Norman Finkelstein vs Benny Morris debate Palestine history | Israel-Palestine Debate
Summary
TLDRThe 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
📚 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.
🗣️ 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.
🌍 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.
🤔 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.
📖 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.
🌐 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Zionism
💡Transfer
💡Palestinian Refugee
💡Nakba
💡Herzl
💡Boran
💡Partition
💡Arab-Israeli Conflict
💡Ideology
💡Cherry Picking
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
浏览更多相关视频
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)