 So, one other point I want to emphasize, because I see so much distortion of this, certainly came out in debate yesterday, but I see it distorted all over the place. And that is, from the beginning, almost all the different branches of Zionism, from, I mean, one of the other dimensions of which Zionism had branches was political in the sense that there was definitely a socialist branch, and there was definitely a more, not purely capitalist branch, but a more capitalist branch. From the beginning, almost every one of these branches recognized one thing, and that is, that if they were going to go to Palestine, they were going to be Arabs there. And every single one of them was committed completely, thoroughly to the fact that whatever state was founded, it would be a state that treated the Arabs as equal citizens, that respected their rights. That is true of the kind of the right wing Zionists, the ones who were more, if you will, nationalistic and maybe even more a little bit capitalist, and it's true of the socialist secularists, it's true of the religionists, maybe it's not true of every one, maybe some of the wackos didn't accept that, but everybody, everybody, accepted the idea that there would be equal rights in the new state, and they keep saying it, they keep repeating it in writing over and over and over again. Now, this is important because in the 19, I think it started in the early 1990s, maybe even in the 1980s, there was a new generation of Israeli historians, and these historians were very anti-Zionist, they called themselves post-Zionists, maybe because they were inspired by post-modernism, and they started writing misinterpreting, distorting, perverting, changing the history, and one of the main things that they focused on was this idea that the Zionists were willing, eager, to share the land, and to share the governance of the land, and to provide equal rights to all of its citizens. They started often making up, distorting, taking out of context, perverting, different descriptions, writing about this, and making the argument that no, the Zionists always wanted to kick the Arabs out, and this will connect to the Nakba in a minute, they always wanted to kick them, they wanted to transfer the Arabs out of Israel, that was their goal, that's what they wanted to do. Now, there were a bunch of these, probably half a dozen of these historians, the most famous of them today is Benny Morris, who today is presented as this great defender and champion of Israel, but really is not, and he's one of these, Benny Morris changed his mind about being a Po-Zionist and became a Zionist during the Second Intifada when he realized the extent of the hatred and the violence that the Palestinians were committing, he suddenly became pro-Israel, but in becoming pro-Israel he did not change any of his old books, indeed he doubled up on some of his claims. I think I mentioned this before, but a historian I like a lot, if I'm Koresh, Kosh, not Koresh, Kosh, wrote this book, Fabricating Israel's Israeli History, the New Historians, is a confrontation primarily of Benny Morris, but not just Benny Morris, there are a number of them, probably the most vicious of them, who is still vicious, he teaches at the University of Exeter, in England he left Israel out of disgust, maybe he was kicked out because people didn't, you know, his research were so sloppy or bad or biased, but this is the thing, they don't care about facts, truth, reality, this is true of so much modern history, you really have to be careful, because they're post-moderns, there are no facts, truth, history, history is just bias, you're biased, my bias, all biased, so there is no real history, there's only the historian's biased history. Now you don't have to believe me when I say this, but here is the worst of all of these, but maybe the most famous of all of them, except for Benny Morris, who is famous as a pro-Israel, this is maybe the most famous anti-Israeli historian, his name is Ilan Pappe, P-P-E, he, as I said, he teaches at Exeter universities, his books have been published on Cambridge University Press, and this is what he writes in the introduction to a history of modern Palestine, quote, my bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the truth when reconstructing past realities, I'm going to read that again, just so you get the full weight of this, right, my bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the truth when reconstructing past reality, and he puts truth in quotes, he doesn't believe this truth, he doesn't believe this fact, and you're reconstructing past realities, there's not one reality, there are many realities, this is pure primacy of consciousness, he continues, I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous, this book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized, not the colonizer, who sympathizes with the occupied, not the occupied, you can see hints of intersectionality already there, and this was written, I don't know when it was written, but it was written in, and I think the early 2000s, let me just see when this was written 2004, that was right, early 2000s, and incredibly influential, I would call him a non-historian or an anti-historic, somebody who emotes.