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.