 option. That is the summary. Now it is time
 
 American presidents have long been criticised for being too in thrall
 to the Jewish lobby. The American Jews influence foreign policy and
 that explains Washington's unwavering support for Israel. So
 what happens if American Jews fall out of love with Israel? That is
 what the Jewish American academic Norman Finkelstein claims is
 happening. But then he is nothing if not controversial. After all, he
 is famous for accusing Jews of exploiting the Holocaust. And his
 actions have so incensed Israel it has banned him from entering the
 country. Could he be right, and if he is what does that mean for
 
 Norman Finkelstein, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you so much for
 having me. What is the evidence that American Jews are falling out
 of love with Israel? Their right two kinds of evidence. There is the
 survey, polling evidence. And the evidence shows that American Jews,
 the technical term is that they are distancing themselves from Israel.
 That is particularly true of the younger generations, under 40,
 under 35. There is serious concern in the Jewish cons -- community
 because of the distancing of American Jews. Then there is what
 you might call the anecdotal evidence. For example the current
 editor of the influential New Yorker magazine, he has in recent
 months, in expressing strong disapproval of Israeli policies.
 There is the former editor of the New Republic, who just came out
 with a book called, the crisis of Zionism. And there is a large
 number of public testimonials by Jews, mostly in the younger
 generations. You would say the 40s Coalport and younger, are
 expressing extreme dismay, you might say, verging on discussed
 with the way Israel is carrying on. Given Israel's troubled history,
 you are going there is something more significant going on than has
 gone on previously? -- you are arguing. There is a waxing and
 waning in any relationship. That has happened throughout the
 relationship between the two countries. There is no question
 there is waxing and waning. But there is something significantly
 different in the last 10 or 15 years. And that is American Jews
 know a lot more about what is happening in Israel in relationship
 in particular to the Palestinians, but also internally. There was a
 time when you could call yourself liberal, which is what most
 American Jews do. About 80% of American Jews voted Sir Barack
 Obama, the highest of any ethnic group in the US except African-
 Americans. There was a time when American Jews could call themselves
 liberal and say they were pro Israeli. It's seem like the only
 democracy in the Middle East. It was the light unto nations. Many
 American Jews believe that. But in the last 10 or 15 years a lot more
 has been known, particularly because of the research of Israeli
 historians, Jewish historians, because of the revelations, reports
 of human rights organisations, many of which are staffed by Jews. And
 the leadership is Jewish. Because of all of this information from
 authoritative places, there was that time in the past when this
 information was mine, but it was known by people who were pretty
 marginal. -- known. Now mainstream people are saying this. American
 Jews have a big problem saying they are both liberal and support the
 way Liberal -- Israel carries on. The even if you were to accept the
 argument that they no more, look at some service, one university did a
 survey where they questioned 1,200 predominantly young Jewish
 Americans, and they found basically, their conclusion was Jewish
 attachment to Israel was not changed over 25 years. I am
 familiar with that survey. When you're dealing with evidence there
 is a huge amount of evidence. You cannot focus on one or two polls.
 Jews are very heavily polls. There is a huge amount of survey evidence.
 For example the most recent poll, two months ago, they ask American
 Jews, what is most important to your Jewish identity? About half of
 American Jews said it was working for social equality, liberal causes.
 Only around 20% said Israel was important to their Jewish identity.
 Surprising. In the survey I am quoting, when they ask similar
 questions, they found 75% agreed that caring about Israel was an
 important part of identity. They found that, yes, in the young,
 there was not the close to us, but as Jewish Americans got older, that
 attachment got stronger. -- closeness. That is the usual
 argument, the life cycle argument, that when you're younger you feel
 more distance from Israel and when you are older you returned your
 roots and feel closer to Israel. But the evidence seems to show... I
 do not want to be polemical about this. It is true that there is some
 evidence on the other side. That is why I added when I said, it is not
 just surveyed evidence, but there is an awful lot of anecdotal
 evidence. Let me give you a simple example. 6th June, 1982 was when I
 first got involved in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. 30 years ago
 next month. Three decade anniversary. When I first got
 involved in that conflict, when you went on college campuses, a person
 like myself, it revoked complete pandemonium and hysteria. -- it in
 vogue. There would be shouting in D, demonstrations, defamatory leaflets
 about myself. Now when I go to college campuses, very few Jews
 even bother showing up. Because if you are young and a Jewish and in a
 college campus, you are idealistic. That is what most Jews are. They
 are liberal, Jewish, idealistic. You are putting forward this
 argument, seeming to suggest they have changed. The argument is, you
 are not taken seriously. I don't think that is correct to say I am
 not taken seriously. I am not afraid of those arguments. It they
 would ballot I would be open to them. Just largest -- just last
 week I spoke at the Jewish society at Yale University. Tonight I'm
 speaking of the Oxford Union. It is not accurate to say I am not being
 taken seriously. You have a reputation for being difficult.
 People discount you in the way butt less vitriolic academics. There is
 that possibility. One has to be open to those interpretations. But
 how do you account for the fact that people like the current editor
 of the New Yorker magazine, which services are largely Jewish
 audience, or a former senior editor of the New Republic? The New
 Republic was very pro Israel. He himself is an Orthodox Jew. They
 are now speaking out in quite strong terms. I have read the
 crisis of Zionism. They had been critical of Israeli policy.
 does it matter? There is the argument, so what? The reason it
 matters, the nature of the Israel lobby, it has two features. There
 is the hard core. They are paid agents of a foreign country. Their
 job is to try to sell the foreign country's policies to the United
 States. There is the Cuba lobby. The Israel lobby. But beyond the
 hardcore, what makes the lobby so powerful is the periphery of large
 numbers of Jews in influential places, in magazines, newspapers,
 on television, in film. A large periphery of Jews who also have
 deeply-felt, heartfelt feelings for his round. That periphery is now
 being lost. American Jews... -- Israel. Paid by the Israeli
 government? Are you saying they are being paid by the Israeli
 
 government? I would say, that is what the lobby does. They would say
 they are not paid by the Israeli government. That is the nature of
 how American society words. You have lobbies. I use saying they are
 not paid by the Israeli government? I do not know how they App Aid. It
 is not particularly important. -- are you saying. It is important,
 though. That is the way the system works. It works through lobbies.
 is very important. You make certain claims and you make people angry.
 They wonder if they should listen to you. If you read their
 statements, they freely say, we work for Israel. Israel is our
 cause. As an American, you are allowed to do that. That is the
 nature of the system. Let's go to what you're suggesting is happening
 as a result, you seem to be suggesting that those who would be
 interested are no longer caring and you're left with is hard core of
 passionate people who from what you are suggesting are basically doing
 the Israeli government's bidding in Washington. Right. I think they
 will have less sway and power if the periphery begins to distance
 itself from Israel. A birdie at the periphery don't care the American
 President will not care. -- but if be. There is the issue of whether
 people are going to fall silent because Jews like other ethnic
 groups do believe it is not good to air your dirty laundry in public,
 or whether a new can actually reach these Jews and try to get them to
 support a just and reasonable settlement of the conflict. You're
 talking about Israel. Country that is democratic, that decides who is
 on its government through elections. Really, it is down to the Israeli
 people to elect whom they want to run their government. If they want
 they can keep them out. Right, but the problem is, it is not because
 of the Israeli people, it is because off of American power that
 Israel gets to carry on the way it does. Were it not for the American
 ego and the fact the United States blocks any kind of international
 action when it comes to Israel butt example, settlements, you are
 saying it is President Obama's fault? In the case of the Israel
 lobby, the Israel Palestine, thick, I think it is basically the lobby.
 If you were to ask me if tomorrow Binyamin Netanyahu was to announce,
 we are no longer building settlements in the occupied
 territories... At freeze? Would Obama be unhappy? Of course he
 would be happy. It would be thrilled at that announcement. If
 Obama goes along with it must be because of the lobby. That is
 common sense. Your argument is, despite Obamas saying from the word
 go and being absolutely clear that Israel should stop all
 settlements... He has not done that. He has. No. He has consistently
 backed down. He has made clear so publicly the American position.
 What you're saying is correct. He has repeatedly stated he does not
 support the actions and then pressure is applied by the lobby
 and he is repeatedly battered down. From what? Are you saying, it is
 all right? Obviously the President of the United States has the power
 to tell Israel, you will have to stop building settlements in the
 occupied territories, because if you don't stop, we will not
 exercise our veto in the Security Council. He can tell them that. He
 is the President of the US. If he does not tell them that, it must be
 because of the lobby. OK. So it what you are saying is true, we
 then have an be Asper that does not care so much about Israel, how will
 that change things? -- diaspora. that diaspora get behind a
 reasonable settlement of the conflict, and that would have to
 include not just the freezing of settlements but the dismantlement
 of the settlements, if they get behind that, that would put new
 kinds of pressure on the President in the opposite direction. That
 would be a positive development. That is a big if. I agree with you.
 Because most American Jews, like most ethnic groups, prefer not debt
 air their dirty laundry in public. But it you can win them over to a
 reasonable settlement on the complex I think it would improve
 significantly the prospects for achieving at just and lasting
 
 You say they do not care and that it might be better. And yet you are
 
 trying to win them over? Up until now, they have been very forceful
 defenders of the state of Israel. There has been a disaster not only
 for the Palestinians for Israel as well. The most entrance to an
 Policies of Israel -- the most entrenched since policies. They are
 going to distance oneself and fall silent because they do not want to
 bare their dirty laundry in public. They will become vocal critics of
 Israeli politics and they will become a pressure group. This is
 your dream scenario but you have a problem, he will say you have a
 history wherever since you wrote about the Holocaust, the will cost
 industry, you said, there is a fixation on and there Holocaust
 
 which is causing grip paranoia, a lucrative industry, the propaganda
 is lurking in the heart. Even where Jews feel safe they face danger.
 You have faced criticism for why he said in that book. Your own parents
 who were in the ghetto and concentration camps, you went too
 far and you can see some may go too far and people say as a result, it
 has meant it is self-defeating. Your argument is not heard. I think
 it is the Reserve -- reverse. What I said in a double, is not even
 considered controversial any more, quite the contrary. The one who has
 gone to fire is the Israeli Binyamin Netanyahu. He kept talking
 about bosh roots, -- about the concentration camps finely they
 told him to stop talking about it. Do not compare Iran to the
 concentration camps. They have gone too far, not me. People were saying
 what he said was not new, Peter Narvik's book about the Holocaust,
 but there is selling about the way they made the case there was more
 powerful because they had an understanding, a sensitivity that
 was absent in your book as a result, your book came across as a brand.
 That is the suggestion about a lot of the arguments you mack -- across
 as a rent. Because you see the Jews as the villains of victim, he said
 that takes you closer to the people who created the Holocaust and to
 does he suffered in it. He is entitled to his judgement Mohican
 also quite the judgement of the world's leading authority by a wide
 margin, the author of the classic and the destruction of the European
 Jews - the three-volume work. He praised my book. He actually called
 it, since you say I go too far, he said my findings were at
 Conservative. He went through the same records and a -- as I did and
 he said I understated the case in my book. So between the two critics,
 a modest critic and a world leader, I think in the judgement of he'll
 blow it is higher. I could vote and so many other people to you known
 as a spot of the Holocaust who have been critical. None are in the same
 rank. The point is your star is self-defeating. The argument that
 you feed the anti-Semites do you have any qualms there you big -- do
 you could be doing their work for them? One has to be honest about
 those things, there is a problem. We can end up being useful to
 people you do not particularly like. Everybody has those sorts of
 problems when you're trying to deal with a controversial subject, you
 do not want to give fodder to your enemies. You have to think through
 what is saying in Carry On responsibly. Do you ever hold back?
 Sell censor? The Holocaust industry is now and Alderbrook famille.
 appreciate that... When I go to the book, my parents had already passed
 away, but metaphorically my parents were right behind me. They were
 looking over my shoulders and looking at every word. You make the
 point that is ten years ago and I appreciate that. But recently year
 said that Israel is like a country, they are lunatics, every few years
 ago to war. They do carry on inane lunatic fashion. I would like to
 ask you, name me another country in the world, 2003 Israel was the
 cheerleader for the war on Iraq, 2006, 11 on, 2008, 2000 night, and
 Gaza. Now it looks a bad at taking Iran. If you read the Israeli paper
 every day you read, should we attack Gaza, Lebanon, Syria? Mammy
 another country in a will that falls into that category. -- Name
 and me. You show me... How many countries has Iran planned to
 
 attack? I am asking you a simple question. How many countries has
 Iran attack in the last ten years? And T not have some sympathy for
 people who feel threatened? Were not talking about why they feel
 friend we're talking a country who every two or three years goes to
 war. Every day they talk about attacking one country or another.
 That is not normal. I call them the lunatic state... How many people in
 the government a responsible for that? It is a regrettable fact. I
 do not say these things with 'Glee'. I'm not happy about that fact. As
 the American economist said and put in the New York Times, he said it
 is obvious Israel is heading towards national suicide. It has
 become a craze estate. He says it is not good for Jews, it is not
 good for the world, where his make his head. It's still seen as the
 safe haven, the home loan for the Jews. You have a right to leave
 there, although you are banned... We will leave that aside. Would you
 go back? Would I go to Israel. I think there is a misunderstanding
 here. I do not have any hostile feeling too was Israel. I have
 feeling of love towards the state of Israel. I just want to achieve a
 lasting peace for the Palestinians and fought the Israelis. It is very
 hard to reconcile your stay men about feelings with the scent that
 it is the centre of your work. that is the same way that you may
 have strong feelings about that your media. That is your work.
 ask you about whether you would go back? We cannot go back. America is
 my home. Every year and used to go to Israel. Steve Hill any
 connection to read as a Jew? I do not want to put on false pretences.
 I am not going to start beating my breast. No. I am an American. I was
 born in the US. My parents were from Eastern Europe. There is no
 connection with Israel. I have some American friends to emigrate to
 Israel and will remain friends. But beyond that, I have no more special
