 Once again, Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz found themselves in a rematch on the Piers Morgan Uncensored show, but this time with a distinct intellectual flair. Much has transpired since their last encounter on the same platform. Back then, Israel basked in the glow of favorable media narratives, perpetuating falsehoods that obscured the grim reality of its policies, particularly its occupation of Palestine, notably Gaza, home to over two million people living in what amounts to an open-air prison. Their previous meeting occurred without reports of the widespread destruction inflicted upon Gaza and its civilian population. There were no accounts of Israel obstructing aid to the starving populace or resorting to violence against those seeking assistance. The occupation's media apparatus wasn't yet caught in the web of deceit about its presence in the strip. During that time, Israel capitalized on a narrative of victimhood, portraying itself as the aggrieved party while casting those enduring decades of occupation as aggressors. In today's debate, Alan Dershowitz faces the challenge of navigating through the shadow cast by Israeli war crimes and their aftermath, while engaging in dialogue with the methodically articulate Norman Finkelstein. What form will his defense take this time? Will he acknowledge the grave offenses committed by his country, as recognized by the International Criminal Court, ICC? How will he address Israel's repeated refusals to negotiate the safe release of detainees held by Palestinians? And what response will he offer to the admission by Israel itself of defeat in Gaza? This debate holds a compelling allure precisely because it revolves around substantive issues. Participants are focused on the matters at hand, devoid of personal attacks. It's an event worth watching for its genuine engagement with critical issues. In the spirit of our commitment to unbiased reporting and insightful geopolitical analysis, we encourage you to engage with this discourse, remain informed about developments in Palestine, and subscribe to our channel for regular updates. Thank you, Piers. First of all, as a general point, I agree with the notion of a statute of limitations on your claims to a parcel of land. The first time I came across that expression was reading Arnold Toinby's Great History of the World, actually, and he makes the point in his history that isn't there a statute of limitation on the claims of Jews to Palestine? He said that claim was made 2,000 years ago, and it's claimed that, even today it's claimed that, based on what happened 2,000 years ago, there's a large portion of Israeli population who believes they have title to the West Bank, they have title to Gaza, because of that claim 2,000 years ago. Isn't there a statute of limitations? Allow me to complete my thought, and then you can disagree. Isn't there a statute of limitations on the claim from 2,000 to 3,000 years ago? Now, I would like to focus on Gaza. The population is expelled from Israel into Gaza. Now, if you look at Benny Morris' history called Border Wars, he says that between 1949 and 1953, literally, listen closely, about 2,700 to 5,000 Palestinian expellees, that's including in the West Bank and in Gaza, between 2,700 and 5,000 Palestinian expellees were killed by Israel when they tried to return home. Now, Benny Morris says 90% of those killed were unarmed. They were what he called economic infiltrates who wanted to see their homes. They wanted to see their land. They wanted to see their neighbors. They were brutally, if you believe Professor Morris, brutally murdered between those years. In 1956, as you know, peers England, France and Israel invaded Egypt, including at the time Gaza. What happened then? According to Benny Morris in the book Border Wars, he said between 470 and 500 Palestinian men were lined up and shot down. Now, let's bear in mind, peers, this is long, long before this entity called Hamas came into the picture. Now, if we fast forward to 1967, after Israel occupies Gaza, there are new assaults on the people of Gaza, this time carried on by, at the time, defense, no, he wasn't defense, agricultural minister, Ariel Sharon. Now, without getting sidetracked, I do have to say Professor Dershowitz, every time I listen to you, even when we debated each other in 2003, I guess, or 2004, I can't recall, you keep escalating your claims about having written UN resolution 242 or contributed to the resolution. Professor Dershowitz, I understand people have fantasies and I understand that people have failings of memory as they get older. But Professor Dershowitz, when we had our original debate, you didn't even know who wrote UN resolution 242. You had all these names, it was Lord Karadin, anybody who was involved in the process would know that. So let's make, let's agree on one thing, we both, both of us should agree to only state facts. And if we have any doubts about the facts, let's set them aside and try to give viewers, listeners, as accurate a record as possible, we can disagree. But when you engage in your fantasies, it really to me is very disturbing and disorienting. Okay. Well, let me ask Professor Dershowitz to respond. Well, first of all, let's get the facts straight. I was Arthur Goldberg's law clerk. Arthur Goldberg was the United States representative to the United Nations. He asked me to come down. I actually moved in with him at the Waldorf Historia Towers and work with him on 242. Yes, I confused the name Carrington with something else, but I worked closely. In fact, I was partly responsible for changing the words, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I worked on the matter. I didn't work with Lord Karadin. I worked with Arthur Goldberg and together we managed to get rid of the word Palestinian before refugees in order to make sure that the resolution applied both to Palestinian refugees and to Jewish refugees for whatever you're interrupting me. So let me finish. This is a detail. It's a fact. Now, let's talk about what happened involving the Gaza Strip. I agree there's a statute of limitations. I'm opposed to any biblical claims on Israel. I believe Israel has a political and moral claim to the land. There have always been Jews living there from the time of Jesus and Muhammad to 1948. And wisely the British decided for a compromise plan for a division and that plan was accepted by the Jewish and Zionist leaders. It was rejected by the Palestinians. And then as you know, Israel tried to give the entire Gaza Strip over to Egypt. Back to Egypt during the Camp David Accords. It almost caused a breakdown in the Camp David meetings because the Egyptians didn't want it. And Israel very reluctantly held on to it. And then in 2005, Israel abandoned the Gaza. And only when rockets and a bloody coup occurred did Israel respond by having border controls. Let me tell you one thing. They weren't strong enough. If there had been better border controls, Hamas would not have been allowed to bring in concrete, which it used to build tunnels, to bring in weapons, which it used to murder all these people on October 7th. So Israel was not strong enough. It should have had far better border controls as other countries had in comparable situations. And so one more point. Toynbee and Benny Morris both are regarded as kind of one-sided historians. There are claims that dispute both of them, particularly Toynbee. Toynbee was an overtly anti-Zionist historian who didn't believe that the Jewish people had any claim to Israel. There's also a statute of limitations on that. And so let's move forward. And moving forward means potentially a solution where Hamas is no longer in control of Gaza. Remember, too, you're absolutely right, Norman. Terrorism began way before Hamas. Terrorism was an essential part of the Palestinian leadership. The Olympic massacres that occurred way before Hamas, the terrorism on airplanes, the blowing up of airplanes, the hijacking of airplanes, the problem is that the world rewarded terrorism and it's rewarding them again by allowing Hamas to free hundreds of people, legitimately many convicted and not all convicted, many convicted in exchange for a small number of completely innocent hostages. You can't compare completely innocent hostages with convicted murderers. Okay, Norman, respond to that. But also, I also want to move on. Once you respond to it, also move on, if you will, to the issue of settlements because one of the things I find hardest to have any sympathy with Israel about is the continued expansion of settlements and in particular the West Bank and I think we may find some consensus here. But first of all, Norman, your response to what Alan Dershowitz just said, but also then move it to settlements. Yeah, well, I would like to try to, well, actually I can bring it up to the settlements on the case of Gaza. So I would like to just continue where I left off with so to speak at the risk of being boring, the timeline. I said in 1970, there were atrocities committed in Gaza against the people of Gaza by the agriculture, the head by the agricultural minister at the time, Ariel Sharone. In 1987, as you perhaps remember, peers, the first Intifada broke out. It was overwhelmingly, here I quote Benny Morris from his book, Righteous Victims, it was an overwhelmingly nonviolent civil resistance to the Israeli occupation. By 1990, three years after the beginning, or really two years, because it began in December 7th, 1987, by 1990, Israel started to institute, again, I'm sticking strictly to Gaza, what are called a closure policy. And the closure policy was basically to seal off Gaza. Okay? By 2002, 2003, if you read Baruch Kimmerling, he was a senior cell knee sociologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He described Gaza as quote, the largest concentration camp ever. Now you might say Baruch Kimmerling was a person of the left and I will grant that. But then we have Giora Island. Giora Island at the time was the head of Israel's National Security Council. He said in March 2003, and now I'm quoting him, he described Gaza as a huge concentration camp. So you can say there is a consensus among knowledgeable people, sociologists at the Hebrew University, head of the National Security Council, that Israel had turned Gaza into a concentration camp. In 2006, in 2006, there is an election in January 2006. Hamas wins the election basically on the platform of reform because the Palestinian Authority is proverbially corrupt. It comes into power immediately as it comes into power. Israel institutes this brutal economic blockade on Gaza. And at that point, there have been various descriptions, I'm sure appears you wouldn't call the economist a left-wing magazine or anti-Semitic. It described Gaza as quote, a toxic dump. And at that point, it had a high, slowly, just to give you one example, peers and your listeners, because they should have a sense of what this blockade look like. Israel's explicit policy, its explicit policy was to keep Gaza on the precipice of economic catastrophe. That's how they described their policy. They prohibited baby chicks from entering Gaza. They prohibited chocolate from entering Gaza. They prohibited potato chips from entering Gaza. They prohibited any spices from entering Gaza. And it prohibited any exports from Gaza except at some points occasionally things like strawberries. So what had happened to Gaza? It had, on the eve of 2007, it had the highest unemployment rate in the world. It was about 60% unemployed, 50% for the population as a whole, 60% for youth. The people in Gaza were left to languish and die no past, no present, no future, to languish and die in the concentration camp. That was their prospect as of October 6th, 2003. Excuse me, yeah, 2023. Sorry about that. May I respond? Well, I tell you what, yes, actually, on that point, Professor Dershowitz, you respond to that point briefly if you could. Then I want to come back to Norma Finkelstein to move it on to settlement. So, Alan, just respond to what? I mean, just respond to that suggestion, which has been cited by many people that the conditions in Gaza in the period that Norma Finkelstein has been referring to have been described by many people as bordering on a concentration camp. And at the very least, a form of occupation where Israel wielded far too much control over what could come in and out of Gaza, including people. Well, they're right in the description that it was a toxic place. It was a toxic place because Hamas took over and because Hamas robbed the people of Gaza of their food. It took the material that was sent from Europe from countries around the world and took it away from the children and took it away from the hospitals, took it away from the schools and gave it to their fighters to build 350 miles of tunnels. Imagine what could have been done with all the resources that had been sent to Gaza. There was plenty of food in Gaza, except that Hamas was using it. There was plenty of material to build hospitals in Gaza, but instead Hamas was using it. It's Hamas that turned it into a toxic, toxic place. When Israel, in fact, occupied it, actually occupied it, it was in much better shape than when Hamas took it over. And so it's Hamas' fault. Hamas turned Gaza into this horrible place. And let's remember Israel has been prepared to give up Gaza over and over again. It tried desperately to give it back to Egypt and during the Camp David. It tried desperately to allow for the 2007 Omerit plan. Gaza is given to a Palestinian state. The 2002, 2001 Bill Clinton plan, Gaza is given over. They rejected it. If it was a toxic concentration camp, the guards were not Israelis. The guards were Hamas people who were throwing gay people off the roof, who were murdering Palestinian authority people and who were denying women the right to live their lives decently. Yes, Gaza was a terrible place, completely the fault of Hamas. Can we reach a point of agreement on the issue of settlements? I suspect we can. So, normal figures said, I don't want to keep responding. I don't want you to keep responding to each other about that. One sentence. What I would like you to do. One sentence. One sentence. Okay, give me one sentence, but then please address the issue of settlements. One sentence. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, a thousand humanitarian and economic organizations have all reached the same conclusion. It's very simple. The main cause of the disaster in Gaza is Israel's illegal blockade of that parcel of land. Full stop. That's wrong. That's wrong. That's wrong. That's false. Who's wrong? Who's wrong? Uncle Dad is wrong. The World Bank is wrong. The international monetary fund is wrong. Are they all wrong? Are they all anti-Semitic? Is that what's going on? I didn't say that. I didn't say that. They're wrong. I happen to know more about the law than any of them. Because the blockade was completely lawful, it was designed to prevent the importation and then the use of rockets against Israel. It's perfectly lawful for a country to engage in a blockade that is, you're not, let me finish. You can't have a doubt. Israel is exposed to a double standard, but we're not letting you impose a double standard on me. No, I'm going to finish my statement and you're not going to interrupt me. It's indeed perplexing why Professor Alan Dershowitz persists in defending Israel's forceful annexation of Palestinian territories. Despite numerous condemnations from international bodies regarding Israel's establishment of new settlements on Bedouin lands, the professor remains obstinate in his refusal to acknowledge the inherent flaws in this policy. Such steadfast support for actions deemed criminal only serves to tarnish Israel's reputation, a nation that has long prided itself on defending against perceived religious aggressors. The underlying agenda seems to revolve around a relentless pursuit of dominance and territorial expansion, disregarding the rightful claims of the Palestinian people, all while the international community and the principles of the rule-based order stand by, seemingly powerless to intervene. What's particularly striking is the professor's perpetuation of an antiquated narrative, one that sanctifies Israel's historical significance and dismisses the legitimate struggle of Palestinians for their land. It's disheartening to witness someone of his caliber peddling the notion that asserting one's rights equates to terrorism. In doing so, he conveniently overlooks the historical reality that European Jews themselves employed tactics akin to terrorism to oust the British from Palestine, paving the way for the establishment of the Israeli state on Palestinian soil. One can't help but question whether Alan Dershowitz truly comprehends the plight of those subjected to nearly eight decades of occupation. Professor Dershowitz, just as a matter of fact, I teach the laws of war. I've been teaching it for the last five years. To my understanding, you're biased. Okay, Professor Dershowitz. Okay, Professor Dershowitz, let's agree. I'm completely ignorant. Let's take that as a point of departure. How does it come to be that every humanitarian and political body in the world has declared that the blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment and therefore is a violation, a breach of international law, a war crime under international law? How did that come to pass? They're wrong. How is it that every... You're wrong. They're all wrong. You're not right. You're not right. No, no, no. You're wrong in describing... Professor Dershowitz. You're wrong in describing every group. There are many groups. Okay, Professor Dershowitz, name me one legal international legal body or human rights organization. Name me one. I'll take the pause. Name me one. That what? That says the blockade of Gaza is not collective punishment. Name me one. The law fair project in the United States. The law fair project, I said, name me one international legal or political body. It is. It is. Everybody's listening now. Pierce Morgan has a very large audience. Name me one. Name me one international or legal, legal or political body that says the blockade of Gaza is legal. Name me one. It is legal. And every organization that I have been associated with, the law fair project, the project run by a woman named Leitner and the international project, have all concluded that the blockade is legal. Also, the Israeli Supreme Court, which is above reproach and which is much fairer than the International Court of Justice, has also, with limits, has said that blockades designed to prevent the bringing of rockets to Israel is lawful. Also, use your common sense. What possible reason would there be for allowing a group in Gaza, a group of Hamas, to send rockets without trying to blockade them from bringing the rockets in and building tunnels? Use your common sense. Of course it's unlawful. Every country in the world would do exactly the same as Israel did in blockading. I think we've exhausted this part of the debate. I do want to, before we run out of time, we only have about five minutes left, and I do want to get into settlements. And I'll start with you, Professor Penkelsley. The issue of settlements, I think is pretty much indefensible, actually, what's been going on, and particularly in recent years on the West Bank. But what is your overview of the settlement issue? My overview of the settlement, as in all topics, is what international law says. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for an occupying power to transfer its population to occupy territory. Now, when that issue came before the International Court of Justice in July 2004, every single judge, every single judge, including the American judge, Mr. Bergenthal, they all agreed on that one point. The settlements are illegal under international law. Now, under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, those settlements constitute war crimes. So what we're talking about now, since the settlement activity began right after the June 1967 war, what we're talking about is a protracted war crime over a period of a half century. And that's sometimes missed. When we talk about what's happened to Gaza, we're talking about two decades. If you go back to the closure in 1990, we're talking about the martyrdom of a people over three decades. Those young men who burst the gates of Gaza on October 7th were born into, to use your phrase now, a toxic concentration camp. They were born into it. And that settlement activity, which under the Rome Statute is a war crime, that's been ongoing for a half century. Okay. Let me get Professor Dutchman to respond. Let me respond, please. Yes, you can. Let me respond. First of all, Finkelstein and Hamas regard Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as settlements. So you can't take them seriously about anything. They regard all of Israel as settlements. And yes, I disagree with settlements on the West Bank. I have since 1970 when I debated Noam Chomsky. I called for a two-state solution. I agree with a military occupation designed to prevent rockets and prevent terrorism. But I disagree with civilian settlements. But the core point I want to mention is ultimately we've gotten to this point. Wait a second. No, of course not. They are not war crimes at all. They are disputes over what constitutes the UN Resolution Tool for Two, which allows Israel. If the UN says they're illegal, where does that leave it? The UN says a lot of things. The UN also called Israel Zionism Racism. The UN has no authority to define international law. The UN can give advisory opinions. Who does? Who does? But all 15 charges are the ICJ. Let me finish. So remember who appoints the justices. Countries appoint the justices. So when Lebanon appoints a justice, it's Hezbollah who's appointing the justice. The International Court of Justice is an illegitimate court. It is not a real court. But I want to get to the core point. What Finkelstein finally says. Thomas Bergenfraub. Let me finish, please. Let me finish. Set the settlements illegal. What Finkelstein is finally saying is that these people, he called them martyrs. I was at Beirah. I was at the Nova Music Festival. I saw the remnants of where a woman named Vivian Silver, a peacenik, who used to go over and bring Hamas and Ghazan people to hospitals was burnt to death. I saw where people were raped. There is no justification for collective rape. There is no justification for murdering a peacenik. This woman was probably murdered by the very people she brought to hospitals because they knew exactly where she lived and where the hospitals. It's an abomination to even suggest that any kind of martyrdom, dispute over land, dispute over any, could justify what happened on October 7th. Shame on anybody who thinks that civilized human beings should be praised or even justified for doing what they did. I met a man whose son had been beheaded and Hamas then took his head, brought it back to Gaza, put it on sale for $10,000, and this father had to bury his son without a head. That's what Hamas did. And not only Hamas, but people, ordinary civilians in Gaza came over the border and participated in these rapes and murders and shame on anybody who doesn't unequivocally condemn it. There is no justification for what happened on October 7th. No matter what the history is, the history is disputed, but I want to hear Norman Finkelstein say unequivocally, no matter what the history is, there is no justification for the massacres of October 7th. We'll end with Norma Finkelstein's response and answer that question. I guess I'll just have a question. My response is exactly the same one I gave you the very first time I met you, Pierce. There were atrocities, large atrocities that occurred on October 7th. I think it's indisputable. You then asked me, would you consider it terrorism? I then replied to you. I think atrocities denote terrorism. However, I said I take the same attitude towards the perpetrators of those atrocities as the abolitionists in the United States took towards the Nat Turner rebellion. Nat Turner? So you justified them? So you crazed them? So you glorified them and you honor them? That's the reality. Pierce, can I finish? Yeah. Can I finish? Yeah. Nat Turner and the slave revolt committed horrible atrocities. The abolitionists said horrible things happen, but they never condemned Nat Turner. No, they don't happen. They are perpetrated by people. What they did was... You're justifying the shame. What they did was... Finkelstein, this is the lowest point you've ever gotten to. And you've gotten to low points, but this is the lowest point you've gotten to comparing these rapists and these murderers to abolitionists in the lowest point in your history. Let him finish what he's trying to say. Sure. Thank you. By the way, Nat Turner's rebellion... Okay, in Nat Turner's rebellion, they committed horrible atrocities, including beheading babies. That's a fact. However, the abolitionists... And you're justifying that. And you're justifying that. They did not... Please, Piers, can you please tell them to stop? I think let him finish the point he's making, and then you respond. Okay, thank you so much. However, the abolitionists did not condemn the perpetrators. The abolitionists kept saying, we told you so. We told you so. We told you so. If you treat people like that, what happened with the slave revolt inevitably would happen. And I say, if you lock 2 million people in a concentration camp for 20 years, half of whom are children who were born into that concentration camp, don't react with shock and dismay and disbelief and indignation at what happened on October 7th. I have spent the last 20 years... I have spent the last 20 years of my life studying what's been done to the people of Gaza. And each time I reread what I wrote, I'm more firm than ever before. I will not condemn those people even as I acknowledge that massive, unspeakable atrocities occurred on October 7th. I'm industrious. You'll find those books. Let me have my last point. Norman Finkelstein, you would not condemn the Nazis, Hitler, Goebbels and Gehring because they too went through suffering after the end of the First World War. They too tried to justify what they did as inevitable because of the inflation, because of living under terrible conditions. They inevitably voted for Adolf Hitler. They inevitably built gas chambers. They inevitably built concentration camps. And you, Norman Finkelstein, who claim your parents are Holocaust survivors, you, Norman Finkelstein, by your logic would justify every single one of the 6 billion Jews who were murdered because the Germans who did it don't deserve condemnation because they were victims of the Versailles Treaty at the end of the World War I. That's the situation you're in, Norman Finkelstein. It's despicable. In conclusion, the rematch between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz on The Piers Morgan Uncensored Show offers a compelling glimpse into the evolving discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While their previous encounter occurred amidst a media landscape dominated by Israel's narrative, this rematch is characterized by substantive engagement and genuine intellectual discourse. However, Professor Dershowitz's unwavering defense of Israel's policies raises troubling questions about justice and accountability. As the debate unfolds, viewers are left to ponder the implications of Dershowitz's stance and the urgent need for genuine dialogue to address the complexities of the conflict and strive towards a just resolution. Thank you for joining us today. To further our reach and amplify our message, we encourage you to like, share, and subscribe to our channel. Together, let's raise awareness and strive for peace. Until next time, stay informed and stay engaged. Peace.