(This debate, organized by our Seattle friends, took place on Monday evening, September 19, 2011. It is summarized here by Doug Thorpe, professor at Washington's Seattle Pacific University.)
It was a rare opportunity to listen to Mark Rosenblum and Ilan Pappe talk, debate and argue for close to two hours with a small group of academics at my institution, Seattle Pacific University, and then to hear them again that evening at Town Hall, and throughout these occasions I felt gratitude to both for making very long treks to be here, and for their passion.
And yet I came away with the sense of a fundamental division between these two, and with the sense that this division was unbreached, and perhaps unbreachable.
To put it perhaps overly simply, there was a division in the understanding of 1948. Rosenblum stressed the legality of the State of Israel, affirmed by the United Nations in 1947 and 1948 and subsequently by Arafat. From this core fact he stressed what he called the legitimate fears faced by Israeli Jews and the Israeli government, and the need for a recognition of fault on both sides of the division. In short, he is ‘liberal’ in his clearly stated recognition of errors on the part of the Israeli government and for his support of a two state solution which would necessitate the withdrawal of settlements from the West Bank. This, he believed, could be done.
Pappe did not argue with the ‘legality’ of the state. He also didn’t (to my memory) return to the question of the removal of the settlers, which he had raised earlier as a serious stumbling block. Instead what he stressed repeatedly was the question of morality. For him any meaning that the legality of the state holds is undermined by the history of ethnic cleansing on the part of the Israeli government, documented by himself and others –a process that was a conscious policy on the part of Israeli leaders, above all David Ben-Gurion, for years preceding 1948. For Pappe there can be no true reconciliation, and no true peace process, until the depths of the displacement have been recognized –and in some fashion rectified.
As summarized by Ed Mast of the SeaMAC Committee, “Pappe spoke in moral terms, Rosenblum answered in terms of Jewish needs and current power structures.”
What then followed was an inevitable difference on the subject of the boycott movement, and of a one versus a two state solution. Rosenblum strongly affirmed the possibility of two states, and strongly denied that the settlements have made such a solution impossible.
The audience was, on the whole, respectful, although a number were quite vocal in their positive response to Pappe’s comments, and on one or two occasions quite vocal in opposition to Rosenblum (one audience member audibly took except to Rosenblum’s identifying himself with the peace movement). A good number of the audience gave Pappe a standing ovation as he was introduced. Beyond this it was hard to tell what preconceptions the audience came in with.
--Doug Thorpe
Thanks for the summary, Doug. Looking forward to reading the transcript.
Clearly the audience was with Pappe. But although this is encouraging, it also makes me sad. I find myself wishing that Rosenblum and his "liberal" Jewish approach were, somehow, not so terribly wrong. (see my blog, "Bursting the Bubble of Liberal Zionism, http://markbraverman.org/2011/02/bursting-the-bubble-of-%E2%80%9Cliberal-zionism%E2%80%9D/"). But it is, because it clings to a vision of reality that is pure fantasy. I hear this all the time -- we can go back to the 67 borders and all will be well. We can make this project ethnic nationalism work. 1948 didn't happen, and the refugees will just have to stay refugees. I wish Rosenblum were not so wrong and the reality was different. But it isn't. I have Christian friends who are outraged at Israel's actions and bring powerful pastors and politicians to the region to see first hand, but are still reluctant to have people coming home "bashing" the idea of a Jewish state and who still cling to the fantasy of a two state solution that can work and that will not be another name for apartheid. I have just come from the Netherlands where the Protestant church wants to hold on to its "Israel theology" and see the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of the divine promise to Abraham and his descendants (well, some of them, and you-know-who is left out). But the problem is the Jewish State, a reality that until 1947 and the strongarm methods of the Zionist powerbrokers and Truman's belief that only in supporting the idea could he get reelected was seriously questioned by most politicians and thinking people. The Jewish state is doing just what a Jewish state needs to do, it was planned, as Pappe and others have shown us, before Hitler, and it has been pursued relentlessly and continues to this day. It is unsustainable and it spells the end of Israel until this reality is faced squarely. I wish Rosenblum were not so wrong. I wish reality were different. But that and 5 shekels gets me a felafel in Tel Aviv or in Nablus. I pray for the day that both places are in a single democratic state. The more people listen to Ilan Pappe, the greater the chance that my prayer will be answered.
I think, with inflation, it is now about 7 shekels, Mark, but on all else you're spot on and a welcome voice in the wilderness. Thank you so much for continuing to challenge these old assumptions that have been around for so long that we begin simply to accept they are "the way it is and ever shall be".
Stay with that Kairos US document; it seems more and more relevant.
Cotton