Shared Paths, Divergent Courses | We Stand Against Hate

Shared Paths, Divergent Courses | We Stand Against Hate


it’s concerts art exhibitions and other
special events across the campus the series aims to elevate the discourse
around challenging political issues and to foster inclusiveness upon campus I
had the pleasure of meeting David Meyers before becoming president he was very
generous with his time and insight and I’m grateful to Cal and I’m also
thrilled that Hussein Vivek and David are here today to talk about shared
paths divergent courses a new take on Zionism and post name nationalism
professor Louis Fishman will introduce our guests currently one our guests
cinema and actually both of them and then moderate the discussion today I do
want to say that there are many qualified faculty members who could have
moderated this talk I’m grateful for the tremendous wealth of knowledge and
scholarly insight on this campus Brooklyn College on these very important
issues Louis Fishman is a professor of history
here he has a BA from the University of Haifa and a PhD in Middle East history
from the University of Chicago his work focuses on Palestinian and Israeli
conflict during the late Ottoman period the palestinian-israeli conflict today
modern Turkey and the lakebottom in history he also writes a popular blog
called the Istanbul Turkey [Applause]
you guys okay right this is not on but maybe later on we need to bring the fun
I’m not sure no it is on okay very good okay so very good yeah first thanks so
much to the president and once again we welcome her here to her first year at
Brooklyn College and it’s uh it’s a real honor to have a president that has
brought so many different talks including this talk that I think at the
UM Brooklyn College will have a very
special place and hopefully opening up a discussion for the future I think that’s
really really important and bringing on a bringing two distinguished professors
that I introduced in a second that will explain the conflict and put
it and give their narrative or give a narrative of which is of mini narratives
of the conflict itself remembering that there’s not one Israeli
narrative is not one Palestinian narrative but in all history there’s of
multitudinous of narratives and within each narrative there’s struggles and
there’s debate so I’m very pleased to be moderating up to the name again
sheriff tap the converging forces Zionism Palestinian nationalism a
thoughtful look at the history and interpretation of the land people now
that I know that professor Meyers not here yet I actually need to speak for
15-20 minutes right sort of like this my students know that while most professors
like to talk we can start with the joke so we could do something else but I’ll
get I’ll get right down to dinner the introduction that I end
um and I won’t bore you with with with the things I have to say but women win
at the end beforehand you know answers I will cease about five minutes
of your minutes of your time five minutes of your time okay so I’m pleased
to have with us who Satan Beach and David Myers who will come in a second
who say the beach is currently a senior veteran resident scholar at the Arab
Gulf State Institute in the past he was a fellow at the American Task Force on
Palestine Palestine and served as the executive director of the Hal assalam
Maqsood foundation for American Arab leadership he has numerous publications
including his last one that was published in 2009 I’m sure he’ll address
how his how he himself has transformed or how the conflict has not transformed
since 2009 that relate to this book what went wrong what’s wrong with the
one-state agenda why healing the occupation and peace with Israel it’s
still the Palestinian national goal in addition to working on Palestine he’s
has numerous of their publications that are very relevant to today’s debate or
today’s and unfortunate reoccurring agenda of civil liberties in
the United States one of his books that he wrote even in a pre nine in pre 9/11
was at the Constitution’s edge Arab Americans civil liberties in the United
States so this is a debate that has continued and unfortunately I would say
it’s still a major part of the debate in the United States reads to me
or maybe the lack maybe perhaps a lack of a real debate we could talk about in
the u.s. in addition he has published numerous op-eds and newspapers such as
Chicago Tribune and LA Times and he writes often for the National
also David Myers trico I had to introduce some and then when he walks in
I’ll tell him that I have introduced him you can give him applause but he gets in
David Myers joins us from UCLA’s a history department is and is the
professor of Jewish history there it’s the professor the stadium Ludwig Kahn
chair in Jewish history among his published books for today’s discussion I
would say most interesting for us today is his published book between Jew and
Arab the lost voice of salmon Radovich rabid rabid ovitch that he published in
2008 and then also is 1995 but much earlier book reinventing the Jewish past
European Jewish intellectuals and the Zionists returned to history so very
good with that I think perhaps while we wait for David
Meyers to join us perhaps you could explain how these join talks about
started and then once professor Meyers join us
we’ll start with the program is to explain what it is that we do there’s
there’s a long history of Jewish Arab dialogue that’s not too surprising and
not too original and there’s also quite a lot of dialogue about narratives where
both sides will get up and narratives and critique each other’s
narratives and then sit down again not terribly interesting what we decided to
do a few years ago we started talking is something really very different which is
look at the narratives and how they develop historically over time with and
against each other but our own and using that kind of self critique as a way of
returning to the dialogue and looking again at what the other side has to say
and then from that kind of teasing out where the real differences and
convergences and divergences are and it’s it’s fascinating I think what we’ve
discovered is that in terms of the history and I don’t know this is going
to come out in our talk today because it always comes out a little differently
there is only one historical moment that we really disagree about sort of
categorically in terms of the historical truth of the matter and David believes
he can pinpoint the beginning of the 1947-48 war to one or two events because
if that’s when it started I say you can’t actually pinpoint the beginning it
happened sometime in within a few weeks before which there wasn’t a war after
which everyone agreed there was more but there was no moment in my view when
everybody woke up and said good grief did you see what happened last night
there’s a war and that’s it so because of that then if he comes a matter of in
my view it becomes a matter of privilege in a moment which then waits the history
on a certain side he says no he’s sure that he can
and be pretty confident about what started okay but the fact that in this
whole suite of highly contested facts we can only really strongly disagree about
that one moment is very telling now what what
that leaves us with is a huge set of interpretation of inflections of
understandings that are not the same right and so when it comes to
motivations who wanted to achieve what in any given moment or something like
that we are still you know often far apart in
in an interesting way but that’s the kind of thing that I think can be
reasonably debated but I think it’s extremely interesting and extremely
instructive that when once you get a very honest self-critical dialogue going
that pays do account to the privacy of historical fact and the a certain
register of truth in the history you know did this thing happen at this time
in this place it’s not a question why someone did something of what they were
hoping to achieve that’s still subject to debate that in fact there isn’t
really very much that honest historians actually contest and
that is really kind of debate
and what is debated is motivation that goal that kind of thing so I think
that’s one of the sort of crucial things that we’ve discovered them that we try
to tease out the other thing that we try and that is the virtue of subjecting
these narratives to a kind of interrogation and it’s it’s a dual
linked our nation it’s an interrogation from the other side and from with it and
when you do that I think what what you discover is a couple of things first
that there’s an alarming amount of truth in the accusations that each side is
leveled against each other okay if you’re to be honest about it the
second thing is that the other side is not really terribly mysterious once you
take them seriously from their own point of view and so everything starts to make
sense in a in a new and very fertile way and so what you end up with then is a
greatly clarified sense of where the history came from where it’s going and
all of that so that’s that’s basically what we’re trying to do and I really
need Davis to go further I’m sorry this is such an important and
interesting project to try to bring together these competing narratives and
engage in both neutral critique and soapy and I really appreciate the way
that you talk about so criticism and engagement and as part
of the what you’re trying to do with one
another and within yourself and I wonder how do
you respond to folks who believe that that project itself is doomed or not
worthy well I would say because the kind of
onions are gated the de tourny of uninsurance an interrogation hegemonic
garden precisely what’s produced the current reality so if you if you like
what you see maybe you really should stick with the traditional way
I’m suggesting is to be they tend to justify is any kind of interest and
therefore depressing need to David Mars to be here with you we have done this
before and what I’d like to do is where we’re trying to understand to the extent
that we can what often seems to be an intractable
one in which we notice competing narratives and what I want to emphasize
is that these competing narratives are mere constructions made out of full
equality each of them the narrative that Jews
have about Palestine and Arabs have about Palestine contain a great deal of
truth in them that is to say the Zionist nerve as we’ll come to understand it
which speaks of the return of the Jewish people from a state of exile to homeland
contains a little proof in it and the error Palestinian narrative that is a
story of the movement from homeland to exile contains a great deal of truth in
it as well I went further I said the mutual accusation could be a great deal
of truth I want to go even further and say that it’s not just that we have
convenient ruse we also have instance and what do you do in a situation that
you have competing but which seem to be irreconcilable at first blush our tack
did you cover our tap yeah all right okay so our tack just to repeat what I’m
saying is to approach this set of seemingly unbridgeable stories with a
mix of empathy and critical distance based on the proposition I would say
that working over and processing and trying to make sense of these two
narratives is important not just for the two of us but for all of us as a way of
humanizing ourselves and as a way of really understanding the way in which
the other tells the story and so better understanding how that other has
experienced life in this regard our historical inquiry it has really
understood as a rigid reconciliation as a tool intended to humanize and to allow
us to understand any matter ourselves at the other so what we’re going to do
today is look at three principal events that have significance in this year 2017
remember to remember of year of great significance of it we’re gonna do the
sevens we’re did sense we’re gonna do this episode before we get to 1917 we
should just remember that the land we’re talking about has been called by Aaron
but former diplomat and commentator much to promise that what we’re talking about
a land that is sacred to the three great monotheistic religions Judaism which
established a first and then second Holy Temple in the capital city of that land
that has dearest names the first here called Jerusalem Christianity by virtue
of the fact that a divine figure of Jesus ascended to heaven from that city
and of course Islam as well which from the seventh century
established a significant presence in Palestine in Jerusalem in particular two
of the holiest sites located on the Temple Mount
we’re going to be past that medieval period to make our way to the beginning
of our story which is the birth of Zionism Zionism is a term that refers to
the Jewish national movement that focused its sights on the return or of
the Jewish people to the Land of Israel to Palestine it draws its name from one
of the synonyms for Jerusalem the region of Jerusalem and metaphorically for
Palestine at large namely Zion and therefore performs a move very common to
nationalist movements we seek to validate themselves by making claim to
antiquity and to using the nomenclature of integrity one of the curious features
about Zionism is that it was born in New York and therefore was not proximate to
the land that it’s soft to return to that it imagined as the fulfillment of
the nationalist aspiration it was thousands of miles away the movement was
thousands of miles away from actually from the Land of Israel and another
curious feature is that the language which Zionists understood to the new
national language was actually a very ancient language and one that had fallen
into disrepair as a spoken tongue for centuries so this suggests to us that
Zionism acquired a particularly powerful degree of imagination to to assert this
connection to say that it was unusual
was actually interesting language in the creation in an era in which state is
based on the the Arab majority in post I was there at the time time isn’t through
the early days of the British Mandate the native population of indigenous
Arabs Muslims and Christians were we’re quite taken aback by Zion as it took
them as decades to understand what people were talking about whether they
were serious or not what their intentions were that that was debated
straight through until Nike and I think it’s true that many
Palestinians who were basically illiterate peasants never really knew
what was going on until they found themselves in exile I think it was a
surprise to some of them either at the time and certainly an example of the one
of the earliest reactions was use of oddities Leonard in his attempt to
correspond with her soul which was not entirely successful but also efforts by
other who other Arabs from Palestine who were present in the Ottoman Parliament
and others to raise objections and to suggest that this was a bad idea whether
it was historically justifiable or not that it would lead to conflict that the
church shouldn’t agree that the Europeans to confront them and that
generally speaking it wasn’t a great idea I think one of the things that’s
really crucial at this stage to understand about early Palestinian
nationalism is that Palestinians didn’t really necessarily want to become
Palestinians I think they became Palestinians by virtue of this consular
I think they emerged along with many other Arabs at the end of the 19th and
early 20th century into a kind of Arab national consciousness but they wanted
as many other Arabs did to be part of something bigger
they’d like to very much in general the idea of the pati serious or arab state
founded by Faisal in Damascus at the end of the first world war they very much
wanted to be part of that it was when that state fell apart and nothing else
was forthcoming from the Argo that they kind of realized you know to choose with
a certain degree of horror that they were on their own and had better become
palace right quick or have ether or be left
with no identity at all so it’s it’s sort of almost in a way kind of the
opposite the parallel reactions is active imagining something very deeply
desired on the part of Jewish Europeans as a kind of a reality for students who
didn’t particularly want to be fond of states but ended up being understands
out of pure necessity out of having no other viable options right and it’s
important to note that there’s a dynamic between a proactive and reactive
absolutely there are proactive versions of Palestinian National Authority
clearly there are and there are very aggressive versions of it – I’m just
saying in general the the popular and I think even the elite mood was to really
know to really want to avoid this as much as possible yeah okay we’re gonna
move on the Palestine it’s important the
early 20th century inside the 1948 borders on May 14 1948
[Music] [Music]
[Applause] let us maybe respect those who have come
to speak here accord you the right to ask any questions you might have
[Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music] twentieth century is under like other
world empires it’s tottering on the brink of destruction largely or partly
not to a great extent under the force of nationalism itself nation-state
nationalism and this is important to note because in the first decades of the
20th century Palestine will pass we don’t have time to go into great detail
about this from the control of the Ottoman Turks
to the British who in the course of the First World War
make their way into the Middle East and and Palestine and seek to assert their
own imperial interests there in fact in December of 2017 actually take control
of Palestine and we have a symbolic representation of this in this
photograph from the general Allenby at the outskirts of Jerusalem I’m actually
walked and entered into Jerusalem by foot but this is important because a
month earlier and British government had issued this declaration known as the
Balfour Declaration November that indicated its own
disposition towards Palestine more particularly towards the efforts of the
Zionist movement and aspect so what’s really noticeable in this formulation
rather simple things that most when we actually indicated them in italics the
first is the reference to His Majesty’s Government looking on the favor had a
national home for the Jewish people now this is a somewhat ambiguous formulation
it doesn’t say a nation state it doesn’t say a state says a national home
whatever that may be but what is important to note is in a world in which
nationalism was very much the currency of the realm
the British government saw fit to bestow upon the Zionist movement that
designation and that is significant in life on the second part that we have
italicized here nothing should be understanding that nothing should be
done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-jewish
communities in Palestine this is fascinating – regardless first is it
labels the the populate the existing population Palestine which is that in
excess of 95% Irish Muslim and Christian at this point existing non-jewish
communities as a very remarkable thing called manufacturers existing non 5%
that’s it’s really quite next everything to call them and secondly you can trust
national home whatever that means it includes the phrase national with civil
and religious rights okay so and of course people similar civil and
religious rights are individual rights we all have civil and religious rights
only collectivities have natural rights so it takes these people and makes them
non somebody else’s and accords them individual but not
collective rights very so this is our first moment in which we really want to
understand better what each group the emerging signs
in Palestine and the Palestinian Arab population made of the same event this
is our first event and so we can summarize it by saying that there’s a
great deal of satisfaction within the Zionist movement that actually can begun
sending immigrants to Palestine from Europe in 1882 even before we had the
term Zionism these first immigrants make their way in 1882
a second way begins in 1904 a third wave comes a few years after about four but
Balfour in a certain sense validates the
legitimacy of designs movement the Isis Isis leaders and most significantly the
chief interlocutor of the British designs movement Weitzman who would go
on to be the first president of the State of Israel it also provides in the
eyes of Zionism about for legal validation for the Jewish claim to
Palestine and it’s important to note that the very language we just saw is
incorporated verbatim into the founding legal mechanisms that glanced the
British Mandate over Palestine in the wake of the first world war
man they’ve granted by the newly established League of Nations so for all
these reasons Balfour is seen as an extremely important boost in the arm for
the Zionist movement a sort of trafficking in territory that a you
don’t control and B the second is that there were other British understandings
principally the letters between McManus Reeves was saying which which were
formal undertakings which went round entirely counter which
to recognize me and support the independence of the artisan region there
was some doubt about whether Palestine was included in that but in the past few
years British records have been released that resolve all those doubts they
clearly was there were there were specific questions now
does that include Palestine the unequivocal answer came back yes okay
they actually actually there was a third promise between the British and the
French so there were three separate incompatible British undertakings in
this party or with other with other political groups all in competition with
each other about future Palestine awesome yeah the British and the French
both are seeking to use the aftermath of the First World War the dismantling of
great empires Ottoman muster of the area and Russia to assert a new their
imperial interests and we can see that that aspiration manifested in actual
legal form in the mandates that are granted by the League of Nations to the
French and the British and so one of the things that’s important you should
notice the this revival of imperialism albeit in new guys but also the
emergence of the nation-state model simultaneously and in some sense in
collaboration with this new European colonial project the nation-state regime
that will emerge in the wake of the previous great empires just to give us
some sense of numbers at the advent of the first wing was Einstein relation to
Palestine in 1882 there were about 25 thousand Jews who constituted what was
known as the oldie shoes the old Jewish community in Palestine and there were
between 450 and 500 thousand non-jews Palestinian Arabs who represented as we
can the overwhelming majority 95% as we make
our way to the mandate the Arab population which is overwhelmingly
Muslim will remain about 90 percent until we reach the 1930s so this discus
gives us a sense the Jewish population almost quadrupled by 1922 as a result of
a succeeding waves of immigration but still is a very small minority which
makes that reference to in Balfour to the non-jewish population so women date
briefly throughout the 1920s and in response to the flow we see a rise in
tension between the two sides now for itself induces of prompts acts of
violence by the Arab side towards the British as well as the Jewish population
a series of riots break out in 1920 and 21 in the course of which the famous
Hebrew writer Joseph Craig Brenner is killed and in Jaffa this violence
continues throughout the 20s and culminates in 1929 at one of the holiest
sites the holiest site in all of Jerusalem the Temple Mount which
contains the tool and mosques of Islamic Jerusalem and a bus the remaining
remnant remaining wall of the second temple known as the western wall the
Kotel the British Canada produces very strict restrictions on what the physical
layout was for both Jewish and prayer chorim’s
there were concerns on both sides that there are transgressions of this and in
one instance in the summer of 1929 Muslim officials fear that Jews
trying to change the physical layout of their prayer setting in the plaza in
front of the western wall they began to yell epithets and and then throwing
garbage and then a riot broke out directed against the Jews from the air
side that then raged throughout the city of Jerusalem and extended into the other
important traditional cities jewish cities in palestine hedron where the
Jews convene was largely routed and sapphic in the course of that convulsion
of violence over 130 Jews were killed Jews in Palestine were quite outraged
that the British mandatory authorities did not immediately jump in to quell the
violence ultimately the British did it and in the course of their response over
110 Arabs were killed this leads us to a crisis point in this triangulated
relations of this complex triangulated relationship Jews Arabs and Brits
the Brits did what they typically do at such crisis moments they convened a
commission of inquiry response and in the wake of that there’s an inquiry led
to a white paper which called for a serious restriction on Jewish
immigration to Palestine which of course induced outrage additional outrage
amongst the Jewish leadership which felt that that Jews were being penalized for
violence directed against the Commission’s is they always come from
this point on for restricted Jewish settlement and then didn’t enforce that
I mean soda Manoa’s continued to face either
lawfully or unlawfully having so they paid retail on both sides
outrage juice outraged by the the commitment to restrict operate guards of
the mountain realization and everybody their declaration the need for a
restriction on immigration in a certain sense in golden designs leadership yet
on this point forward to say our goal harks back to theater her Sofia now is
clearly defined as not just a Jewish National Home lands or a society but a
Jewish state and even more boldly with a Jewish majority we just saw the
demographic figures which made that another kind of fantastic believe it was
C in 1930 there was a kind of Cascade of Rage generated from the British
Commission of Inquiry leading from the Zionists to the Arabs who were deeply
concerned as well and and possessed a great deal of consternation at the
rising tide of Jewish immigration there is the kind of national speaker that
wants a rebellion against the regime wants to go arms against this situation
another camp that essentially wants to do a deal and a third camp that wants to
that well then there are two smaller capsule one that essentially wants to
collaborate with anyone who will pay and the third the fourth being a group that
is interested in exploring what kind of arrangement in between the resistance
and the deal can be done if we had time we’d also enumerate the many different
scientist camps ranging from the provision of scientists who said the
Jewish state indeed should take rise not just on one side of the Jordan River but
on both banks of the river too on the opposite of the spectrum a group of
largely simple European scientists who said the goal of Zionism designs should
be the creation of a bi-national state in which power is shared by Jews and
Arabs but please witness increasing tensions increasing organization by the
Arab side but also the first and I would say the most important direct links
between Zionist officials and an Arab officials the leader of the Zionist
effort in Palestine David ben-gurion meets with a series of Arab leaders
which largely largely leaked to our for naught but nonetheless there’s a
perception that the escalation in tension and violence really requires
some attempt at negotiation and we see that between 1934 and 36 okay so we’re
gonna move ahead given that time is running short to
their second major trigger event which is 1947 as tensions have risen between
the two sides violence as has compounded we see increasing tensions between both
our militia and Jewish paramilitary forces which
different ideological camps within Zionism and one of those paramilitary
groups actually undertakes a military operation what some would consider a
terrorist act upon the headquarters of the British mandatory government that
military regime in Jerusalem at the King David hotel whether or not that was the
impetus for the British to say after 30 years we realized that this was a
fruitless task we can’t make peace between these two people we’re not
really extracting the benefits from our overlordship of Palestine that we’d
hoped for we’re not sure but it is the case that
the 1947 the British announce to the newly created in admissions that they
are surrendering the mandate it’s important to note that as they’re doing
this the Jewish community in Palestine is reeling from the news of the enormity
of destruction that took place during the Holocaust and that will become an
important factor in its own motivation to achieve the goal of a Jewish state
the United Nations when it hears the news that the British nurse corps to
surrender their mandate convened a special committee on Palestine knows
unstuff which issues a report recommendation after investigation in
Palestine in September of 1947 and that proposal is put before the United
Nations General Assembly in November 1947 as resolution 181 it calls for the
partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state an idea that had arisen 10
years earlier in the wake of another ill-fated British Commission
the peel Commission yeah I mean it’s just worth noting that the Arab world
was united against that resolution and uh the Palestinian reactions were
talking about is is shock and disbelief that first of all the country would be
divided against the wishes of something like three-quarters of its population
secondly the observation that there was no area even with the utmost
gerrymandering you couldn’t really find a chunk of Palestine with a extant
Jewish majority so that even in the proposed Jurij state there would have
been an Arab plurality thirdly that 55 percent of the land was being given to
something between a quarter of people and the idea also that this is just
being imposed from the outside of the mountain in retrospect or question
always is wasn’t that a terrible mistake sure you
have it wouldn’t have been wiser to go along with this and see what could have
been salvaged and the answer of course is yes it would have been wiser to do
that I look but honestly to be honest with you justice it’s easy for me to say
yes it’s also easy for me to say I can’t identify a polity of human beings than
in their color to the other was incapable of saying yes for that one one
person or two people might have been wise enough but millions of people that
I don’t think they never do that because worried about reactions and whatnot and
I just don’t think it has how much you end up with is a protest
movement at a violent response right by contrast the Zionist movement greets the
United Nations General Assembly quote which approved the partition plan we
have formal enthusiasm and indeed there was joy not just in the streets of the
Jewish community in Palestine but really throughout the Jewish world in fact many
Jews who previously had been indifferent or disconnected indifferent to were
disconnected from the Zionist movement felt a surge of enthusiasm at this
seemingly monumental event marking the imminent respiration of Jewish
sovereignty to Palestine and at the same time there was among some within the
Zionist camp a real sense of even better realism that what immediately awaited
the Zionist movement was a pitched battle
now that the British had pulled out this was coming down to a war between Jews
and Arabs over which the the Palestine for malicious and tried to essentially
stop the way things were going by force and it was absolutely crushed by the
British and it left the Palestinians without much in the way of any kind of
armed force and much of their leadership within exile as a consequence of this
and so from a critical community not to say that the either was too late or too
early but it certainly came at the wrong time in the 30s it was it was far too
late to doing here on and those forces were not available largely
been better used and if such an uprising could have just asked you later to our
moderators what fun we should be speaking the talk should be about until
5 or 5 we have the room so we can continue some people are leaving before
its classes different classes around 5 o’clock but it’d be great if we had time
for questions and answers I think a lot of the ideal time to okay so what what
followed see many missions General Assembly resolution is the outbreak of
hostilities between Jews and Arabs who say that I have a somewhat different
view so but that’s less relevant than
than noting that what what happens in late November early December 1947 and
into the first months in planning for today is the first phase of the armed
conflict the second phase will occur after at the State of Israel is formally
declared you can see a picture of the Zionist leader David ben-gurion doing
down late after the May 14 1948 the second phase of the conflict follows
this declaration and is marked by the attack of surrounding Arab armies upon
the fledgling Jewish state in the course of which for reasons that we’re not
going to go into now the Jewish side the Israeli are the nation is really army
gains the upper hand in the conflict and and brings to fruition the long defer
goal of liberation and the design movement inside out for
itself solely 1948 the result of its military victory in the still days of
94u is independence which marks this historic moment for Jews and Zionists in
particular the return as it were to the ancestral homeland after millennia and
what is important to notice there’s an added sense of urgency in the battle
owing to the catastrophic losses incurred during the Holocaust a sense
that what soldiers in the Israeli army and in the Jewish rulers were fighting
for was not merely a a Jewish state but really the survival of the Jewish people
there’s a very palpable sense and thus a very high level of motivation and in the
fight I should also note that in the course of well we’ll get into this when
we talk about attacks well in 1948 representation of these errors so just
very quickly an exhilarating moment of triumph or design aside from the
perspective a the main impact being the in effect the vanishing of the society
that had been there before I mean there was a society a Palestinian society that
was at the beginning of the war that was simply gone at the end of the war you
have about eight hundred thousand or so Palestinians who either fled or were
expelled depending on where they are from from the conflict between the end
of 48 and the middle of 40 between the under 47 48 and that’s
just a breeder yeah just a pretty program enough um our juxtaposition of
these two stories is not intended to allow us to reconcile them right they
cannot be recognized to demonstrate is that there is a good deal of proof it is
perfectly understandable why Jews would lead the victory in 1948 and the
creation of the State of Israel as a moment of monumental significance and it
is perfectly understandable why a Palestinian terror would understand that
with the departure the flight of 700 thousand or more Palestinian Arabs and
including those who are forcibly expelled by Jewish forces this year
would be understood as a catastrophe and it’s additionally a catastrophe for this
reason which is that between the creation of the mandate or at least the
fall of the first panorama state in Syria in 1922 and this catastrophe in 48
Thomas teams have been at the center of their own national conversation as
project and but and then from this moment until the late 60s Palestinian
society and culture and and national institutions were so devastated by this
by this event that they really became bystanders in their own history and and
unlocked any kind of agency until not just the formation of the peel over the
Reformation of the second iteration of the PLO and it’s really not until 1968
that you start to see Palestinians coming back senators saying to their own
history saying this is about 20 years in which Palestinians
were almost entirely fixated on salvaging the livelihoods of their own
families this is the golden era of Palestine
education and not being part of what became the arab-israeli conflict a very
different one irony that there we can have an interesting debate about when
Palestinian national identity was born surely there were voices of local Arab
national identity in Palestine from the nineteen teens early but what is
unmistakable is that the act of a flight expulsion of oil known as the Natha lent
an unmistakable air and then at that point of birth the Palestinians
essentially disappear but but here’s the thing
this is an experience that’s uniquely Palestinian until this point
Palestinians share the crisis it’s some elements of the common Arab political
experience there are a bunch of ours from Palestine and that’s what they’ve
experienced now this is unique to them no other arms experience this they
experienced that they went through that and that separates them permanently from
the other honors so it becomes impossible for them to simply identify
that for other errands to identify as Bosnia they haven’t been through that
and it would be if they were trying to mention it be thrown in their face into
a silence you weren’t there you don’t even experience we have replicable sorry
we’ve come to the end not in the lecture yeah but on the first phase of the
conflict as we understand it which is the conflict between Jews and Arabs over
Palestine 1882 to 1948 right the next phase of the conflict is the phase
conflict between Israel and the Arab states which will run until the late 60s
or whites the israeli-egyptian said I would yeah
so that’s depending on we cast in twenty or thirty years at which point
palestinians returned to the stage of history but let us speed ahead to that
final moment having just laid out telegraphic lead this second phase a
phase that begins with the creation of israel and the enmity of arab states
around it which prompts very considerable fear in israel a second
wave fighting that term occurs again and again in the Israeli psyche which of
course is deeply traumatized by the Holocaust but the second phase reaches
one of its important inflection points in 1967 and the wake real fears in
Israel triggered by this person double the mass of the Egyptian leader and is
horrible escalation threatening to further Jews into the sea rather than
wait for an attack an anticipated attack by our forces on the State of Israel
undertakes like strike against the surrounding Arab nations beginning and
most definitively with Egypt and it was in the wake of of
that kind of in the midst of that conflict a succeeds in capturing
significant amounts of new territory which is the darker colors below Sinai
desert the Gaza Strip both from Egypt the west bank of the Jordan River from
Jordan and the Golan Heights from from Enoch City or Syria this war has a
number of very galvanizing effects in Israel in one instance it provides a
measure of relief that the dire security threats that Israel faces
especially at its narrowest as you can see on the left side of the West Bank of
those concerns have been somewhat alleviated by the creation of new
territorial buffer there’s also a very important effect that still continues to
play a role in Israeli society today which is the unleashing of a new
messianic victory it’s indicated that it comes between 1948 and 1967 the
current ambitions of the two sides get defiant get booked ended in a way not in
1948 sort of announces but it’s really confirmed in 1967 that the arab idea of
preventing the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine it’s not going to
happen it’s done it’s over but I think what 1967 made and bookending is the
extent of Jewish ambition as well because it’s proven very hard for the
Israeli state to digest the West Bank Gaza etc Sun is already gone
so that you you’ve got the setting up of the situation that exists now where you
have this very uneasy unmanageable status quo that just can’t shift but
which still is sort of stuck between okay
these two of the ambitions of these two national project that also sets up the
the breaking of the Palestinian national movement into into its two competing
apart self because of what this situation initially gave rise to is the
rise of the secular Palestinian national project the PLO the PA but eventually
because it represents such a crushing failure of secular Arab nationalism in
general this event opens the door for the eventual emergence of the Islamist
movements and we in a way most successful of which at least the one
that really controls territory is is Hamas in Gaza certainly the only part of
the Muslim Brotherhood it’s a really unnatural leadership it’s no surprise to
me that that’s where it is and that the Muslims that Islamist movement has
coincided with the fortification intensification like say the
radicalization is – actually live in Israel so very much informed by that
messianic Act of 1967 is like this it brings us up to present
the other thing that sets up is the resolution for su and the concept of
land repeats what – for su says as UN Security Council decision that Israel
should live in peace with its neighbors free from threats and all that in other
words be accepted in return for withdrawal from territories occupied in
1967 so that is essentially before we have land for peace that is now so
widely seen to be such a crushing failure and for which there is exactly
zero alternative I really might get time for questions and answers there I’ll ask
the question in your opinion what today’s the essence of the conflict
nothing about how they solve the coming but in your opinion what’s the essence
of the conflict and then we can move to questions and answers the register which
it’s not solvable is this is the kind of broad narrative register which involves
these stories that people tell each other imbued with nationalist mythology
and religious sensibilities and all of that which basically brings people down
feeling very victimized by the other side we’re very much that they are in
the right that the other side is view surfer does Tony come lately be an
authentic invalid actor and you know sort of Spurs very trying to just
perspective that’s at the level of nerve I think we very much have to deal with
that because I think it’s very strong on both sides on the other side there is
the register of lived reality which is something that people just can’t get
away from and there I think the fact is it’s still the case that what you’re
looking at is a contest between two national projects of roughly equal
people in a very limited area over land and power and you can I think you could
still do a deal based on giving up land and power and get people who even buy
into those narratives to accept that in the name of ending conflict but there is
a final reality that in my view intercedes to prevent it which is the
radical asymmetry of power between these two groups there is right now no
pressure on the Israelis to make any concessions towards the palace names
including terrible leadership policy inciting bifurcated and battle in both
of its iterations in addition to which the inflamed situation in the Middle
East in general gives us right as an additional reason / exclus excuse /
rationalization it’s all of those for not being willing to consider anything
serious so right now from an Israeli point of view I think there’s every
reason not to make an agreement and no reason to make an agreement except if
you think about the long-term consequences which is very hard for a
group of millions of people to do it’s very much like the question and then
confronted Palestinians in my course you do this it wouldn’t be crazy not to
yes but where does that well I think we’ve been doing this too long because
of my talking points your talking points are exactly mine just briefly reiterate
I think the historical by which a narrative dimensions of the heads that
are important because one of the recurrent features of this conflict in
fundamental inability of the two sides to recognize any validity and the claims
of the other and this leads to both of these peoples by virtue of the
respective traumas that they underwent it I don’t mean to equate them in scale
or scope just mean to suggest that they both underway
profound promise in that seared a deep scar of their national sightings are in
a certain sense locked in a struggle of victimization with one another each of
them in a strange way is comfortable being the victim fighting back against
oppression I often think of the Till’s as a difficulty Jacob and Esau
entrenched with one another each side trying to finish off the other one
clearly stronger than the other but unable to deliver the death blow so
there is that psychological dimension that goes along with the question of
narrative which is why we’re focusing so much on that there’s also a territorial
dimension which is quite clear to me that Israel’s control of the West Bank
not only is an instrument of further control in manipulation of the
Palestinians but maybe the death knell of of the two-state idea which seems to
me akin to the way Churchill understood democracy because that’s the worst form
of them for all the others I know just highlight
again the asymmetry of power which in light of all the equations that we’ve
trying to draw we cannot forget that there is currently a power asymmetry and
that suggests to us at least to me that sometimes sometimes the use this belies
use of power is not to affirm again and again that you have no credible partner
for peace rather see anything that’s quantifiable land water stuff like that
even political powers know extent is inherently negotiable what’s not
negotiable is the will of God and the judgment of history and stuff like that
so just bear that in mind and then next time even soapy water
[Applause] you stick at the reception after for
those one Penn State faculty if not come back in 20 minutes
and you’ll hit a professional okay guys okay very good
um thanks so much for staying to the end and many people have to go to classes so
I’m very happy that they they came as well okay we’re going to get extended
questions I wouldn’t I would only say a few words that perhaps I’ve been
thinking more and more than less a couple years is that the perhaps the
problem lies in each side’s inability to renegotiate other narratives within
their own don’t status quo Anna and I would say because the because the ones
that are in inner power the one that that that live of low-level conflict
that’s Israel versus Palestina you know they live a daily conflict you know the
daily conflict up but there’s checkpoints whether it’s violence
whether it’s getting from one place to another you know just the issue avoiding
a hospital I mean if you need to get the hospital you can’t go to hospital and
people die on the way okay without the proper you know the bureaucracy the you
know the power the bureaucracy of fences of walls and different things they’re
very much high income exactly so so there is an asymmetrical level here also
but uh I’ll comment on the Israeli side of it and I always often think about you
know the the inability or the problem in 1948 that Israeli who did
in Zion ISM and what did that mean turning from an Israeli nationalism to
to to to this very undefined type of nationalism that has so many different
multitude of narratives you know of you know what is I you know it’s harder than
ever to say what nationalism is to one group okay even look at American
nationalism and civic nationalism what does it mean to be an American what it
was it mean to be Israel Israeli is very different than saying what does it mean
to be scientists okay and the inability to deal with these questions I think
have led to leads to greater conflict so conflict perhaps are actually it’s each
time that needs to rethink its own own narratives or its own hegemonic
narrative reasonably the other and there and if that exists within among me so so
that’s sort of I thought that might contribute contribute that that these
thoughts benevolence Richter to questions so we have gentlemen here
that’s been raising again perfect and questions literally keep
them questions after 30 seconds a minute I’ll just cut you off just because of
time I’m not because of any issues other than that there’s views on both sides
and it’s sort of coming together that’s a feeling that I got in any case my name
is Stevie Drake I’m a Sephardic Jew from Brooklyn born and bred here over 35
years ago I visited Israel we would have contact with Arab as well as Israelis
and there was always a good feeling I think it was 35 maybe 40 years whatever
that was the feeling was we wanted we were
for them to have what they needed whatever that was about 25 years ago we
thought they’re going to get their way and they had that opportunity I don’t
know why if arafat would walk away from such a amazing deal but the truth of the
matter is leadership was always the problem and teaching I think that the
teaching that’s going on in those windows in the company of the
Palestinians teaching them to constantly hate is really in that way and until
everybody realizes how important is the education there’s never going to be
anything that you become close to police in there what you thought of this act of
Arafat that’s my question my question is from both sides yes how do you answer
sort of aggressive the Jews nationalists who say you know the policy needs don’t
exist and not a real nation are just out Syrians as opposed to the juice or this
eternal Nations existed the land quickly that’s our son do you think one state
solution is going presenting it as an option for the first
time in recent years of the you know what if the conflict is just over a
religion or if it has to do over capital as well other corporate capitalism you
could think of different things being the liver the news of this mini there’s
many there’s many ways you could go that okay let’s take our speakers okay so
yeah I mean I think the actual history of the negotiations is both sides would
be many offers to the other and neither with with the exception of the Oslo
agreements neither side said yes to them so there is this notion out there that
Israel has made lots of good offers and Palestine scholar said no which is true
what’s missing from that is a Palestinian lots of serious offensive is
as all said no so we haven’t got an agreement because neither side has ever
said yes and I think we’ve come very close to many times but we haven’t ever
been there not but I mean anyone who knows to the history of diplomacy knows
there is no monopoly on making offers and there’s no monopoly on saying no
both sides have done lots of both what these right-sided has done is advertised
some of its offers very nicely and the Palestinian side has preferred to stay
in the shadows because they don’t want to pay the price of having appeared to
have offered what they have offered because of the sort of nature of policy
and politics the fact that they feel very weak so that’s what I think I think
it’s very unfortunate that we haven’t gone to yes but I don’t think there’s a
monopoly delay on that either side what would I say to people who say there’s no
such thing as Palestinians I would say well you might want to meet some
secondly these words are both okay we have two sets of words to set one set is
new that didn’t mean anything in the past to meet others very old words that
mean something different now than they used to me so he’s ready he didn’t mean
anything before 1948 there was no such thing even in 1930 innocent Israeli
people said what do you mean is ready most of Israelite everybody’s ready
what’s that a Palestinian again pretty meaningless in say the 30s or 20s or
something so these are new words because they reflect new political realities and
you could say well the word Jew is very old sure and the word Arab is very old
but the word Jew didn’t mean what it means now a hundred years ago and the
word Arab didn’t mean what it means now but all of these words whether they’re
new or old have been inflected through a very contemporary political lens and we
think that they’re somehow ancient and irrevocable an unmovable and fixed
when in fact they are constantly being negotiated and they have multiple
meanings right now the word Jew in Israel is not a simple word it means
many different things legally for different purposes he’s one thing to get
married one thing to enter the country and become a citizen another thing to
have the word Jewish is your nationality in an ID these are not the same
definitions even under Israeli law which is one of the reasons it’s rather
complicated to us well this means to accept the Jewish character of the State
of Israel because they’re asking which definition of multiple Israeli extra
legal definitions of Jewish are we endorsing yeah among other complications
but that’s why I answer my answer is you know step back and look at all the
histories in their complexity the one state solution what would it look like
we’ve got it we have it now and for everyone who
wants it I would say have you liked it because you’ve got it and we can tinker
with it a little bit here and there but this is this is the one-state reality
that’s exactly it so for everyone who enjoys it I hope they enjoy on religion
I would say that religion has played a singular role in in complicating this
conflict it’s people have invested extraordinary a lot of emotional energy
from all over the world in this little conflict from the outset and I would
have thought that without religion and some other ideological factors probably
remain an agreement in the 50s and be done with it but it is there along with
other things and virtually everything that people care about in the world of
the past 50 years has been imposed on this little territory these two little
groups of people and it hasn’t helped them well my good friend Louie has
called out the Cocina parts mark which is based on the assumption that each
group has a narrative when in fact we know and we could talk at great length
about the fact has many different narratives operating
within each group in fact it is composed of many separate groups vying for power
attention prestige within the respective societies no less SH than the current
President of Israel Reuven Rivlin has recently articulated
the idea that there are in fact four tribes in Israel today there are secular
zionists secular Israelis the religious Zionist
nadim the Orthodox and many others miss Murphey women nosy have their own
narrative so I think it’s really important to note that while at the same
time I think making the point that we can also talk about this water
aggregation of historical experiences that go by the name Israeli and
Palestinian it is important to note that there are varieties of nationalism one
of the great German Jews who immigrated to Palestine and in the 1920s Coleman
famously wrote about civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism and it’s a
conceivable that we have seen in the transition from 48 to 67 a transition
from city to ethnic nationalism well we certainly have seen is the shrinking
role of secular zionists and at the expense of religious science and I think
consistent with the rise of religious politics as long as them as forcing the
Middle East throughout the world to go to Stevie’s question about education I
too share your I’d say discuss at what I see and hear we taught in or articulated
on the Palestinian side the denial of the claims that Jews have
a connection to the light of Israel or calling the question is for Ischia the
western wall these are things that is in the story a matter to be I’m afraid to
say it’s not a one-way street that’s that’s the unfortunate thing
we see that kind of denialism which we just heard about these where other side
as well and here’s what concerns me as someone who spends a lot of time in
Israel as our concerns as a personal moral matter in in the presence of
Jewish values in beautifully Jewish society rates of racism in Israeli
Jewish high school kids so I think we have to understand these educational
cultures as linked to one another than segregated into good and bad this is one
reason why why why I’m really what a devoted good portion in the next phase
of my career to promoting the idea of a dual narrative approach to the study of
history in Israel Palestine and a month from now may 18th and 19th have been
have a conference at UCLA that explores the use of this dual narrative approach
in both Israeli and Palestinian schools what meaning if we actually exposed both
sides to this norm experience not only of their own but of the other together
okay so I’d love to see that gain more traction one state solution
my friend left but yeah I guess I would say it’s it’s what we see now but
demography will alter the complexion of that state of the course of decades they
may be up to a century which is to say that eventually Palestinians will be I
think a large majority and they’re reaching between the Jordan that that
trade given the seeming stasis with respect to this two-state solution and
the undesirability from many of the one state solution it seems to me that we
might indeed open up to the repository of the past to look for other ideas that
have been advanced and discarded I think now’s the time when we really seriously
have to think of alternative road maps I again hold about you that for all the
swabs principally the fact that it gives seventy percent of the land to the Jews
and 22 percent to the Palestinians notwithstanding the flaws that we may
see a two-state solution it’s the most just and equitable that I can think but
it’s not and in that regard the sembly project
will have won the day and lost the century if the goal is the perpetuation
of Israel’s a Jewish state and that is to go back to the final question I think
in no small part about the assertion of a powerful new religious Zionist
presence so you’re going to start I was just wondering during the end of
your lecture it was like last 50 minutes it is realized this on developing the
Middle East where all the Arab states just wanted to pack it and get rid of it
but I wonder if their comment assignment on behalf of Israel ten times like the
LaVon affair in 1954 where Israel wanted to it was a failed mission is real one
is to plant bombs inside Egyptian cinemas and libraries all this to gain
the empathy of white British British troops so that they may remain in the so
do you think that it’s just this portrayal that just you know
language you serve reading subtleties and nuances of humor that they come
about – you can trace it to victory in two cultures and there any sort of
special brand I would like to address professor Myers statement about his
dismay at the rising bias and Prejudice he sees amongst Israeli youngsters as
being the quid pro quo of what this gentleman mentioned about the bias and
education in the Palestinian lands and I think professor Myers it would be very
lovely to think that it’s simply quid pro quo and it’s let’s all join hands
but you know quite well as to why and many others year that the level of
enmity in the educational system of the Palestinians is unparalleled
Palestinians applauded and named squares for people that have killed Israelis
their leaders in addresses in Arabic to their people say the more Jews who
killed the better textbooks in Arab lands are printed to kill Jews there are
no such texts there are no such speeches given in Israel there are no such
endorsements in Israeli schools there’s a vast difference would you comment on
that so despite the differences you’re such
an interesting question I mean I do think there’s been a real shaking of
parts of the irf stay system obviously Iraq and Syria fall into pieces for very
specific historically specific reasons but they point to an endemic weakness of
the modern Arab state and I think that’s true it’s true across the way it’s not
so much during the color and it’s a little different in North Africa
also another example is a kind of canary in the coalmine precursor it is true and
so the question then is to Teufel there are two interesting aspects what you’re
saying the first is I don’t think it’s really true that that means the
political culture has taken a profoundly Islamist term as a result of these days
because you saw in the aftermath of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt and
elsewhere is the lot of people expected that the Muslim Brotherhood would be the
great airs here and I’m saying no no no that’sthat’s very unlikely though they
were gonna win the first elections because they were the only groups that
were organized and not tainted by the dictatorship so they had this maximum
competitive advantage and in Egypt in Tunisia and elsewhere they did really
very well but very quickly they fell from grace and the extreme overplay of
the hand of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt brought them crashing down in
Tunisia and Morocco they’re still viable parties but they’ve had to D is long fi
themselves so to speak turn away from the other ideology and become post
Islamists in order to remain politically viable they’ve both done that in Syria
the Muslim brother who was a major player early on and now is collapsed in
Jordan the Muslim Brotherhood has broken on it too but into three competing
factions so it’s in disarray it exists where does it exist it exists
in parts of Yemen because it’s become useful to Saudi Arabia in an ironic way
and in a few other places and in Gaza and I think that one of the great
ironies of the presence is that is that there the there’s a
great deal of momentum behind weeks ultra extreme Islamist groups like a by
that in Iceland whatnot but among a fridge enough of a fringe to create a
chaos because it doesn’t take too many people to create a chaos but it’s still
very fringy which doesn’t make them less dangerous but it does mean they’re
they’re despised by very large majorities where I think they have a
shot is actually a lot of spins which is very weird because Palestinians are more
secular than a lot of other Arab societies but it’s precisely because of
the conflict that you could see and one of the funniest things that you can
imagine is actually a transfer where you could see Hamas spreading to the West
Bank and secular nationalism spreading to Gaza
precisely as a push back against the missed rule of both in each place but
they come us may be more popular in parts of the West back than they are in
Gaza interesting enough but I didn’t worry about that but I think it’s the
one hold of the Brotherhood in potential football demo Palestinians comes from
two things one but it’s very hard to interest Elvis fans in kind of tiny
Islamic extremist stuff like Al Qaeda it’s not nationalistic enough for them
it doesn’t feed their baby pulses to well I mean you can get people to that
stage but it’s hard and the apparent perceived failure of everything else
still resonates very strongly so I I do actually think I’m master remains Bible
when other Muslim Brotherhood parties who either had to be Islamic fly
themselves or have sort of cracked up basically let’s see what were the other
bond yes Israel is the underdog well I mean I think you’ve got that impression
just because we race through a longer version
taking their time as it was no chance that we’ve lost the 1948 or given the
arrangement forces and very little chance that they would have not won in
1967 they were not the underdog militarily and really at any stage and I
don’t think they were pretty well in danger of losing any of those or except
maybe the 1973 war which we didn’t talk about so I don’t believe that and and if
we gave you that impression it was more because we raced it’s proved things than
anything else ah humor yes I don’t know anything about
his running humor but Palestinian humor is very life whoever knees and Syrian
humor it’s it’s very good dancers but it’s very it’s very much part of that
sort of Lebanon matter thing and it’s very witty and very cynical and very
very very fatalistic and it’s in its political cynicism and it tends to
deliver the punchline is almost always we’ve got much and I don’t know about
this reading humor so we should explore that Thank You Mohammed for your
corruption and correction of a misperception that may have emerged here
part of I think what we want to convey to everybody is that both sides have
agents on either side is is is is absent agency and indeed Israel in the 50s
though indeed very much concerned by the fear of a second wave of conflict was
not an enfeebled weak state it was capable of forging strategic
relationships and thinking tactically about how
and in fact there are two years after the LaVon affair it entered into an
arrangement with the British in French in the Suez conflict that led to a
crushing defeat of the Georgian forces so if it certainly was able to think
strategically in advance its interests that way in ways that the limas status
of it being enfeebled nascent fledgling state so I think that’s absolutely right
humor well there are a couple of things that come to mind I’m gonna leave one of
them behind which is sort of the most macabre of the iterations of Israeli
humor at that which plays off of victimization coping mechanism what
really comes to mind and Louie may be familiar with it is the humor that
issues from the immigrant experience confronting sort of this bewilder again
today the Zionist State with its image of a strong and powerful natives
sovereign native Israeli which confounds and maxes who comes with his or her own
practices and usually leads to very moment encounters between the Newman
rival and the state and it’s it’s a kind of it’s a way of you know it’s a way in
which this society of immigrants found ways to empower the small cog in the
wheel in the face of this grand ideal of Jewish self empowerment by taking a
humorous way and there’s a whole is rocky come of
tradition as well that speaks today no question about schools you know I don’t
I don’t really want to engage in the question of who’s worse and who’s better
because I really do see the educational cultures and the stigmatization of the
other is inextricably linked I mean if you force me to I would say sure I
suppose at some level the frequency and nature of stigmatization is is more
blood-curdling but I wouldn’t do that absent the reminder that there’s a you
justify it but I want to contextualize it and I think the more important point
is to see that these two are inextricably linked you would not have
that same degree of stigmatization of either side or not for this conflict and
I just think it’s anecdotally false to say that there isn’t there aren’t
worrying signs in the Israeli education system I happen to hear it for my
friends schools and say there’s an uptick in the kind of notification and
stigmatization of the other not just from other kids from teachers and it’s
very very worrisome I guess I’d like to turn that around and say there’s a
tremendous amount of work to be done on both sides and I think that it’s best to
go about that work in tandem recognizing the deficiencies and flaws of both sides
and recognizing the shared interest in adopting just I’ll conclude by saying
this is a conflict that at least in our presentation
and I often ask myself where does comply and for me hope lies almost exclusively
in the radical contingency of history we really can’t predict even as we engaged
in the study of history order to understand better what might have fault
for example I couldn’t have predicted that after the outbreak of the first 55
in 1987 a serious peace process would have commenced back-channel process and
then a more public version through 1993 on it had many flaws to be sure but it
was a serious breaking of the ice between the two sides I could have
predicted that after the Second Intifada I’m sure Roman would have disengaged
from Gaza others who were 9 might have I couldn’t have figured that out and I
can’t I can’t make sense of stage of the conflict in our current surreal from the
era either I’m just saying that our expectations of continuing to generation
may not there may be surprising outcomes that come about as a result of the mix
of ignorance disinterest and favorites as a issuing from the American president
so I’m not going to care to to foreclose any possibility of positive trade what
curious features are Glen storm is that Hussein said is Hamas in recent weeks
has announced that it plans to change its charter it’s infamous 1988 Charter
in several important ways one to redefine the struggle as directed not
against Jews but against the occupation to to
assert that it is possible for there to be a Palestinian state with the 1967
borders and free to associate itself from the Muslim Brotherhood this may be
a function of its relation to Egypt Turkey but it’s interesting and it
reveals to me once again that we can’t really predict
what will be even if it seems but it’s certainly very interesting which is in
the past two years or so there has emerged a very delicate fragile
strategic relationship between the key Gulf States particularly in the Arab
Emirates but also other sorry sent with Israel
this is because they share a strategic analysis regarding Iran that Iran is the
biggest threat to the region it’s a little fragile politically politically
it’s very fragile strategically it’s not fragile but politically do straddle you
want to know how fragile it is left Trump over the embassy in Jerusalem and
let’s see what happens to it it is fragile he’s not gonna do any lies
I said he wasn’t but the point is that this creates the potential for a broad
new strategic relationship in the Middle East for a new strategic landscape in
the Middle East now I can’t there’s a limit to how far can go until you get
some progress between his relative political
to go but I think one area people can work on is creating the conditions that
could allow this to be developed and to work its way into the core realities and
it’s it’s a great opportunity that should not be squandered out I just have
which is to say that that alliance that Hussein just spoke of um in a certain
sense we got the sequence wrong we thought that progress on the Palestinian
front would lead to that strategic alliance but in fact well that strategic
alliance took arise and the interesting question to ask is whether it because of
it and from the Israeli perspective it’s certainly seen as a very important part
of this strategic future whether that alliance can actually work this the
parties including including the Saudis new friends Israel towards progress
discussed in France we never see much mom it well it’s a chicken and egg thing
it’s exactly a chicken and egg thing in other words now we’ve reached I think
we’ve reached the outer limits of pop art kinko political so the question is
will progress on the Israeli Palestine from allow Israel to go state to get
closer or will Israel ago say it’s getting close to create conditions
whereby you can get more progress between is another buzzing there’s it’s
it’s it’s a cat it’s almost a catch-22 one has to give way to the other for
progress on the other front one has to move but a capital because
and but at some point the strategic interest might be such that some things
okay just to add a few things close first of
all I think also it might be important in America coalition’s and they’re
changing stance on israel-palestine also not bc i won’t i won’t i won’t my hope
that implemented many things but that could also be a new beginning of how
Americans perceived Israel or the inequalities in Israel and Palestine
others say only as someone who you know I have a daughter this being raised in
Israeli education system and I can take perhaps you don’t have it issues of
violence but but but racism it is Israel today I hear often young kids just throw
out depth Arabs when you’re talking about her mom even in Hebrew and it’s
normal I mean that football games at different places that and today left his
protesters not so much when they’re so it’s right there but but but but by many
many groups are we know where you can just talk about the Jewish side that you
know we’ve been escorted my younger years many many times not my Israeli
police to protect us from from being hit over our heads so so violence violence
or divided language is very limited in Israel during a minimum Palestinians
also and whether you can compare or not I would just say and I don’t like to
correct people in the audience or in at all because I think it’s a discussion
but also when it when asking questions perhaps you know we hear also a hint of
mine fact that this is how it is and I would
hope that we’d all go up in studying a bit more because I think they are there
there are some comparisons are knocking prices and other places I just had to
say that I’ll say also that the denial of the knock button is at all the denial
of the Palestinian catastrophe over the last twenty years if you look at 1990
Israel she’s sort of semi recognized it it was a semi expulsion and leaving on
their own new owner cord and today you have laws like that the knock but a lot
when you’re not even nothing teaching in schools and I can tell in the Israeli
history things for their matriculation it’s about too many sentences about the
1948 attacks Turkey today meaning there’s a lessening of this it’s the
trend and I think if you look at this and some of the work the chickens the
denial of Armenian Genocide as a model of denial I think that’s actually being
implemented after after you know that age or were the people actually
committed the crimes are long dead you have a new era that we they have no idea
what will happen in some older Israelis know what happened to lose Palestinians
both know what happened Turks and Armenians both know what happened on
ones that were in these regions but we’re didn’t we’re in a new generation
of young kids that really don’t know what happened there really meaning the
history books and for the business history class and most kids were like
history us okay the last thing I’ll say I want to say that my to note some and
here you mentioned on my student in Chile the protesters first on say that
I’m very happy to see at Auckland Israel Palestine with without the the large
number of security teams police team of the event and I think that’s a promising
change I was really disappointed to see that once I went to a but I hope it
continues something I’m Colin
there were literally almost checkpoints to different places where they checked
your bags and and I don’t think it needs to be the University on the other hand I
would also I wish the activists that were here would have remained but I get
that point I get that point that their argument also I mean it’s also an
argument that’s out there also I absolutely well that that’s why I did
say but but but but but but but you can spring it the way this is framed I
understand I understand the point I’m not I’m not saying that is acceptable
but I I highly respect them for for for participating in the thing and leaving
it at a timely manner if we weren’t if you had none if you’re
playing enough in late then they probably would worked it out in time
perfect timing where we would get a breather they would be able to say that
and really I just really had zero patience right then because we needed to
finish to get the students out on time you know some of the had classes so
let’s stop here and let’s go to the reception and thank you very much
[Applause]

1 Comment

  1. redcash123 says:

    Who was those crazy girls talking over the speakers ? Very disrespectful. Where was the security ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *