Avi Shlaim and Shlomo Sand in conversation with Jacqueline Rose
Avi Shlaim and Shlomo Sand in conversation with Jacqueline Rose at the Frontline Club (via PIWP).
Event description:
Few modern conflicts are as attached to history as that of Israel and Palestine. Avi Shlaim, professor of international relations at Oxford will be in conversation with Shlomo Sand, professor of contemporary history at Tel Aviv University, at the Frontline Club for a seminal evening of discussion. Avi Shlaim’s new book, Israel and Palestine focuses on the causes and consequences of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, while Shlomo Sand’s international best-seller The Invention of the Jewish People unravels the mythologised history of the Jewish people to find that the Israelites were never exiled from the promised land, and therefore have no right to return. The book concludes that the present-day Palestinian Arabs are the true heirs of the biblical Jews. This is a once-only opportunity to hear these two eminent historians discussing their individual perspectives on the history – past and present – of Israel, and how their separate routes of academic enquiry have arrived at the same place: a two-state solution to end the fighting. With: Jacqueline Rose, Professor of English at Queen Mary University of London. Her books include Sexuality in the Field of Vision, the novel Albertine, On Not Being Able to Sleep and The Question of Zion. She contributes regularly to the London Review of Books, and wrote and presented the Channel 4 documentary, Dangerous Liaison – Israel and America.
thank you for posting this discussion. it was definitely interesting to listen to. however there are certain things that continue to unnerve me–particularly that they seem unable to connect their knowledge of history to a just present–namely giving up the colonial entity in palestine.
how is it that shlaim can say that “israel” was created “legally” based on un resolution 181 and at the same time negate un resolution 194 granting the right of return to palestinian refugees. it makes me nuts that some of these new historians can know what they know about history and yet continue to argue for the “legitimacy” of the zionist entity.
moreover, when they go into a discussion of a one-state solution shlaim goes into this discussion of a one-state solution in which he claims to have percentages of palestinians who support a two-state solution (he quotes 70%). i wonder how many palestinian refugees in england let alone in refugee camps in the region he inlcudes in this figure. i suspect none. is this a percentage that comes from the pa? as if they have a shred of legitimacy? sand on the subject is not much better.
but these two don’t seem to even register the centrality of palestinian refugees. they figure nowhere in their discussion of this history until the very end and only by sand as some sort of side note. and sand’s sense of bds is totally misguided as all the major documents and statements on bds are not about removing zionists from the occupied territories (which i am sure in his thinking only means 1967 palestine) but removing zionists from their colonial rule in 1948 palestine as well. even one of the questioners in the room about the so-called “two-state” solution–his concern is entirely about colonists and never mentions the refugees. again.
marcy/مارسي newman/نيومان
November 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm
To me, now, the strategic issue is:(1)DECIDING UPON THE KIND of post-Israeli state (including Occupied Territories)toward which to aim; with alternatives including Unitary, Decentralized, Swiss-Type, Condominium, etc.; and (2) DECIDING UPON THE TACTICAL STEPS to arrive there, including whether to accept a two-state interim solution (and what kind), or not, and if not, what other steps to take?
Howard Cort
December 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm