Hope Is Not Optimism And That’s The Point

The hardest truths in public life are usually the ones we’ve trained ourselves not to see. We start by talking with Cornel West about Race Matters and the reality that racial injustice is not only about explosive moments on the news, but also about the “quiet riot” of daily suffering in South Central, Harlem, and any place where poverty and despair are treated as normal. We unpack why hope is not optimism, why small victories of love and care count, and how a renewed public sphere and real political courage matter if America is serious about racial justice.

From there we widen the lens to foreign policy and ask a question that never stops generating heat: why does the United States support Israel so consistently? We trace the long arc from Christian Zionism and settler colonial history to Cold War strategy, military aid, and intelligence alignment. Along the way, we examine how media framing shapes what the public is allowed to call an invasion, an occupation, or a peace offer, and how “minimal honesty” might change what leaders can get away with.

The episode closes on a moral note, pairing a humanist warning about greed and despair with scripture on suffering and endurance, not as an escape from politics but as a reminder that language, conscience, and solidarity still matter. If you care about race in America, Cornel West, public policy, U.S. Israel relations, and human rights, this conversation is built to challenge your assumptions without asking you to turn off your compassion. Subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a review, then tell us: what truth do you think our politics is avoiding right now?

Transcript

Welcome And Guest Introduction

SPEAKER_13 0:46

We begin with Dr. Cornell West. He is a professor of religion as well as the director of Afro-American Studies at Princeton. He's also known as a brilliant social critic with insights into topics as diverse as racism and popular culture. His latest book, which is being published on the anniversary of the LA riots, is called Race Matters. And I'm very pleased to have him back. Welcome. Oh, it's good to be here. Good to see you. Tell me, these are a series of essays that you have written. But if there is an essence here about race in America today, what is it?

Race Matters And The Discipline Of Hope

SPEAKER_00 1:20

I think in many ways it's reflected on this very day, which is the celebration of the birthday of the great Billy Holliday. It would have been 78 years old. I think in the life and in the art of Billy Holliday, we see the triumph of the human spirit as it struggles against adversity. And in many ways, that's a paradigm of the black condition in America since we first arrived. A very tragic but dignified struggle against adversity, uh struggle against overwhelming circumstances, and yet still able to hone out some stone of hope. And that's what that book is about. It's about the hope to hope. Well, the hope is primarily uh based on the small victories. Uh the small victories in terms of the black love, black care, black joy that serves as the basis of loving others and allowing the possibilities of persons coming together to change and transform prevailing circumstances.

SPEAKER_13 2:18

When you look at the Rodney taking you to timely events, uh this second trial of Rodney King, uh, this trial in which the prostitution's evidently done a better job than it did in the first time. Uh, do you fear the consequences because no one knows what a jury's gonna do uh this time?

SPEAKER_00 2:38

Well, it's hard to say, though, Charlie, though I must say that uh the distinction between what some persons would call a more visible riot rebellion or upheaval, as opposed to the quiet riot, which is occurring this very moment in South Central, occurring this very moment in Harlem here in New York, it's occurring this very moment in South Central and East LA. Uh it's occurring in Appalachia, that is to say, the hurt, the misery, the suffering. And oftentimes we act as if that is not already in place, and it is. Uh the tears are actually already flowing, as it were, so that the distinction between a quiet riot, which is occurring at this very moment, and a more visible rebellion or riot or upheaval is for me uh an important distinction, but it's a distinction that ought not to uh uh uh lead us to overlook the degree to which the conditions are still the same.

SPEAKER_13 3:42

Why do you think um that that white America was startled by the rage in LA?

SPEAKER_00 3:51

I think partly because we've it lived through a kind of ice age under Reagan and Bush. And what I mean by that is it has rendered so much of black and brown, but especially black social misery invisible. And by rendering that social misery invisible, persons are surprised as they have fallen asleep in their own kind of complacency. And to see the rage and fury and the anger articulated was a wake-up call to the degree to which persons had, in fact, slumbered and fallen into a complacency, begun to think that maybe we had reached a kind of rough justice in this country. And we know that's certainly not the case.

SPEAKER_13 4:33

You mentioned the two previous Republican um presidents. Do you think that this Democrat from Arkansas has done something in terms of uh both his campaign and his early presidency uh to overcome some of the cynicism?

SPEAKER_00 4:51

I think he certainly attempted to create a new atmosphere, and it's very difficult to do. I mean, he can't get a job built through Congress because of Republican uh uh placating it. Exactly. So that I think he's attempted to create a new atmosphere, but there's some very strong and deep conservative residues there, not just in the Congress.

SPEAKER_13 5:07

In Clinton or or or he's no no he's fighting against it. Yeah, but at the same time, Randall Robinson was here last night, uh, and and I suspect uh uh a man that you respect clearly for what he's done for Nelson Mandela and head of the executive director of Trans Africa, and he said that the policies of this country and this president with respect to Haitian refugees and with respect to uh democracy in Africa and with respect to the recognition of government in Angola are racist.

SPEAKER_00 5:39

Well, it's a policy, it's a continuation of the Bush administration, and I think that uh certainly one of the major Achilles heel of the Clinton administration has been precisely the hypocrisy regarding the issue of of of the Haitians, there's no doubt about that. Uh certainly I would say in regard to policy regarding in regard to African countries as a whole, there's still been a downfall and a shortcoming in this regard. So I would want to share Randall Robinson's uh concern, but at the same time I would argue that on domestic issues, he's trying to turn the country around. Mainly by mainly by changing the economic well, and most importantly, mainly by talking about the revitalization of the public sphere.

SPEAKER_13 6:24

Of the public sphere. Of the public sphere, if you put it in the world. In terms of a role of government, positive and public health care, public provision. A role of government to influence how we treat and how we respond to those who suffer the most.

SPEAKER_00 6:42

That's right.

SPEAKER_13 6:43

That's right.

SPEAKER_00 6:43

And at this point, it's it's been primarily a rhetoric with some policies in place, but he's up against a lot, and it takes a while to turn a country around, and then at the same time, we still have the cultural decay, we still have the misery and the suffering that I alluded to earlier.

SPEAKER_13 6:58

Do you find anything that resonates with you? I know you from many, I think you've probably been on this broadcast as much as any other single individual since I've been on the air. Do you think, and I know you because to to for you are a proud member of consider yourself and characterize yourself as a social democrat or uh label as a heart or democratic socialist? That's right. Uh maybe based on the European model, I guess, that we would find in France and in other places.

SPEAKER_00 7:24

One concerned about redistribution of wealth. Okay. That's right.

SPEAKER_13 7:27

Having said that, does anything that uh African American conservatives say resonate with you at all? Those who want to see uh black America do well by grabbing a piece of the American dream and making capitalism uh work for them.

SPEAKER_00 7:48

Does anything there that that you can say um see black conservatives they get a lot of mileage out of a notion that all black freedom fighters have affirmed, which is the notion of black self-help, black self-development. And uh no one would be against black self-help. Malcolm Expert for that, wasn't he?

SPEAKER_13 8:08

Malcolm Exclusive was much more of that than he was. But Malcolm specifically, because he's such a hero to so many uh African Americans, clearly was articulating something like that. I mean, you could even argue, I guess some might, that he was a forerunner of notwithstanding some of the elements of it.

Rodney King And The Quiet Riot

SPEAKER_00 8:26

Right. But I mean, but what I think Brother Malcolm understood, and the black conservatives do not, is that you cannot overlook the degree to which white supremacy shapes and molds the circumstances and conditions under which black self-help and black self-development can take place. And I would add male supremacy, I would add economic inequality. But certainly when it comes to emphasizing black self-help, and conservatives often think they have a monopoly on such a notion, and they're wrong.

SPEAKER_13 8:54

What's your criticism of liberals uh in America and in their um their analysis of race in America?

SPEAKER_00 9:08

Well, I think the problem often is that liberals at times tend to be spineless milk-toasts, uh, which is to say that they're not paternally and paternalistic. Uh the degree to which they act on their convictions is often quite uh uh weak, and that they they refuse to acknowledge the degree to which America remains so deeply shaped by corporate elites and bank elites in this country. The liberals think that somehow uh the distribution of wealth in place can can provide the background conditions for inclusion of others so that the pie would get bigger, so that economic growth by means of corporate priority can remain in place. And I think liberals are at times allies, at times they're they're they're unreliable allies, so I don't want to just uh whitewash them, as it were, but uh you've got to proceed quite cautiously with uh with liberals.

SPEAKER_13 12:03

More than I like to hear you say that. That brings me to a question I've asked before, and I don't want to go too far down this road, but just raise this point. You seem to be out of sync with where the world is. The world seems to me, uh I mean, socialism is not doing well. Look at France recently, for example, in terms of one national election. Secondly, I mean, even in the former communist countries, everybody is saying, give us a piece of that old-time market economy.

SPEAKER_00 12:28

That's right. Well, yes, I mean, I keep in mind that democratic socialists have always been major critics of any kind of communist regime. No, I've been major critics. Communism is not the issue. The issue is an unfettered market economy. Well, yes, but we know the market's not unfettered. Okay. We know the corporate America will get subsidies and free free equipment, free technology, and so forth. So if we're going to talk about public provisions for certain spheres of our society, certainly we have to talk about the cozy relationships between various corporate elites. And you're saying there. Well, I mean, Ross has a point, though he gives it a more conservative populist twist. But he certainly has a point in terms of the lobbyists who are hired primarily by corporations to push through policies that are efficacious for their own interest. But let me say this though, Charlie, that you are absolutely right in terms of my not being in step with most of the world.

SPEAKER_12 13:17

Right.

SPEAKER_00 13:18

Because when I look at Bosnia, when I look at India, when I look at South Africa, when I look at Haiti, when I look at Chile, I see human suffering that is changeable and alterable. Well, then let's take that. And I think that the fight against such injustice is a uh is an honorable one and it's self-critical and humble.

SPEAKER_13 13:36

Okay, but now you also could mention some Somalia, where there is clearly an effort to make a difference there.

SPEAKER_00 13:41

I can mention my own Ethiopia. Yeah.

SPEAKER_13 13:43

You see.

SPEAKER_00 13:43

They like these couplings.

SPEAKER_13 13:45

They're from Ethiopia.

SPEAKER_00 13:46

From my wife's brother, yes.

SPEAKER_13 13:47

I mean, do you think are you pessimistic about the future? No. You're optimistic. No. Where are you?

SPEAKER_00 13:55

Full of hope. Full of hope. Okay.

SPEAKER_13 13:57

And faith.

SPEAKER_00 13:58

And faith.

unknown 13:59

Yeah.

Clinton, Conservatives, And Liberal Blind Spots

SPEAKER_00 13:59

In spite of sensibility, as it were. The evidence points to sliding down a slippery slope of chaos, anarchy. What's the politics of conversion? The politics of conversion is an attempt to rechannel powers and energies of ordinary people so that they believe they can make a difference, and if they come together, they can expand the scope of democracy. And have what brings them together? What we're bringing them together will be one, new leadership, two, new belief in themselves, and three, new historical conjunctures, new moments that provide new possibilities which are unpredictable. Which, as we turn around the corner, provide when we turn around the corner, we see things that we could not have imagined.

unknown 14:48

You see.

SPEAKER_00 14:49

Like it was hard to say. It's like Abraham Joshua Heschel's notion of radical amazement. And I suggest in the next five to ten years, we're going to be radically amazed at the degree to which people who keep track of the least of these keep track of those persons who are suffering the new possibilities to provide some way of alleviating, alle uh alleviating that suffering, you see. But that's hope. That's not optimism. I'm not an optimist at all. In fact, I have little respect for naive optimists. The world's too tragic to be a naive optimist.

SPEAKER_13 15:22

Uh what does your religious, your deep religious belief uh say to you uh when you look at what's going on in Bosnia, and you see that kind of cruelty and inhumanity and what some are characterizing as genocide and crimes against humanity? And it's not just happening there. There are other places in the world that's not.

SPEAKER_00 15:45

I see it in in in in South Central Los Angeles and Harlem as well. And and that's well, as you know, this is this is the Easter season. I speak as a Christian. Uh I look at the world through the eyes of the cross, and I see the blood that flows, I see the death with no dignity, I see the soldiers making fun of the person who died, I see the lost of hope, I see the darkness twice on that good Friday, and yet, even given that Saturday with Easter possibilities seemingly foreclosed and held at arm's length, and yet the small victories. Those who get up every morning, love their children, project a future, those who organize local activists who are who are struggling against the grand, the Davids against the Goliaths. But let me let me stop you there in terms of your Christian soul.

SPEAKER_13 16:42

Um where do you you should the United States, in some call of justice and morality, and being on the side of um all that is good, say to the world, we will not stand by and allow this impossible. Yes. Yes, we should have done it a year ago. With American military leading the way. That's right. That's exactly right. And make the argument, though, when people say it's a quagmire, it'll suck you in and never let you go, and and and will create division in this country like we've never seen before, if American men and women are dying there in a way that our leaders cannot clearly articulate the national interest, albeit how incredibly obscene and vicious and uh undescribable the crimes.

SPEAKER_00 17:49

Yes, but see, I would argue that uh one does not fight Hitler based on national interests. You don't fight apartheid based on national interests. You fight it on the basis of what? You fight it on the basis of one, it being wrong, two, of it destabilizing the region leading toward wider conflict, and three, allowing brutes and tyrants to get away with such gross dehumanization, such ugly behavior toward others on all three levels. And I think if we had done this about 12 months ago, we could have done it simply with either airstrikes and making symbolic gestures like that. Okay, even now. Now, at this point, of course, we're talking about long-term investment, we're talking about uh American soldiers and so forth, so you're absolutely right. And some say it'll take 200,000 or 300,000. Some say even a half a million. Yeah, some say half a million.

SPEAKER_13 18:46

Doesn't sound like Vietnam to you.

Hope Versus Optimism In Public Life

SPEAKER_00 18:49

No, I don't think I don't think the analogy holds there. But I mean, I recognize the uh the strength of the plausible arguments on the other side. I think we need to have a public conversation about this. We need a debate about this, but certainly. Do you think we're having that public conversation?

SPEAKER_13 19:05

No, we haven't had a series of public conversations. Who's to fall? It seemed to me that there's one person that commands uh the debate. You know, and politics rules, though, because you you may not want to have that debate right now because there are other uh items on the agenda. I think why and each day more people die because there are other agendas to pursue, whether they're right, you know, not and you don't want to cloud the the agendas.

unknown 19:32

Right.

SPEAKER_00 19:36

Very much so, man. Very much so.

SPEAKER_13 19:39

Tell me about black nihilism and what it is.

SPEAKER_00 19:43

It is the black hopelessness and meaninglessness and most importantly, lovelessness that too many black people and especially black children are undergoing this very moment. The shattering of family and neighborhood, the proliferation of combat zones and existential wastelands that too many black folk are up against. Almost 50% of black children live in poverty in this country. What kind of future are we talking about? You see. Uh, and the most frightening thing, I think, is that denialism leads toward a certain kind of cold-heartedness and mean-spiritedness. If in fact no one feels that my life is worth any value, why should I value the life of others? And it spills over in the forms of social chaos that I think sit at the very center of the chocolate cities in the society, as the vanilla city. The chocolate city is a black and brown city. It's a New York, it's a Chicago, it's a Detroit, it's a Washington city, disproportionately black and brown. Vanilla suburbs, those suburbs that are disproportionately white. Those work in the city during the day and go back to the vanilla suburbs. Should Jesse Jackson be elected head of the NAACP? Uh, my own view is is no. I have great respect for Jesse Jackson. I think he's one of the towering figures of the uh the black freedom movement in the 20th century. I think an NAACP would actually strangle Holder Brother. I think he has too much to offer. The NAACP itself is in need of tremendous regeneration, new vision, new energy. He could do that, but I think that Jesse Jackson simply is uh someone who could be much more useful outside of the NAACP apparatus. I'd like to see him senator from the new state called Washington, D.C. That's why I'd like to see him. I suspect that's where he'd like to be either.

Bosnia And The Case For Intervention

SPEAKER_13 21:43

Finally, and when you look at you, let me listen to this. This is from Senator Bill Bradett talking about this book. The book is Race Matters by Cornel West. Professor. Few Americans speak about race with Cornel West clarity, humanity, intellectual rigor, his presence on the scene, plus the knowledge that his best years lie ahead of him, should give hope to all of us who believe that America's racial diversity is our strength. Marin Wright Edelman says Cornell West is one of the most original, brilliant, prophetic, and healing voices in America today. We ignore his truth in race matters at our personal and national peril, and it goes on with other people, including um uh Henry uh Gates at Harvard and uh Jeanetta Cole at Spelman College. Have you paid any price for all the attention that you have received? Any price? Has there been a toll for that?

SPEAKER_00 22:32

Oh, sure. Uh being misunderstood, and this is what one would expect, because when you're saying so many different kinds of things, you're often misunderstood, and you're often cast with the mainstream when you're much more critical of the mainstream, and you're cast with militants when you're much more open to compromise. I have a strongly militant pole to my own position. I also have a compromising pole given my personality. Uh, so that I think probably more than anything else, it's a matter of being misunderstood, and that misunderstanding leads to and degenerates to and a whole host of other things. But I'm very conscious of becoming too visible because I want to keep the focus on the issues on the social misery and the suffering. You see what I mean? And I I'm quite serious about that. I think that uh television culture can become a kind of addiction, it can become almost a narcotic. And I do believe the hot lights. The hot lights and yes, and I I think all the praise in the papers. Publicity and power are inherently corrupting, and therefore one must tremendously struggle against it and be spiritually prepared such that you don't fall into the traps of complacency and acceptance. And that's a perennial battle for a freedom fighter, it seems to me. And it's a challenge for someone like myself. Great to have you here. Good to see you, man. Congratulations on you going national. Thank you.

SPEAKER_13 24:00

Cornell West, uh, Race Matters is his book, and uh it is provocative and insightful ideas about where America is going with, as he says, um, some respect for the power of love. We'll be right back. Stay with us. Kathy McKinnon is here in nursing version.

Why The U.S. Backs Israel

Black Nihilism And Lovelessness

Israel As A Strategic Military Asset

SPEAKER_09 24:39

Why does the United States support Israel? Well, there's a history and a very interesting one that actually goes back to uh goes back a long time. One thing to remember is that Christian Zionism is a very powerful force, which goes back long before Jewish Zionism. In England, particularly, Christian Zionism was a powerful force among British elites. It's part of the motivation for the Balfour Declaration and for Britain's support for the Jewish colonization of Israel. Remember, the Bible said, you know, and that's a big part of uh British elite culture. Same in the United States. Woodrow Wilson was a devout Christian who read the Bible every day. So did Harry Truman in the Roosevelt administration. One of the leading officials, Harold Ickies, once described the return of the Jews to Palestine as the greatest event in history. It's realizing the lesson of the Bible. These are deeply religious countries in which the biblical commands, so-called, are taken quite literally. Also, this is just part of colonization. This is the last phase of European colonization. And notice that the countries that are most strongly in support of Israel are not just the United States. It's the United States, Australia, and Canada. The offshirts of England, Anglosphere sometimes called, unusual forms of imperialism. These are settler colonial societies. Societies in which the, not like India, not like the British in India, say, the societies of South Africa was a little like this, or Algeria under the French. Settler colonial societies in which the settlers came in, essentially eliminated the native population. Also driven by religious principles, very religious groups driven by Christian Zionism. Those are major cultural factors. There are also significant geostrategic factors. And you go back to 1948, there was actually a split between the State Department and the Pentagon in the United States over how to react to the new State of Israel. The State Department was not committed strongly to Israeli conquests, the establishment of the state, and was concerned about the refugees. It wanted an implementation of the refugee problem. The Pentagon, on the other hand, recognized was very impressed with Israel's military potential. The Israeli military successes, if you look back at the internal record and declassify, the Joint Chiefs of Staff described Israel as the second largest military force in the region after Turkey and a potential base for U.S. power in the region. That continued. Can't run through the whole record, but in 1958, when there was a serious crisis in the region, Israel was the only state that strongly cooperated with Britain and the United States, and it won plenty of support from the governments and the military for that reason. 1967 is when the current relations with Israel were pretty much established. Israel performed a major service to the United States by destroying a secular Arab nationalism, a major enemy of the United States, and supporting radical Islam, which the U.S. supported. And it continues right until the present uh right now. We saw an example of that just during the uh Gaza, at the latest Gaza attack. You recall that uh at one point Israel began to run out of munitions during the assault, despite the fact that it's uh arm to the teeth. The United States provided Israel with additional munitions through the Pentagon. And notice where they were taken from. These were U.S. munitions pre-positioned in Israel for eventual use by U.S. forces. One of many signs of how the Israel is regarded as essentially a military offshoot of the United States, very close intelligence relations that go way back, many other connections. And uh the media tend to take up to support the policy of the government with very few, you know, kind of little questioning around the edges, but basically accept the policy. So, for example, take another issue, take the U.S. invasion of Iraq. You cannot find the phrase U.S. invasion of Iraq in the U.S. media, though it was obviously an invasion, a blatant act of aggression, a textbook case of uh well, that's Nuremberg trials called the Supreme International Crime, cannot be mentioned. Uh, President Obama is praised as an opponent of the invasion. What did he say? He said it's a mistake. It's a strategic blunder, we're not going to get away with it. That's about as that's the kind of opposition that uh you heard from uh the German general staff during Hitler's invasion of Russia. It's a blunder. Shouldn't do it, we should knock off England first. That's regarded as opposition. The same in Vietnam. It's now there's now a commemoration underway, big commemoration of U.S. sacrifices in Vietnam. Try to find the phrase U.S. invasion of South Vietnam, there or anywhere in the past year since 1961 when it took place. Nonexistent, maybe on Democracy Now, what I write, but way out of the fringe. And this is not unique to the United States. Take say Britain. Right now there's interesting debates in the British literary journals, like the Times Literary Supplement, as to whether Britain should finally begin to recognize the genocidal, the word that's used, genocidal character of British colonization hundreds of years ago. Should Israel, should Britain begin to face it? You can ask that question in many places. The tendency of the intellectual community to go along like a herd in support of state power, private power is just overwhelming. Intellectuals like to think of themselves as dissident, critical, courageous, standing up against power. Absolutely untrue. You look at the historical record, that's a small fringe, and they're usually punished. The mainstream tends to be what was once called a herd of independent minds marching in support of state power. Nothing new here, unfortunate. You have to fight against it, not new.

SPEAKER_10 32:20

Christopher Hitchens, let's go to Cambridge, Maryland. Good morning.

SPEAKER_06 32:24

Good morning, good morning. Thank you very much. Mr. Hitchens, I have three direct questions, short questions for you, please. Do you feel that Israel has a fight to exist? Do you feel that these three beliefs?

How Media Avoids The Word Invasion

SPEAKER_08 32:56

Alright, thank you. Very good questions. And and I think I know what you're trying to pin me down on. Uh on the first, yes, I do, um, but I think the securely recognized borders should not allow for Israeli colonization or occupation of the territory of its neighbors, which is what it's doing now. The right to exist argument has been um has been used now to the point where what it's going to mean is that the Israel you're talking about will include the uh the annexed and illegally occupied West Bank. Um so the right to exist argument is going to rebound on those who use it unclearly and who don't say what they mean by Israel. It's very interesting. The Israeli um government has never said uh where it thinks the borders of Israel really ought to be and what it would settle for. I think it would be an immense help if Israel's going to insist on the right to exist. If it tells us where it thinks Israel's boundaries should be, every other country does do that. I'm trying to give you the straight answer. I think Zionist, the idea of building a state of Jewish farmers on Arab land in the Middle East is a stupid idea to be again. I've always thought so. My mother wanted to go and be a Zionist at one point. I tried to talk her out of it. It's been a thing in my family. Um I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a messianic idea, I think it's a superstitious idea. So the idea of Israel's right to exist is Well, the no, now that it's there. No, many states are founded on injustices or foolishness and bad ideas. It doesn't mean that anyone can just come and evict or destroy them. And I I'm not saying that, but I think I'd have to say so as not to seem shady, I've always thought it's a silly, messianic, superstitious nationalist idea, and it's a waste of Judaism. And it guaranteed a quarrel with the Arabs because it meant we're going to take away from you what's most precious, your land, by trying to make Jews into peasants. Already a silly idea. And that's not the way to rescue Central European Jewry, make them into farmers in Palestine. It guaranteed an injustice to the Arabs, which now anyone can see, and is now entering as third, fourth generation. Fourth generation of Palestinians brought up either in exile or dispossession or under occupation and humiliation. And now we know that something has to be done to address what is part of the original sin, original misconception. So I've been writing in favor of Palestinian all my life, and I'm no more or no less in favor of it than I was. And now the Bush administration is it. It's a matter of principle. And now the Bush administration is in favor of it. Well, yes, they were edging towards it. It's a pity about the time, because they were edging towards it before. And I don't want it to look as if they did it as a concession. But it should be a matter of principle if the if Jews born in Brooklyn have a right to a state in Palestine. And Palestinians born in Jerusalem have a right to a state in Palestine. Anyone who doesn't agree with that principle, I think, is uh is suspect. I think most people do. They do, but they uh but why in that case do we have the one and not the other? After all, it's America that pays for all this. It's very much important. If it's a matter of principle, then we should witness to it a bit more forcibly. On the point of purchase, I'd like to take up on a single word, very important. You wouldn't say, would you, that the United States has no purchase on the government of Israel. No. No. I mean, in other words, if the Israelis are going to continue to build settlements in an identifiable, just a single suburb of Jerusalem, which where most of the Arab population can produce documents proving they've owned their homes since before the British mandate. If American policy can't get them to stop building in that one identifiable suburb of Jerusalem, then there's no such thing as leverage or purchase. And Obama went all the trouble to point out that this is a terrible thing. He should have said more than he did, in my view, that it's theft as well as an obstacle to negotiations. And then walked away from that. So that a punk government like that of Netanyahu, under the influence of a rat-bag religious party, the Shass Party, crackpot Orthodox party that happens to run the Ministry of Housing, is allowed to humiliate the United States not just in the person of its vice president, who was there at the time, but its president and its Congress and its voters. And immediately the president backpedals, and now he's being attacked by some leading American Jewish organizations as being in principle anti-Israel. So he's had a fight with one of the Democratic Party's most important voting blocs. He's done nothing for the Palestinians, and he's made himself look like a jerk. This is not impressive. When was American policy in the Middle East impressive? Well, actually, when I'll give you an example. When George Bush Sr. uh said to the Israelis, if you go on like this, we I will ask Congress to suspend your loan guarantees. I thought that was extremely impressive. And so did everyone else in the Middle East, it led to the nearest we've ever had to a proper peace conference. That was in Madrid. Bill Clinton chose to run that year from the right against Bush, saying that he wanted, he thought Bush was being soft on Cuba, just like Kennedy, uh thought, I don't know how Nixon were being soft on communism in Cuba, and also from the right on Israel, saying if he was president, the Israelis would not be subjected to this kind of pressure. So the last time that there was an impressive American policy, it was a Republican administration, and it was undone by the hero of every liberal in this room. Great.

SPEAKER_07 38:20

Uh uh like your type type of argument, you basically have intellectual discussion instead of uh a screaming argument. I'm uh I'm a libertarian, basically on the opposite side of the spectrum to you. But uh I wonder if you could clarify a couple things for me. I believe Palestine was the entire area covering Israel and Jordan. I wonder if you could tell me at what point the Palestinians went to Jordan and I realized they were kicked out when they blew up some passenger jets or something.

SPEAKER_08 38:50

And uh I don't do you are you familiar with that? Uh yes, I think more than you are, um, by the time of it. Um I'm not sure I I don't well go ahead.

SPEAKER_07 39:01

Basically revolved around the Palestinians that were from Israel. I don't understand if the uh there's 22 Arab states why they have to take over Israel. Uh-huh.

SPEAKER_08 39:12

Um well there are 49 American states. If someone told you you couldn't talk from why you're sitting here, someone told you actually we would rather have your business for us not just for ourselves. From now on, it would only be you'd only be a landholder or a householder here if you profess the statement or Buddhist fact. Otherwise get out. You're happy to get a colorado in that basis. I don't think so. I mean, I think if you think about it, you wouldn't insult anyone else uh about uh treating them, their society or their country as as disposable as that. The Palestinians do not feel uh that God gave the land to someone else and they therefore have to be flown out. And I completely agree with them. Uh they've they've every right to assist that ridiculous proposal.

SPEAKER_01 39:58

Kate Scott, Massachusetts. Go ahead, please. Good morning. A question for Mr. Hitchens, please. You're gone. Your honor passed away. Do you believe it's healthy for the United States to be so much influenced by Israel? We are a large country, they are very small, but they have much influence in the media and especially in politics. Thanks.

Hitchens On Borders And Legitimacy

SPEAKER_08 40:23

Well, believe me, I I know um I believe I understand the question, and uh, there are those tones of voice in which it can be asked, including a a tone of voice that I don't like, uh, to suggest that there's a sort of over-Jewish hand that directs US politics, which is not true, and uh very often clusters with other forms of unpleasantness. I do think that the United States gives far too great a proportion of its military aid budget to Israel and in return asks for insufficient Israeli responsibility. Uh the Israelis are the custodians of the West Bank via an act of war with their occupation that is not recognized as legal. I've already said what I think should happen about that. There should be a West Bank state. The United States could make that difference. You could say to the Israelis, we will defend the existence of a Jewish community or a Jewish state in Palestine. We will not underwrite it becoming an expansionist and colonial state. If you want to do that, you pay the difference yourself. That would, that, that alone would have probably solved the uh problem by now. And I do wish, yes, if you want to put it like that, that there was more um cogent discussion along those lines in both the media and in Congress. And as for the Israelis, everybody knows that uh the because I mustn't seem to doubt that question, because I know how toxic it is. Everybody knows that if you want to occupy people against their will, if you want to be the governor of another people who haven't chosen you, you will end up visiting terrible cruelty on them. There cannot, there certainly cannot be a humane occupation. The majority of Jewish people in the Astra in Israel have for a long time favorite to say it's a national question. It's a land question. This is also the express view of the United States Congress, the American jury of the United Nations, or the European Union, or the Palestinian liberation. It's what the majority of people involved in the Jew want. Why can't they get what we all want? Why is it possible? Because in both communities the veto is held by the party of God. In the first case, by the Messiah and etc. They would come to bring on the Messiah. If only we could get all the Arabs out, all the Jews in Calad, then the Messiah will come, finally, after such a long, sweaty wave.

SPEAKER_05 43:00

Attempt that Salem Regadula, temple him, attempt to a badim shilanu in pure win in Namaguya Flem. I'm tempted left, nothing but in the fingers, nothing, the machine left.

SPEAKER_09 44:20

This is the thirty-fifth year of a harsh, brutal, and vicious occupation supported unilaterally by the United States, constant terror and atrocities. Suppose Palestinians say, well, we're under terrorist attack for 35 years, therefore we have a right to carry out suicide. This is what they say. Do you accept this? Does anybody accept it? Nobody accepts it. All right, then how come everyone accepts the Israeli claim to be doing it, which is much weaker claim? Because after all, there's no symmetry in this situation. They are the military occupiers. Palestine isn't occupying Israel. And this isn't just started now. It's gone on years ago. I mean.

SPEAKER_10 45:00

So does that in your mind justify the suicide?

SPEAKER_09 45:02

Of course not. It does. This doesn't in anybody's mind.

SPEAKER_10 45:04

So it invalidates both sides.

SPEAKER_09 45:08

Those who defend suicide bombing, and there are very few, uh, have not uh don't have a leg to stand on. Those who defend the Israeli atrocities, including the U.S. government, uh, most intellectual opinion, uh, a good bit of the West generally, yeah, they don't have a leg to stand on either, and they have a much weaker position. 35 years. Uh there has been a harsh, brutal, miserable military occupation. Uh, there has not been a political settlement. The reason why there has not been a political settlement is that the United States unilaterally has blocked it for 25 years. Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada.

SPEAKER_10 46:04

Didn't Barack put that on the table?

Settlements, Aid, And Real Leverage

SPEAKER_09 46:06

No, he did not. He did not. What this is also supported by the majority of the American people. It has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, uh, the the population doesn't know this because people like the Western media, the media in Canada and the United States don't tell. Like you can check and see how often you uh uh you, for example, or others have reported what I just said. I don't don't bother checking, the answer is zero. Uh The Barak proposal in Camp David, in uh uh uh the Barack Clinton proposal, uh, in the United States I didn't check the Canadian media. In the United States, you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing, of course. Check in Canada and see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map. If you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map. You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal uh guaranteed, uh provided uh uh Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, including the city of Ma'ala du Min, which was established primarily by the labor government and Clinton in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons. Then there's a second salient to the north, going to the Israeli settlement of Aryel, which bisects the northern part into two cantons. So we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem, which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you've got four cantons, all separated from the West from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by uh Israeli settlements, infrastructure development, and so on, which also can certainly guarantee Israel control of the water resources of the reason. Last comment. This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago, when South Africa established the Bantu stands. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. Okay. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at the map, you see it.

SPEAKER_10 48:24

All right. However, that's the characterization of it. But let me just say Arafat didn't even bother putting a counterproposal on the table. That's not true. They negotiated at Taba afterwards. That's not true. But I I guess my question is if they don't continue to negotiate.

SPEAKER_09 48:44

Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication. That Arafat didn't put a counterproductive proposal. They had a proposal, they proposed the international consensus, uh, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO, the majority of the American. Sorry, they proposed a settlement which is in accord with an overwhelming international consensus. My question is, if you're not going to be able to do that.

SPEAKER_10 49:10

And is bought by the United States. The problem that people look at now the Middle East is they say, it's spun out of control. How do you get back to first way we how do we get back?

Occupation, Terror, And Moral Consistency

SPEAKER_09 49:19

The first way we get back is by trying the experiment of minimal honesty. Okay, let's try that experiment. If we try the experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position and we discover what I just described, that for 25 years, the United States has blocked the political settlement, which is supported by the majority of the American population and by the entire world, except for Israel, virtually. I mean, there's some marginal exceptions. So first thing we do is accept the honesty to look at that. We take a look at Camp David, uh, and we see, yeah, it was the same. The United States was still demanding a Banthustan-style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international consensus and the position of the American people. We then discover that the United States immediately moved to enhance terror in the region. So let's continue. On September 29th, uh Ehud Barak put a massive military presence outside the Alaksa mosque, uh, very provocative. When people came out of the mosque, uh young people started throwing stones, the Israeli armies started shooting, half a dozen people were killed and escalated. The next couple of days, uh, there was no Palestinian fire at this time, and it's all in occupied territories. In the next couple of days, uh, Israel used uh U.S. helicopters, Israel produces no helicopters, used U.S. helicopters to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people and wounding several dozen. Clinton reacted to that on October 3rd by making the biggest deal in a decade to send Israel new military helicopters, which had just been used for the purpose I described, and of course would continue to be. The U.S. press cooperated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact. Uh, it continued. Uh, when Bush came in, one of his first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of the most advanced military helicopters in the arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago with new shipments. You take a look at the reports from, say, Janine by British correspondents like Peter Beaumont and the London Observer. He says the worst atrocity there was the uh Apache helicopters buzzing around, uh, destroying and demolishing everything. Yeah, this is enhancing terror. Uh, and we may easily continue. Uh we can take also, let me continue. On December 15th, 14th, uh, the Security Council tried to pass a resolution uh calling for what everyone recognizes to be the obvious means for reducing terror, namely sending international monitors. That's a way of reducing terror. This happened to be in the middle of a quiet period, which lasted for about three weeks. Uh the U.S. vetoed it. Uh ten days before that, there was a meeting at Geneva of the high contracting parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention, uh, which has unanimously held for 35 years that it applies to Israel. Uh it the meeting uh condemned the Israeli settlements as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities, uh, willful destruction of property, uh, murder, uh trials, torture, and so on and so forth. What happened to that meeting? I'll tell you what happened to that meeting. The U.S. boycotted it, uh, therefore, the media refused to publish it. Therefore, no one here knows that the United States once again enhanced terror uh by uh refusing to recognize the applicability of conventions, which make virtually everything the United States and the uh Israel are doing there a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which is a war crime. Just a minute. These conventions were established uh in 1949 in order to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated as a high contracting party to prosecute violations of those conventions. That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last twenty-five years.

Camp David Maps And The Two-State Trap

SPEAKER_14 55:00

That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible. True, gentile, black man, and white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there's room for everyone, and the good earth is rich, and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much, too too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent, and all will be lost. The airplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the misery, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of the soul. Even now, my voice is reaching millions across the world. Millions of despairing men, women, and little children. Victims of the system that makes me distort express innocent. Those who can hear me, I say, do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is the passing of feed. The bitterness of men fear the way of human progress. The hate of men was fast. Dictators die. The power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. Soldiers, don't give yourselves the brute.

SPEAKER_15 59:20

I don't be strong, but I feel so important.

SPEAKER_02 1:00:30

Some days I feel too far.

A Humanist Warning Against Despair

Scripture On Suffering And Hope

SPEAKER_12 1:03:38

Sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. For those who walk according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, and those who walk according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit. The mind that is set on the flesh is death, and the mind that is set on the spirit is life and peace. For the mind of the flesh is hostile to God, it doesn't submit to God's law, indeed, it cannot. If the spirit of God really dwells in you, anyone who does not have the spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirit is alive because of righteousness. If the one, the spirit, who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, then he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through the spirit that dwells in you. So, brothers, we are debtors, but not through the flesh. To live according to the flesh. If you live according to the flesh, you will die. But if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are led by the spirit of God are the sons of God. He has not given us a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear. He has given us the spirit of sonship by which we cry, Abba, Father, when we do that, the Spirit is bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if we suffer with him, in order that we might be glorified with him. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God. For the whole creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but by the will of him who subjected it in hope that the whole creation will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together like pains of childbirth, and not the creation only. But we ourselves who have the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, even we also groan, waiting our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. In that hope, we were saved. And who hopes for what he sees? But if you hope for what you do not see, you wait for it with patience. Likewise. Because we don't know how to pray as we ought. But the spirit intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words, and he who searches the heart knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. For we know all things work together for good. For those who love God and are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And those whom he predestined, he called, and those whom he called, he justified, and those who he justified, he glorified. What are we gonna say to these things? If God is for us, look at us. He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. How shall he not freely with him give us all things? It is God who justified. Who's gonna condemn? It is Christ Jesus who died, who was raised from the dead, yes, who is at the right hand of God interceding for us, who will separate us from the love of Christ, the link to the Christmas, and lifting of the trip.

SPEAKER_11 1:08:40

In all these things, we are more than comforters to him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.