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).
Vodpod videos no longer available.

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.

del.icio.usGmailDigg itCiteULikeBlinklistFacebookFurlMySpaceStumbleuponRedditTwitterYahoo BuzzWindows LiveGoogleNewsvineTechnorati

Author: Idrees Ahmad

I am a Lecturer in Digital Journalism at the University of Stirling and a former research fellow at the University of Denver’s Center for Middle East Studies. I am the author of The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War (Edinburgh University Press, 2014). I write for The Observer, The Nation, The Daily Beast, Los Angeles Review of Books, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Al Jazeera, Dissent, The National, VICE News, Huffington Post, In These Times, Le Monde Diplomatique, Die Tageszeitung (TAZ), Adbusters, Guernica, London Review of Books (Blog), The New Arab, Bella Caledonia, Asia Times, IPS News, Medium, Political Insight, The Drouth, Canadian Dimension, Tanqeed, Variant, etc. I have appeared as an on-air analyst on Al Jazeera, the BBC, TRT World, RAI TV, Radio Open Source with Christopher Lydon, Alternative Radio with David Barsamian and several Pacifica Radio channels.

5 thoughts on “Avi Shlaim and Shlomo Sand in conversation with Jacqueline Rose”

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. The guy trying to attack Sand and his work was a ridiculous farce of a human being. He tried to call Sand out on peer reviews etc. yet started to talk about very fraudulent genetic studies (by Zionists scientists and funded by Zionist organizations no less) which only say what the researchers what them to say (much like Oppenheimer and his mysterious Basque genetics all over the UK). The truth is that the Jews of Europe and Central Asia are related to the non-Jews who live there. Though I think most Jews are descended from converts (like most Arabs and Christians), but I’d grant you that some might be descended from Hebrews. Even if all are descended from Hebrews they’d have to be mixed with non-Hebrews or their clans would have died out before too long. That would mean that their would be genetic drift. Very little genetic markers would be left from the Hebrew people.

    And then we have the evidence of language. Yiddish (a High German dialect, really) has a lot of Slavic loans and what seems to be a Slavic substrata, however, it doesn’t contain much substantial influence from Hebrew itself. If Jews were all descended from Hebrews, their language would reflect this. People could not just pick up a vastly different language in the Middle-Ages (which is at least when Yiddish roughly developed) without many traces of their original language remaining. It is most likely that Yiddish developed in an area where German and Slavic speakers regularly intermarried. But Hebrew speakers? Sorry, there is no evidence for this.

    And even if Jews did all descend from Hebrews, which they do not, they still do not have an ethical claim to the land they call Israel. The Jews allegedly all left Judea and in those centuries Palestinians have been living their for over a thousand years. Israel cannot be destroyed now, however, that doesn’t mean they have an ethical right to be there.

  4. More anti-semitic trash who just want to single out and erase/destroy Israel. Waste of time.

    (And I don’t care what someone’s alleged background is, if they talk like anti-semitic scum, or they promote the agenda of anti-semitic scum, then for all intents and purposes THEY are also anti-semitic scum).

    Just as Arab-majority countries get to be Arab, Muslim-majority countries get to be Muslim, the world’s only little tiny Jewish-majority country gets to be Jewish.

    Unless, of course, you are anti-semitic scum, like Shlomo Sand and the disgusting Jacqueline Rose

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: