Kind: captions
Language: en
that's a good point no no it's a good
point now some people accuse me of
speaking very slowly and they're advised
on YouTube to turn up the speed twice to
three times whenever I'm on one of the
reasons I speak slowly is because I
attach value to every word I say normal
say this all over and over and over
again I only deal in facts I don't deal
in hypotheticals I only deal in facts I
only deal in facts and that seems to be
the case except for when the facts are
completely and totally to the particular
Point you're trying to push the idea
that Jews would have out of hand
rejected any state that had Arabs on it
or always had a plan of expulsion is
just betrayed by the acceptance of the
47 partition I don't think you
understand politics they forced the
British to prevent immigration of Jews
from Europe and reaching safe Shores in
Palestine that's what they did and they
knew that the Jew were being persecuted
in Europe Palestine the only spot of
land on Earth yes basically that was the
problem the Jews couldn't immigrate
about your great friends in Britain The
Architects of of the Bal for declar by
the late 1930 about the United States W
happy to take in Jews and the Americans
W happy why and why are Palestinians who
were not Europeans who had zero role in
the rise of Nazism who had no relation
to any of this why are they somehow
uniquely responsible for what happened
in Europe and un only safe haven for
Jews Professor
Morris because of your logic and I'm not
disputing it that's why October 7th
happened oh my God because there was no
options left for those people the Kamas
guys who attacked the Kim they apart
from the attacks on the military sites
when they attacked the kibuts were out
to kill civilians and they killed family
after family house after house talk fast
so people think that you're coherent I'm
just reading from the UN I know you like
them sometimes only when they agree with
you though you've lied about this
particular instance in the past those
kids weren't just on the beach as as
often stated articles those kids were
literally coming out of a previously
identified Hamas compound that they had
operated from they liter
belli with all due respect with all due
respect you're such a fantastic
it's
terrifying the following is a debate on
the topic of Israel and Palestine with
Norman fenin Benny Morris mu Rabani and
Steven benell also known online as
Destiny Norman many are historians muen
is a Middle East analyst and Steven is a
political commentator and streamer all
four have spoken and debated extensively
on this topic the goal for this debate
was not for anyone to win or to score
points it wasn't to get views or likes I
never care about those and I think there
are probably much easier ways to get
those things if I did care the goal was
to explore together the history present
and future of Israel and Palestine in a
free flowing conversation no time limits
no
rules there was a lot of tension in the
room from the very beginning and it only
got more intense as we went along and I
quickly realized that this very
conversation in a very real human way
was a microcosm of the tensions and
distance and perspectives on the topic
of Israel and
Palestine for some debates I will St
step in and moderate strictly to prevent
emotion from boiling for this I saw the
value in not interfering with the
passion of the exchanges because that
emotion in itself spoke
volumes we did talk about the history
and the future but the anger the
frustration the biting wit and at times
respect and camaraderie were all there
like I said we did it in an perhaps all
to human way I will do more debates and
conversations on these difficult topics
and I will continue to search for Hope
in the midst of death and destruction to
search for our our common Humanity in
the midst of division and hate this
thing we have going on human
civilization the whole of it is
beautiful and it's worth figuring out
how we can help it flourish together I
love you
all this is Alex Freedman podcast to
support it please check out our sponsors
in the description and now dear friends
here's Norman felstein Benny Morris muan
Rabani and Steven benell first question
is about
1948 for Israelis 1948 is the
establishment of the state of Israel and
the war of independence for Palestinians
1948 is the nakba which means
catastrophe or the displacement of
700,000 Palestinians from their home hes
as a consequence of the war what to you
is important to understand about the
events of 1948 and the period around
there 47 49 that helps us understand
what's going on today and uh maybe helps
us understand the roots of all this that
started even before
1948 I was hoping that Norm can speak
first and Benny then M and then
Norm after World War
II the
British decid that they didn't want to
deal with the Palestine question anymore
and the ball was thrown into the court
of the United
Nations now as I read the record the UN
was not attempting to arbitrate or
adjudicate Rights and
Wrongs it was confronting a very
practical
problem there were two national
communities in Palestine
and there were irreconcilable
differences on fundamental questions
most importantly looking at the historic
record on the question of
immigration and associate with the
question of immigration the question of
lend the UN special committee on
Palestine which came into being before
the UN 181 partition resolution the UN
special committee it recommended two
states in
Palestine there was a minority position
represented by uh Iran India
Yugoslavia they supported one
state but uh they
believed that if forced to the two
communities would figure out some sort
of modus sendi
and live
together the United Nations General
Assembly supported partition between
what it called a Jewish State and an
Arab
State now in my reading of the record
and they understand there's new
scholarship in the subject which I've
not read but so far as I've read the
record there's no Clarity on what the
United
Nations General said assembly meant by a
Jewish State and an Arab State except
for the fact that the Jewish state would
be
demographically the majority would be
Jewish and the Arab state
demographically would be
Arab the unscop the UN special committee
on
Palestine it was very clear and it was
re reiterated many times
that in recommending two
states each state the Arab State and the
Jewish state would have to guarantee
full equality of all
citizens with regard to political civil
and religious
matters now that does raise the question
if there is
absolute full equality of all citizens
both in the Jewish state and the Arab
state with regard to political rights
civil rights and religious rights apart
from the demographic
majority it's very unclear what it meant
to call a state Jewish or call the state
Arab in my view the partition
resolution was the correct
decision I do not believe that the Arab
and Jewish communities could at that
point be made to live together I
disagree with the minority position of
India Iran and
Yugoslavia and that not being a
practical option two states was the only
other
option in this regard I would want to
pay tribute to what was probably the
most moving speech at the UN General
Assembly
proceedings by the Soviet foreign
minister
gromo I was very
tempted to quote it at length but I
recognized that would be uh taking too
much
time uh so I asked a young friend Jamie
Stern Wier to edit it and just get the
essence of what foreign minister gromo
had to say
during the last war gromo said the
Jewish people
underwent exceptional sorrow and
suffering without any
exaggeration this sorrow and suffering
are
Indescribable hundreds of thousands of
Jews are wandering about in various
countries of Europe in search of means
of existence and in search of
shelter the United Nations cannot and
must not regard this situation with
indifference past
experience particularly during the
second world war shows that no Western
European state was able to provide
adequate assistance for the Jewish
people in defending its rights and its
very existence from the violence of the
Hitler ites and their
allies this is an unpleasant fact but
unfortunately like all other facts it
must be
admitted gromo went on to say in
principle he supports one state or the
Soviet Union supports one state but he
said if relations between the Jewish and
Arab populations of
Palestine proved to be so bad that would
be impossible to reconcile them and to
ensure the peaceful coexistence of the
Arabs and the Jews the Soviet Union
would
support two
states I
personally am not
convinced that the two states would have
been unsustainable in the long
term if and this is a big if the Zionist
movement had been faithful to the
position it proclaimed during the unscop
public
hearings at the time benorian
testified quote I want to express what
we mean by a Jewish state we mean by a
Jewish State simply a state where the
majority of the people are
Jews not a state where a Jew has in any
way any privilege more than anyone
else a Jewish State means a state based
on absolute equality of all her citizens
and on
Democracy alas the this was not to
be as Professor Mars has
written quote Zionist ideology and
practice were
necessarily and
elementally
expansionist and then he wrote in
another
book
transfer the euphemism for
exposion transfer was
inevitable and inbuilt
into
Zionism because it sought to transform a
land which was Arab into a Jewish State
and a Jewish State could not have Arisen
without a major displacement of Arab
population and because this aim
automatically produced resistance among
the
Arabs which in turn persuade the
yeshua's leaders the yeshu being the
Jewish Community the yeshua's leaders
that a hostile Arab majority or large
minority could not remain in place if a
Jewish state was to arise or safely
endure or as Professor Mars
retrospectively Put it
quote a removing of a
population was
needed without a population
exposion a Jewish state would not have
been
established
unquote the Arab site rejected outright
the partition resolution I won't play
games with that I know a lot of people
try to prove it's not true it clearly in
my view is true the Arab side rejected
outright the partition
resolution while Israel early
leaders acting under
compulsions
inevitable and
inbuilt into
Zionism found the pretext in the course
of the first Arab Israeli War to expel
the indigenous
population and expand its
borders I therefore
conclude that neither side was committed
to the letter of the partition
resolution and both sides aborted it
thank you Norm nor asked that you make a
lengthy statement in the beginning uh
Benny I hope it's okay to call Everybody
by their first name in the name of
camaraderie Norm has quoted several
things you said uh perhaps you can
comment broadly on the question of 1948
and maybe respond to the things that
Norm said yeah unscop the United Nations
special committee on Palestine um
recommended partition the majority of
uncope recommended partition which was
accepted by the UN General Assembly in
November
1947 essentially looking back to the
peel Commission in 1937 10 years earlier
a British commission had looked at the
problem of Palestine the two Waring
National groups who refus to live
together if you like or
um consolidate a a unitary state state
between them and and Peele said there
should be two states that's the
principle The Country Must Be
partitioned into two states this would
give a modicum of Justice to both sides
if not all their demands of course um
and the United Nations followed suit the
United Nations unop and then the UN
General Assembly representing the will
of the International Community um said
two states is the just solution in this
complex situation the problem was that
immediately with the passage of the
resolution the Arabs the Arab states and
the Arabs of Palestine said no as Norman
frl Stein said they said no they
rejected the partition idea the
principle of partition not just the idea
of what percentage which side should get
but the principle of partition they said
no to the Jews should not have any part
of Palestine for their Sovereign
territory maybe Jews could live as a
minority in Palestine that also was
problematic in the eyes of the the
Palestinian Arab leadership husseini had
said only Jews who were there before
1917 could actually get citizenship and
continue to live there but the Arabs
rejected partition and the Arabs of
Palestine launched in very disorganized
fashion war against the resolution
against the implementation of the
resolution against the Jewish community
in Palestine um and this was their
defeat in that civil war between the two
communities while the British were
withdrawing from Palestine um
led to the Arab Invasion the The
Invasion by the Arab states in May
1948 of of the country again basically
with the idea of eradicating or
preventing the emergence of a Jewish
state in line with the United Nations um
decision and the will of the
International
Community Norman said that the Zionist
Enterprise and he quoted me meant from
the beginning um to transfer or expel
the Arabs of Palestine or some of the
Arabs of Palestine um and I think he's
sort of um quoting out of context the
context in which the statements were
made that that um the Jewish State could
only emerge um if there was a transfer
of Arab population was preceded in the
way I wrote it and the way it actually
happened by Arab resistance and
hostilities towards the Jewish Community
had the Arabs accepted partition there
would have been a large Arab minority in
the Jewish state which emerged in
447 and in fact Jewish um economists and
state Builders took into account that
there would be a large Arab minority and
its needs would be cared for ETC um but
this was not to be because the Arabs
attacked and had they not attacked um
perhaps a a a Jewish state with a large
Arab minority could have emerged but
this didn't happen they went to war the
Jews resisted and in the course of that
war um Arab populations were driven out
some were expelled some left because
Arab leaders advised them to leave or
ordered them to leave and at the end of
the war Israel said they can't return
because they just tried to destroy the
Jewish State um and and that's the basic
reality of what happened in 48 the Jews
created a state the Palestinian Arabs
never bothered to even try to create a
state a before 48 and in the course of
the 1948 war and for that reason they
have no state to this day the Jews do
have a state because they prepared to
establish a state fought for it and um
established it um hopefully lastingly
when you said hostility in case people
are not familiar there was a fullon war
where Arab States
invaded and Israel won that war let me
just add to clarify the the war had two
parts to it the first part was the Arab
community in Palestine its militia men
attacked the Jews um a from November
1947 in other words from the day after
the UN partition resolution it was
passed Arab gunmen were busy shooting up
Jews and that snowballed into a
fullscale civil war between the two
communities in Palestine in May 1948 a
second stage began in the war in which
the Arab States invaded the new state
attacked the new state um and and they
too were defeated and thus in the state
of Israel emerged in the course of this
two-stage War a a vast Palestinian
refugee problem um um occurred and so
after that the transfer the expulsion
the the thing that people call the
nakba uh happened um will could you
speak to 1948 and the historical
significance of it sure um there's
there's a lot to unpack here I'll try to
limit myself to just a few points
regarding Zionism and transfer I think
himim whitesman uh the head of the world
Zionist organization had it exactly
right when he said that the objective of
Zionism is to make Palestine as Jewish
as England is English or France is
French um in other words um as as Norman
explains
um a Jewish
State requires
Jewish political demographic and
territorial Supremacy without those
three elements um the state would be
Jewish in name only and I think what
distinguishes Zionism is its
insistence Supremacy and
exclusivity that would be my first point
second point is um I think what the
Soviet foreign minister at the time
Andre gromo said is exactly right with
one
reservation um gomo was describing a
European savagery Unleashed against
Europe's Jews at the time you know it
wasn't Palestinians or Arabs uh the
Savages and The Barbarians were European
to the
core um it had nothing to do with
development
in Palestine um uh or the Middle
East secondly at the time that groma was
speaking um those Jewish uh survivors of
the Holocaust and and others who were in
need of Safe Haven were still
overwhelmingly on the European continent
and not on Palestine not in Palestine
and I think
um given um the scale of the savagery I
don't think that any one state or
country um should have borne the
responsibility uh for addressing this
crisis I think it should have been an
international uh
responsibility um the Soviet Union could
have contributed Germany certainly could
and should have uh contributed um the
United Kingdom and the United States uh
which slammed their doors shut to um uh
the persecuted Jews of Europe as the
Nazis were rising to power they
certainly should have uh played a role
but instead what passed for the
International Community at the time
decided to partition Palestine and here
I think we need to um uh judge the
partition resolution against the
realities that obtained at the
time um two 2third of the population of
Palestine was
Arab uh the yeshu the Jewish community
in Palestine constituted about onethird
of the total population and controlled
even less of um of of the land uh within
Palestine as as a preeminent Palestinian
historian uh W Al khi has pointed out
the partition resolution in giving
roughly
55% of Palestine to the Jewish
Community um and I I think 41
42% uh to the Arab Community to the
Palestinians did not preserve the
position of each Community or even um uh
favor one community at the expense of
the others rather it thoroughly inverted
and
revolutionized uh the relationship uh
between between the two communities and
as many have written the the neba was
the
inevitable consequence of partition
given the nature of Zionism um given the
territorial disposition given the
weakness of the Palestinian Community
whose leadership had been largely de uh
decimated during a major Revolt at the
end of the
1930s um given that the Arab states uh
were still very much under French and
British
influence um uh the neba was was um
inevitable the inevitable product of the
um partition uh resolution and and one
last point also about um the the un's
partition resolution is yes um formally
that is what the International Community
decided in on the 29th of November
1947 it's not a resolution that could
ever have gotten through the UN General
Assembly today for a very simple reason
it was a very different General Assembly
most African most Asian States um were
not yet
independent um were the resolution to be
placed before the International
Community today and I find it telling
that um uh the minority opinion was led
by India Iran and Yugoslavia I think
they would have represented the clear um
uh majority so
partition given what we know about
Zionism given that it was was entirely
predictable what would happen given um
uh the realities on the ground in
Palestine um was deeply unjust and the
idea that either the Palestinians or the
Arab states could have accepted um such
a resolution is is I think um uh an
illusion that was in
1947 we saw what happened in 48 and
49 Palestinian Society was essentially
um uh destroyed over 80% I believe of
Palestinians resident in the territory
that became the state of Israel were
either expelled or fled uh and
ultimately were ethnically cleansed
because ethnic cleansing consists of two
components it's not just forcing people
into Refuge or expelling them it's just
as importantly preventing their return
and here and and and beny Morris has
written I think an article about ysph
vites and the transfer committees um
there was a very detailed initiative to
prevent their return and it consisted of
raising hundreds of Palestinian villages
to the ground which was systematically
implemented and so on and so
Palestinians became a stateless people
now um what is the most important reason
that no Arab state was established um in
Palestine well since the
1930s um the Zionist
leadership and um the hashm might um uh
leadership of uh Jordan as has been uh
thoroughly researched and written about
by the Israeli British historian aiim
essentially
colluded um to prevent the establishment
of an independent Arab State um in
Palestine uh in the late
1940s um there's there's much more here
but I think um those those are the key
points I I would make about uh
1948 we may talk about Zionism Britain y
assemblies and all all the things you
mentioned there's a lot to dig into so
again if you can keep it to just one
statement moving forward after Sten if
you want to go a little longer uh also
we should acknowledge the fact that the
speaking speeds of of people here are
different Stephen speaks about 10 times
faster uh than me uh Stephen do you want
to comment on 1948 yeah I think it's
interesting where people choose to start
the history um I noticed a lot of people
like to start at either 47 or 48 because
it's the first time where they can
clearly point to a catastrophe that
occurs on the Arab side that they want
to ascribe 100% of the blame to the
newly emergent Israeli state to uh but I
feel like when you have this type of
reading of History it feels like the
goal is to moralize everything first and
then to pick and choose facts that kind
of support the statements of your
initial moral statement afterwards um
whenever people are talking about 48 or
the establishment of the Arab State uh I
never hear about uh the fact that a
Civil War started in 47 uh that was
largely instigated because of the Arab
rejectionism of the 47 partition plan uh
I never hear about the fact that the
majority of the land that was acquired
happened by purchases from Jewish
organizations of uh Palestinian Arabs of
the Ottoman Empire before the mandatory
period in 1920 even started um funnily
enough King Abdullah of Jordan uh was
quoted as saying the Arabs are as
prodical in selling their land as they
are in Weeping about it uh I never hear
about the multiple times that Arabs
rejected partition uh rejected living
with Jews um rejected any sort of state
that would have even uh had any sort of
Jewish exclusivity it's funny because it
was brought up before that the partition
plan was unfair and that's why the Arabs
rejected it as though they rejected it
because it was unfair because of the
amount of land that Jews were given and
not just due to the fact that Jews were
given land at all as though a 30%
partition or 25% partition would have
been accepted when I don't think that
was the reality of the circumstances I
feel like most of the other stuff has
been said but I I I noticed that um
whenever people talk about 48 or the
years preceding 48 um I think the worst
thing that happens is there's a there's
a cherry picking of the facts where
basically all of the blame is ascribed
to this uh this built-in idea of Zionism
that because of a handful of quotes or
because of an ideology we can say that
transfer or population exposion or the
the basically the Mandate of all of
these Arabs being kicked off the land
was always going to happen when I think
there's a refusal sometimes as well to
acknowledge that regardless of the ideas
of some of the Zionist leaders there is
a political social and Military reality
on the ground that they're forced to
contend with and unfortunately the Arabs
because of their inability to engage in
diplomacy and only to use tools of War
to try to negotiate everything going on
in mandatory Palestine basically always
gave the Jews a reason or an excuse to
fight and acquire land through that way
uh because of their refusal to negotiate
on anything else whether it was the
partition plan in 47 whether it was the
uh the Lucan peace conference afterwards
where Israel even offered to Annex Gaza
in 51 where they offered to take in
100,000 refugees every single deal is
just rejected out of hand because the
Arabs don't want a Jewish State anywhere
in this region of the world I would like
to engage Professor Morris if you don't
mind I'm not with the first name it's
just not my way of relating you can just
call me Morris you don't need the
professor
okay there's a real problem here and
it's been the problem I've had over many
years of reading your work apart perhaps
from as 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
quicksilver you very hard to
grasp a point and hold you to it so
we're going to try here to 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 Sten 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 before 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 of my memories 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
usual 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 shapira shapira you read chapai
heit that was an unusual acknowledgement
by you 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 Des
Zionism so you then went on to say
because the Arab
population rationally
feared territorial displacement and
dispossession it of course opposed
Zionism that say 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 zionists 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
teps 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 tracts 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 a year years of
the the British mandate the law said
that the 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
automon 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
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 47 48 and in
4748 the Arabs started a war and
actually people pay for their mistakes
and the Palestinians have never actually
agreed to pay for their mistakes they
make mistakes they attack they suffer as
a a result and we see something similar
going on today in GA in the Gaza Strip
they do something terrible they kill
1200 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 there's something fairly
similar in the situation here expulsion
and this is important Norman you should
pay attention to this you did raise that
expulsion transfer were 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 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 advocated 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 40 7 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 top down 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 the 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 a
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
the question of Palestine Palestinian
and Arab and other leaders as well had
been warning at infinitum 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 Force
displacement um uh was fundamental um uh
to that uh project and just respond 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
pales Ians 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
campaigns 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 and 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 Dall 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 a 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 explained that in
lcan 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 me or Norm 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 yes
transfer is dealt with in four pages at
the beginning of my first book on the
palan refugee problem it's a fault of my
memory but the point still stands it was
Professor Maris who introduced this idea
in what you might call A 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 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 just well real
quick just to be clear that 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 a
part I'm quoting 25 Pages where
Professor moris 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
F 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 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 Fe Fe 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 that's not realistic
okay let me respond look you said you've
said it a number of times that 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 and Arabs later said and then
and since then have said that the Jews
want to build a third temple on the
Temple mount um 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 Zionist want to dispossess us
doesn't mean it's true it just means
that there some Arabs thought that maybe
and maybe said it since and maybe
insincerely Professor Morris later it
became a self-fulfilling prophecy this
is true Arabs attacked the Jews
Professor Maris 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
all um you say
that this wasn't inherent in Zionism now
would you all agree that Ben David
benorian was a
Zionist a z 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
politic the IDE went out the window the
first generation I have no doubt about
their convictions okay they were
zionists transfer was inevitable and
inbu in Zionism you 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 I'm not sure it's
something you just invented but but in
inable and the idea let me concede 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
according to your 25 Pages everybody
talked about on 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 of 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 the capitalism and all
all sorts of things which nothing to do
with Zionism but Zionism was very
important but what I'm saying is that
the idea of transfer wasn't the core of
Zionism the idea of Zionism was to save
the Jews who had been vastly persecuted
a in 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 a 2,000
years ago Arafat famously said what
Temple was there on Temple Mount maybe
it was in Nablus which of course is
nonsense but but um they had a
connection 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 on 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 by 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 a
transfer in some way a 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 a Diaries of Theodore
Herzel and I think you know Theodore
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 model upon which the
Zionist movement would uh would proceed
his model was Cil Ro roads has um I
think you know roads from what I recall
correct me if I'm wrong has quite a
prominent place in uh herzl'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
former white minori 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 spear the penniless
population across the borders and
procure employment for them elsewhere or
something and Israel zil who you
mentioned a land without a 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 but please
go just to this there is one small diary
entry in herz's vast volumes yeah five
volumes there's one paragraph which
actually mentions the idea of transfer
there are people who I 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 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 RADS 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 Boran wanted they
Boran was more of a socialist whitesman
was more of a liberal a 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 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 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 an outpost 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 including the ottoman Sultan
he tried to cultivate I just want to
respond to a point you made earlier
which was that people expressed their
rejection of the partition
resolution um on the grounds that it
gave the majority of the of Palestine to
the Jewish Community which formed only a
third um whereas in fact uh if I
understood you correctly you're saying
the Palestinians and the Arabs would
have rejected any partition resolution
yeah I think a couple things that one
they would have rejected any two a lot
of that land given was in the nigab it
was pretty terrible land at the time and
three the land that would have been
partitioned to Jews I think would have
been um I think I saw it was like
500,000 ER would have been 500,000 Jews
400,000 Arabs and I think like 80,000