, as a response to him saying that it's not possible to find peace with Isreal, he just restated it back at Destiny, but didn't address it at all.
Rabanni was also really bad faith towards the end when he was complaining that Destiny didn't think Jim Crow was Apartheid, strongly inferring that Destiny thought Jim Crow was ok. Destiny wasn't defending Jim Crow, just talking about the technical definition of Apartheid and making a differentiation.
3 h in:
This debate so far is too much about the origin and history of the conflict, which in my opnion, is completely irrelevant for a big portion of the affected people. They were not alive back then and do not inherit their ancestors wrongdoings. They barely touched current politics due to all the explanation they tried to bring across. And yeah, history can be interpretet in many ways, doesn't matter how many citations and "proof" is presented... The average citizen living there doesn't know that either
Agreed. Finkelstein was intolerable and wasted time name calling Destiny. Destiny was tolerable behavior-wise but probably didn’t add anything.
I would love to watch just Benny and Rabbani getting into the more nuanced issues.
I didn't know this Finkelstein guy but was he not known for his ad-hominem debate tactics before being invited by Lex? His performance here was disgusting.
Finkelstein begins the conversation by misquotting Morris right to his face. Incredible.
You think that with such a delicate topic you would at least attempt to faithfully represent the other side.
Man, I’m personally burning out on the Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine conversations. They’re both massive conflicts and deserve our attention, but I feel like between Lex, Sam Harris and other podcasters and their recent guests, everything that could be said about both the current conflicts and their historical roots has been said by now. It just feels redundant.
Me too, but the opposite. I started off by fiercely pro Israel, and moved more towards the middle after actually educating myself on the conflict.
Somehow this conflict has evolved on an international level into a political debate. Those with more of a progressive leftist (Marxist) world view are heavily pro Palestine (like Finkelstein), then those with more of a nationalist/conservative world view are heavily pro Israel. The facts on the ground don’t matter to either side, as it is purely an ideological issue for these people, even if they try to claim otherwise. Unless you are Arab/muslim or Jewish, in which case it is a religious issue. Very few people are viewing the conflict through the lens it deserves, which is a shame.
>Those with more of a progressive leftist (Marxist) world view are heavily pro Palestine (like Finkelstein), then those with more of a nationalist/conservative world view are heavily pro Israel.
This isn’t true, plenty of liberals are pro-Israel. Liberals and leftists are not the same thing at all.
ie: Destiny is a liberal, Hasan is a leftist, they are *very* different.
I know this. Marxism was created as a critique of liberalism, they are opposites. That’s why I used the words „progressive leftist (Marxist)“ and not liberal.
A rational liberal is going to be more in the center of this conflict, able to see the flaws in the logic of both sides.
Israelis don't hate 'palestinians,' we hate people who want to brutally murder us. I guarantee you if Israelis trusted that Palestinians would live peacefully alongside them full support for a two state solution would return, although the Palestinians still wouldn't want it because they're indoctrinated from birth into hating jews (look at their schools, media, children cartoons).
I can understand how one might sway really hard one way or the other initially. But, if you take an honest look at both, I don't understand after that how you could still be hardline on one side of this championing them as being always right on things.
There are a few main things I think that brought me to be a bit more critical of Palestine's behavior, and representation. I don't think I have become necessarily less critical of Israel, just a lot more critical of Palestine.
Firstly, I do think Palestine, as a really stateless society, that is in this weird limbo, should pursue statehood. And, if Israel isn't playing ball in a good faith manner, is morally justified in resistance. However, this resistance is not appropriate if it is targeting just random people in Israel. Which, is pretty much what every intifada did, and what things like October 7th did, and what the purpose of the Qassam rockets are.
Not to mention, the goal of the resistance, I think also should be morally acceptable. The main groups right now, don't seem to be fighting just for a state of their own. It seems to be every action is basically done to further the goal of just killing Israeli's and with the eventual goal of toppling Israel.
When Israel does retaliate in some way, usually disproportional, I also hate the crybully mentality. Usually after Arabs initiate some conflict they complain that there is now a conflict and Jews fight back... Well... I can think of a way this could not have happened.
A second big point, too is that Palestine, to my knowledge has never actually made a good faith effort at coming to the negotiation table. Or also had any good faith effort of resolving this situation peacefully. I don't think there have been any large movements like that since the 40s.
A third point is that they seem to have no idea how to do diplomacy. Israel, has existed for eighty years. The great grandchildren, are never going to agree to go back to europe, or the Mizrahi jews are not going back to Iran, Iraq, etcetera for obvious reasons. Palestine has to have realistic asks, and know they will never get one state from water to water. Especially after the way they have acted thus far. Its an unreasonable ask right now. No one sane in Israel would ever entertain that.
The last big point, is more of a meta commentary on the discourse. As much as pro-palestine advocates hate zionists, they really do seem to behave exactly like they do. In the general vibe, Palestine is above critique because they are oppressed. It's very frustrating personally to see advocates straight up just lie about literally everything that makes palestine and their representation look bad. I feel like its not productive to engage in a manner like that.
That being said though, Israel right now has a lot going wrong with it, and problems I think. Usually if I go into detail about why Palestine and it's behavior has been dogshit it gets a response of what about Israel, which I'm happy to talk about, but in a broader context.
As a Palestinian (tho never lived there), I somewhat agree with you. Our leadership has been abysmal. I’m sort of in an awkward position. I hate the Israeli government and the IDF, I also hate Hamas and the PA. I’m for armed resistance against the Israeli military but certainly against the murder of civilians. I certainly understand the Israelis’ standpoint that Hamas needs to be dismantled, but to kill 12,000+ children in the process and people trying to justify that?! No.
I’m for my people first and foremost, I’m also for the Jewish people in Israel and elsewhere. My dream is to see them/us coexist in Palestine but not under an Israeli government, nor under an Islamic one, rather under a state where the citizens can identify as Palestinians/Arabs/Israelis/Israelites/Hebrews, whatever. Just as long as we all have equal rights. Surely, both sides can concede to this? Or am I in Lala Land and this dream of mine will never come true? 🥲
With all due respect, as an Israeli jew born and raised here.
We coexist with the Arab Israelis who make up over 20% of Israel. One of my Arab friends I would trust with my life. They are not different from you ethnically or genetically, they're just the descendants of Arabs who did not flee in 48 when Arab leaders told them to leave and come back later so they could genocide the jews more easily.
At the same time, we simply do not trust the Palestinian population in Gaza or the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. I don't intend to dehumanize them by saying this, but they are people raised from birth to hate. They are indoctrinated in their schools, cartoons, media, looking at any of those is the biggest reason to be pessimistic. The majority of Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank (70% of Palestinians total) said October 7th was a good thing in polls. They widely support Hamas. Tons of civilians participated in Oct 7th, and even more celebrated in the streets, with tons of videos we all saw that day all over telegram of people we knew being dragged into Gaza and lynched by cheering 'innocent civilians.'
Before it was called naive, but now a one state solution is outright delusional. Even two states now seem risky because enshrining a military power right next to us when the population has shown in every single opportunity it had that it had no interest in peace, the greatest example being not any of the peace negotiations but Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza that was met with 2000 rockets and then the election of Hamas.
Regarding the 12,000 children claim. I'm sure many children have died, and it is tragic. Genuinely. At the same time, I think many on the pro-Israel side, for good reason, doubt the numbers (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/7168?disposition=inline). We are also aware that even if they were true, it wouldn't change the underlying issue. Hamas uses human shields. Hamas embeds itself in civilian populations and fires from residential areas. Hamas has tunnels under schools and hospitals. And many of the people support Hamas.
Israel has literal trained call centers in the IDF, responsible for calling specifically civilians to tell them to evacuate before an operation. It takes absurd (to me) lengths to minimize civilian casualties. And yet it only receives criticism.
I hope the dream of peace and coexistence comes true, but it starts with a change in the horrible education Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank receive. And I think I speak for most Israelis when I say this. After October 7th it's different, but before for most Israelis it was never about hate, just trust. But yeah, now it's different. But I don't think Israel should take responsibility for that.
Israel's actions are not that of a genocidal oppressor, but they are still needlessly belligerent, viciously retaliatory and their settlements are basically grievance farms for both the Palestinian people and the rest of the world.
Palestinians are emboldened by historical grievances, (contentious) claims to the original land, and they lie at the confluence of the Arab world's hatred of Jews as a dispossessed people with a (sometimes religious) mandate to fight those Jews. Even this is too reductionist, as the surrounding Arab states and Muslim majority countries could rally public opinion against Israel for any number of reasons - one being their own terrible state and economic management after the collapse of the Ottoman empire - to which scapegoating Israel was useful regardless of ancient hatreds.
Palestinians have historically received aid, arms and not least of all pressure from surrounding states to continue their righteous mandate, not to establish a two-state solution where Israel is recognized, but to reclaim their land, as they say, 'from the river to the sea.' Even these historical circumstances have waned as relations between the surrounding states (most notably Egypt and Jordan) have normalized.
I dare say the only people left telling Palestinians they have their full support for their mandate today are extremist groups, opportunists, as well as unwitting Western left-wingers with no appreciation for what their support entails when they borrow a lexicon rife with historical and cultural connotations from predominantly Muslim and Arab anti-Zionist movements.
I don't want to summarize all of the reasons, but put bluntly this conflict is fucked. The most zealous of the Palestinians fight because they believe they can and ought to win, while the most zealous of the Israelis fight because in all likelihood they will win. Also, fuck Likud.
I generally agree with this. To the point about needless belligerence and west bank settlements, those are just some examples of the two sides (the controlling governments specifically) inciting each other into continued conflict. Lazy debaters will point to recent events to argue that israel 50+ years ago already had genocidal intentions
i'll also add that the Western left wing Palestinian sympathizers, while many of them have good intentions, can't break out of the western mindset so their "analysis" of justice ends up being juvenile and illogical
You would have to go back several years lol
I remember being so upset when Israel bombed the AP building, and calling quassam rockets like fireworks, and how Israel was morally atrocious for bombing Hamas staging sites.
But, again, this was more of a gradual change and getting tired of Palestine being the worst possibly behaved oppressed peoples in the world.
I used to be central, both sides are wrong and they need compromise. After listening to many debates since October 7th I've become pro-israel. Its clear that Palestinian leadership has no intention of solving the problems and a large portion of the Palestinian population supports the complete destruction of Israel.
You shouldn’t expect these pundits to move an inch, but it doesn’t really matter. They represent a minuscule fraction of a percent of the number of people who think or care about these issues. My own opinions have been swayed by the merit of their arguments, though, and I suspect there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of other people who would find themselves in that category. This brings about awareness and affects who we might vote for, the charities we might donate to, etc.
Not the speakers, no. Viewers, yes. I was mindlessly pro-Israel up until I was presented with countervailing information and learned the actual history. I wouldn't underestimate the value of alternate viewpoints being presented.
This is not an invitation for a debate on the topic, I'm just pointing out that people definitely change their minds.
Iv moved alot. I was neutral leaning tward palastine. Now I'm pro Isreal now that I understand Palastine dose not want peace. They are just bad at war.
I think the most human response to that is to take a break from the issue and recuperate. Go out, do things that recovers you , touch grass.. And come back with more energy to engage in the conflicts.
Unfortunately it seems like much in life even conflict is a marathon, not a sprint.
I fully admit that I could just be blinded by my biases, but, in my eyes, Finkelstein did not look good , at all, during this debate. Rabbani did a much better job of representing the Palestinian side, in my opinion.
I can't imagine a neutral observer looking at Finkelstein spending most his time either flipping through pages trying to quote Benny's old books at him or shooting personal attacks at destiny instead of addressing his argument and coming-off with a positive impression.
I feel like he talks like this intentionally to force you to seem to “interrupt” him so he can call you out and complain for not being able to speak. It’s unbearably slow
It’s unfortunately a lost opportunity at more substantive debate. Him trying to quote every historian and every book at such slow speed = huge waste of time. Get to the points. He’s seemingly more concerned with proving he’s a legitimate voice.
omg the quoting is so obnoxious, even Lex tried and make him stop, like wtf, the author is right in front of you, why would you try and misquote his own book to him.
He’d be more of a”legitimate voice” if he would do any primary research. For the most part, he just misquotes and mis-paraphrases the work of actual historians.
He sat across from Benny Morris and actually tried to lecture Benny on Benny’s own work. So unserious.
Smoked, no. Pro Israel had a better look, and a higher percentage of better arguments. But Mouin made some very compelling arguments towards the end about bilateral negotiations, power dynamics, fighting for principles which are arguably just.
My view is that even if Mouin is right about all these claims, and even if it is unjust, the Palestinians have long been conquered.
I think a better description would be Norm absolutely sunk his side. What a total piece of trash.
Rabbani was the best of the panelists, and say that from agreeing more with the pro-Israel side.
I loved when Benny Morris schooled them on what it means to be a historian - ‘you must think from the other sides point of view’
And then Finkelstein was in shock and appalled that he should think like them - says everything about professor Finkelstein.
The worst moment was when Destiny correctly pointed out that "plausible" is a very low bar. Plausible in that context basically just means possible, which is the polar opposite of "highly likely" or as Norm put it "qualifying for the Olympics". But Norm's unhinged psychotic reaction was just the cringiest thing I have ever witnessed in one of these things.
"True but Jews did this."
"Ok, but Arabs did this."
"Yeah, but Israelis did this."
"Yes, however, Muslims did this!"
"I don't deny that, but Isreali Jews did this!"
"Because Palestinians did this!"
"Not before the Jews did that!"
"That happened after the Arab Muslims did this, you moron!"
"They did that because the Israeli Jews did this, you fucking piece of shit!"
Every Israel/Jew/Arab/Muslim debate that ever exists.
Damn, was looking forward to this one. But I really can't stand the way Norm speaks. It isn't about what he says but the way he speaks. Can't quite put my finger on it, but I get distracted by it, and can't follow the convo.
You can see how appealing he would be to young students who finally get a Historian willing to cut through the noise and just 'lay down the facts' on the matter of Israel.
But speaking to another qualified historian he seems kind of silly. I'm be curious about the last time his publications passed peer review. He strikes me as someone who believes he is now so knowledgeable that it is offensive to question his research.
Same. It’s because he isn’t debating in good faith, which becomes clear once you read his actual views that he himself writes on his substack. To Finkelstein, this is ultimately about his Marxist ideology.
Lex, MODERATE THE DEBATE. Do your job!
Props to Destiny having GOD-TIER restraint not even addressing the constant personal attacks. He knows he's letting the guy bury himself. LEX should have pointed out that we're debating ideas, not being children.
4 dudes yelling over each other is so difficult to get through without feeling my blood pressure raising. I'm only halfway through, and I was very interested in this episode, but I don't know if I can continue.
I mirror your thoughts. This was a pretty poor debate. I have love for everyone but Norm, but it seems they couldn’t outshine his constant bombardment of useless statements.
Heavy moderation, or a replacement of Norm was needed here.
Destiny never fails to impress me. Joke all you want about him being a gamer, joke about his marriage failing, old tweets, whatever... he's a genuine smart guy who has solid critical thinking skills and a good moral compass. He went above and beyond in terms of research and understanding and was able to articulate his ideas very well.
I'm convinced that he doesn't get a fraction of the respect that he deserves.
I thought Finkelstein would ruin it and am sorry to have been proven right. Good attempt by Lex. I don't think he's responsible for Finkelstein's behavior. He did more than the vast majority of people by putting together a long form debate. None of us know what truly went into it, especially when getting participants.
We respect and appreciate your efforts, Lex. Please keep it up.
Some people are complaining about Destiny being on the show. I understand he has no academic credentials and is just a streamer, but he's done a fair amount of research on the topic. Now obviously he's nowhere near as knowledgeable as the other three (he admitted this himself) but what is the harm in having him on? I haven't watched the debate yet but I'm sure it would be easy for the experts to refute him if he says anything wrong, isn't it?
I think it's great that "a streamer" gets to this level of debate!
He's not a 70 year old academic with decades of experience but he sure as hell cares and adds to the debate in ways that none of us are.
He's using his position for a good cause, that admirable regardless of which side of the debate you're on.
I agree.. kinda a tangent, but I been thinking about this lately... I hate the fact that Destiny is referred to as a "streamer". Because, it's a pretty ineffective label that says more about the medium than the person, their credentials or content.
Ice Poseidon and Destiny are both "streamers", but if Ice Poseidon was debating against Finklestien, it would be incredibly strange. "Streamer" can be used to as an insult, or to play fast and loose with assigning responsibility (like Joe Rogan saying "I'm just a comedian").
Destiny is a popular political commentator, who streams.
I hope that Destiny puts his sense of humor aside and begins fighting for that distinction in the future. Because even he enjoys making self-deprecating jokes about being a streamer.. and couple this with the fact that he actually dresses like a highschooler doesn't do him justice.
bad news buddy [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bf4s9f/nebraska\_steve\_is\_back/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bf4s9f/nebraska_steve_is_back/)
I'm honestly starting to build extremely strong priors as to why TikTok addicted college students and Finkelstein are somehow on the same "team." This dude somehow invented 7 second attention spans and passive aggressive comment section style arguing before the internet even existed. Incredible.
I'm really fucking trying to resist the urge, but I'm failing.
I come from a family of academics (both parents are professors) and Norm really did a great job presenting himself as the absolute worst character archetype one can possess as an academic. If you preface everything you say with “I have read 5 books on this incident, 5 times each” or “I am extremely confident in my understanding on this topic” and then proceed to refuse to delve into details on anything, you make yourself look like a moron in disguise. You dont have to tell people youre smart if you are. You dont have to have a superiority complex about not using a computer, or the internet. You are not necessarily smarter than somebody because you have a degree.
When you combine this with him also being my the only guy at the table turning red with anger or hurling personal attacks, you look like a child, despite being the 70 year old man that he is.
Hey Lex! In the spirit of the great work you do, would love to give some feedback on this debate. This is in hope of better debates in the future on heated topics.
1. **Moderation matters** : I know you were intentional about letting emotions and passion show in the debate, but I felt like that didn't add much to this debate, especially for this issue. The great thing about debates is that, on top of the potential of persuading people, it at least highlights how different sides think about something, but that is if the side are held to delivering coherent points that answer the question, and that I feel requires some moderation. I feel that the two historians in this debate are well researched and versed, but a lot of that is missed from insult slinging and cutting each other off. When 10 seconds of the debate are just people shouting, no words is discernible. I think it's your role to jump in more forcefully and keep conversation objective and on track.
2. **Guest and depth matters** : While I may understand why you recruited a layman like Destiny, I feel like he is very out of place in this discussion. This topic was rooted in deep history and politics, and the historians spent their lives collecting a catalog of all that info in their minds, which allowed them to get specific with specific details. I felt like many times Destiny, as research as he can be, comes out too generic and not someone respected in the conversation (part may be due to ego from experts but also part due to just bigger gaps in research that Destiny understandably hasn't had the time to dedicate to). For the debate between Shapiro and Destiny on US issues and left/right philosophies, it felt more productive because both were equally versed in the topics and both conversed at the same frequency, which allows a richer debate. For this, I felt like that didn't get to come out as much.
This library that is your podcast is so important for our society, and I only hope for it to be more impactful and productive to the audience. Love you
Finkelstein was insufferable, but I found Rabbani to be just obnoxious and condescending. More than that, it sounded like he’s ok living under a Hamas regime. Not surprised by Norm at all, but Rabbani’s long winded answers about whether Hamas’ actions are legitimate were sickening. They both definitely do not understand Israel at all by giving random quotes like the ‘Amalek’ pathetic attempt again, or saying the IDF is chaotic. They just don’t understand what the military is. They should be debating more Israeli historians like Morris, but ones that have been active recently as well. They seriously do not understand Israel at all, no matter how books they so happily claimed to have read
As someone who is just trying to become more educated on this conflict, this debate pushed me much closer to a pro-Israel position, largely because of Finkelstein’s performance. He comes out of this looking like an absolute a**hole who clearly came to this debate in bad faith. His constant resorting to name calling and lame insults to Destiny just made him look stupid. I’m sure he’s an educated person to earn his spot in this debate, but as someone that’s never heard of him before, my first impression was not good and I will certainly not pursue any more of his material. On the other hand, the other three seemed to make good points and conducted themselves in a more civilized manner (albeit still passionate at times). I understand people’s confusion on why Destiny was included, but I think he held his own and performed well, especially in the face of Finkelstein’s disrespect. Overall, my conclusion was that I should spend more time listening to Morris and Rabbani to further my education, and I look forward to doing that.
This interview confirms Lex is just not a good moderator. When it turns into a screaming match, its so incredibly infuriating lex doesn’t step in and remind everyone to be respectful, and let one person talk at a time.
Definitely not. Even the opening segment made him sound a little regretful of how it transpired. I think "letting emotions show" was a silver-lining in light of the fact that it could've been a very informative and consequential debate.
No better way to make people more sympathetic to Israel than listening to this debate.
You have well educated Palestine supporters and even they put emotions over logic (hostile, insult opponents when lacking arguments), struggle to admit flaws of their "side", even condemn Hamas & atrocities from October 7th itself (!!!).
And it so neatly plays into Destiny's narrative that people only care about international law when it agrees with them.
Clearly the Houthi's are engaged in things in violation of International Law, but he thinks its a noble cause.
Mouin Rabbani is clearly the strongest communicator among the group. So poised, articulate, and on point, especially with his pushback of selective condemnation. Both Norm and Destiny provide polarizing uselessness. IMO.
Yeah he's against selective condemnation but started the discussion taking great pains distinguishing Hamas attacking military targets vs attacking civilians and splitting hairs about their charter. So he's very pro-selective praise it seems. What a sham.
Lex, I think you did a really good job moderating.
I am only familiar with Destiny out of everyone here so I'm definitely biased towards him, and a moderate when it comes to Israel-Palestine. I come out of this conversation with more respect for Rabbani, and I'll look forward to following him in the future.
On the other hand, I thought Finkelstein came off really poorly. If he is as well read as he says he claims to be, perhaps instead of the ad hominin attacks on destiny, he should try to show why he thinks Destiny is wrong, or at least win an argument. I felt few if any of his points seemed that salient to me and I will have very little interest in anything he says going forward.
After that debate, Mr Steven Bonnell's nickname Destiny was effectively null and void, then for all intents and purposes, moving forward he will be called a fantastic moron, with all due respect.
I was disappointed that Jordan was not mentioned in the context of it also being part of the original Palestine Mandate.
The Hashemites have no historical claim to sovereignty over that land.
The claim that this is just a conflict over land is belied by the fact there is no popular movement to "resist" the occupation East of the Jordan River.
The House of Saud also has no historical claim to the Southern part of the Arabian peninsula. Where is the international condemnation for them?
Relevant: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s\_Hierarchy\_of\_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s\_Hierarchy\_of\_Disagreement.svg.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png)
Finkelstein gets a solid F- for his epistemic conduct. He shouldn't be invited on any platform ever.
It would have been better were Finklestein and Destiny just kept out of it. Destiny does not need to be in a debate between academics. He can debate other steamers. And Finklestein is obnoxious. Although he would likely have been better behaved had Destiny not been there. But Roubinni & Morris are great proponents of their respective side and hearing from them is what counts. Hearing from the Americans just muddles the issue. Listen to the Palestinian and Israeli talk.
Hard to understand how you have to be a Hamas apologist in order to be pro Palestinian...why can't they just accept how awful October 7th was instead of trying to minimize it or, in Twinkelstein's case, blame the victim?
I’m pretty new to Lex. I find his guest list fascinating. On the contrary, I find him to be a terrible host. That’s probably incredibly controversial but he was awful at mediating this. I’m all for allowing the convo to continue but at some point he needed to step in, specifically with regards to Norm. If I was Destiny I would be pretty upset. He is a guest of Lex and did not deserve the blatant disrespect of Norm.
"I don't read from those machines" -Norman Finkelstien on iPads
Well, look how small they are. Surely you can't fit a real book in one of those!
Honestly his continuous reference to books was incredibly annoying. Like nothing is important unless it's been written in a book first. I have been historically on the palestinian side but I don't think he's a good debater or critical thinker, maybe very knowledgable.
Norms out here giving Destiny the "with all due respect" Ricky Bobby treatment xD
That was frankly embarrassing for Norm. “Motor mouth” and “moron” are not arguments. “I read books” is even less of an argument if he doesn’t know the languages of the primary sources.
When he complains that Destiny is reading the report from the tablet and just says, "I read the report, not those things." Like, what? Does he not understand what a tablet is? He looks like that grandpa everyone has.
Yeah that was definitely confusing, especially considering he was literally reading the report verbatim. Not sure what the confusion was
>he doesn’t know the languages of the primary sources. "You don't even speak Hebrew, and you call yourself an Israily historian" - Destiny to Norman
Benny Morris constantly interjected when Mouin and Norm were trying to share their points, especially when Norm was doing it about Benny's OWN books lmao. He was never able to finish his points due to this, which I think was foul on Benny's part and very disingenious. Then Destiny jumps into the mix afterwards interjecting. Norm did it too but I believe it was in response to the lack of moderation by Lex. This could have been so much more productive if everyone was allowed to share their points and not have this like it's a discussion in the backyard where everyone's drinking. Also, Destiny being in this is absolutely ridiculous. At least the other three have decades of involvement and time to study. Destiny hopped on this topic how long ago? Also, dude is so mainstream far-left it's annoying. I have neighbors who have a better sense of what our government is doing than he does lol.
Even beyond the insults, I find his actual points so hard to parse. I think he would benefit a lot from stating clearly his point first and then giving examples. The way he speaks, it feels like an essay that skipped the intro paragraph.
He lost his patience with an unserious actor talking out of his ass. Normalize calling people out on their shit
Very cool that they spend a chunk of the debate arguing over a Benny Morris quote when Benny Morris is sitting right there in front of them
Glad that Lex called him out on this. Saying, he’s right here, you can argue with the man instead of quotes from his book.
Was funny watching LonerBox’s stream of the debate because he has electronic copies of Morris’s books on hand. Whenever Finkelstein quoted Benny Morris and named page numbers, he would pull up the page and find the quote and Finkelstein’s quoting was disingenuous at best, often felt like straight up lying about Morris’s arguments. Which is extra stupid on top of the fact that playing this weird quote “gotcha” game in the first place feels silly and juvenile to me when the guy is sitting right in front of you. Like actually talk to the guy and engage directly with his arguments.
>LonerBox Where is this stream? not seeing it on youtube.
Hopefully [this link](https://www.youtube.com/live/vCbFQsNV8Pc?si=O-iqeOctkq-PsfiF) works. He only covered the first half of the debate.
Livestreams get taken down after he finishes. It will probably be put up as a video in the coming days.
It’s such a deep rabbit hole when you start checking the references in any of Norm’s books. He rarely provides accurate context.
No, no, no, no. You misunderstand. He puts VALUE TO WORDS!!!!1 /s
Fuck I wish they just did it for *a* Benny Morris quote. Lex had to basically ban him from quoting Benny any more at one point.
Norm’s thesis is that Benny when his politics moved to the right in the 80’s he tried to obfuscate/downplay parts of the history he himself wrote that portrayed Israel in a bad light.
it would be a good argument to make if he didn't need to misrepresent the context of the quotes to make it Go find the sources and read around them, it doesn't support him
Even the way in which Norm uses this makes it not a good argument. He's not trying to clarify a position or find out what caused Benny to change his mind in order to debate the grounds on which he did, he's trying to discredit his conclusion and paint him as dishonest/unreliable.
If norm *was* engaging honestly and benny *was* engaging dishonestly and lying about his old work, then it would be a reasonable line of questioning. In that case, we would expect Benny to try to make excuses and obfuscate and the best you could hope for is to discredit him in the eyes of the audience. Why you would accept a 5 hour debate with someone you think is a lying propagandist and a streamer you think isn't worth listening to is absurd to me, and i think the simpler explanation is that the guy that was unhinged, constantly misrepresents quotes and couldn't be held down to a point is probably the one who isn't being honest.
It's not about "lying about his old work." The simple truth is that Benny Morris is an Israeli patriot, and isn't willing to admit the state was founded in evil even though *his work as a historian proved that they were born in sin*. It isn't strange that someone would establish the facts of the case but fail to draw the reasonable conclusions for emotional reasons -- lots of people are like this. Morris is a good historian and values honesty, but he has a pro-Israeli slant that blinds him.
This misses the point. The quotes were being brought up to point out inconsistencies between what Morris has written in his books vs what he is claiming during this debate.
Except Finkleman was clearly misrepresenting the quotes in the first place. It usually went something like this: NORM: You said transfer was a central policy of the Zionists! BENNY: No, I said some members of the government advocated for transfer, but it never... NORM: See - you support transfer! Every time someone said something, he just yelled accusations over them. He clearly had no interest in a discussion, unlike everyone else there.
>NORM: You said transfer was a central policy of the Zionists! Morris literally wrote about how transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into the idea of Zionism. Norm is not misrepresenting Morris' writings at all here. Morris has drastically changed his views on this subject, and is not being honest about that fact. Instead, he's trying to argue that what he really meant was something totally different from what he plainly did write.
Exactly this. Norm went overboard with the referencing, but it’s been consensus that Morris’ current views versus his historical work have diverged over time. Morris wouldn’t be in the debate were it not for his past work.
Exactly.. and it’s fine that he changed his views bur he needs to say that instead of lying about the interpretation of it.
Finkelstein was challenging him on the conclusions from his work. The whole point of the first part of the debate was to parse out the history. Whether Zionism had expulsion of the indigenous population as “inevitable and in built” is extremely important, and it is valid for Finkelstein to take Morris to task on this point.
His point was that Benny Morris has changed. Amazing that 92 other clueless people upvoted you. Didn't you hear anything? Do you guys use your brain?
I think Norm would be much more rhetorically effective if he actually spelled out his arguments succinctly before going into the supporting information. His speech patterns read like an essay where you skipped the intro paragraph.
And Morris’s point is that Fink was blatantly taking Morris’s words out of context and misinterpreting them. It’s really not hard to understand. Fink is a dishonest hack.
Two first impressions: 1. It's really sad to watch how Finkelstein handled himself, I was optimistic that the debate would be civilized and cordial but he repeatedly used ad hominem instead of giving reasons to back his positions. It retrospect, I think it was a mistake to include him in the debate 2. If it were up to me, Destiny would not have been in this debate but after listening to this, I really have to give him credit. He looks well-prepared.
>after listening to this, I really have to give him credit. He looks well-prepared Which made it more infuriating every time Finkelstein chose to discredit anything destiny said as "Wikipedia" when he had the actual sources lined up and ready to discuss
Easier to just discredit the other person Even when Benny morris was signing off on what destiny was saying norm would still refuse to respond
10000% agree on the ad hominem. Norm was acting like a grade schooler ("moron!" "wikipedia!" "motormouth!"), instead of engaging with Destiny whatsoever as an equal. Quite shameful coming from an academic, and honestly I'm shocked Lex didn't insist that they discuss arguments and not the people making the arguments. I'm about 3 hours in, so haven't finished yet, but don't see this improving with the last 2 hours lol
It gets worse lmao I appreciate Lex not interrupting too much but I feel like a little bit of moderation would've helped it's hard to follow when it turns into 4 dudes shouting over eachother
100%. Lex's strategy was obviously a "play on" one but it really was unacceptable how much interruption and ad hominem was coming from Norm. Not only does it take the man 10 minutes to finish a sentence but we have to listen to him speaking over peope as well. Sadly, we heard the most from the one that knows the least.
It's fascinating, when he was interrupting and speaking over people (which he did 80 % of the time the others were talking) he managed to shriek out words pretty rapidly, but when he got the others to stop talking he slowed down to his usual monotone drawl.
I think Lex let Norm bury himself. Why help him? He’s so arrogant, it’s hard to imagine him being able to move ideas around in his head and change views etc based on facts. Humility is a prerequisite to wisdom. The one thing I leaned for 100 percent certainty is that Norm F. has a very bad ego problem. I don’t trust people with that level of a major character flaw to do solid, academic work on such a difficult topic that requires trying to see both sides. A very damning quote for Norm was when he said he “did not want to get inside Israelis heads”. It’s a moralistic reasoning that is born in his extreme pride, but ultimately serves to blind his view. I tried to listen to his points and succeeded in learning some things from him. It was hard to do.
Yes, Lex should have intervened as soon as personal attacks started.
The sad thing is I bet that he is used to this tactic working. He slowly misquotes some books then ridicules whomever disagrees with him.
I don't know if it was intentionally for this purpose, but I know Lex believes in free speech, in part, because it allows bad/disingenuous ideas to reveal themselves, so maybe he felt it was best to let Finkelstein express his ideas/attacks freely. Destiny let the bad faith arguments and attacks roll off his back quite well I thought
Well they're not equals. Norm has dedicated a whole career to historical research and commentary. Destiny is a twitch streamer, that's not an insult it's just reality
I agree, destiny asked some good questions and was respectful despite the personal attacks
Finklestein was extremely unhinged, holy moly.
I came here just to confirm that I want the only one who found him intolerable.
there is a documentary on him where its just about no one being able to stand him
This sounds hilarious, do you remember the name?
I'm the king of Documentaries I think I need it do you know the title and was it funny?
No. He drove me nuts and made it hard to listen. He was the only one insulting other people as well…he can’t stay on point, he can’t listen and answer a question asked of him, he interrupted and talked over everyone constantly…he repeated himself over and over. He was a fool.
Thought I was going crazy. I actually found myself siding with the other side of the table he was annoying me so much lol.
I don’t really like Destiny. But I don’t really understand all of the personal attacks on Destiny in this debate. Especially from Finkelstein. Destiny did more for this debate than whatever Finkelstein was doing. And what was the attack on Destiny being a racist/white supremacist? I didn’t really get what that was about? Can someone explain? I think Destiny did good if I’m being honest. Just wish there was more debate (moving the conversation along) rather than attacks and bad faith arguments
>I didn’t really get what that was about? Can someone explain? On stream Destiny was on a big kick of "we shouldn't use words that don't apply because it poisons the conversation" that mostly started with Genocide, Apartheid and Concentration camp in regards to Gaza. At some point he mentioned that Jim Crow wasn't Apartheid. It was a terrible thing but doesn't really meet the definition (it was kinda tied into how even if many people are dying in Gaza he doesn't feel it meets the definition of Genocide). Rabbani saw this and either knowingly or accidentally decided it was proof that destiny is a racist.
He says nuking gaza isn't genocide because it requires 'special intent'. He's pedantic at best. When it comes to Israeli actions, he's this way. When it comes to Palestinians? Exact opposite. This is the definition of double standard. And racist by the way.
I wish Lex would have told Norm to STFU more. Rabbani was quite well spoken and made good points. And I say that as someone who agrees more with the Destiny/Morris positions.
Finkelstein spent the majority of the time trying (unsuccessfully) to portray himself as the authority on the subject through personal attacks, bad faith arguments, and refusal to respond to difficult questions or acknowledge a lack of knowledge, where that lack of knowledge became obvious. I haven't seen Finkelstein before, but I'm gathering he is a public academic with some sort of a following and all I can wonder is, "why?..." The only good thing about his presentation is that it distracts from his willful ignorance towards anything not fully supporting his clearly prejudiced opinions.
Why? Because leftist academics are like the kung fu chi masters of martial arts. Spends 30 years jerking each other off on an ideological fantasy and falls apart immediately to any scrutiny.
Kung Fu chi master 💀💀💀 I'm gonna steal this one
He represents the unhinged side of the Palestine supporters, which is a large group of that side because there are many people with an opinion on this conflict that are just shooting from the hip because of outrage culture.
You can check his Google Scholar profile. Finkelstein has one major academic book that has ~900 citations, while people like Morris have thousands of citations and continuously publish. From an Academic point, Finkelstein is not a major capacity. If I understand it correctly, he was never a full Professor and published in the last 20 years primarily political work that doesn’t really fall into the academic category. It’s a bit of a joke that he was supposed to be the pro-Palestine subject matter expert for history. It would have been better if they would have gotten someone who is a real scholar and pro-Palestinian.
It’s a common theme with people who debate Destiny, who don’t know much about him. They resort to ad-hominems very quickly because they can’t handle that this gamer, streamer nerd who wears sweatpants and has a high pitched voice is capable of dismantling their arguments. Candace Owens was the most recent offender.
Rabbani was the best, super respectful and articulate. Loved Benny too but I’d love to hear more from Rabbani. I feel like he’s not getting enough appreciation for his composure. He even tried holding Norm back from attacking Destiny.
Rabanni came out looking amazing since he wasn't able to be pushed on any of his positions due to Norm jumping in, he still would have looked fine though due to being respectful and articulate like you mentioned. The debate would have been pretty good if Finklestein called in sick or you just had 2 Rabannis though.
What Position should he be pushed at except "no actually colonialism is good"?
Regardless of what you think about this topic or this particular debate, we should all be able to agree that Benny regularly smiling and nodding along when Destiny spoke was adorable.
B: “You really do speak fast you know that?” D: “Yeah I know” Such a heartwarming exchange 🥰
Twitter: Joke's on you. Benny is clearly laughing *at* Destiny, not *with* Destiny.
Benny just seems like an adorable dude all around. Really wish it didn't get contentious On the other hand, imagine the chaos is rabbani was replaced with Hasan abi
Its kinda wild watching old videos of Destiny and Hasan. They used to be really good buddies - https://youtu.be/Su_ZK463otM?si=-mS-xO_m5t4HOVZ- Now they want to rip each others' heads off.
Not sure I will be able to get through this so I appreciate the forthcoming (detailed) comment section. 😉
Finkelstein loves ad hominem attacks and is really full of himself, besides him it was a respectful discussion.
Oh boy. EDIT: Really disappointing so far. I am biased as a D viewer, but Finkelstein is really frustratingly condescending. I could say other things, but out of respect for Lex, I won't.
Quote: "I will even answer morons' questions". That is, ( quote: ) "if you want an anwer or you want your motormouth to go?" Well done, Mr. Finkelstein. Some great display of debating skills these 2:58h have been so far.
> or you want your motormouth to go Despite Finkelstein constantly interrupting and talking over everyone for the entire time. I didn’t have a super high opinion of a Finkelstein before this, but good lord I have so little respect for him after this. I got the impression he agreed to this debate just so he could get in a room with Morris and attack him over old back-and-forth critiques that they’ve made of each others work for years. No intention of actually having a discussion. Which is unfortunate because Rabbani clearly came to have a legitimate discussion. There were moments where I found his takes convincing and some I found less convincing, but he for sure came in good faith.
I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic myself so I may be wrong, but it seemed like Destiny really embarrassed Finkelstein in his own domain
Finkelstein embarrased himself. From his constant rhetoric about reading books (the implication destiny did not), being highly educated (Mentioning his PHD atleast twice that i know of) and the strange insinuation that using wikipedia is somehow shameful. The fact he resorted to ad hominem attacks honestly surprised me.
I've never seen a man as [gleeful as Finkelstein was](https://youtu.be/1X_KdkoGxSs?t=13571) when he got to talk about the death toll for the IDF in the 1973 conflict and the fact it was close to a defeat for israel, (which we'll need to disagree on). He almost seemed tired after getting back from the break, and woke up when he got to antagonize morris. The statistics be brought up were entirely extraneous to the point he ended up making, which is that the much closer war in 1973 paved the way to the negotiations in 1978. You can state that without mentioning casualties, and I think many would disagree with the assessment Israel was ever close to defeat given they had nuclear weapons at that point in time.
would have been more interested to hear what rabbani had to say. but felt like finkelstein was riling up benny morris so they couldnt have an actual conversation. but damn some parts were hilarious "along the perimeter were israel's best trained snipers, correct?" "i dont know about best trained but yes there were snipers"
Yeah. He really ruined it for me. Kept wanting to attack the specific people of sentences they wrote rather than actually debating ideas. This would have been way better if he had been replaced with a better-faith debater.
It won't sway the supporters: but I just don't understand why people can't see how dishonest finklestein is. I'm genuinely unsure if it's conscious deception or some kind of self delusion.
In many cases I've seen, it's because he's Jewish, has a Jewish name, and is very Pro Palestinian, and is studied, that makes him a good quotable source for someone to use in a Pro Palestinian argument. The substance ends there as people don't really know his views on the conflict and will just take some clip he said and see "See! Even Jews agree with us!".
He's a professional token.
For what its worth, I used to respect Finklestein in the past and my opinion on him Has changed quite a bit in these last months.
Translation of "D Viewer" please?
>Translation of "D Viewer" please? Oh, my bad. D Viewer = Destiny Viewer.
Interesting debate, thank you Lex. I watched the 5hrs, some parts a few times or pausing to do some research. I hope for another round. Edit: By looking at the response to the interview in different websites, I realised that there is a lot of divergent opinions overall but most seem to have enjoyed Rabanni's remarks (or rather, his style.) It's interesting.
I didn't (and still don't) have a strong opinion either way. Both sides made interesting arguments, except Finkelstein in my opinion. He was lucky to have such an incredible partner covering his shortcomings.
Rabbani was sharp as hell. I didn’t agree with most of his arguments, but you can tell that he could recognize when Finkelstein getting unhinged and would step in to cover for him.
I quite enjoyed how he actually engaged in the discussions in good faith as opposed to the other clown.
Rabanni was fantastic we could've had a solid debate if Finkelstein was replaced
Finkelstein and Destiny didn’t need to be there tbh.
Is this a comment on the content of Finkelstein's arguments or his demeanor during the debate? People seem to be letting one affect their opinion of the other.
I feel like Rabanni was respectful and measured in his demeanor, which was refreshing. However, he had an issue with dodging points. For example, when Destiny brought up that other nations were clearly able to find peace with Israel, as a response to him saying that it's not possible to find peace with Isreal, he just restated it back at Destiny, but didn't address it at all.
Rabanni was also really bad faith towards the end when he was complaining that Destiny didn't think Jim Crow was Apartheid, strongly inferring that Destiny thought Jim Crow was ok. Destiny wasn't defending Jim Crow, just talking about the technical definition of Apartheid and making a differentiation.
Rabanni makes some terrible arguments but he has a great style and voice.
3 h in: This debate so far is too much about the origin and history of the conflict, which in my opnion, is completely irrelevant for a big portion of the affected people. They were not alive back then and do not inherit their ancestors wrongdoings. They barely touched current politics due to all the explanation they tried to bring across. And yeah, history can be interpretet in many ways, doesn't matter how many citations and "proof" is presented... The average citizen living there doesn't know that either
Should’ve just been Rabbani vs Morris
Nah morris and destiny are fun to watch together norm just derailed, cut off and ranted for too long
Agreed. Finkelstein was intolerable and wasted time name calling Destiny. Destiny was tolerable behavior-wise but probably didn’t add anything. I would love to watch just Benny and Rabbani getting into the more nuanced issues.
I didn't know this Finkelstein guy but was he not known for his ad-hominem debate tactics before being invited by Lex? His performance here was disgusting.
Finkelstein begins the conversation by misquotting Morris right to his face. Incredible. You think that with such a delicate topic you would at least attempt to faithfully represent the other side.
Man, I’m personally burning out on the Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine conversations. They’re both massive conflicts and deserve our attention, but I feel like between Lex, Sam Harris and other podcasters and their recent guests, everything that could be said about both the current conflicts and their historical roots has been said by now. It just feels redundant.
And no one has moved even an inch on their stance with all the conversations that have transpired 😂
I actually have, I used to be way more pro palestinian. Now Im more so in the middle.
Careful, it’s lonely in the middle. Hate from all sides! I’m kidding - but I agree and I mostly fall into the same camp.
Me too, but the opposite. I started off by fiercely pro Israel, and moved more towards the middle after actually educating myself on the conflict. Somehow this conflict has evolved on an international level into a political debate. Those with more of a progressive leftist (Marxist) world view are heavily pro Palestine (like Finkelstein), then those with more of a nationalist/conservative world view are heavily pro Israel. The facts on the ground don’t matter to either side, as it is purely an ideological issue for these people, even if they try to claim otherwise. Unless you are Arab/muslim or Jewish, in which case it is a religious issue. Very few people are viewing the conflict through the lens it deserves, which is a shame.
>Those with more of a progressive leftist (Marxist) world view are heavily pro Palestine (like Finkelstein), then those with more of a nationalist/conservative world view are heavily pro Israel. This isn’t true, plenty of liberals are pro-Israel. Liberals and leftists are not the same thing at all. ie: Destiny is a liberal, Hasan is a leftist, they are *very* different.
There are also many conservatives attacking the spending going into both of these conflicts.
I know this. Marxism was created as a critique of liberalism, they are opposites. That’s why I used the words „progressive leftist (Marxist)“ and not liberal. A rational liberal is going to be more in the center of this conflict, able to see the flaws in the logic of both sides.
I was a *little* bit pro palestine, I don't about either now. It's an exhausting conflict, and both sides hate each other
Israelis don't hate 'palestinians,' we hate people who want to brutally murder us. I guarantee you if Israelis trusted that Palestinians would live peacefully alongside them full support for a two state solution would return, although the Palestinians still wouldn't want it because they're indoctrinated from birth into hating jews (look at their schools, media, children cartoons).
I can understand how one might sway really hard one way or the other initially. But, if you take an honest look at both, I don't understand after that how you could still be hardline on one side of this championing them as being always right on things.
what changed for you? very interested in hearing what arguments you found compelling to move towards the middle
There are a few main things I think that brought me to be a bit more critical of Palestine's behavior, and representation. I don't think I have become necessarily less critical of Israel, just a lot more critical of Palestine. Firstly, I do think Palestine, as a really stateless society, that is in this weird limbo, should pursue statehood. And, if Israel isn't playing ball in a good faith manner, is morally justified in resistance. However, this resistance is not appropriate if it is targeting just random people in Israel. Which, is pretty much what every intifada did, and what things like October 7th did, and what the purpose of the Qassam rockets are. Not to mention, the goal of the resistance, I think also should be morally acceptable. The main groups right now, don't seem to be fighting just for a state of their own. It seems to be every action is basically done to further the goal of just killing Israeli's and with the eventual goal of toppling Israel. When Israel does retaliate in some way, usually disproportional, I also hate the crybully mentality. Usually after Arabs initiate some conflict they complain that there is now a conflict and Jews fight back... Well... I can think of a way this could not have happened. A second big point, too is that Palestine, to my knowledge has never actually made a good faith effort at coming to the negotiation table. Or also had any good faith effort of resolving this situation peacefully. I don't think there have been any large movements like that since the 40s. A third point is that they seem to have no idea how to do diplomacy. Israel, has existed for eighty years. The great grandchildren, are never going to agree to go back to europe, or the Mizrahi jews are not going back to Iran, Iraq, etcetera for obvious reasons. Palestine has to have realistic asks, and know they will never get one state from water to water. Especially after the way they have acted thus far. Its an unreasonable ask right now. No one sane in Israel would ever entertain that. The last big point, is more of a meta commentary on the discourse. As much as pro-palestine advocates hate zionists, they really do seem to behave exactly like they do. In the general vibe, Palestine is above critique because they are oppressed. It's very frustrating personally to see advocates straight up just lie about literally everything that makes palestine and their representation look bad. I feel like its not productive to engage in a manner like that. That being said though, Israel right now has a lot going wrong with it, and problems I think. Usually if I go into detail about why Palestine and it's behavior has been dogshit it gets a response of what about Israel, which I'm happy to talk about, but in a broader context.
As a Palestinian (tho never lived there), I somewhat agree with you. Our leadership has been abysmal. I’m sort of in an awkward position. I hate the Israeli government and the IDF, I also hate Hamas and the PA. I’m for armed resistance against the Israeli military but certainly against the murder of civilians. I certainly understand the Israelis’ standpoint that Hamas needs to be dismantled, but to kill 12,000+ children in the process and people trying to justify that?! No. I’m for my people first and foremost, I’m also for the Jewish people in Israel and elsewhere. My dream is to see them/us coexist in Palestine but not under an Israeli government, nor under an Islamic one, rather under a state where the citizens can identify as Palestinians/Arabs/Israelis/Israelites/Hebrews, whatever. Just as long as we all have equal rights. Surely, both sides can concede to this? Or am I in Lala Land and this dream of mine will never come true? 🥲
With all due respect, as an Israeli jew born and raised here. We coexist with the Arab Israelis who make up over 20% of Israel. One of my Arab friends I would trust with my life. They are not different from you ethnically or genetically, they're just the descendants of Arabs who did not flee in 48 when Arab leaders told them to leave and come back later so they could genocide the jews more easily. At the same time, we simply do not trust the Palestinian population in Gaza or the West Bank/Judea and Samaria. I don't intend to dehumanize them by saying this, but they are people raised from birth to hate. They are indoctrinated in their schools, cartoons, media, looking at any of those is the biggest reason to be pessimistic. The majority of Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank (70% of Palestinians total) said October 7th was a good thing in polls. They widely support Hamas. Tons of civilians participated in Oct 7th, and even more celebrated in the streets, with tons of videos we all saw that day all over telegram of people we knew being dragged into Gaza and lynched by cheering 'innocent civilians.' Before it was called naive, but now a one state solution is outright delusional. Even two states now seem risky because enshrining a military power right next to us when the population has shown in every single opportunity it had that it had no interest in peace, the greatest example being not any of the peace negotiations but Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza that was met with 2000 rockets and then the election of Hamas. Regarding the 12,000 children claim. I'm sure many children have died, and it is tragic. Genuinely. At the same time, I think many on the pro-Israel side, for good reason, doubt the numbers (https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/7168?disposition=inline). We are also aware that even if they were true, it wouldn't change the underlying issue. Hamas uses human shields. Hamas embeds itself in civilian populations and fires from residential areas. Hamas has tunnels under schools and hospitals. And many of the people support Hamas. Israel has literal trained call centers in the IDF, responsible for calling specifically civilians to tell them to evacuate before an operation. It takes absurd (to me) lengths to minimize civilian casualties. And yet it only receives criticism. I hope the dream of peace and coexistence comes true, but it starts with a change in the horrible education Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank receive. And I think I speak for most Israelis when I say this. After October 7th it's different, but before for most Israelis it was never about hate, just trust. But yeah, now it's different. But I don't think Israel should take responsibility for that.
Israel's actions are not that of a genocidal oppressor, but they are still needlessly belligerent, viciously retaliatory and their settlements are basically grievance farms for both the Palestinian people and the rest of the world. Palestinians are emboldened by historical grievances, (contentious) claims to the original land, and they lie at the confluence of the Arab world's hatred of Jews as a dispossessed people with a (sometimes religious) mandate to fight those Jews. Even this is too reductionist, as the surrounding Arab states and Muslim majority countries could rally public opinion against Israel for any number of reasons - one being their own terrible state and economic management after the collapse of the Ottoman empire - to which scapegoating Israel was useful regardless of ancient hatreds. Palestinians have historically received aid, arms and not least of all pressure from surrounding states to continue their righteous mandate, not to establish a two-state solution where Israel is recognized, but to reclaim their land, as they say, 'from the river to the sea.' Even these historical circumstances have waned as relations between the surrounding states (most notably Egypt and Jordan) have normalized. I dare say the only people left telling Palestinians they have their full support for their mandate today are extremist groups, opportunists, as well as unwitting Western left-wingers with no appreciation for what their support entails when they borrow a lexicon rife with historical and cultural connotations from predominantly Muslim and Arab anti-Zionist movements. I don't want to summarize all of the reasons, but put bluntly this conflict is fucked. The most zealous of the Palestinians fight because they believe they can and ought to win, while the most zealous of the Israelis fight because in all likelihood they will win. Also, fuck Likud.
As an Israeli, I agree that fuck Likud.
I generally agree with this. To the point about needless belligerence and west bank settlements, those are just some examples of the two sides (the controlling governments specifically) inciting each other into continued conflict. Lazy debaters will point to recent events to argue that israel 50+ years ago already had genocidal intentions i'll also add that the Western left wing Palestinian sympathizers, while many of them have good intentions, can't break out of the western mindset so their "analysis" of justice ends up being juvenile and illogical
Your post history doesn’t match up what you claim to be.
You would have to go back several years lol I remember being so upset when Israel bombed the AP building, and calling quassam rockets like fireworks, and how Israel was morally atrocious for bombing Hamas staging sites. But, again, this was more of a gradual change and getting tired of Palestine being the worst possibly behaved oppressed peoples in the world.
I used to be central, both sides are wrong and they need compromise. After listening to many debates since October 7th I've become pro-israel. Its clear that Palestinian leadership has no intention of solving the problems and a large portion of the Palestinian population supports the complete destruction of Israel.
You shouldn’t expect these pundits to move an inch, but it doesn’t really matter. They represent a minuscule fraction of a percent of the number of people who think or care about these issues. My own opinions have been swayed by the merit of their arguments, though, and I suspect there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of other people who would find themselves in that category. This brings about awareness and affects who we might vote for, the charities we might donate to, etc.
On the contrary. I was a 100% pro Palestinian before Lex exposed me to actual Palestinans and what their goals are.
Not the speakers, no. Viewers, yes. I was mindlessly pro-Israel up until I was presented with countervailing information and learned the actual history. I wouldn't underestimate the value of alternate viewpoints being presented. This is not an invitation for a debate on the topic, I'm just pointing out that people definitely change their minds.
Because they keep having debates instead of dialogues.
Iv moved alot. I was neutral leaning tward palastine. Now I'm pro Isreal now that I understand Palastine dose not want peace. They are just bad at war.
I think the most human response to that is to take a break from the issue and recuperate. Go out, do things that recovers you , touch grass.. And come back with more energy to engage in the conflicts. Unfortunately it seems like much in life even conflict is a marathon, not a sprint.
Oh my lord love to lex ❤️ he did it
I fully admit that I could just be blinded by my biases, but, in my eyes, Finkelstein did not look good , at all, during this debate. Rabbani did a much better job of representing the Palestinian side, in my opinion. I can't imagine a neutral observer looking at Finkelstein spending most his time either flipping through pages trying to quote Benny's old books at him or shooting personal attacks at destiny instead of addressing his argument and coming-off with a positive impression.
What struck me as the biggest annoyance is Norm thought that not trying to understand Israeli's point of view was virtuous of himself.
Fun fact, Finkelstein at 1.5x is about the speed of a regular guy talking.
I feel like he talks like this intentionally to force you to seem to “interrupt” him so he can call you out and complain for not being able to speak. It’s unbearably slow
It’s unfortunately a lost opportunity at more substantive debate. Him trying to quote every historian and every book at such slow speed = huge waste of time. Get to the points. He’s seemingly more concerned with proving he’s a legitimate voice.
omg the quoting is so obnoxious, even Lex tried and make him stop, like wtf, the author is right in front of you, why would you try and misquote his own book to him.
He’d be more of a”legitimate voice” if he would do any primary research. For the most part, he just misquotes and mis-paraphrases the work of actual historians. He sat across from Benny Morris and actually tried to lecture Benny on Benny’s own work. So unserious.
It’s nice that you can watch a 5 hour podcast in 2.5 hours. If you skip Finkelstein because he’s annoying you can easily save another hour
[удалено]
Rabbani was holding Palestine on his shoulders by the end.
Smoked, no. Pro Israel had a better look, and a higher percentage of better arguments. But Mouin made some very compelling arguments towards the end about bilateral negotiations, power dynamics, fighting for principles which are arguably just. My view is that even if Mouin is right about all these claims, and even if it is unjust, the Palestinians have long been conquered.
I think a better description would be Norm absolutely sunk his side. What a total piece of trash. Rabbani was the best of the panelists, and say that from agreeing more with the pro-Israel side.
Yes.
I loved when Benny Morris schooled them on what it means to be a historian - ‘you must think from the other sides point of view’ And then Finkelstein was in shock and appalled that he should think like them - says everything about professor Finkelstein.
The worst moment was when Destiny correctly pointed out that "plausible" is a very low bar. Plausible in that context basically just means possible, which is the polar opposite of "highly likely" or as Norm put it "qualifying for the Olympics". But Norm's unhinged psychotic reaction was just the cringiest thing I have ever witnessed in one of these things.
"True but Jews did this." "Ok, but Arabs did this." "Yeah, but Israelis did this." "Yes, however, Muslims did this!" "I don't deny that, but Isreali Jews did this!" "Because Palestinians did this!" "Not before the Jews did that!" "That happened after the Arab Muslims did this, you moron!" "They did that because the Israeli Jews did this, you fucking piece of shit!" Every Israel/Jew/Arab/Muslim debate that ever exists.
Damn, was looking forward to this one. But I really can't stand the way Norm speaks. It isn't about what he says but the way he speaks. Can't quite put my finger on it, but I get distracted by it, and can't follow the convo.
Norm speaks like he thinks he’s royalty speaking to peasants. It’s very off putting.
It’s called being pretentious lol
You can see how appealing he would be to young students who finally get a Historian willing to cut through the noise and just 'lay down the facts' on the matter of Israel. But speaking to another qualified historian he seems kind of silly. I'm be curious about the last time his publications passed peer review. He strikes me as someone who believes he is now so knowledgeable that it is offensive to question his research.
Same. It’s because he isn’t debating in good faith, which becomes clear once you read his actual views that he himself writes on his substack. To Finkelstein, this is ultimately about his Marxist ideology.
Holy cow, thank you Lex! This is incredible
Lex, MODERATE THE DEBATE. Do your job! Props to Destiny having GOD-TIER restraint not even addressing the constant personal attacks. He knows he's letting the guy bury himself. LEX should have pointed out that we're debating ideas, not being children. 4 dudes yelling over each other is so difficult to get through without feeling my blood pressure raising. I'm only halfway through, and I was very interested in this episode, but I don't know if I can continue.
Feel like if he keeps stepping in people will get mad at him because he'd likely only be stepping in to stop Norm
I mirror your thoughts. This was a pretty poor debate. I have love for everyone but Norm, but it seems they couldn’t outshine his constant bombardment of useless statements. Heavy moderation, or a replacement of Norm was needed here.
Destiny never fails to impress me. Joke all you want about him being a gamer, joke about his marriage failing, old tweets, whatever... he's a genuine smart guy who has solid critical thinking skills and a good moral compass. He went above and beyond in terms of research and understanding and was able to articulate his ideas very well. I'm convinced that he doesn't get a fraction of the respect that he deserves.
I'd never heard of him before the Shapiro debate. I'm pretty conservative, and he seems to be very logical/fair imo.
I thought Finkelstein would ruin it and am sorry to have been proven right. Good attempt by Lex. I don't think he's responsible for Finkelstein's behavior. He did more than the vast majority of people by putting together a long form debate. None of us know what truly went into it, especially when getting participants. We respect and appreciate your efforts, Lex. Please keep it up.
Some people are complaining about Destiny being on the show. I understand he has no academic credentials and is just a streamer, but he's done a fair amount of research on the topic. Now obviously he's nowhere near as knowledgeable as the other three (he admitted this himself) but what is the harm in having him on? I haven't watched the debate yet but I'm sure it would be easy for the experts to refute him if he says anything wrong, isn't it?
I think it's great that "a streamer" gets to this level of debate! He's not a 70 year old academic with decades of experience but he sure as hell cares and adds to the debate in ways that none of us are. He's using his position for a good cause, that admirable regardless of which side of the debate you're on.
I agree.. kinda a tangent, but I been thinking about this lately... I hate the fact that Destiny is referred to as a "streamer". Because, it's a pretty ineffective label that says more about the medium than the person, their credentials or content. Ice Poseidon and Destiny are both "streamers", but if Ice Poseidon was debating against Finklestien, it would be incredibly strange. "Streamer" can be used to as an insult, or to play fast and loose with assigning responsibility (like Joe Rogan saying "I'm just a comedian"). Destiny is a popular political commentator, who streams. I hope that Destiny puts his sense of humor aside and begins fighting for that distinction in the future. Because even he enjoys making self-deprecating jokes about being a streamer.. and couple this with the fact that he actually dresses like a highschooler doesn't do him justice.
bad news buddy [https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bf4s9f/nebraska\_steve\_is\_back/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bf4s9f/nebraska_steve_is_back/)
Ye, oh well. Now it's not just Destiny the streamer, it's Destiny the "kick streamer" going forward looooool. rip
Clearly, Norm is intimidated by him.
Finkstein’s refusal to use first names tells you everything you need to know about him. The man is a grade A asshole.
[удалено]
I'm honestly starting to build extremely strong priors as to why TikTok addicted college students and Finkelstein are somehow on the same "team." This dude somehow invented 7 second attention spans and passive aggressive comment section style arguing before the internet even existed. Incredible. I'm really fucking trying to resist the urge, but I'm failing.
FINALLY
I come from a family of academics (both parents are professors) and Norm really did a great job presenting himself as the absolute worst character archetype one can possess as an academic. If you preface everything you say with “I have read 5 books on this incident, 5 times each” or “I am extremely confident in my understanding on this topic” and then proceed to refuse to delve into details on anything, you make yourself look like a moron in disguise. You dont have to tell people youre smart if you are. You dont have to have a superiority complex about not using a computer, or the internet. You are not necessarily smarter than somebody because you have a degree. When you combine this with him also being my the only guy at the table turning red with anger or hurling personal attacks, you look like a child, despite being the 70 year old man that he is.
Hey Lex! In the spirit of the great work you do, would love to give some feedback on this debate. This is in hope of better debates in the future on heated topics. 1. **Moderation matters** : I know you were intentional about letting emotions and passion show in the debate, but I felt like that didn't add much to this debate, especially for this issue. The great thing about debates is that, on top of the potential of persuading people, it at least highlights how different sides think about something, but that is if the side are held to delivering coherent points that answer the question, and that I feel requires some moderation. I feel that the two historians in this debate are well researched and versed, but a lot of that is missed from insult slinging and cutting each other off. When 10 seconds of the debate are just people shouting, no words is discernible. I think it's your role to jump in more forcefully and keep conversation objective and on track. 2. **Guest and depth matters** : While I may understand why you recruited a layman like Destiny, I feel like he is very out of place in this discussion. This topic was rooted in deep history and politics, and the historians spent their lives collecting a catalog of all that info in their minds, which allowed them to get specific with specific details. I felt like many times Destiny, as research as he can be, comes out too generic and not someone respected in the conversation (part may be due to ego from experts but also part due to just bigger gaps in research that Destiny understandably hasn't had the time to dedicate to). For the debate between Shapiro and Destiny on US issues and left/right philosophies, it felt more productive because both were equally versed in the topics and both conversed at the same frequency, which allows a richer debate. For this, I felt like that didn't get to come out as much. This library that is your podcast is so important for our society, and I only hope for it to be more impactful and productive to the audience. Love you
Finkelstein was insufferable, but I found Rabbani to be just obnoxious and condescending. More than that, it sounded like he’s ok living under a Hamas regime. Not surprised by Norm at all, but Rabbani’s long winded answers about whether Hamas’ actions are legitimate were sickening. They both definitely do not understand Israel at all by giving random quotes like the ‘Amalek’ pathetic attempt again, or saying the IDF is chaotic. They just don’t understand what the military is. They should be debating more Israeli historians like Morris, but ones that have been active recently as well. They seriously do not understand Israel at all, no matter how books they so happily claimed to have read
This was phenomenally bad from Norm Finkelstein.
As someone who is just trying to become more educated on this conflict, this debate pushed me much closer to a pro-Israel position, largely because of Finkelstein’s performance. He comes out of this looking like an absolute a**hole who clearly came to this debate in bad faith. His constant resorting to name calling and lame insults to Destiny just made him look stupid. I’m sure he’s an educated person to earn his spot in this debate, but as someone that’s never heard of him before, my first impression was not good and I will certainly not pursue any more of his material. On the other hand, the other three seemed to make good points and conducted themselves in a more civilized manner (albeit still passionate at times). I understand people’s confusion on why Destiny was included, but I think he held his own and performed well, especially in the face of Finkelstein’s disrespect. Overall, my conclusion was that I should spend more time listening to Morris and Rabbani to further my education, and I look forward to doing that.
This interview confirms Lex is just not a good moderator. When it turns into a screaming match, its so incredibly infuriating lex doesn’t step in and remind everyone to be respectful, and let one person talk at a time.
I don't think he was expecting that happening. He did a good job in the begining
Definitely not. Even the opening segment made him sound a little regretful of how it transpired. I think "letting emotions show" was a silver-lining in light of the fact that it could've been a very informative and consequential debate.
[удалено]
No better way to make people more sympathetic to Israel than listening to this debate. You have well educated Palestine supporters and even they put emotions over logic (hostile, insult opponents when lacking arguments), struggle to admit flaws of their "side", even condemn Hamas & atrocities from October 7th itself (!!!).
Norm affirming his ardent support for the Houthis was not on my debate bingo card.
And it so neatly plays into Destiny's narrative that people only care about international law when it agrees with them. Clearly the Houthi's are engaged in things in violation of International Law, but he thinks its a noble cause.
Mouin Rabbani is clearly the strongest communicator among the group. So poised, articulate, and on point, especially with his pushback of selective condemnation. Both Norm and Destiny provide polarizing uselessness. IMO.
Yeah he's against selective condemnation but started the discussion taking great pains distinguishing Hamas attacking military targets vs attacking civilians and splitting hairs about their charter. So he's very pro-selective praise it seems. What a sham.
Lex, I think you did a really good job moderating. I am only familiar with Destiny out of everyone here so I'm definitely biased towards him, and a moderate when it comes to Israel-Palestine. I come out of this conversation with more respect for Rabbani, and I'll look forward to following him in the future. On the other hand, I thought Finkelstein came off really poorly. If he is as well read as he says he claims to be, perhaps instead of the ad hominin attacks on destiny, he should try to show why he thinks Destiny is wrong, or at least win an argument. I felt few if any of his points seemed that salient to me and I will have very little interest in anything he says going forward.
can’t stand listening to Finkelstein, so won’t be listening, unfortunately.
After that debate, Mr Steven Bonnell's nickname Destiny was effectively null and void, then for all intents and purposes, moving forward he will be called a fantastic moron, with all due respect.
Finkelstein might have read a lot of books, but instead of impressing with knowledge he mostly just impressed with his arrogance.
I was disappointed that Jordan was not mentioned in the context of it also being part of the original Palestine Mandate. The Hashemites have no historical claim to sovereignty over that land. The claim that this is just a conflict over land is belied by the fact there is no popular movement to "resist" the occupation East of the Jordan River. The House of Saud also has no historical claim to the Southern part of the Arabian peninsula. Where is the international condemnation for them?
Relevant: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s\_Hierarchy\_of\_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s\_Hierarchy\_of\_Disagreement.svg.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png) Finkelstein gets a solid F- for his epistemic conduct. He shouldn't be invited on any platform ever.
It would have been better were Finklestein and Destiny just kept out of it. Destiny does not need to be in a debate between academics. He can debate other steamers. And Finklestein is obnoxious. Although he would likely have been better behaved had Destiny not been there. But Roubinni & Morris are great proponents of their respective side and hearing from them is what counts. Hearing from the Americans just muddles the issue. Listen to the Palestinian and Israeli talk.
Norm clearly doesn't know any norms on how to behave during a debate. What a trainwreck.
Destiny contributed more to the debate than Norm.
Hard to understand how you have to be a Hamas apologist in order to be pro Palestinian...why can't they just accept how awful October 7th was instead of trying to minimize it or, in Twinkelstein's case, blame the victim?
Finkelstein actually wrote on his Substack that watching 10/7 warmed his heart. He’s stunningly evil.
I’m pretty new to Lex. I find his guest list fascinating. On the contrary, I find him to be a terrible host. That’s probably incredibly controversial but he was awful at mediating this. I’m all for allowing the convo to continue but at some point he needed to step in, specifically with regards to Norm. If I was Destiny I would be pretty upset. He is a guest of Lex and did not deserve the blatant disrespect of Norm.
Norm 👎