Norman Finkelstein vs Benny Morris debate Palestine history | Israel-Palestine Debate

Summary

The transcript captures a detailed discussion on the historical implications of Zionism, focusing on the concept of transfer and its role within Zionist ideology. Key figures such as Israel Zangwill and Theodor Herzl are referenced, with debates on whether the idea of transfer was central or peripheral to early Zionist thought. The conversation also touches on the impact of Arab resistance and the eventual conflict in 1947-48, highlighting differing perspectives on the inevitability of transfer and its manifestation as a result of war rather than as a premeditated policy.

Takeaways

• 📚 The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Zionist ideology and its historical implications, particularly regarding the concept of transfer and its role in the formation of Israel.
• 🔍 The speaker has extensive knowledge of the subject, having read the works of the historian in question multiple times, attempting to hold him accountable for his viewpoints.
• 🤔 There is a debate about the 'quicksilver' nature of the historian's work, which is difficult to pin down, with the speaker challenging the historian on the consistency of his arguments.
• 📖 The historian's early work on the Palestinian refugee issue is scrutinized for its initial lack of documentation on the transfer claims, which the speaker believes was later rectified in a revised version.
• 💡 The historian acknowledges that the idea of transfer was present in Zionist thinking but argues that it was not central to Zionism and was not adopted as official policy until the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli conflict.
• 🗣️ The speaker points out inconsistencies in the historian's statements, such as the claim that transfer was 'inevitable' and 'inbuilt' into Zionism, yet also arguing that it was a result of the Arab war against the Jewish community.
• 🌍 The conversation touches on the broader historical context, including the Peel Commission's proposal for partition and the role of British policy in shaping Zionist actions.
• 📈 The discussion highlights the complexity of historical narratives and the challenge of reconciling different perspectives on the same historical events.
• 👥 The role of the Arab population in the formation of Israel is a contentious issue, with the speaker arguing that the idea of a Jewish state necessitating the removal or reduction of the non-Jewish population was not universally accepted within Zionist ideology.
• 🏛️ The debate includes references to key Zionist figures and their ideologies, such as Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion, and their visions for the Jewish state.
• 📚 The historian emphasizes the importance of Zionism in the establishment of Israel but suggests that its influence has waned over time, with modern Israeli society influenced by different ideologies and priorities.

Q & A

What is the main issue the speaker has with the work of the historian being discussed?

The speaker finds the historian's work to be elusive and difficult to pin down, likening it to quicksilver that is hard to grasp and hold onto specific points.

How many times has the speaker read the works of the historian?

The speaker has read the historian's works at least three times.

What was the initial criticism of the historian's first book on the Palestinian refugee question?

The initial criticism was that the historian had not adequately documented the claims of transfer in the first book, which only had a few lines on the issue.

How did the historian respond to the criticism regarding the documentation of transfer claims?

The historian revised the first book, devoting 25 pages to extensively documenting the significance of transfer in Zionist thinking.

What phrase did the historian use to describe transfer in relation to Zionism in the revised version of the book?

The historian used the phrase 'inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism' to describe the transfer.

What was the speaker's reaction to the historian's statement about the establishment of a Jewish state?

The speaker was surprised by the historian's statement that removing a population was needed for the establishment of a Jewish state, and found it hard to reconcile with the historian's other claims.

What does the historian claim about the inevitability and predictability of the Nakba?

The historian claims that he never said the Nakba was inevitable and predictable, but rather that it occurred as a result of the Arabs assaulting the Jewish community and state in 1947-48.

According to the historian, was transfer ever an official policy of the Zionist movement before 1947?

No, the historian asserts that transfer was never an official policy of the Zionist movement before 1947, and it was always a minority position among Jewish politicians and leaders.

What does the historian say about the role of the 1947 partition plan in relation to the idea of transfer?

The historian points out that the 1947 partition plan, which the Zionists accepted, would have allowed for a significant Arab population to live in the Jewish state, suggesting that the idea of transfer was not central to Zionism at that time.

How does the historian describe the centrality of Zionism to the establishment of Israel?

The historian describes Zionism as central to the whole enterprise of establishing Israel up until 1948, and even influential in the first decades of Israel's existence, though its influence has since faded.

What was the reaction of the Zionist movement to the Arab attack in 1947-48?

The Zionist movement reacted to the Arab attack by engaging in transfer, not as a formal policy, but as a result of the circumstances on the battlefield.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Debate on Zionism and Transfer

The paragraph discusses a debate about the nature of Zionism and the concept of transfer. The speaker acknowledges having read the works of the person addressed multiple times and finds that the concept of transfer, or the displacement of populations, is a recurring theme. The speaker references the evolution of the person's views from an initial book to later works, where the inevitability and inbuilt nature of transfer in Zionism is discussed. The debate also touches on the idea of cherry-picking quotes and the challenge of documenting claims of transfer, highlighting the complexity of the issue.

05:01

🗣️ Clarifications on Zionism and Arab Resistance

This paragraph continues the debate by focusing on the inevitability of the Nakba (catastrophe) and the Arab resistance to Zionism. The speaker argues that the person being addressed has previously acknowledged the inevitability of transfer due to the establishment of a Jewish state, but also claims that the speaker has never said the Nakba was inevitable or predictable. The discussion delves into the reasons behind the Arab resistance, the concept of territorial displacement, and the speaker's view that the Palestinians have not accepted responsibility for their actions leading to the Nakba.

10:03

🌍 British Proposals and Zionist Policies

The paragraph examines the British proposals for partition and transfer in the context of Zionist policies. The speaker clarifies that while the idea of transfer was present, it was never adopted as an official policy by the Zionist movement. The discussion includes references to historical figures and their views on transfer, as well as the Peel Commission's recommendations. The speaker emphasizes that the Zionist movement's primary goal was to establish a Jewish state, not to expel Arabs, and that any expulsions that occurred were a result of war and not a premeditated policy.

15:05

🤔 Questioning the Inevitability of Transfer

In this paragraph, the speaker questions the inevitability of transfer in Zionism, challenging the idea that a Jewish state would necessarily involve the mass expulsion of the Arab population. The speaker points out instances where a Jewish state would have accepted a significant Arab population, such as the 1947 partition plan. The discussion explores the complexities of historical interpretations, the intentions of early Zionist leaders, and the evolving nature of Zionism over time.

20:07

📖 Herzl's Vision and Zionism's Core

The paragraph focuses on the vision of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, and the core principles of Zionism. The speaker argues that while the idea of transfer was present in early Zionist thought, it was not central to Zionism. The primary goal of Zionism was to establish a Jewish state to save the persecuted Jews, and the idea of partition was accepted as a way to accommodate both Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine. The speaker also addresses the influence of Zionism on Israel's philosophy and ideology, suggesting that while it was significant in the past, its influence has faded over time.

25:09

🌐 Herzl's Diaries and Imperialism

The final paragraph discusses Herzl's Diaries and his approach to establishing a Jewish state. Herzl's vision was to create a liberal democratic state in Palestine, modeled after Western democracies, and he sought the support of major imperial powers to achieve this. The speaker refutes the idea that Herzl saw the Jewish state as a proxy for Western imperialism, emphasizing Herzl's goal of independence and the establishment of a state that would stand against barbarism in the Middle East.

Keywords

💡Zionism

Zionism is a political movement that supports the establishment, development, and protection of a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. In the context of the video, the discussion revolves around the role of Zionism in shaping Israeli history, particularly in relation to the Palestinian refugee issue and the concept of transfer.

💡Transfer

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 'transfer' refers to the idea of moving or removing the Arab population from the land to make way for a Jewish state. The term is contentious and is debated in the video in terms of its inevitability and whether it was an inherent part of Zionist ideology.

💡Palestinian Refugee

A 'Palestinian refugee' refers to an individual of Palestinian Arab ethnicity who was displaced from their home during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, also known as the Nakba. The discussion in the video centers on the causes and implications of this displacement.

💡Nakba

The term 'Nakba', which means 'catastrophe' in Arabic, refers to the displacement and loss of homes experienced by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a significant event in Palestinian history and is central to the discussion in the video.

💡Herzl

Theodor Herzl is the founder of modern political Zionism. He is known for his influential work 'Der Judenstaat' (The Jewish State) and his leadership in the early Zionist movement. In the video, Herzl's diaries are referenced to discuss early Zionist thought and the concept of transfer.

💡Boran

David Ben-Gurion, referred to as Boran in the transcript, was the primary national founder of the State of Israel and the first Prime Minister. He played a significant role in shaping the policies and ideology of the new state. The video discusses his views on the Arab minority in Israel and the concept of transfer.

💡Partition

Partition refers to the division of a territory into separate parts, often with different political affiliations or governance. In the context of the video, it relates to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which proposed dividing Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

💡Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Arab-Israeli Conflict is the ongoing political tensions and hostilities between Arab countries and Israel, which began in the early 20th century. The video focuses on the 1947-48 conflict as a pivotal moment when the concept of transfer became a reality.

💡Ideology

In a political context, ideology refers to a set of political beliefs and values that shape a person's or group's understanding of the world and how it should be organized. The video discusses the evolution of Zionist ideology and its impact on the establishment of Israel and the displacement of Palestinians.

💡Cherry Picking

Cherry picking is the act of selectively citing or presenting only those facts or quotes that support one's argument, while ignoring or excluding those that do not. In the video, this term is used to challenge the interpretation of historical quotes and events related to Zionism and the Palestinian refugee issue.

Highlights

Discussion on the evolution of Zionist thinking and its documentation over the years.

The acknowledgment of transfer as a significant aspect in Zionist ideology by mainstream Israeli historians.

The contention that the idea of transfer was not central to Zionism but was a concept acknowledged by some early Zionist thinkers.

The argument that the concept of transfer was not adopted as official policy by the Zionist movement prior to 1947.

The impact of Arab resistance and the fear of territorial displacement on the development of Zionist policies.

The role of the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli conflict in shaping the outcome of the Palestinian refugee problem.

The debate over whether the establishment of a Jewish state was inherently linked to the expulsion or reduction of the non-Jewish population.

The historical context of Zionist leaders' views on transfer, including figures like Theodor Herzl and Israel Zangwill.

The discussion on the British Mandate period and its influence on Zionist ideology and practices.

The exploration of the 1936 Arab revolt and its implications for the Zionist movement and Arab-Jewish relations.

The examination of the 1947 UN partition plan and how it was received by both Jews and Arabs.

The argument that the idea of transfer became a self-fulfilling prophecy due to Arab attacks on the Jewish community.

The clarification that while the idea of transfer was present, it was not the core of Zionism, which was focused on saving the Jewish people.

The discussion on the shift in Israeli society from Zionist ideology to individual success and capitalism.

The debate on whether the Zionist movement had a top-down policy of expulsion or if it was a localized phenomenon.

The exploration of the historical warnings by Palestinian and Arab leaders about the exclusivist goals of the Zionist movement.

The examination of the Palestinians' consistent engagement with international committees and legal avenues beyond military resistance.

The discussion on the inevitability of transfer in Zionism and the challenges in reconciling different interpretations of historical events and ideologies.

Transcripts

there's a real problem here and it's

been a problem I've had over many years

of reading your work apart perhaps from

a grandchild I suspect nobody knows your

work better than I do I've read it many

times not once not twice at least three

times everything you've

written and the problem is it's a kind

of Quicks silver you very hard to grasp

a point and hold you to it so we're

going to try here to see whether we can

hold you to a point and then you argue

with me the point I have no problem with

that

uh your name please Steven banel okay Mr

banel referred to cherry picking and

handful of

quotes

now it's true that when you wrote your

first book on the Palestinian refugee

question you only had a few lines on

this issue of transfer four pages yeah

in the first book in the first book four

pages maybe four you know I'm not going

to quarrel my memory is not clear we're

talking about 40 years ago I read it I

read it but then I read other things by

you okay and you were taken to task if

my memory is correct that you hadn't

adequately documented the claims of

transfer let me allow me to finish and I

thought that was a reasonable challenge

because it was an unusual claim for a

mainstream Israeli historian to say as

you did in that first book that from the

very beginning transfer figured

prominently in Zionist thinking that

wasn't unusual if you read Anita shapir

shapira you read chapai teit that was an

unusual acknowledgement by

and then I found it very

impressive that in that revised version

of your first book you devoted 25

pages to

copiously

documenting the

salience of transfer in Zionist thinking

and in fact you used a very

provocative and resonant phrase you said

that transfer was

inevitable and

inbuilt into Zionism we're not talking

about circumstantial factors a war Arab

hostility you said it's

inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism

now as I said so we won't be accused of

cherry picking those were

25 very densely argued

pages and then in an interview and I

could cite several quotes but I'll

choose one you said removing a

population was

needed let's look at the words

without a population

exposion a Jewish state would not have

been

established now you were the one again I

was very surprised when I read your book

here I'm referring to righteous victims

I was very surprised when I came to that

page

37 where you wrote that territorial

displacement and

dispossession was the CH Chief motor of

Arab resistance to

Zionism territorial displacement and

dispossession were the chief motor of

Arab resistance to

Zionism so you then went on to say

because the Arab

population rationally

feared territorial displacement and

dispossession it of course opposed

Zionism that's as normal as Native

Americans opposing the

euroamerican Manifest Destiny in the

history of our own country because they

understood it would be at their

expense it was inbuilt and

inevitable and so now for you to come

along and say that it all happened just

because of the

war that otherwise the Zionist made all

these plans for a happy minority to live

there that simply does not gel it does

not cohere it is not

reconcilable with what you yourself have

written it was inevitable and inbuilt

now in other situations you've

said that's true but I think it was a

greater good to establish a Jewish State

at the expense of the uh indigenous

population that's another kind of

argument that was Theodore Roosevelt's

argument in our own country he said we

don't want the whole of North America to

remain a

squalid refuge for these wigwams and

teeps we have to get rid of them and

make this a great

country but he didn't deny

that it was inbuilt and inevitable I

think you've made your point first I'll

take up something that mu said he said

that the nakba was

inevitable as have you and predictable

no no no I I've never said that it was

inevitable and predictable only because

the Arabs assaulted the Jewish community

and state in 1947 48 had there been no

assault there probably wouldn't have

been a refugee problem there's no reason

for a refugee problem to have occurred

expulsions to have occurred a

dispossession massive dispossession to

occur these occurred as a result of War

now Norman said that I said that

transfer was inbuilt into Zionism in one

way or another and this is certainly

true in order to buy land they had the

Jews bought tracts of land on which some

Arabs sometimes lived sometimes they

bought tracks of land on which they

weren't Arab Villages but sometimes they

bought land on which they were Arabs and

according to ottoman law and the British

at least in the initial years of the the

British mandate the law said that the PE

people who bought the land could do what

they liked with the people who didn't

own the land who were basically

squatting on the land which is the Arab

tenant Farmers which is we're talking

about a very small number actually of

Arabs who were displaced as a result of

land purchases in the otoman period or

the Mandate period but there was

dispossession in one way they didn't

possess the land they didn't own it but

they were removed from the land and this

did happen in Zionism and there's a a if

you like an inevitability in Zionist

ideology of buying tracts of land and

starting to work at yourself and settle

it with your own people and so on that

made sense but what we're really talking

about is what happened in 4748 and in

4748 the Arabs started a war and

actually people pay for their mist akes

and the Palestinians have never actually

agreed to pay for their mistakes they

make mistakes they attack they suffer as

a result and we see something similar

going on today in GA in the Gaza Strip

they do something terrible they kill

1,00 Jews they abduct 250 women and

children and babies and um old people

and whatever and then they start

screaming please save us from what we

did because the Jews are

counterattacking and this is what

happened then and this is what's

happening now it there's something

fairly similar in the situation here

expulsion and this is important Norman

you should pay attention to this you

didn't raise that expulsion transfer

when never policy of the Zionist

movement before 47 it doesn't exist in a

Zionist platforms of the various

political parties of the Zionist

organization of the Israeli state of the

Jewish agency nobody would have actually

made it into policy because it was

always a large minority if there were

people who wanted it always a large

minority of Jewish politicians and

leaders would have said no this is

immoral we cannot start a state on the

basis of an expulsion so it was never

adopted and actually was never adopted

as policy even in 48 even though Boran

wanted as few Arabs in the course of the

war staying in the Jewish state after

they attacked it he didn't want this

loyal citizen staying there because they

wouldn't have been loyal citizens but

this made sense in the war itself but

the movement itself self and its

political parties never accepted it it's

true that in 1937 when the British as

part of the proposal by the peel

commission um to divide the country into

two states one Arab one Jewish which the

Arabs of course rejected a appeal also

recommended that the Arabs most of the

Arabs in the Jewish state to be should

be transferred because otherwise if they

stayed and were disloyal to the emerging

Jewish State this would cause endless

disturbances Warfare killing and so on a

so Boran and whitesman latched onto this

proposal by the F most famous America

democracy in the world the British

democracy when they proposed the idea of

transfer side by side with the idea of

partition because it made sense um and

they said well if the British say so we

should also Advocate it but they never

actually tried to pass it as Zionist

policy and they fairly quickly stopped

even talking about transfer after 1938

so just to clarify what you're saying is

that uh 47 was an offensive War not a

defensive War by the Arabs yes by the

Arabs yeah and you're also saying that

there was never a

topdown policy of expulsion yes just to

clarify the point if I understood you

correctly um you're making you're making

the claim that transfer expulsion and so

on was was in fact a very

localized phenomenon result resulting

from Individual land

purchases um and that if I understand

you correctly you're also making the

claim um that the idea that a Jewish

State requires a um removal or

overwhelming reduction of the non-jewish

population was if Arabs are attacking

you yes but but that let's say prior to

1947 it would be your claim um that the

idea that a significant reduction or

wholesale removal of the Arab population

was not part of of Zionist thinking well

I I think there's two problems with that

um I think what you're saying about

localized uh disputes is correct but I

also think that um uh there is a whole

literature that demonstrates um that

transfer was envisioned by Zionist

leaders on a much broader scale than

simply individual land purchases in

other words it's it it went Way Beyond

we need to remove these tenants so that

we can form this land the idea was we

can't have a state where all these Arabs

remain and we have to get rid of them

and the second I think impediment to to

that view is that long before the UN

General Assembly convened um to address

a question of Palestine Palestinian and

Arab and other leaders as well had been

warning at infinum that the purpose of

the Zionist movement is not just to

establish a Jewish state but to

establish an

exclusivist uh Jewish State and that

transfer forc displacement of

uh was fundamental um uh to that uh

project and just responding to um uh

sorry was it bonell or with a B yeah

yeah um you made the point that um uh

the the problem here is that people

don't recognize is that the first and

last result for the Arabs is always War

I think there's a problem with that I

think um you might do well to recall um

the 1936 general strike conducted by

Palestinians um at the beginning of the

Revolt which at the time was the longest

recorded uh general strike in history um

you may want to consult um the book uh

published last year by Lori Allen a

history of false hope which discusses in

great detail the consistent engagement

by Palestinians their leaders their

Elites their diplomats and so on with

all these International committees if we

look at today the Palestinians are once

again going to the international court

of justice um they're

consistently trying to persuade uh the

chief prosecutor of the international

criminal court to um do his job um they

have launched widespread uh boycott

campaign so of course the Palestinians

have engaged in um uh military

resistance but I think the suggestion

that this has always been their first

and last resort and that they have

somehow spurned Civic action spurned

diplomacy I I think really has no basis

uh in reality I'll respond to that and

then a question for Norm to take into

account I think when he answers Benny

because I am curious obviously uh I have

fresher eyes on this and I'm a newcomer

to this Arena versus the three of you

guys for sure um a claim that gets

brought up a lot has to do with the

inevitability of transfer in Zionism or

the idea that as soon as the Jews

envisioned a state in Palestine they

knew that it would involve some Mass

transfer of population perhaps a mass

expulsion um I'm sure we'll talk about

Plan D or Plan D at some point the issue

that I run into is while you can find

quotes from leaders while you can find

maybe desires expressed in Diaries I

feel like it's hard to truly ever know

if there would have been Mass transfer

in the face of Arab peace because I feel

like every time there was a huge deal on

the table that would have had a sizable

Jewish and Arab population living

together the Arabs would reject it out

of hand so for instance when we say that

transfer was inevitable when we say that

zionists would have never accepted you

know sizable Arab population how do you

explain the acceptance of the 47

partition plan that would have had a

huge Arab population living in the

Jewish state is your contention that

after the acceptance of that after the

establishment of that state that Jews

would have slowly started to expel all

of these Arab citizens from their

country

or how do you explain that in LC couple

years later that Israel was willing to

formally Annex the Gaza Strip and make

200,000 or so people those citizens but

but I'm I'm just curious how how do we

get this idea of Zionism always means

Mass transfer when there were times at

least early on in the history of Israel

and and a little bit before it where

Israel would have accepted a state that

would have had a massive Arab population

in it is your yeah is your idea that

they would have just slowly expelled

them afterwards or is that question to

either one I'm just curious with the

incorporation of the answer yeah um

there is some misunderstandings here so

let's try to clarify that number

one it was the old historians who would

point to the fact in Professor Morris's

terminology the old historians what he

called not real historians he called

them chroniclers not real historians it

was the old Israeli historians who

denied

the centrality of transfer in Zionist

thinking it was then Professor

moris who contrary to Israel's historic

historian

establishment who said now you remind me

it's four pages but it came at the end

of the book it was no no it's at the

beginning of the book transfer transfer

is dealt with in four pages at the

beginning of my first book on the

Palestinian refugee problem it's a my

memory but the point still stands it was

Professor Maris who introduced this idea

in what you might call a big way yeah

but I didn't say every the central to

Des Des experiment or experience you're

saying centrality I never said it was

Central I said it was there the idea

it's by the way it's okay to respond

back and forth this is great and also

just a quick question if I may you're

using quotes from from Benny from

Professor Morris uh it's also okay to

say those quotes do not reflect the cont

of so like if we go back if you know to

quotes we've said in the past and you've

both here have written the three of you

have written on this topic a lot is we

should be careful and just admit like

well yeah well that's real quick just to

be clear the contention is that Norm is

quoting a part and saying that this was

the entire reason for this whereas Benny

saying it's a part of I'm not quoting

aart I'm quoting 25 pages where

Professor mors was at Great

pains to document the claim that

appeared in those early four pages of

his

book now you say it never became part of

the official Zionist platform never

became part of

policy we're also asked well this is

true why did that happen why did that

happen it's because it's a very simple

fact which everybody understands

ideology doesn't operate in a vacuum

there are real world practical problems

you can't just take an

ideology and superimpose it on a

political reality and turn it into a

fact it was the British

mandate there was significant Arab

resistance to

Zionism and that resistance was based on

the fact as you said the fear of

territorial displacement and

dispossession so you couldn't very well

expect the Zionist movement to come out

in neon lights and announce hey we're

going to be expelling you the first

chance we get can I that's not realistic

okay can no let me respond look you said

you've said it a number of times

um um the Arabs from fairly early on in

the be in the conflict from the 1890s or

the early 1900s said the Jews intend to

expel us this doesn't mean that it's

true it means that some Arabs said this

maybe believing it was true maybe using

it as a political instrument to gain

support to mobilize Arabs against the

Zionist experiment but the fact is

transfer did not occur before

1947 um an Arab later said and then and

since then have said that the Jews want

to build a third temple on the Temple

Mount as if that's what really the the

mainstream of Zionism has always wanted

and always strived for but this is

nonsense it's something that kusini used

to use as a way to mobilize

masses for the cause using religion as

as the way to get them to to join join

him um the fact that Arabs said that

they the Zion want to this dispossess us

doesn't mean it's true it just means

that there some Arabs thought that maybe

maybe said it sincerely and maybe

insincerely Professor moris later it

became a self-fulfilling prophecy this

is true Arabs attacked the Jews

Professor Morris I read through your

stuff even yesterday I was looking

through righteous victim you should read

other things you're wasting your time no

no actually no I do read other things

but I don't consider it a waste of time

to read you not at

um you say

that this wasn't inherent in Zionism now

would you all agree that benor David

benorian was a

Zionist a Zion a major Zionist right

would you agree Ken vitman was a Zionist

yeah okay I believe they were I believe

they took their ideology seriously it

was the first

generation just like with the Bolsheviks

the first generation was committed to an

idea by the 1930s it was just pure raop

politi the ideology went out the window

the first generation I have no doubt

about their convictions okay they were

zionists transfer was inevitable and

inbuilt in Zionism keep repeating the

same because I have as I said Benny Mr

moris I have a problem reconciling what

you're saying it either was

incidental or it was deeply

entrenched here I read it's deeply

entrenched two very resonant words

inevitable and inbuilt deeply entrenched

I never wrote well I'm not sure it's

something you just invented but but in

inevitable and the idea let me conceed

let me concede something the idea of

transfer was there Israel zangvil a

British Zionist talked about it early on

in the century even Herzel in some way

talked about transferring population

according to your 25 Pages everybody

talked about SEC we keep bringing up

this line from the 25 pages and the four

pages uh you know we're lucky to have

Benny in front of us right now we don't

need to go to the quotes at like we can

legitimately ask how Central is

expulsion to

Zionism uh in its early version of

Zionism and what whatever Zionism is

today and how much power uh influence

the Zionism and ideology have in Israel

and like influence the Phil the

philosophy the ideology Zionism have on

Israel today the Zionist movement up to

1948 Zionist ideology was Central to the

the whole Zionist experience the whole

Enterprise up to 1948 and I think

Zionist ideology was also important um

in the first Decades of Israel's

existence um slowly the the the um hold

of Zionism like if you like like like

bolshevism held the Soviet Union

gradually faded and a lot of Israelis

today think in terms of individual

success and then capitalism and all all

sorts of things which nothing to do with

the Zionism but Zionism was very

important but what I'm saying is that

the idea of transfer was wasn't the core

of Zionism the idea of Zionism was to

save the Jews who had been vastly

persecuted in Eastern Europe and

incidentally in the Arab world the

Muslim world for centuries um and

eventually ending up with the Holocaust

the idea of Zionism was to save the

Jewish people by establishing a state or

reestablishing a Jewish State on the

ancient Jewish homeland which is

something the Arabs today even deny that

there were Jews in Palestine or the land

of Israel well 2,000 years ago Arafat

famously said what Temple was there on

the Temple Mount maybe it was in Nablus

which of course is nonsense but but um

they had a connection a strong

connection for thousands of years to the

land to which they wanted to return and

returned there they found that on the

land lived hundreds of thousands of

Arabs and the question was how to

accommodate the vision of a Jewish state

in Palestine alongside the existence of

these um um Arab masses living who were

indigenous in fact to The Land by that

stage um and the idea of partition

because they couldn't live together

because the Arabs didn't want to live

together with the Jews and I think the

Jews also didn't want to live together

in one state with Arabs in general the

idea of partition was the thing which um

the zionists accepted okay we can we can

only get a small part of Palestine the

Arabs will get in 37 most of Palestine

in 1947 the the ratios were changed

but we can we can live side by side with

each other in a partitioned Palestine

and this was the essence of it the idea

of transfer was there but it was never

adopted but as policy but in

1947-48 the Arabs attacked trying to

destroy essentially the Jewish the

Zionist Enterprise and the emerging

Jewish State and a um the reaction was

transfer in some way not as policy but

this is what happened on the battlefield

and this is also what Boran at some

point began to want as well right well

you know one of the first um books on

this issue uh I read uh when I was still

in high school because my my late father

had it was the Diaries of Theodore

Herzel and I think you know theore

Herzel of course was was the founder of

of the Contemporary Zionist movement and

I think if you read that it's very clear

for Herzel the the model upon which the

Zionist movement would uh would proceed

his model was cesil rhods his um I think

you know roads from what I recall

correct me if I'm wrong has quite a

prominent place in uh hertel's Diaries I

think Herzel was also corresponding uh

with him and seeking his support cesil

rhods of course was um uh was the uh

British um colonialist after whom the

for former white minority regime in uh

in

rudia uh was named and Herzel also says

explicitly in his diaries that it is

essential um to remove uh the existing

population from Palestine can I respond

to this in a moment please he says we

shall have to Spirit the penniless

population across the borders and

procure employment for them elsewhere or

something and and Israel Zang who you

mentioned a land without people for a

people without a land they knew damn

well it wasn't a people a land without a

people um I'll continue but I'll but

please goad just to this there is one

small diary entry in herzl's vast five

volumes yeah five volumes there's one

paragraph which actually mentions the

idea of transfer there are people who

think that Herzel was actually pointing

to South America when he was talking

about that the Jews were going to move

to Argentina and then they would try and

a um buy out or buy off or Spirit the

the penniless natives um to make way for

Jewish settlement maybe he wasn't even

talking about the Arabs in that

particular passage that's the argument

of some people maybe he was but the

point is it it has only a one 100th of a

1% of the Diary which is devoted to the

subject it's not a central idea in

Herzel in herz's thinking the what

Herzel wanted and this is what's

important not roads I don't think he was

the model Herzel wanted to create a

liberal Democratic Western State in

Palestine for the Jews that's that was

the idea not some Imperial Enterprise

serving some Imperial Master which is

what rhs was about but to have a Jewish

state which was modeled on the western

democracies in in Palestine and this

incidentally was more or less what

whitesman and Boran borian wanted they

borian was more of a socialist White was

more of a liberal um Westerner but they

wanted to establish a Social Democratic

or liberal state in Palestine and they

both envisioned through most of the

years of their act activity that there

would be an Arab minority in that Jewish

State it's true that benguan strive to

have as small as possible an Arab

minority in the Jewish State because he

knew that if you want a Jewish majority

state that that would be necessary but

it's not something which they were

willing to translate

into actual policy uh just a quick pause

to mention that for people who are not

familiar The Herzel we're talking about

over a century ago and everything we've

been talking about has been mostly 1948

and before yes just one clarification on

herzl's Diaries I mean the other thing

that I recall from those Diaries is he

was um he was very preoccupied with in

fact getting great power patronage

seeing Palestine um the Jewish state in

Palestine I think his words and out post

of civilization against barbarism yes in

other words very much um seeing his

project as a prox as a proxy for Western

imperialism in the Middle East right

word not proxy he wanted to establish a

Jewish state which would be independent

to get that he hoped that he would be

able to Garner support from major

Imperial Powers including the including

the ottoman Sultan he tried to

cultivate

for