Avi Shlaim in conversation with Shlomo Sand
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2012
- 12/11/2009 - 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.
![เปิดบ้าน เปิด Supercar อั๋นโอกิ เคยเอา rolls Royce เเลกพระ องค์ละ 100 ล้าน l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeGwJwXauZ0/mqdefault.jpg)
I see 2 humanists of the highest caliber and honest disposition. Being Jew and saying something against the grain shows they are very very courageous.
I am sicken to my stomach and will recommend this book to everyone I know!
This beautiful lady got my respect for calling the state not a child of a rape but the rapist itself.
What extraordinary Trio! Despite some of their disagreement among one another, all of them are clearly united in their sense of humanity and courage.
Unfortunately I`m writing these lines 11 years after this talk while tragic events are unfolding in Gaza. It would not have to that if the words of these three incredible speakers have been heeded.
Thank you for this conversation, you have at restored my faith in humanity!
Your a good man avi thanks for all youve done and for your honesty god.
Bless you
Is very important to translate this conversation and the work for shlomo and Avi in Portuguese! Excelent!
a great speech vrom both men and a great moderator too.
A Great Debate Thanks and Peace & Love 2U All.
....the ancient Greek Historian Herodutus, referred to the Palestinian people at least in the 5th century BC.
Other ancient Greek philosophers also mention the Palestinian people
Brilliant from Rose, right through!.
The work of these scholars should be essential readings in all academic programs at liberal faculties. Fortunately, more and more people are aware of the facts exposed here.
I kind of agree on principle. Avi Shlaim has kept his dignity. Lovable and witty Shlomo Sand may be, but pictures of him hanging out with people like George Galloway, show a quality of naivete.
I think the dude who stood up during the Q&A section and started ranting about Sand's views without a real question was also at the Frontline lecture that he did when he wrote the next book on the invention of the land of Israel.
In that one he kept shouting from the audience and when Sand declared that there were changes that he wanted to see in his country the guy shouted that he should just leave, which I thought was weird because that's not how societies progress - in fact that is one of the many things that leads to stagnation (so called "brain drain").
It's also strange that this man who presumably is a citizen of the UK feels that he has the right to tell someone who spent most of his life in Israel that he somehow has no right to criticize or advocate changes in his home country. Sand moved to Israel upon it's creation when he was 2 years of age, and his time before that was in a displaced persons camp in Europe, so in a very real sense Israel is the only place he could call home, and he has more of a right and vested interested in his advocation of change than this British guy.
"It's also strange that this man who presumably is a citizen of the UK feels that he has the right to tell someone who spent most of his life in Israel that he somehow has no right to criticize or advocate changes in his home country."
Yep.
Such an insightful comment. Thank you for sharing!
Fascinating. Thanks.
This is AMAZING!
At the end we are all humans and the problem at the root is the identification with what we think we are in this Matrix.
Separation is the illusion and we must wake up!
... and then the people who don't want to support separation begin to identify themselves as distinct from people who want separation, and the cycle continues. Just like liberal people want to impose liberalism to everyone else. Or democratic regimes demanding democracy on non-democratic regimes. Ironic and Paradoxical. ?
The term Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c.1150 BCE
The guy who said Sand's book hadn't been peer reviewed is ridiculous - he stated that the factual aspects of his book were well known and even his critics acknowledged this- the only thing that he brings to the table is his analysis of those facts, which have been written about by his critics. History books come with footnotes, and it's very easy to obtain the data cited.
The Yeshiva University findings of a common genetic link among Jewish people, however, is not subject to peer review, and other scientists like Eran Elhaik of Johns Hopkins were denied access to Yeshiva's data because he proposed an alternate theory of Jewish origins. It's very strange for scientist not to share his data with other scientists, especially since the data would only bolster the genetic link hypothesis if it can stand up to scrutiny.
Climate science works this way too, lots of secret data and non-transparency.
Jonathan Hoffman..
Great stuff.
Just bought both of your books ❤
I also highly recommend Avi Shlaim's new memoir "Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew"
Thank you Shlomo and Avi , you really belongs to the special human on our planet 😊 unfortunately you are the minority but bring good signals
This conversation is still very relevant 10 yrs later. The only update that one can make today is that the two state solution is no longer viable, Israel killed it. So what should be done now?
There needs to be a intifada and this time it has to cause chaos to the point an agreement is made
@@haychhaych8377 What happens today...lol
both sides killed it ...the israelis by building settelments and the paestinians by being rejectionists ...
One state. The Palestine state of Israel within next 10years
@@AlfaBravo7777 Looks like WWIII
Apart from its agreement with France over the partition of the Arab provinces of the Ottoman empire, Britain had made promises during the war to other parties concerning the same area. In central Arabia, there was a standing British alliance with Abdul-Aziz Ibn Saud, the Wahhabi Emir of Riyad who was subsequently to become the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism was a movement of militant Islamic religious revival which had appeared in central Arabia in the middle decades of the eighteenth century, and the house of Saud had been politically associated with it since that time. In conflict with this British-Saudi alliance was the wartime alliance reached between Britain and Sharif Husayn, the Emir of Mecca, who enjoyed a special Arab and Islamic prestige as a recognized descendant of the Prophet, and whose family were called the Hashemites.
In return for leading an Arab revolt against the Ottomans, the Sharif had been promised recognition as the head of an Arab kingdom the exact nature of which was left undefined. The Sharif, however, was led to understand that it would include all of Mesopotamia; all but a negotiable strip of coastal Syria; and the whole of peninsular Arabia, except for the parts which were already established as British protectorates. While the British relations with Ibn Saud were maintained by the British government of India, those with the Sharif were initiated and pursued by the British Arab Bureau in Cairo. Meanwhile, the British Foreign Office, in close touch with the World Zionist Organization, had by 1917 formally committed itself to viewing with favour the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
The British wartime commitment to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the Palestine west of the Jordan, which again received high priority, was formalized in 1920 and included as a special article in the statutes of the British mandate for Palestine, as registered in the League of Nations. For the Palestine east of the Jordan, or Transjordan, a special administrative arrangement was soon made. In 1916, when Sharif Husayn solemnly declared the start of the Arab Revolt against the Turks in Mecca, he also proclaimed himself king of the Arabs, and the British actually recognized him as king of the Hijaz, which was the furthest they felt they could go at the time. After the war, however, Ibn Saud, with his Wahhabi forces, began to attack the Hijaz, and completed its conquest by putting an end to Sharifian rule there in 1925.
well done👍👍👍
This is true, but the synthesis of Nationalism into Arab-Israeli politics has not been done by anyone except him, let alone at such a stunning quality.
Also, this man's bravery is to be admired in my opinion.
I wish this was better quality video
There are no 1967 borders. There is only the 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line. 'The armistice agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders. The Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question." The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: "... no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Art. II.2), "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." (Art. VI.9)'
thanx for the reminder ,in this messy business of jewish propaganda this point get perniciously omitted...
Wonder why Avi stops at 1967 though
Avi Shlaim good example for the real origin Jews lived in Babylon and not the Jews of Khazar the khazarian the Ashkenazim
I think it is not connected; cause to me shlomo sun looks khazar and the points he mentioned are gold. I think educators elevates the person. These 2 are academics and knowledge opened their eyes wide open .
A Jew is a Jew, regardless of his ancestry, level of practice, or beliefs.
Why "will be destroyed", "will be terminated", "has to be removed"? Strong words but why in the third person. May be you should try. There has been a number of "surgeons" before. Don't miss your chance.
I disagree with Avi Shlaim about Israel's legitimacy came through a UN resolution. At no time did the UN process any sovereignty or any other right over Palestine, ie. the UN processed no power to decide the partition of Palestine, or to assign any part of its territory to a religious minority of alien immigrants in order to create a state of their own against the wishes of the majority of the population......Neither individually or collectively could the member of the the UN alienate, reduce or impair the sovereignty of the people of Palestine, or dispose of their land, or destroy by partition the territorial integrity of their country.
Israel's legitimacy can only come through the Palestinians, the sovereign owners, who, in 1988, recognized Israel right to exist on 78% of their land.
The "Palestinians" in 1948 was a reference to Jews & the others were referred to as Arabs until 1958 when the Arabs adopted the name as their own & the Jews became not Palestinian but "Israelis" in 1948. The native populations were miniscule and Arabs didn't own land titles much beyond 6% as Turks were the titled land holders. Most Arabs were their serfs. A big influx of Egyptian & Syrian landless peasants came in after WWI and they are the grandparents of today's Arab "Palestinians".
@@DEANMBLAKE I think you will find there were Arab Palestinian political parties in the early 1920s when Zionists were having a hard time convincing European Jewry - who were overwhelmingly opposed to Zionism -before the rise of nazism in 1932 Germany . Holocaust = Jewish Death , Zionist Life.
@@chugalongway01 1st Aliya was 1889. Western European Jews were not convinced but Eastern European Jews hadn't experienced any Emancipation. Russian Jewish charity bought 180,000 hectares in Golan & Barron Hirsch another 85,000 in Golan for settlements
@@DEANMBLAKE The Palestinian locals could have easily sent the Zionist settlers back to Poland if it wasn’t for British colonial sponsorship of the Zionist movement. When one talks about the Land Of Israel game you can’t ignore the Western powers that invented it and maintain it today.
@@chugalongway01 you misread history. The Brits say one thing & do another. Prior to and after the Balfour Declaration the Brits opposed Jewish Settlement. The Declaration was a forced anomoly. The Foreign Office didn't even know to whom it should be addressed & sent! By default someone suggested an important member of the Jewish community who was not involved at all!!! The document was dug up after Jews made their own moves to establish themselves. You are fishing for a rationale to justify the colonial narrative of Prof Sa'id. The Arabs bought British doubletalk & in the end there was no oil so they bailed out just like Regean bailed from Lebanon after the barracks bombing. Nothing in it for them but bad will after excluding Jews & deporting to Cyprus & the Holocaust became exposed.
Israel exists today by it own strengths. Your assumption of Israeli weaknesses that need to be protected are just old antisemitic tropes about weak Jews.
"Legal' and "lawful' are totally different with different definitions.
Because something is "legal" does not necessarily mean it is "lawful" and mutatis mutandis.
No, you're wrong Legal in accordance with regulations: synonyms: lawful, licit, legitimate, complaint. So yeah, both mean "within the law" So you would be wrong. His entering the premises was legal; his entering the premises was lawful?
t4705mb6 I have looked it up and you are wrong.
From the most respected dictionary in the world, the OED:
"Legal - Synonyms
*LAWFUL*, legitimate, licit, within the law, legalized, valid;
permissible, permitted, allowable, allowed, above board, admissible, acceptable;
authorized, sanctioned, warranted, licensed, official, enforceable, constitutional, statutory, statutable, ex cathedra, binding, bona fide, genuine"
Take note of the first SYNONYM.
+Oners82
You are a ......liar.
(WHAT a ...surprise!)
+Oners82
You can't reform reality.
Go ahead.... try.
Criminals try that all the time.
You CAN *imagine* how you would LIKE the way things would be but .........it changes absolutely nothing.
WHY are you refuting this?
Probably life-long brainwashed and pretty stupid is the best guess.
t4705mb6 Nice rant but you should try applying your criticism to yourself because you can't change what the dictionary says, dipshit.
P.S. When you +1 your own comments you look like a complete fucking tool.
The.guy who read almost a whole sheet of paper shows disrespect for the whole process of civilised debate.
I wish there was an official alliance between the new atheists and the new historians. (There was an unofficial one because of Christopher Hitchens).
Christopher Hitchens was the only good new atheist. The others are liberal Islamophobes who encourage Israel's colonization of Palestine.
39:32 😉
She is quite misinformed.
...and Jordan IS the Palestinian State, duh.
Yeah, there is a lot of racists Sokol Jews
Sand has 0 historical understanding and she is just 'off'.
What an important contribution to the discussion.
...you are so eloquent sir.
Arab refusal is the bottom line... check out Ibn Saud w FDR 1945 after Yalta
Sands is a professor of Film History!!! He's qualified to critique the Three Stooges, of which he is the fourth.
Dean Blake what a childish comment you make dear Dean Blake.
Oh how clever! The exact same comment as you posted on the Frontline video of Sand and his book about why he stopped being a Jew. So you're a liar and a bore.
Show the whole world where the Jews who presently occupy Palestine were clasped in iron chains, and transported on ships as slaves which sailed to diverse foreign lands, as the Bible teaches?
@@ghosttruth90 read your Roman & Spanish histories. There are 3 person accounts. Jewish children were kidnapped to farm sugar in the Azores by the Spanish. 130,000 Jews were the masons who built the Colluseum. Nero used 6,000 Jewish slaves to start a canal across the Corintheum ismus. Read a book!
@@ruthanneschnell9815 I'm serious. He's pulled a Bruno Bettelheim. Sands' PhD in history is in the field of theater arts. He's a disgruntled mediocre who got booted from an Israeli university. He's like Prof. Arthur Koestler of Yale did as a self-hating Jew.
The work of these scholars should be essential readings in all academic programs at liberal faculties. Fortunately, more and more people are aware of the facts exposed here.