 I wanted to go briefly on some of the salient points of the book, Palestine is something colonial and the title of the book as well as the work is to reframe how Palestine is looked upon and how Palestine is approached. The discussions so far has been one focusing on whether it's the Oslo agreement of 1993 discussing the two-state solution, the status of Jerusalem, Sejong Gaza, all of it is really thinking of problems that are in existence but not looking at what is at play in relations to Palestine. More importantly is to situate the Palestine issue within the broader literature of colonialism because if we continue to deal with facts on the ground in relation to what Israel wants is they build a fact, they create a new impediment and now the debate and the discussion becomes focusing on that impediment or that new settlement or that new outpost and end up losing the sense of the totality of what has been underway for almost 100 years. So this year is the 100-year anniversary of the Belfort Declaration, it also the 17-year anniversary of the beginning of the Palestine crisis with Resolution 181 in the United Nation that essentially divided the country to begin with in 1947 that subsequently led to the 1947-48 war. It also this is the anniversary of the 1968-67 war which witnessed the total takeover of the rest of historical Palestine what we call today the West Bank, Gaza and also the area that is the Golan Heights which Israel has already annexed. Now the book title itself is directly taken from a letter that was written by Theodore Herzl, founder of modern Zionism to Great Britain's Minister of Colonies Cecil Rods. Now if you don't know Cecil Rods as a Minister of Colonies he had a country named on his behalf called Rhodesia and once the colonial structure was brought to an end in Rhodesia it became called Zimbabwe. So Zimbabwe was actually for a prolonged period of time was called for the name of the British Minister of Colonies of Great Britain's Minister of Colonies Cecil Rods who was responsible for much of the ravages of Southern Africa. So if you take Southern Africa whether it's Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, South Africa and even you go into parts of Nigeria you'll find that Cecil Rods footprints in Southern Africa and the destruction that he visited upon those regions is very well documented. So when Herzl is writing to Cecil Rods he's writing to a person that knows and understands what he means when he says that he's seeking a colonial project. So when he referred to the letter he said you are being invited to help make history. It doesn't involve Africa but a piece of Asia Minor. Not Englishmen but Jews. How do then I happen to turn to you since this is an out of the way matter for you? How indeed because it is something colonial. So Cecil Rods, the letter that was sent to Cecil Rods framed the Zionist project from its inception and this is 1902 as a colonial project to be unleashed in Palestine at the time referred to as Asia Minor. Now important Palestine becomes the last colonial project to be commissioned in the turn of the 20th century. By the time you get to the First World War, colonialism was no longer in vogue. Colonialism was coming at the tail end that all the territories that the world have claimed is there. The First World War actually declared the principle of self-determination that no major power could claim that they are engaged in a colonial project. So Palestine debugs the trend that the moment that colonial projects are coming to an end and that the world has shifted, that the British and the Zionist movement introduce the Palestine as the new and the authorized project to be unleashed in Palestine. So that's an important one that again is the last colonial project to be commissioned in the 20th century at a time where the world has shifted and changed. One aspect of this is that we understand from its inception that Zionism sought the protection of a major power. So in here they sought the protection of Great Britain. They actually had discussion with other powers. So they visited actually the Ottoman. They had a conversation with Theodor Herzl visited Istanbul having conversation and intermediary with Sultan Abdul Hamid and asked the Ottoman to grant a territory in Palestine for the Jews to establish a state, meaning Zionist Jews at the time. And Sultan Abdul Hamid refused, saying that the land of Palestine belongs to the ummah, does not belong to him individually. The Zionist movement also approached the Russian, Zaharist Russia, to try to see if Zaharist Russia would sponsor and incubate the Zionist project in Palestine. And again, Zaharist Russia was exploring but at the end they didn't embrace the project. So the British ended up embracing the Zionist project for their own interest. And this gets me into the third important point of why did the British support the Zionist project? Why did they issue the belt for declaration? Of November 2, 1914 and then really coming into its full fruition in November 2, 1917. So why did the British issue the belt for declaration? And we have right now access to the minutes from the British archives of what were the discussions among the British ministerial team that was looking for this. And let me go into what the British were looking at. One, the British compared their colonial possession in Egypt because Egypt was a colony to the British and India as another colony of the British. In India they had a natural protection for India from the north. You have traveled in India, right? Northern India is protected by a huge mountain range and therefore the Russians can't invade from the north without really getting considerable losses and that's why Afghanistan becomes the area or territory where the British and the Russians fight it out was called the Great Game. So the British were looking, in India they have a natural border on the north, mountain terrain and then in the south is surrounded by water and the British had a strong navy. One of the strongest navies until their demise of the Second World War. In thinking about Egypt, which is the artery for the trade, for European trade because you have the Suez Canal, that was most of the trade coming to Europe would pass through the Suez Canal and Egypt does not have a natural northern boundary, meaning barrier. It's not protected. As soon as you get to the coast of Alexandria, there is no mountains. It's basically like you're in Kansas, you just go stroll down, it's flat, right? And you don't have any natural defense for Egypt and therefore the British felt that they needed some security structure. Long and behold, what is the security structure is create a buffer state. So they thought by creating a state, a Zionist state in Palestine, they would create a buffer state, a state that could be militarized, that could assist them in preventing a northern invasion from the Ottomans on the one hand, or possibly the Russians, right? Or any naval power that might attempt to invade Egypt, which is the artery for trade. Again, it's the central artery for trade from Asia for many parts of the British colonial enterprise. They have to pass through the Red Sea into the Suez Canal and into the Mediterranean and so on. And the British already controlled the entry to the Red Sea, which is Babylonian around Yemen, and they had the Suez Canal. So now they're looking at protecting their assets. So they were looking at it purely from a strategic consideration. Now the second thing, which should be a kicker for you. All those who were discussing the Belfort Declaration were anti-Somite. Belfort himself was an avid anti-Somite. The British at the time, in the late 19th century, early part of 20th century, there was a Jewish migration from Eastern Europe into Western Europe. As pogroms and violence against Jews in Eastern Europe was intensified, there was migration into London, Paris, some of the major Berlin, some of the major Western capitals. So much so that you have a rising anti-Semitism in Europe, including in London, where these newly arriving Jewish immigrants were subject to anti-Semitic discourse. And the discussion becomes of addressing or solving the Jewish questions. Solving the Jewish questions. Now let me take this part. Anyone that puts forth a question related to a religion or a race, they are racist. Because human groups are not a question to be solved. Similar to today we have the Muslim question in Europe. The question is not in the Muslim, the question is actually European inability to live with the other. So you don't go around answering your own question to justify your humaneness. I'm very critical of somebody saying I'm human like you. Saying that statement implies that you're subhuman human and trying to humanize yourself to somebody that is dehumanizing you. Because you don't see anybody going around saying I'm human, like I could see you're human, you're drinking, go to the bathroom, you walk on two feet unless you have evolved just last week. So in saying that argument and that basis of posing the Jewish question, basically Europe is saying we need to solve the problem of not wanting to live with the Jewish persons. Now this has been normative in European history. And that's why I argue that the Holocaust actually is not the exception but rather the norm because if you take it from 1492 with the expulsion and Inquisition Directive at Jews and Muslims with all the programs that took place in Eastern Europe and continued violence against Jews in Europe and then culminating with the mechanized and the process of killing and destruction, you would see that it's actually a long history of many Holocaust taking place in European history. So again, those who were thinking about transferring the Jews out of Europe, they were doing it out of deep anti-Semitic sentiments. In essence, we need a buffer state and at the same time we could get rid of the Jews that are in our mix in terms of London, Paris and other places. So now we could send them abroad out of place, you know, out of sight, out of way. And in this sense, they would always be depended on us. So we strike two birds with one stone in this sense. So that was the foundation of the establishment or the support for the issuing of the Belfort Declaration. Now, how the British get to control Palestine, I have a chapter on how they dismantled the Ottomans. And there was a whole strategic process that dismantled the Ottoman state, including creating what is called as the Great Arab Revolt. Have anybody heard of the Great Arab Revolt? Have you heard of somebody called Lawrence of Arabia? Right? Lawrence of Arabia. Now, I think I don't use the term Lawrence of Arabia, because to be called and to have an attribute to the Arabs, belonging to the Arab, is a high status and a praiseworthy, what you call, attribute. I call them T.E. Lawrence of Tin Downing Street. T.E. Lawrence of Tin Downing Street. T.E. Lawrence was an intelligence officer, stationed in Cairo. And he actually came up with the idea that the way to disrupt the Ottomans, especially in the Arab provinces, is to try to foment a revolt among the Arabs against the Ottomans. And they focused on Sharif Hossein of Makkah. Now, why would they focus on Sharif Hossein of Makkah? It's a good question. In the meantime, while you think of the answer, I'm going to drink some water. About Sharif Hossein of Makkah. Influential? Because of the Kaaba. Why would they want to recruit Sharif Hossein of Makkah? No. Kaaba, Makkah, okay. Let's go through. His name is Sharif Makkah, meaning he's a descendant of the Prophet. Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Now, this is another information. We're in the 100th year anniversary of World War I, right? Now, the British army, in some of its divisions, between 80 to 90% of the grand troops that were fighting were from the colonies. Meaning the darkies. And in the British army, there were a large number of Muslim troops from India, from the subcontinent. There were hesitant in fighting against the Khalifa, who is the ruler of the Muslim world. How can somebody carry the gun and invade Muslim land fighting against the ruler of the Muslim world? What they needed is a spiritual cover. They needed somebody that has the two credentials that when you tell the Indian troops and other Muslim troops recruited from Africa that you're fighting for a good cause, you're fighting in order to bring Khilafa to its rightful owners. And we have a correspondent, now we have all the right writings, all the letters are there. We have the writing between McMahon and Sharif Hussein of what they are promising him and they promise that they will declare him a Khalifa. Meaning the British were Ahl al-Halwa al-Aqt. The British were the ones to determine you don't need any people who scholars were doing fatwas. The people in 10 Downing Street will make a decision who's going to be the Khalifa and the Khalifa for you will be Sharif Hussein. And we have the letter, they promise it. So actually we should go to Great Britain, which is no longer great. We should go and ask them that we want for you to declare our new Khalifa. Not the one in Baghdad but someone else. Because you promised to do this. So they wanted a spiritual cover and Sharif Hussein declaring the revolt managed to assuage the opposition among the troops it engaging in a fighting against Ottoman troops. Because you have Muslims on both sides. These Muslims were fighting for the British army and the other side are troops that were fighting for the Ottoman army and besides they needed this revolt. So Sharif Hussein declared the great Arab revolt. It was not great nor was it Arab. It was made and manufactured in 10 Downing Street. In the same way the liberation of Iraq just in 2003 was not something that was made in Iraq was made and cooked both in London and Washington D.C. So in the same way this was to dismantle the Ottomans. So now look at the British and their strategy during that time. The British made four conflicting promises simultaneously. So we said now they issued the bell for declaration, right? Say to the Zionists we're going to have Palestine for you. Then they wrote to Sharif Hussein with the McMount letter we're going to call you a Khalifa for all of these Arab territories liberated after the end of the war. So now Sharif Hussein is promised, right? But you have a third something that now we call those who don't know the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Now what is the Sykes-Picot Agreement? This is the foreign minister of France and the foreign minister of Britain meeting together eating croissant and drinking espresso and divining up the territories between them. In secret and also keeping the Russians out of it even though the Russians were fighting with them. Talk about what you call triple double cross not only double crossing, right? So the Zionists being promised Sharif Hussein is being promised then the French and the British are eating their croissants and signing divining up the territories between them. Who takes Syria, who takes Lebanon, who creates Palestine, trans-Jordan, who gets evoked all this being decided in secret in Sykes-Picot Agreement. And then after the end of the First World War the British also participated in the post-war conferences that also said we're going to hand give people self-determination. Now if there is a possibility to speak from four sides of your mouth that was the British. Okay? Four contradictory projects or four contradictory statements of policy. What ended happening again is that they adopted the Zionist project because it coalesced with their strategic interests in the region. So that's important in thinking about dismantling of the Ottomans and creating Palestine. So you cannot have Palestine without actually dismantling dismantlement of the Ottomans. So they're related in this process. Now the fourth element that have to come is the religious rationalization for the creation of the state of Israel or supporting Zionism. Now every colonial project rationalize itself through religion. Do you think in here when the settlers came and killed the Native Americans what did they say? You know the concept of religion. And when the British, the French, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish, Italians lived with the religious fervor religion as a cover. So given Zionism uses religious rationalization and have a religious discourse to support the Zionist project and in this sense also some of the Western countries rationalize supporting Zionism because the taboo for much of Western part in relation to who they see themselves is connected also to the conceptualization of the Orila. So in here there is a collapsing of religious rationalization in the West in its support to Zionism and Zionism self-rationalization of a manifest destiny for its own self. That's normative. The structure of religious rationalization for colonial project is normative is not an exception. We often begin to think and this is what you call in terms of Muslims they go from zero to 80 in emotional response and they don't think rationally how to respond to these notions. So as soon as you begin to speak Palestine they go from zero to 80 and if you're an Arab you go from zero to 120 emotionally you stop thinking. So again colonial practices is to use an instrumentalized religion. So often Muslims as a way to discuss and deal with Palestine they begin to actually also deploy religious texts exclusively from understanding colonial structures. So again you cannot argue text versus text in relation to religious discourse because essentially you're falling into the terms of the debate. Whoever says the terms of the debate actually wins the debate. So arguing on religious terms is not the way to actually identify it you just actually to extricate yourself and focus on colonialism and what does colonialism mean it needs a rationalization not only for the people that are colonizing but they're all for themselves because you need your own troops to believe that they're doing it for God and you can't have an iPhone and call God asking whether you rationalize colonialism or not you can never actually ascertain whether God have permitted this that God allowed 20 million Native Americans to be eliminated who's gonna tell and then you get that well at least those who converted to Christianity at least they're they're saved in the hereafter oh thanks you a lot you have to kill me in order to save me Masha'Allah so that's a normative colonial structure. Now the fifth item colonialism has two different branches colonialism has two different branches regular colonialism and settler colonialism these are two separate animals colonialism and the French the Spanish the Dutch were excellent at you have a colonial motherland it's troops and companies to take over territories far away from its headquarter or its land extricate natural resources take natural resources disrupt the economy disrupt the political structure reshape education and uses the same territory to dump its products back so if you look at much of the southern hemisphere now we look at the southern hemisphere it's in the post-colonial stage post-colonial stage the troops are out but the companies the political system, the education system is still colonial so often you get why the Africans can't get along that's usually or the Africans are killing one another but that's post-coloniality that the same structure of colonialism has been there left intact from the direct troops from the control the economy is still connected so all, if you look at all the territories that were controlled by the French in direct colonialism is still connected in the hip economically, politically, socially to the French those territories and lands that have been conquered by the British are still connected economically, politically, socially in the hip to the British and so forth settler-colonialism is a different time altogether settlers come to the land they adopt it and take it as their own rationalization takes place and they don't have use for the indigenous population regular colonials and they put the population to work go and dig the tunnels go and dig the mines and climb the tree to get the cocoa and the mangoes it's all labor-intensive disrupting the local economy and making the economy is almost cash club and service economy to the colonial motherland settler-colonialism does not have a need for the population and usually either they commit genocide against the indigenous population or transfer they commit genocide what happened in the Americas is the most successful settler-colonial project because all of us in here what Native American tribes used to live in this area do you see any of them do you speak any of their language do you know what they used to cook do you know any of their habits do you have any of their monuments do you have any of their structure nothing we think that this area was just made for Silicon Valley and those who work with Silicon Valley can live just at a distance from it and that's how we know it so settler-colonialism engages in genocide in here in Australia New Zealand why again because it has no use it claims that land and wants to create a new trajectory South Africa had a combination of five homelands where you push the black Africans from the best lands you congregate them into these five homelands and now you say five homelands that are independent it's a transfer project Palestine is a settler-colonial project that's important Palestine is a settler-colonial project for Zionism to succeed it needed to transfer the Palestinians and therefore if you look at all the Zionist strategy from the early part of the 20th century all the way up to just yesterday it's structured to transfer the population out either through mass transfer during the 1947-48 Lekba by utilizing violence by utilizing massacres by utilizing all types of tools in order to force the Palestinians to flee settler-colonialism using violence to cause flight and transfer is something that we see in different circumstances what we're right now facing is what's called slow ethnic cleansing process you make people alive and living health you build walls you limit their access to water even to phone you limit their movement from one place to another by putting almost 500 plus checkpoints you use frequent violence on them you create different type of legal system what's called apartheid all this is incentivized to try to cause the Palestinians to leave or push them out that's a transfer strategy that exists and the debate about it existed in Zionism from the inception some of the modern Zionists who speak try to say that it's incidental there is nothing incidental in the transfer project that has been put in place from 1947 until today so that's a direct outcome of settler-colonialism if we don't understand that that's a major what you call her because we begin to be caught in trying to say who's taking which street rather than thinking of the street itself is part of the mechanism of the dispossession of the indigenous population so that's what's important in terms of understanding the differentiation between colonialism and settler-colonialism so in the book I go into details about how the Palestinians were expelled and the mechanism and so on by which this occurred so my last conclusion of the book actually I did not offer any solution because immediately at any time you talk about Palestine the question is like what's your solution? I said there is different conceptualization of how Palestine issues to be addressed and I'll just go over them very quickly and then we could have some questions for people who want to ask one again there is the both sides Palestinians say fight it all the way until judgment day and then on the Zionist side fight it out until judgment day so that's one what you call the most reflective of each other there is a two state solution and that by all indication is almost dead if not already buried we no longer have a viable two state solution on the ground if you look at the settlement the bypass roads the natural preserve the security structure all that have prevented a two state solution from emerging there is the fourth possibility in there which increasingly people are speaking about a one state solution where equal vote for everyone that is there that's the one that people increasingly are speaking about and fifth again is that possibility of Palestine being joined to a regional reshuffling of the region and collapsing of borders and that's again people who think of greater Syria from the pre-Sykes-Picot agreement and whether that's a possibility or not each one of these have its obstacles have its problems and challenges and today again with the current White House I wouldn't hold my breath that anything meaningful other than continuation of more destruction for the Israeli government and what the current White Wing Israeli government has been emboldened by the election of Trump so the if you think about the Middle East and the Palestine issue what might transpire I think we are in a very curious position at this point considering the configuration of individuals that are sitting around the White House and advising Trump assuming that he's taken their advice in some areas he is but it doesn't both well just this week Israeli government have announced another cycle of settlement building in the West Bank so again this is part of the settler colonial structure and their main protector is the United States which requires for us to rethink our engagement and our involvement in this country relative to Palestine so Jazakumal for listening I'd be more than happy to take any of your questions Salam alaikum thank you so how do you explain the position of Arab countries and the fact that they have been very passive how can we explain the fact that they don't show their strong support to Palestine yeah remember I said that we are in post-colonial states so post-colonial states in essence are still subject to the political economic social constraints of their ex-colonial powers the world revolves around what the US says what the European Union says possibly also what Russia and China even though the China entry into the global political landscape is just of recent occurrence so that explains why if you look at most of the states are dependent on economic links to the global north mostly are oil producers or also one commodity producers linked to their ex-colony their decision making is highly susceptible to considerable pressure because they are mostly in-depth aside from the Gulf and indebtedness is a systematic tool to subvert the independence of the decision making capacity of those countries so it would be much more appropriate to evaluate many countries in the southern hemisphere from a post-colonial lens rather than from a sovereign state lens because we get to assume that they have the complete total ability to utilize their decision making capacities in order to influence greater political dynamics and in relations to Palestine most if not all of the Arab countries have accepted the permanency of Israel as early as 1947-48 and all what they've been engaging in is in a political what you call showmanship for domestic consumption rather than for support for the Palestinians again because most of them are post-colonial states and you could name it one by one you could identify those dynamics and then more importantly in the post-Azmol landscape most of the Arab and Muslim countries have normalized their relationship even to a higher level with Israel and their security have been connected directly to their security with Israel at this point lastly in the heartland of the Arab world there's been a massive shift to identify Iran as the primary threat rather than Israel so even in terms of conceptualization of what strategic security in the region they no longer speak of Israel as a threat they speak as having common interests and you know we have already a number of meetings that took place between Saudi Arabia national security apparatus and Israelis in Washington DC as well as in Jordan other places so we are really post-colonial states that have not yet evolved to extricate themselves from colonial legacy in this country any questions? we were talking about Iran and the situation with Saudi Arabia and the situation in Washington you know the reason what's happening in Iran and in that context do you see some kind of a dynamic shift with Iran getting a little bit independent in their culture and how do you see that that's going to make a difference in Iran and some of these and it's getting a little bit out of hand so does that going to make anything better from 1979 till now if you think about the region there's been a war between Iraq and Iran then you had the Afghan war and you have the first Gulf War then the second Gulf War now you have the war in Syria war in Yemen there's a conflict in Bahrain Asia Libya Sudan in the conflict and Sudan in the south and then you could also add the conflict on Afghanistan that continues instability in Pakistan but what's important is that the Muslim world have actually shifted into a sectarian conflict so now the flavor of the conflict has been versus Shia and that conflict being shaped that way begins to create in my view a mental retardation for people's analysis of what is taking place so you could get people bent out of shape about Sunnism and Shi'ism while not stepping back and thinking of what are the reasons that these conflicts are being intensified and in order to do that let me step back during the slave trade in west and sub-Saharan Africa as the need for slaves to the new world increased regional conflicts were increased so the base of the trade was guns for slaves so you bring guns in to both or all of the participants they fight the war slaves as captives from each other bring them to the coast sell them to the slave traders buy guns, come back to fight another war kill each other get new slaves, take them to the coast so it was guns for slaves trade and that lasted almost 300 years today I argue that we have guns for oil guns for oil the largest purchasers of weapons in the world today are in the Arab and Muslim world we're talking about contracts in the $80 billion $70 billion and how you sustain that by selling oil so you sell oil buy guns to protect against your neighbor and your neighbor sells oil to protect against you he is the biggest threat against you he is the biggest threat against you and you strategize he prays with a stone in there and that stone is basically is haram and you begin to argue whether it's settled or covered and people are talking and selling oil, killing each other buying guns selling oil, killing each other, buying guns and then you bring companies to build what you destroyed for another 30-year contract so what we have we need to understand that the conflicts in the region are centered on oil and natural gas and that's the reason it's not about what type of sect you are but it's much easier to mobilize people on a dumbing down effect and to begin to think there is a Sunni conspiracy the Shi'a conspiracy the only conspiracy is people sleeping in the mosque that's the only conspiracy because they're not awake to what is taking place it took almost 20 years of work to get into a Sunni Shi'a confrontation and as it looks right now, people will be killing each other for the next 40-50-100 years until oil runs out and then all of a sudden they say, oh Masha'Allah, listen Brits we can't afford killing each other but by that time it's already gone you're talking about three generations right now at minimum, completely wiped out and the best and the brightest from the Muslim world are all abroad you're here, I'm here, everybody's here why here, because you are not allowed to think he was arrested with a thought in his mind and fledged, bring him to jail and you're not allowed to take positions of importance why, because you're not born as a prince because you know or a son of a prime minister has to be a prime minister even if he's the dumbest of dumb he's going to be assistant to a minister and all of a sudden, he's up there because that's it that's a post-colonial structure we're dealing with and that's essentially where we are at can we figure it out? Insha'Allah, let's do that so again, it's an oil natural gas for guns and that's where the conflict is and sustaining this battle between people and 100,000 are dying really, pennies for economic purposes and I know there's so much preoccupation with the end of time scenarios that for me is another problem because you have a whole bunch of people that just so good at what you call banging the drums of the end of time those who are waiting Jesus to come those who don't want Jesus to come everybody's banging the drums as if God would be happy for the end of time to come it's none of our business the end of time comes and you plan to see it, plan to see it that's it, the rest of God will take care of that business, this is not you so again for us to really rethink how we analyze what is occurring and not get bent out of shape so brother, are you able to explain to us the unconditional support of the United States to Israel unconditional from all the president perhaps Obama was perhaps the best in terms of common sense towards Israel what is the interest and what's going on that we don't know again one has to look at the US political landscape there's a statement says we have the best congress that many can buy so it's susceptible to influence and the role of impact is very important you know the American-Israeli affairs committee, it plays an important role in effecting and influencing politics in this country and how commitment to Israel is undertaken but below this just like the British thought of creating a Zionist state as a strategic outpost the United States think of Israel as a strategic outpost and can use it in the regional fragmentation to create what you call a regional hegemon that could discipline and maintain the order in the region from a United States perspective is it sustainable for the learner, I don't think so and require for us to change the argument about Israel as a strategic ally and I argue that Israel on a number of points is not a strategic ally, it's a strategic liability one Israel has been a main conduit to funding missile technology to China, that is country to US strategic interest second, Israel has been a major player in the nuclear proliferation to other countries, they supported or facilitated South Africa nuclear program in the 70s and then they were very instrumental in the Indian nuclear program so if the United States is committed to non-proliferation the NPT treaty Israel has been a strategic liability by allowing and pushing for nuclear armaments, especially in India and South Africa and also once argues that Israel nuclear program have incentivized Iran to pursue a nuclear program incentivized Libya to pursue a nuclear program and also one can argue secondary that North Korea nuclear program is a logical outcome thinking that the country that did not have nuclear weapons was attacked by the United States so in this sense Israel is a strategic liability from the NPT the non-proliferation treaty third, if you think about US using Israel as a strategic asset militarily, during the first Gulf War and second Gulf War the United States asked Israel not to intervene and not to participate in the military conflict because it will fracture the Arab alliance so what is the value of a strategic asset at the moment that you are actually engaged in military combat is the biggest liability that you have so that's a strategic liability in terms of Israel fourth, on the economic front the relationship between the United States and Israel causes loss of market share for the US in different countries at least on the individual and communal level because they see that their relationship undermines their ability to express themselves so there is a strategic liability on the economic front that there is loss of real contracts from the United States in different countries as a result of this so that's also a strategic liability in this sense and fifth, the standing of the United States around the world often gets to be impacted by this relationship with Israel is not good for business in general and therefore the United States is dragged into public discourse where it does not need to be and therefore Israel is also a strategic liability from that how to change it requires for us hard work so I know what APAD does they do hard work they are engaged their political process is very strong the Muslim community and the pro-Palestine community have not yet engaged politically in the same level to impact and begin to shift their political landscape it's doable but it requires hard work thank you very much for being here today May Allah reward you I was wondering your opinion is a two state solution for Eastern Palestine still possible and if not what factors and catalysts need to exist in order to make it possible but I said that the two state solution is almost that it is not already buried with the building of settlements bypass roads the natural reserve the empty of area C if you know the framework of the Oslo and it doesn't seem to be any political will in this country as a main supporter of Israel to alter that course so literally more of the serious people right now are talking about the one state solution one person one vote similar to South Africa so the two state solution essentially as far as the structure is no longer tenable with what Israel infrastructure that has been placed over the West Bank in historical Palestine is about 50% now in all of Palestine in Israel itself which is the 1948 Palestinian population is about 28% but if you add to it some of the unaccounted for or those the absentee present absentee it might add another 5 to 6% the estimate is by 2026 Palestinian population in 48 will be equal to the Jewish population in 48 which also creates a crisis for Zionism of what to do with a state that you don't have a Jewish majority and that's something that again it's a racist discourse to actually contemplate political discourse by using double graphics but that's what addresses to 48 that's what you're looking at so does the two state solution also really anytime soon or even at all do you see the Palestinians in the near future living as second class citizens in an entirely Jewish Israel or an entirely Jewish Israel with Palestinian discourse moving to Egypt and other countries again the discussion right now is Israel either it wants to be a democratic state or an apartheid state that's the discussion even in Israeli if you read some of the Israeli press that's actually the discussion are we moving to an apartheid state or a democratic state so even the discussion about recognizing Israel as Jewish state that has the implication that 28% of the population are no longer really legitimate citizens right so the discussion again is Israel wants to be an apartheid state or wants to be a democratic state even Palestinians who are citizens in Israel are subject to 50 different laws that discriminate against them so even without going to about 50 different states 50 different laws that discriminate on Palestinians in 48 not those under occupation so those are different categories so in terms of post colonization how does Turkey as a nation that wasn't initially itself colonized into this life Turkey is a very interesting state in the sense that Ataturk opted to embrace a almost epistemic of colonial structure right by embracing saying that the way for us to move is that we have to completely dealing ourselves from the historical tradition that was part of the Ottoman legacy and Islamic legacy so essentially the project of colonization that works systematically to transform societies to imitate the colonial motherland Ataturk opted to shift the society in that direction willingly as a way to try to embrace the western discourse so from 1926 onward changing the alphabet changing the mode of dress completely reforming and creating a new constitution new code all that took place as a way to try to emerge into a new modernity that is a westernized modernity replicating the nation state structure that you observed in you so that's been the case all the way up to again in Ebsen Falls until the early 1990s and what you have is a complete or beginning of a shift in Turkey to see how to reintroduce a link back to some of the historical tradition that existed in particular the role of Islam in public life the Turkish state prior to the 1990s was hostile toward Islam so it did not have neutrality toward religion to be a secular in Turkey meant to be anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic and anti the role of Islam in public life what post 90s argument is that the state should be neutral and therefore it should not express hostility toward Islam in public life and therefore the hijab becomes an important feature of this debate within the contemporary modern Turkish state so in essence what it is not a colonial state it did not go through direct colonization it actually experienced the resolution and the structural impact of colonization because the dismantlement of the argument was privy on the whole structure of colonization eating at the limbs of the arguments culminating in the collapse of the state after the world war one so now the Turkish project is still a project in the making of what is the role of Islam in public life how to incorporate a presence of Islamic identity but also impact on the political landscape in essence how to bring Islam into the political landscape in there so the egg party has been doing this over the past few elections but it's still some work in progress to see at the same time you still have considerable antagonism of Europe toward the Turkish state in essence and their admission into the European Union is highly contested I think part of it is orientalist discourse part of it is some public discourse that we're witnessing in part of the European Union relations or treatment of Turkey so I I know the discussion that's been around the Zionist and Palestine and what's the solution but do you see any sign that they're actually expanding beyond outside Palestine and supplemented in one form or another outside of Palestine? I don't think that the Zionist and Israel are expanding outside of historical Palestine they attempted to expand in Lebanon and we know the consequences of that they occupied Lebanon for a long period of time until they actually had to be voluntarily as a result of the resistance and the pressure in there what Israel has is economic interest and economic relations with the surrounding countries so now we could say that Israel has economic relations and economic assets in Jordan has economic interest and asset in Indonesia has economic interest and asset in United Arab Emirates in Qatar there's economic interest in Mauritania in Morocco and this again economic interests that are there and the assets some might be and so on I tend to look at it in a different way that as Palestinians I see that they have opportunities to file legal cases in all those countries to make a claim against those economic interests that Israel have and what it requires is for us to change some of the strategies and I'm hoping that at a certain point we will use the legal process internationally to bring cases against companies that are operating in Jordan and other places that are making claims against some of our companies or some of our assets in this country that we should be skilled in doing and doing so so as such, while they think this as part of their normalization I think as a part of Palestinians making claims against the benefits from the NECBA benefits from ethnic cleansing that have existed from 1947 up to the present and I think in due time this would be one of the major challenges of how to bring it into legal in different parts of the NECBA so my question is more like thank you so much for your insight for the discussion and what you have mentioned about other powers kind of weakening the Muslim that basically points to weakness within ourselves so I guess and that has been the question I guess for the last 30, 40, whatever many years that how do we improve that situation my generation is over right it's the next generation also and the whole thing is like which unfortunately I don't see it like in the next generation we are not imparting enough confidence in their own culture identity so that they can stand up and be strong within themselves rather than relying on other powers like you gave an example of the Sharif Usmaka we all know how that got decided the ruling family never had the caliber but wanted from England to rule an entire Muslim I mean not rule but at least have the opinion that the entire Muslim world is that so I mean that's what the question is like you have to identify what are the steps that can be taken preferably for the next generations and you get history is a very good example of discussion like I mean I don't know what would be your suggestion well let me give a more complex answer to this that touches on number of things one I don't think that the problem is uniquely a Muslim problem if you look at Latin America you will find that the same dynamics also are affecting Latin America not only that if you just think about US policy in Latin America most of Latin America everybody knows is predominantly Catholic so from a religious perspective the United States is fighting other Christians right and at a certain level they were also confronting what whole liberation theologians in Latin America were trying to engage and to say that religion should be an avenue for liberating oneself if you look at Africa is also the problem is not a Muslimness it's actually again it's same dynamics and if you trace the history whether it's in Angola the war in Angola the war in Nigeria between the north and south it's interesting wherever you have an oil pipeline there's a war between two people in there right every time you see a conflict don't look at the ethnic makeup just look at the source makeup ask that question what is there is it diamond, is it gold, is it gas is it cocoa leaf is it what that more about the conflict rather than trying to follow to see whether there are Hanafi or Shafi'ah or 12 Bershias or any of this sort so the issue is not Muslimness or anything of this sort now I said we're dealing with post-colonial states unless you begin to understand what colonialism and post-colonialism mean you cannot begin to undo the effects right colonialism disrupted the economy the political structure social patterns and as well as religious understandings and in order for you to prove that modernity is progressive you had to posit and support a very regressive religious construct and therefore the most regressive part of the religious establishment was actually popped up as a way to show that the way for you to be moving toward modernity progressive unless you want to go back to the cave that's basically the argument so that was a colonial structure inherited by our elites where our elites were trained our elites were trained by in the colonial motherlands to come back and implement an imitative project that actually tells you that you're incapable so structurally each one of the post-colonial states political structure in there is actually looking at themselves saying I am incapable and I need somebody from the global north to tell me how so it's actually structurally infantile economy infantile political processes infantile social processes and that requires an intellectual project for us to do it meaning the critique I'm having is that an increase in piety does not necessarily translate to ending the colonial project it requires a complete transformation intellectually politically socially economically and then you have piety in order for you to actually accomplish that task so it's a very complex process unfortunately this is my last part of it the first word in the Quran is Iqla we stopped reading as Muslims like we're the CD mp3 community and we have transformed our tradition into a form of religious entertainment just bring me an entertainer that gives me subhanAllah a few times and a few zingers of hadith and ayahs and therefore I'm sitting in there and basically like in a trance our tradition is not about again I'm not speaking about spirituality but our tradition requires for a serious understanding and that's why I have then any other word in the Quran more valuable than Iqla it would have started with that it's a command Iqla so that's what is required no civilization can be uplifted without reading, education and taking it to the highest level in terms of educational attainment and I'm not talking about here again I love mds and engineers but we have too many of them I have so many students all of them are mcb mcb mcb xxx mcb mcb mcb and then all of a sudden somebody is studying something different and a pair of hundred students is still 90 to 98% are studying md and engineers because they want to get married so the parents are much part of the issue like anyone else too so that's my answer you answered my question reading and building the intellect that is sustainable economy cooperative economy building, you know, enterprises last questions you got so I have two questions first one is about I can say that this one is more than colonialism that's happened in Palestine because it's more than, I can say more than 60 years it's 70 years 70 years something like that but if we see the condition people in Palestine still look like strong and then against the Zionism so my question is what's the reason what's the factor that the people in Palestine still stand up to be the second one is about I know but the PLO they have also like the Intifada movement and then Hamas what's the contribution of this organization to Palestinian people why the Palestinians are still resistant because they're still under occupation there's an aspect of what you call the conditions producers in response to what is present in there the other part is that because we're under occupation actually to some level created or incentivized creating cohesion in the community and maintaining the bonds of lineage in the society because the ability or the experience by outside of Palestine was medicated as a result of the confinement that are there so they had to actually find ingenious ways to connect and network with each other and that contributed into some level of cohesion and stability in there and that translated over from almost the last 50 years or so as far as the political landscape of Palestinians we're right now at the lowest level of our political body politics is at the lowest level we're fragmented and I would again say as a consequence of an intensification of the occupation and intensification of the colonial project that resulted in this fragmentation so it's not incidental but rather part and parcel that fragmentation has consequences and as in that it makes it possible for a more accelerated Israeli success in various parts of land confiscation mis-allocations of water resources disrupting our political program on the international level with international court of justice where the Palestinian authority ended up withdrawing the whole storm report that would have been a very important step to get the international court of justice as well as the European Union to carry on investigation also considerable fragmentation led to considerable disruption of the United Nations of process even though the last resolution the Palestinians essentially were going back and forth on supporting the resolution against the settlements that came out from the Security Council so the contribution at this point is I would say is in a very curious position because it's fragmented and the division is real and that division is projecting itself internally as well as globally one that holds for an attempt to reconfigure the Palestinian body politic in order to begin to address some of those weaknesses Okay, last question Thank you so much Okay, sorry, last question Recently Pope Francis called for the international community to recognize Palestine as an official state do you see this as just a public gesture of goodwill and to increase his look or as a do you see a political motive here or as a political interest as the Catholic Church having in the state of Palestine? No, again, I wrote an article when Pope Francis called for this recognition and the Catholic Church itself recognizing the state of Palestine these are important symbolic steps it represents a shift in the global public opinion that the Pope in essence is representing that shift in public opinion The biggest impediment in this is the United States Latin America for the most part is heavily supportive of Palestine and Palestinian rights at the UN whenever we get a major resolution at the General Assembly we only get about 4 to 5 votes against you get the United States you get Israel, the Marshall Island Micronesia those are the countries that oppose Palestinian rights but then when you get to the Security Council then it becomes a tough because you have the veto power and the United States have used the veto power to protect and prevent Palestinian rights from being expressed almost 72 different times so the Pope expression is very important as part symbolic shift in public opinion even in the United States the most recent polling in the millennials there's been a shift in public opinion that there are more pro-Palestinian or cyber-Palestinians than Israel so you're actually also seeing that shift among the millennials in the United States even with a massive amount of expenditures that AIPAC is spending and all the top political figures that are promoting Israel even with that they're unable to sustain a maintenance of the public opinion in the US and I think the Pope's message is very important that we need to utilize in educating and speaking to people about Palestine Thank you