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.