Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Ilan Pappe in TAU on a Global Tour Defaming Israel

Editorial Note

Former Israeli academic Ilan Pappe, professor of History at the Exeter University Center for Palestine Studies is currently on a world tour promoting his new book Ten Myths About Israel. Pappe, a long standing promoter of the boycott of Israeli Universities, gave a lecture on "ethnic cleansing of Palestine" at Tel Aviv University on May 8, 2017. He was invited by the Arab student association to commemorate the Nakba. There was no uproar by the boycott community about him speaking in an Israeli university.  His tour includes Seattle, Washington DCBrazilBuenos Aires, Cornwall, and Wales. 

Pappe is a controversial historian. To recall, IAM reported on an attempt by the NGO CAMERA requesting Exeter University to inquire into Pappe's falsification of a quote by David Ben Gurion, Exeter University refused to act.

Pappe himself admitted his pro-Palestinian bias in the introduction to his book A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, "My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers; and sides with the workers not the bosses. He feels for women in distress, and has little admiration for men in command. He cannot remain indifferent towards mistreated children, or refrain from condemning their elders. In short, mine is a subjective approach, often but not always standing for the defeated over the victorious. At most historical junctures of this history, the Palestinians were in the inferior position, and the Zionists and later the Israelis had the upper hand."

Benny Morris, his former colleague at the New Historians fraternity described Pappe's methodology, "Pappe regarded history through the prism of contemporary politics and consciously wrote history with an eye to serving political ends." Morris added, "Unfortunately, much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication... This book is awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography. And, in Pappe’s case, it is not just a matter of sloppiness or indolence in checking facts; the problem goes deeper. It can almost be called a deliberate system of error. The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappe’s historical methodology and his political proclivities."

Morris also noted "For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable. Why grope for the truth? Narrativity is all." To provide evidence to Pappe's sloppiness Morris lists numerous errors. Pappe was wrong on the founding date of the Stern Gang and the Palmach; wrong on the dates of the Palmach fighting against the British; wrong on the date Ben-Gurion was chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive; wrong on the date of establishment of the Arab Higher Committee; wrong the date the Arab Legion withdrew from Palestine along with the British; wrong on the voting results of the UN partition proposal; wrong to think the Jewish forces were better equipped than the Arab armies; wrong on the date of the first truce; wrong on the date of battles; wrong on the date the Grand Mufti fled Palestine; wrong on the date of the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; wrong on the date Tel Aviv was founded; wrong on who established the first Zionist settlements in Palestine; wrong to suggest that the Israeli Foreign Office translated to Hebrew the U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 implying it did not have to withdraw from all the territories occupied in the Six Day War; wrong on the number of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in 1979 and 1982; wrong on the date of the Black September in Jordan; wrong on the date of the first Israeli settlements in the West Bank; wrong on the date of the anti-Hashemite riots in Jordan; wrong to state that Palestine’s future was determined in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence and the Sykes-Picot Agreement; wrong not to notice the battle Armaggedon or Meggido of September 1918; wrong on the number of casualties in the Arab rioting of 1929. Morris ends his list with "and so on and on and on."

Morris's review of Pappe's A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, is scathing, "Pappe allowed his politics to hold sway over his history." He noted, "Pappe's errors are not merely a matter of sloppiness born of a contempt for that leaven of dullards, 'the facts.' The book is also awash with errors resulting from the writer’s ideological preferences, his interest in blackening the Zionists and whitening the Palestinians." As an example of such bias Morris noted that Pappe described events of 1920 riots as resulting from clashes "with the most aggressive of the Zionist organizations, Beitar, whose members marched provocatively in the streets of Arab Jerusalem." But Morris scolded him, "Beitar, the youth movement of the right-wing Revisionist Movement, was founded in 1923, so clearly it could not have had a hand in the events of 1920. (Even a postmodernist can see that!)". 

Unperturbed by criticism, Pappe writes books and tours the world accusing Israel of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. To the contrary, like many of his radical peers, he is using the Palestinians to divert attention, in this case from the bloodshed and ethnic cleansing in Syria.   

يجري الان، 
 البروفيسور ايلان بابيبه يتكلم عن التطهير  العرقي في فلسطين
Going on now,
Professor Ilan Pappe talking about ethnic cleansing in Palestine

ILAN PAPPÉ at Town Hall

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Occupation of Palestine, in the wake of the 1967 war, Israeli historian Ilan Pappé, long a fierce critic of the Occupation and Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people, is here for this special Seattle talk, “Prospects for Peace in Israel-Palestine.” His newest book, just out, is Ten Myths About Israel (Verso). Other relatively recent books include The Idea of IsraelOn Palestine(with Noam Chomsky), Gaza in CrisisThe Forgotten Palestinians, and The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.  
“One of the most prominent Israeli political dissidents living in exile … He is also one of the few Israeli students of the conflict who write about the Palestinian side with real knowledge and empathy.” —Avi Shlaim, The Guardian.
“Ilan Pappé is Israel’s bravest, most principled, most incisive historian.” —John Pilger.
Monday, May 22, 2017 - 7:00pm
Town Hall Seattle
1119 Eighth Avenue
SeattleWA 98101


Ilan Pappé: Prospects for Peace in Israel-Palestine

May 22 @ 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm

$5 - $10


Ilan Pappe talks to Peter Florence


Sunday 4 June 2017, 5.30pm Venue: Baillie Gifford Stage

The Israeli historian presents his powerful and groundbreaking history of the Occupied Territories. He analyses legal and security structures, political positions and abortive peace attempts, and discusses the possibilities for reconciliation. His other books include The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and Ten Myths About Israel.
Price: £6.30


Ilan Pappe
Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian and socialist activist. He is a professor of history at the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, and the author of the bestselling The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
Ilan Pappé’s latest book is The Biggest Prison on Earth, a comprehensive survey of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, in which he exposes the history of one of the world’s most prolonged and tragic conflicts. Locating the occupation within a wider historical context that stretches back to 1948, Pappé dismisses the conventional view that the 1967 war emerged out of the blue, ‘forcing’ Israel to occupy the contentious territories.
Using recently declassified archival material, Pappé analyzes the establishment of legal and security infrastructures that were put in place to control the population, revealing harsh oppression that was never advertised in international headlines, and which passed without any substantial Palestinian resistance for the first twenty years of its existence. Then turning to the years since the resistance began in 1987, he offers hopeful visions of a future of reconciliation and peace.
From daily life under occupation to analyzing political positions and abortive peace attempts in the present day, this book seeks to redress the harm done by the occupation, reversing the trend of Israel’s silencing of any attempt to oppose it from within. What emerges is a powerful, groundbreaking history of the Occupied Territories.


27th - 30th July, 2017
St. Germans, Cornwall


Dismantling the distortion about Israel

Cover of Ilan Pappe's book Ten Myths About Israel
Ten Myths About Israel, Ilan Pappe, Verso Books (2017)
The historian Ilan Pappe’s latest work, Ten Myths About Israel, is a useful primer for people just becoming familiar with the Palestinian liberation struggle – but it is far more than that. It is also a valuable tool for veteran organizers seeking to explain cogently and simply how Israel’s foundational myths and ongoing propaganda perpetuate the oppression of the Palestinian people.
While concise at 192 pages, Ten Myths About Israel points readers to many of the seminal works in Palestinian and Israeli historiography. Those who wish to explore more deeply can thereby obtain other, more in-depth guides.
What are the 10 myths? Pappe divides the book into three sections: “Fallacies of the Past,” “Fallacies of the Present” and “Looking Ahead.” The six myths of the past include the well-known saying, “a land without a people for a people without a land,” the conflation of Zionism and Judaism, Zionism as a national liberation movement and the alleged voluntary flight of Palestinians during the 1948 war.
The three myths of the present era are the claim that Israel is a democracy, that the Oslo accords represented a genuine peace process rather than a “ploy to deepen the occupation” and that Israel’s multiple attacks on Gaza were simply acts of self-defense.
The final myth looking ahead is that creating two, separate states for Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to achieve a just peace.

Lacking in evidence

Although some of these topics may seem well traveled and the myths largely debunked, Pappe brings fresh scholarship and insights to each. In the process he reveals how much the myths of the past are still very much operational in the present.
Take, for example, the shopworn fabrication that Palestine was largely empty of people when Zionist colonists first settled there and the corresponding claim that Palestinians are an “invented people.” In rebutting this myth, Pappe brings forward largely neglected works like Rashid Khalidi’s book, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness.
Few would argue today that Palestine was largely uninhabited at the time of Zionist colonization. However, the second myth – that Jews represented a people or nation without a land – is seldom challenged. Pappe probes the settler-colonial claim that the Jewish “nation” is simply returning to the land from which it was supposedly expelled more than 2,000 years ago.
Drawing on the work of Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and others, Pappe notes there is no credible historical evidence that the Jews of Roman Palestine were forcibly exiled in 70 CE. The far greater likelihood, he maintains, is that they remained on the land with many converting first to Christianity and then to Islam.
Pappe shows that the notion of a Jewish nation in diaspora originated with Christian Zionists and often aligned itself with anti-Semites seeking the expulsion of European Jews through their “return” to Palestine. Zionism was only later transmuted into a modern-day “national liberation movement.”
Pro-Zionist organizations often attempt to disguise their narrow ethnocentric aims with the argument that Jews are simply reclaiming what is rightfully theirs as an indigenous people.
Although he tips his hat to Sand’s research, Pappe argues that what really matters is not so much the historical inaccuracy of the claim but how this “genesis narrative” denies the rights of Palestinians and “leads to political projects such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and oppression.”
Or as The Electronic Intifada contributor Raymond Deane put it in his review of Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People: “Ultimately, the case against the Jewish state cannot be based on an unseemly tussle for genetic primacy, but on a discourse of fundamental political and human rights.”
Pappe takes an alternative approach in examining other myths, such as the 1967 War, which is still regarded widely in the West as a justified preemptive attack by Israel on the Egyptian army. Several recent studies, however, have debunked the assertion of an imminent Egyptian attack on Israel, marshaling evidence instead that the Israeli military seized an opportunity to destroy Egyptian forces that had unwittingly been placed in an exposed position.
Pappe, however, builds a case – citing the work of Israeli historian Tom Segev – that a powerful lobby within the Israeli government and military, led by Moshe Dayan and Yigal Alon, had long been planning to take over Gaza and the West Bank. In fact, Pappe maintains it was a Zionist aim even before 1948 “to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.”
As Ten Myths moves on to explore “Fallacies of the Present,” the author finds it difficult to pinpoint a single representative myth. The chapters take on plural titles such as “The Oslo Mythologies” and “The Gaza Mythologies,” to indicate that more than one bubble needs bursting.
Regarding Oslo, the two principal myths challenged are that the accords represented a genuine peace process and that Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestinian Authority intentionally undermined peace by encouraging terrorist attacks during the second intifada.
Regarding Gaza, the two main myths are the Israeli claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that Israel’s 2005 settlement withdrawal from Gaza “was a gesture of peace.”

An oxymoron

For this reviewer the key myth that Pappe challenges is the notion that Israel is a democracy.
The ascendancy of political Zionism within the settler-colonial movement dictated from the beginning the creation of a Jewish state that could never be democratic. The oxymoron “Jewish and democratic” betrayed the very notion that in a genuine democracy sovereignty resides in the people – all the people, not a select ethno-religious group. A democratic state is supposed to belong to all its citizens.
All the crimes that attended the creation of a Jewish state in a land that was majority Palestinian Arab – the ethnic cleansing, the apartheid, the theft of land, the alliances with imperialism and colonialism, the incremental genocide and the imposition of authoritarian rule bordering on fascism – flowed ineluctably from the idea of an ethnocentric state.
Pappe rightly concludes this primer with a critique of settler-colonialism, which he says operates on the “logic of elimination” and the “logic of dehumanization.”
The concept of partition that started this crime wave will not be solved through a two-state solution, which he argues is simply another form of partition. As long as the colonialist attitude persists, Israel will never enjoy “moral legitimacy.”
“Peace is not a matter of demographic change, nor a redrawing of maps,” Pappe writes. Instead, “it is the elimination” of “racist ideology and apartheid policies.” Whether or not an ideology can actually be eliminated remains to be seen, but without a doubt, political Zionism is both the root of the problem and the Achilles’ heel of the Israeli state.
Rod Such is a former editor for World Book and Encarta encyclopedias. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and is active with the Occupation-Free Portland campaign.


Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Settler-Colonialism – Professor Ilan Pappe

30sec Preview for Part ONE click HERE 
30sec Preview for Part TWO click HERE
A460CD - To purchase a one hour CD at cost click HERE
The program begins with a standard disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the following program are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this radio station, its staff or board of directors.
I placed the disclaimer because content critical of the Israel/Palestine peace process is frequently criticized. Please give it an airing because the ideas expressed may help explain a situation that has led to decades of pain and bloodshed in the Middle East. And Professor Ilan Pappe is an extraordinary intellectual and historian.
Here is background on him and the organizers:
Ilan Pappe was born in Haifa and educated in Israel. He was a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa (1984–2007) and chaired the Emil Touma Institute for Palestinian and Israeli Studies. He received world attention as one of Israel’s “New Historians” who, since the release of secret British and Israeli government documents in the early 1980s, have been re-writing the history of Israel’s creation in 1948, and the corresponding expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes  and villages that became known as the Nakba – the catastrophe.
Ilan Pappe left Israel in 2008, after Israel’s minister of education called for him to be dismissed from the University of Haifa. He also received several death threats. Since then, he has been a professor of history with the College of Social sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.
He spoke on March 24, 2017, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. He was introduced by Dale Sprusansky, the assistant editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
Once a year – since 2014 – a conference on the Israel Lobby and American Policy has been held in Washington DC at the National Press Club. Sponsored by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, it invites speakers of international importance. Among them in 2017 John Mearsheimer, co-author of the best selling book “The Israel Lobby” and Professor Ilan Pappe, author of “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”- among many other books.
Since critical discussion of US support for Israel is a taboo topic the conference receives no attention from the mass media and very little by the alternative press. This led them to miss a compelling speech by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. He explained how Israel became a settler colonial state, and that it now ranks among those that have instituted a system of Apartheid similar to that found in post World War II South Africa which was widely condemned by the world. Professor Ilan Pappe concluded that facts on the ground created by Israel with the expansion of settlements now make a two state solution impossible.
You can find links to the video and transcripts of this and the other talks at the one day conference on TUC Radio’s web site tucradio.org – or at the following links:
Audio Player
Audio Player


Ilan Pappé: Prospects for Peace in Israel-Palestine

Ilan Pappé: Prospects for Peace in Israel-Palestine

Ilan Pappé: Prospects for Peace in Israel-Palestine

22 May 18:00 - 21:00
Town Hall Seattle, 1119 8th Ave
Internationally known historian and author Dr. Ilan Pappé is a native son of Israel and a former senior lecturer of history and political science at Haifa University. Since 2008 he has been on the faculty at the University of Exeter, U.K. The author of 12 books, Dr. Pappé is well known for his scholarship and commentary on the Middle East, especially the history of Israel and Palestine. His most recent publication, The Modern Middle East: A Social and Cultural History, is a textbook on the urban, rural, cultural, and gender histories that influence current political and economic developments in the region. Pappe’s meticulous research examines the socio-political outcomes of the creation and nature of the State of Israel. He traces the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and raises compelling questions around the injustice done to the indigenous Palestinians who were forced to migrate or live as an occupied people in their own land.

Presented by: Diocese of Olympia, Episcopal Bishop’s Committee for Israel/Palestine with support from Kairos Puget Sound Coalition

Ilan Pappé: Ten Myths About Israel

Book Launch

18/04/17 7:00 pm

  • This event has passed.
Please note: this event is now fully booked. 
Join us as prominent historian Ilan Pappé launches his latest book, Ten Myths About Israel.
In this groundbreaking book, published on the fiftieth anniversary of the Occupation, the outspoken and radical Israeli historian Ilan Pappe examines the most contested ideas concerning the origins and identity of the contemporary state of Israel.
The “ten myths” that Pappé explores — repeated endlessly in the media, enforced by the military, accepted without question by the world’s governments —reinforce the regional status quo. In this talk, he will address the claim that Palestine was an empty land at the time of the Balfour Declaration, as well as the formation of Zionism and its role in the early decades of nation building. Pappé asks whether Palestinians voluntarily left their homeland in 1948, and whether June 1967 was really a war of “no choice.” Turning to the myths surrounding the failures of the Camp David Accords and the official reasons for the attacks on Gaza, Pappé explains why the two-state solution is no longer viable.
Ilan Pappé is a historian and socialist activist. He is a professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies.


Ilan Pappé in Brazil  MAY 3RD, 2017
Last week we had the visit, in São Paulo, Brazil, of the university Professor and Israeli Historian Ilan Pappé, invited by Sundermann Publisher.
With his most important book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (recently published in Portuguese by the Sundermann), Pappé became a reference for all those who defend or want to know the historical truth about the creation of the State of Israel, in 1948, and the tragic meaning of this for the Palestinian people.
By Alejandro Iturbe.
In his presentations, he explained how he discovered the truth as an Israeli Historian. He told that, against the Zionist tale, Israel was not created as “a land for a landless people” but as a result of a systematic plan of persecution and expelling of the immense majority of inhabitants of that territory (the Palestinian people of that region) through violent methods, including the destruction of villages and plantations, and massacres like Deir Yasin. He also explained that, as part of that plan, a minority of settlers stablished in only a few years appropriated of more than half Palestinian territory and expelled 800,000 Palestinians (half of the population of back then) giving origin to the diaspora and forced exile. All of it to serve the creation of a State whose essence is to be a colonial enclave serving imperialism. And all of this was endorsed and supported by the U.N. (with the support of Stalinist bureaucracy) in its resolutions of 1947.
The discovery of such reality changed his life: he began supporting the demands and vindications of the Palestinian people. His intellectual honesty and steadiness to defend his ideas meant for him to be harshly criticized by all Zionist currents, and he started suffering persecution: the Knesset (Israeli parliament) condemned his positions, he was separated from office as professor in the Haifa University, and he even received constant telephonic threats.
Finally, in 2007, he went to exile in England, where he currently teaches at the Exeter University, and he is the Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies. He is also an active supporter of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against the State of Israel and its crimes.
In Brazil, during his short visit, he followed a tight schedule of activities: talks at the USP [University of São Paulo], the PUC [Pontifical Catholic University] and Unicamp [Campinas University]. He also presented his book at the famous library Martin Fontes, and he participated of a fraternization dinner with representatives of the Palestinian community in São Paulo. During this dinner, the leader of the community saluted his presence with a speech in Arabic, and Pappé responded in the same language as a proof of his deep respect to this people and culture.
Along the several activities, Pappé was accompanied by Miguel Ibarlucía (representative of the Public Lecture Eduardo Said, University of Buenos Aires) and Soraya Misleh, from BDS Coordination in Brazil and militant of the PSTU.
We had the chance to know him in depth and get to know a humble, nice man of good humor (full of stories and jokes), which he kept along the intense activities schedule.
We had a many points of agreement with Pappé: the support to the Palestinian people, the defense of the truth about the creation of the State of Israel, and the meaning of the existence of this State; that most Jewish population of Israel is convinced there will not be peace for the region as long as the State of Israel exists; that the so-called “two states solution” is a false, unsustainable path, and the only possible solution is the creation of a secular, democratic Palestine in all its historical territory, where the expelled Palestinians and their families can go back and the Arabs and Jewish that accept this can live there at peace with them.
Now we have met the man who defends these ideas. We are proud of it, and proud of being part of his visit to Brazil.



Exposing Israeli Lies about the Occupation: An Interview with Ilan Pappé

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé talks about the occupation of Palestine, the Arab War of 1948 and the current oppression of the Palestinians at the hands of Zionism.

Left Voice’s second issue, "Women on the Front Lines", is now available for purchase. For every magazine sold, we are donating $1 to a worker controlled factory in Argentina.
It is almost unbelievable how these intelligent sensitive intellectual people would repeat the Israeli deception and lies about the past and about the present even when these lies have already been successfully challenged and debunked by no others that Israeli scholars themselves.
There is a narrative, a version that the 1948 war started by an Arab attack on the new Jewish state and that the Arab leaders called on the Palestinians to leave and that’s why the Palestinians became refugees.
In my own research and other people who look at the Israeli archives, we showed that actually half of the Palestinians that became refugees, became refugees even before one Arab soldier entered Palestine so actually the Arab war effort was in reaction to the expulsion of the Palestinians by the Jewish forces. The expulsion was part of of a Plan, before the war started of the Jewish military and political command to try and get as much of Palestine as possible, with as few Palestinians in it as possible.
Part of this friend was already implemented when the British were still responsible for law and order. In fact all the expulsion from the cities and the towns took place before the war started in April 1948. The war started on the 16th of May 1948. So I think it’s important to understand that the war was used by Israel to try and empty Palestine ofPalestinians. It’s not that the Palestinians became refugees because of the war, they became refugees because of Zionist ideology.
Well I think since the 1945 since the Second World War, the world especially the Western world decided that it does not want to deal with Zionism and its crimes against the Palestinians for various reasons. One of the reason I think is... we have to remember that already in the 19th century the Christian world didn’t want the Holy Land to be a Muslim land an Arab land.
So there was a strong support from Christian groups and leaders to the idea of the Jews going back to Palestine as they called it.
It was also anti-semitic because the Jews are in Palestine they will not be in Europe, so that was part of their support. Secondly, Islamophobia the hate of Islam... it’s not a new thing. It existed in the 19th century as well and of course later, it’s the Holocaust–Europe preferred not to deal with what the Holocaust meant if it always has to do to support the colonization of Palestine.
So in this respect I don’t think Trump is very different from others. In fact, I think, for Palestine it is better to have Trump than to have Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have been much worse for the Palestinians because she would make us believe [that] there is the peace process, there is a reasonable situation. At least with Trump, we are talking a bit more honestly about what the problem is. So I don’t think he really matters that much. We have a basic problem with the way the international community treats the Palestinians in the last 70 years and I think we have to work to change it.
Well, it’s difficult to know with Trump, I think that it would be easier to talk about the reality with Trump, because he doesn’t play the games of Clinton and Obama and it’s much easier to tell people now "you have two options: either you support an apartheid state which is called Israel or you support the Democratic state for everyone between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean." I think that under Trump at least the conversation will be more honest. I don’t know what he will do and my guess is that he will not be that different from other American presidents. All of them gave Israel carte blanche, all of them allowed Israel to do what it wanted and I think that we need to limit the American intervention.
Then we can have a better chance.
OK, thank you


Ilan Pappé on Viewing Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Settler-Colonialism

 Posted onApril 5, 2017
Delivered to The Israel Lobby and American Policy conference March 24, 2017 at the National Press Club
The Israel Lobby and American Policy conference was solely sponsored by the American Educational Trust, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep). This is a rush transcript.
Dale Sprusansky: Our final keynote is a man who is well known to all of you, Ilan Pappé. As Hanan Ashrawi mentioned earlier today, in an age of alternative facts, I think we can all agree on the importance of being able to discern truth from fiction. While alternative facts may be a new term in American politics, the idea behind it is far from original. As we all know, for decades colonial powers have developed and propagated false narratives to legitimize the subjugation of indigenous peoples.
Like colonists before them, Israel has relied on alt history, a false or distorted account of history to justify its policy toward the Palestinians. If the so-called conflict is ever going to be resolved, the events that led to the creation of Israel – namely the Nakba – must be reckoned with. This reality, that an honest understanding of the past is necessary to pave a better tomorrow, is the reason we invited historian Ilan Pappé to today’s conference.
Ilan Pappé has written prolifically and with honesty and courage on the history of Israel and the events that facilitated its creation. His 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, with its painfully honest title, created controversy, but it’s nonetheless a seminal book on this issue. Professor Pappé chose the title knowing that it would be provocative, but that it was also true to the research presented in his book. As I told him at dinner last night, one can say that, in choosing the title, Professor Pappé was being more timeless than timely.
I’m sure as the West slowly comes to better grips with the reckoning of the history of Israel, future generations will find the title of his book progressively less controversial – at least I hope. Ethnic Cleaning, of course, is just one of many books Professor Pappé has written. He has an upcoming book entitled Ten Myths about Israel, which will be released shortly and will surely be a valuable resource to those looking for a critical and honest assessment of pro-Israel narratives.
Professor Pappé is currently a professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter in the UK. He was born in Haifa. Prior to coming to the UK, he was a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Haifa. His keynote today will focus on how an honest assessment of history is necessary in order to resolve the seemingly intractable conflict. Professor Pappé.
Ilan Pappé: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [STANDING OVATION] Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m really honored to be here, and thank you for the warm and empowering reception. I told my dear friend, Clayton [Swisher], that we have traveled farther than anyone else. For me it’s midnight, for him it’s 2:00 in the morning. Yet, we were put at the end of the conference. And we wondered what was the hidden agenda. Either they thought we can wake you up after a very long and exhaustive day. Or they thought that you are sleepy anyway, so you won’t notice the provocations that both of us are going to present to you. So we’ll see which one of the two narratives is valid.
Bill Quandt, in a series of articles in the Journal of Palestine Studies, very cleverly charted what makes an American president’s legacy about Israel and Palestine valid. He pointed to three major factors that inform such a legacy. One is the personality of the president. The second one are the lobbies. By the lobbies, he meant both the AIPAC and the Christian Zionist lobbies. The third group, he called them the professionals – the people who work in the State Department, in the National Security Council, in the intelligence community, and were there not necessarily just because of their political affiliation to the presidency, but also because – at least allegedly – of their professionalism.
He concluded, and I think he is right, that the president’s personality, although it is very important – and I don’t have to tell you this today, he wrote it before he thought that personality could be that important in a president [LAUGHTER] – but he concluded that the personality of the president did not have a huge impact on American policy toward the Palestine question. It did have some impact, but not a fundamental impact.
He did agree with everyone who spoke before me that the Israeli lobby had a huge impact on American policy toward Israel and Palestine, but also tended to grant or credit the professionals with an equal impact on American policy toward the Israel-Palestine question.
I would like really to focus on that third group, because everyone else was talking about the lobby and I don’t need to repeat the wise words that were already said. In fact, what I’m going to argue today, this afternoon, is that as much as the lobbies are important in affecting and influencing American policy, there is a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of what the conflict in Palestine is all about, including among those American diplomats, pundits, politicians who see themselves champions of Palestinian rights.
The level of – I wouldn’t call it ignorance, because these are very educated well-read people, so ignorance would not be a fair concept here – the level of blindness, or the level of ignorance in the sense of ignoring certain chapters rather than not being able to understand reality, this level is so high that it really makes it impossible, even when you have a period in which the lobbies are not strong or even when you have a president who is more pro-Palestinian than anyone before him. The level, the depths, of that ignorance is so significant that it would not allow the two other factors, even if they are diminished or weakened, to influence fundamentally the American policy and, in association, the reality on the ground.
Now, what is missing? And this is what I would like to point out. What is missing is an understanding of the nature of Zionism, the nature of the Zionist project in Palestine – not as a nostalgic journey into the past, but as a current analysis. The late and amazing scholar of settler colonialism, Patrick Wolfe, said famously that settler colonialism is not an event. It’s a structure. Zionism is not an event. It’s a structure, and it’s a settler colonialist structure. It was a settler colonialist structure in 1882, and it is a settler colonialist structure in 2017.
You don’t appease a settler colonialist project by dividing Palestine into two states. That will never appease the settler colonialist project. The only way to challenge a settler colonialist project is to decolonize the settler colonialist project. This challenge has not been digested by American policymakers, including those who regard themselves as open-minded, balanced – if you want – objective above the situation.
I don’t blame them, because to talk about decolonization in the 21st century is abnormal. Colonialism, in our mind, belongs to the 19th century. Decolonization belongs to the first half of the 20th century. But in the 21st century, if we will not resell or return to these fundamental concepts of colonialism and decolonization, we will not move forward toward a solution in Israel and Palestine.
I will give you examples of how the narrative, the discourse, the conceptual framework of settler colonialism can lead us to a different view on the reality today, not just about the reality in the past. I will begin with something that, even here, I think, is sometimes accepted maybe not intentionally, maybe unconsciously, but is part of the American heritage of dealing with conflicts such as Israel and Palestine. This is the idea that in Palestine you have a conflict between two national movements, and then everything else comes out of this analysis. If these are two national movements, we have to satisfy both of them. We have to divide the land between both of them. They share responsibility for the conflict equally. We should find a way of satisfying their aspiration equally.
Now, it doesn’t matter, of course, that when you translate this paradigm of parity to a percentage of territory or demography, of course it was never suggested by any mediator – whether they were Americans or non-Americans – that the land would be divided 50/50. That was never in the cards. But even the idea of 22 and 78, or the 55 and 45 of 1947, was based on this false analysis that what you have in Palestine is a genuine struggle between two national movements.
Zionism is not a national movement. It’s a settler colonialist movement. The Palestinians, before they become a nation, they are first and foremost the native indigenous people of Palestine [APPLAUSE] who sometimes chose nationalism as the best vehicle to defend their native indigenous rights, and probably would have to find a different vehicle in the 21st century to protect their rights – much more an agenda of human rights and civil rights than national rights. Because the national rights have been understood in the world as a wish to have a small bantustan next to Israel, and this is not going to work.
Another point which is important when you use the settler colonial perspective on the situation in Israel and Palestine. A basic American assumption – and not just an American assumption, a United Nations assumption, in fact an international assumption – is that the conflict in many ways began in 1967. Not because people don’t know what happened before 1967, but because in 1948 the international community through the United Nations legitimized the idea of a Jewish state over 78 percent of Palestine. So even Palestine’s friends advised the Palestinians not to bring the future of the 78 percent of Palestine, namely Israel, into the negotiation. The best, they were told, you can hope for is to have a state over 22 percent of Palestine.
Now this idea that because the United Nations legitimized a state – which is, of course, an important fact which we should never ignore – but this idea of course brings us to a narrative of why there is a conflict which has little relevance or connection to the reality on the ground. The conflict did not start in 1967. The reason that there is still a conflict today is not because of the events of 1967. In fact, our historical research these days shows something many of us who lived in Israel knew anyway, but it was always good to corroborate this by new documentations and archives: that Israel planned the occupation of the West Bank long before 1967.
In fact, from a Zionist perspective, it made no sense whether you were on the left in the Zionist movement or the right of the Zionist movement. It made no sense whatsoever to allow the Transjordanians, namely the Jordanians, to annex the West Bank while the Zionist movement had the military power to take it over. The reason they allowed the Jordanians to annex the West Bank was because they wanted to neutralize the Arab Legion in the ’48 war so that the most efficient Arab army would not be part of the all-Arab coalition. They were supposed to save Palestine from the Zionist conquest.
But in any case, many among the Israeli generals and politicians regretted their decision and from 1948 onwards created a lobby that pushed the Israeli government to seek the opportunity to occupy the West Bank. In fact since 1963 – and a book of mine on this will come out in the summer called The Biggest Prison on Earth – since 1963 the Israelis systemically and methodically prepared for the occupation of the West Bank. And Gamal Abdel Nasser provided them the opportunity that they were looking for in June 1967.
The Israelis were very well prepared for taking over the West Bank. They already had the military rule imposed on the Palestinian citizens in Israel. All they had to do was transmit this military rule from Israel itself and impose it on another group of Palestinians. But maybe even more important, if you understand Zionism as settler colonialism and Israel as a settler colonial state, you understand that any depiction of the Israeli society as being torn between two camps – a liberal camp that wants to withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and believes in a two-state solution, and an intransigent, inflexible camp, a war camp that does not want to give up the territories – this depiction is true only as far as the general public is concerned, but is not relevant to the DNA of the Israeli political, military and strategic elite. They are united, and they were united since 1967, in their determination to do all they can to keep the West Bank as part of Israel and find ways of not incorporating the population that lives there. And they had a similar strategy toward the Gaza Strip as well.
The peace process was not born in Washington. It was born in Tel Aviv as a means of creating this charade of an internal Israeli debate that brings hope for anyone who believes that these two national movements could be coached through the intervention of a mature mediator into a reasonable peace treaty; one that you can easily find in a textbook in the political science departments in American universities which is drawn from the world of business where, as Madeleine Albright used to put it, everything visible can be divisible. So you divide land, demography. She warned us when she was the secretary of state that everything which is invisible is indivisible; namely, don’t talk about justice, morality, the refugee problem, the nature of Zionism and the nature of the state of Israel because there is nothing we, who learned this in the departments of business and political science, can offer in front of such realities.
What can be done in order to move forward the discussion so as to address the mismatch between the discourse that we have been using for years about the conflict, its origins, its nature, the reasons for its continuation? How do we move from this mismatch to a conversation, at least a conversation that is far more relevant to the reality on the ground?
In every passing day with these unilateral Israeli policies on the ground, you don’t even need to talk to people about settler colonialism because the one Israeli state is already there. The one apartheid state of Israel came into being around 2001, but maybe we haven’t noticed that. But it’s there. It is there and it’s going to be more and more legalized as an apartheid state with every passing day. If we will continue to talk about a two-state solution, if we will continue to talk on the basis of the assumptions of the previous peace process, there is nothing we could do to change that reality, in which six million Palestinians would continue to live under an oppressive regime in various forms.
So what can we do? One thing I think, and I know it’s difficult for some people, is to realize that the two-state solution is dead. [APPLAUSE] Many of us still sleep with the two-state solution, but you are sleeping with a corpse. Many of us still dine with the two-state solution, but you are sleeping with a dead body. It’s time to go to the morgue together and watch together the corpse of the two-state solution. Hopefully we will all be invited to the funeral so that we can get over it and move on. [APPLAUSE]
Secondly, and not less importantly, we should understand that decolonization is not a process that can be forced from the outside. What you can force from the outside is the end of occupation, the end of oppression, the end of the atrocities that are done in the name of apartheid. But you cannot force reconciliation between the settlers and the natives from the outside. But as long as you are not sending the message – as we did send the message to apartheid South Africa that the end of apartheid is a precondition for a process of reconciliation, whereas, in Palestine we always said reconciliation first, and then the end of apartheid – as long as we don’t send this message either as a civil society or as a political and intellectual elite, we will continue to have this mismatch between the way we talk about the reality and the way the reality unfolds on the ground.
I think this clearer division of labor between the outside and the inside from the perspective of decolonization – not from the perspective of a peace process, from the perspective of decolonization – it has to be urgently adopted by anyone of us who is either a student of the conflict or is involved in it or is interested in it or wants to show solidarity with its victims. Because if we in the universities, in the press, in the political arena, if we will not use the right dictionary and the right language to describe what goes on on the ground, then we will continue to provide an umbrella of immunity to the settler colonial state of Israel to try and complete what it started in 1948 – namely, to have as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians in it as possible.
Believe me, I know what I’m talking about. I was born in Israel in 1954. I’m a product of the Israeli education system. Probably not a very good product of the Israeli educational system [LAUGHTER], quite a flawed product of that system. But there is sometimes someone who was part of that system, who was indoctrinated in this system, when you hear the discourse abroad about the possibilities that are open in the Jewish society for change, when you hear that there is a two-state solution around the corner somewhere in the globe, you find it very frustrating, because in your daily experience you know how far away from the reality is this conversation.
Now, analyzing correctly does not mean that it will be an easy ride forward. I’m finishing. Analyzing or having the right analysis doesn’t mean that the prognosis would be easy. I’m not going to say here that the move into decolonization, into probably the path on a one-state solution – with various models that are possible – is an easy journey. It is as difficult as any journey we have to take as a human society when we face an indoctrinated racist society that has to be deprogrammed. It has to be decolonized in the mind before we can decolonize it on the ground.
The only thing I’m saying is that for 50 years now we didn’t even try to do that because we claimed that the only urgent need we had was to convince the Israeli society to give up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and then we can lead to the path toward reconciliation and peace. Well, this was a waste of time. This was a waste of energy. Fifty years are a lot of time in a peace process that was based on the wrong assumptions and had reaped the bitter fruits that anyone with his eyes in his head could have seen were the only possible consequence of such a misconception and misunderstanding of what the conflict is about.
Finally, I would say this. Nothing of what I said can materialize without, of course, a new unification of the Palestinian political scene. We need a different Palestinian thinking. We need a united authentic representation of the Palestinian people, which we don’t have today, that should give us the lead. We will have to get rid eventually of the existing political structures in Palestine in order to be able to lead us, settlers and natives together, into a future that has normal life in it, as you and other people in the world enjoy. Thank you.
Questions & Answers
Dale Sprusansky: Thank you very much. Most of the questions here revolve around one point here, and that’s what exactly a one-state solution would look like. So one person asked, what happens to the Palestinians? Another asked, how do Israelis, settlers, Palestinians and refugees coexist? What happens in that first day, week, year, or decade?
Ilan Pappé: Right. Well, building a different political structure from the one you have is a long journey. Any attempt to answer all these questions would be wrong, because first of all, as I said, you have to remove the one conversation that does not allow you to invest the same energy as you have invested in the last 50 years in the wrong solution. So I would say two points about this.
One is, as I think there is already a one-state solution, we don’t need to build a one-state solution. What we need is to change the regime of that one state. We need to make it a democracy, because now it is not a democracy. Now, you build it by a slow movement from below and not by big revolutions, as the Arab world has learned unfortunately and painfully in the last six or seven years.
It is time, I think, for academics, pundits, and people who have the time and the energy to try and begin to build models of a joined curriculum, a joined judicial system, a joined political solution for questions of symbolism such as names, the identity of the state and so on. I don’t think it’s time for a political movement to do it as yet. It’s too premature. I’m just saying we have to start this conversation.
There are more and more movements from below that define themselves as a one-state movement. We talked about the BDS a lot today. But there’s also an ODS, the One Democratic State movement from below. Now this group of people – whether they are activists, whether they come from different walks of life – begin to give answers to the questions that you are asking. But I think more than anything else – I’m always surprised when I’m sort of re-listening to John Kerry’s last speech. If you remember, in a very dramatic voice he explained to us that without a two-state solution, the only possible scenario is an apartheid Israel. I wanted to say, hello, John. How are you? I’m looking up [LAUGHTER]. The one-state apartheid is already there, so your warning is not about the future. You’re actually describing the present.
Secondly, couldn’t you find one moment in your speech, maybe two sentences in your speech, to say that actually having a democratic state for Jews and Palestinians between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean is not a doomsday scenario? Couldn’t you just say, wouldn’t it be wonderful to have settlers and natives living as equal citizens in the same state? Why do you have to describe this as a doomsday scenario? The only people in the world who would describe this as a doomsday scenario are Zionists. Because they think that when the Jews are not the majority, the only possible thing Palestinians can do is to kill them.
Well, I lived in Haifa all my life. I lived in the Galilee. I was in political outfits and academic outfits where the Jews were the minority and nothing bad happened to us. The idea that Palestine cannot be a political outfit if the Palestinians are the majority and the Jews are the minority is a racist idea that should be challenged strongly. [APPLAUSE]
Dale Sprusansky: A question about the role of the Palestinian Authority in an official rather than a de facto one state. How would the Palestinian Authority go about disbanding? What would that look like?
Ilan Pappé: I think, anyway, Israel is going to eventually disband the PA, so it’s not my agenda. Exactly? I’m not a prophet, I don’t know exactly how it will unfold. But I have no doubt that the way Israeli politics is going, and the way American politics is going, and the decreasing level of interest in the international community about Israel and Palestine – given all of these factors, I have very little doubt that there will be a moment where the reality that already unfolded – namely that Israel controls the West Bank and in many ways controls the Gaza Strip, despite what the Hamas may feel – that this de facto reality would be declared as a de jure deep reality.
There’s one interesting and significant development in the West Bank that people have not noticed. In the last few months Israel has removed half of the checkpoints in the West Bank. When I noticed that, I said, is it because an American president is coming? Because the last time they did it was before Obama’s visit. Then they returned the checkpoints two days after he left. No. They have removed most of the checkpoints from Area C because they regard Area C, which is 55 percent of the West Bank, as part of Israel,  and they don’t want Israelis to move around a state which has checkpoints. It doesn’t look nice. It doesn’t feel nice. So the checkpoints are only in Area A and B and between Area A and B and C.
Now the next step is to do the same for Area B. Maybe Area A would remain, Greater Ramallah, as a Palestinian enclave. I doubt whether at that moment in time there would be enough Palestinians to say this is what we were fighting for, a nation state in Area A. I’m very blunt with you because I think I don’t want to spend another wasteful year of talking the wrong language about a reality that I know very well and this language has nothing to do with that reality.
So it’s not a matter of saying the PA should go or shouldn’t go. The PA belongs to a narrative and a story that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground, and that story is going to change. In fact, it’s already changing. It’s just a matter of when people are willing to use the right words to describe a reality that they don’t like, for various reasons, to acknowledge.
Dale Sprusansky: A couple of questions about BDS. One person asked if BDS is the only way to achieve decolonization and what are the possible outcomes of the movement.
Ilan Pappé: Well, I think one thing we shouldn’t do is confuse BDS with a vision. We need the Palestinians to redefine what the liberation of Palestine means in the 21st century. We cannot rely on nostalgic ideas of the 1960s. Neither do I think the political Islamic movements have a vision that is going to work. So we need a redefinition of the Palestinian liberation project. Sometimes people I think confuse the means, which is the BDS, with the need to rethink the vision – the project of liberation.
However, as I said before, the outside world cannot be indifferent to the suffering of the people just because we are in this limbo between a project, the two-state solution, that is irrelevant and is not going to work and – as I said – is in the morgue for a few years but we haven’t noticed. And a new project we will take quite a while to build, because we need the unification of the Palestinian side, we need more authentic representation. We need a lot of things to happen for us to be on the road toward this new vision.
But we don’t have the luxury of remaining idle and indifferent while the clock of destruction, which is faster than the clock of reconstruction, is working. Therefore, the BDS is so important because the BDS is there to say, yes, there is a void of leadership. Yes, there is a chaotic moment in history where there is no peace process and there’s no alternative to that peace process. But that doesn’t mean that we, as the international community, have nothing to do and can do nothing in order to stop the suffering of the people on the ground.
The greatest thing about the BDS was that it introduced to us again the two groups that the Oslo process brutally excluded from the future of Palestine – the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian minority in Israel. [APPLAUSE] And we should be thankful to the BDS for reminding us that the people of the West Bank and the people of the Gaza Strip are only half of the Palestinian people and that these two territories are only 22 percent of Palestine. You don’t cure an illness by dealing with the hand if the whole body is ill.
Dale Sprusansky: Earlier today, in his keynote, [Prof. John] Mearsheimer suggested that the idea of an expulsion is unlikely. But lots of people here seem to be worried about it, because I’m getting lots of questions about this. So one person asked, what exactly is stopping another mass expulsion? One person says, Netanyahu realizes the two-state solution is dead, but doesn’t want one state with Palestinians, so what’s stopping him from trying that again as in ’48?
Ilan Pappé: I think that John was right in the sense that it’s difficult to envisage an ethnic cleansing on the scale that Israel committed in 1948 – expelling half of Palestine’s population, demolishing half of Palestine’s villages, and destroying almost all the Palestinian towns apart from Nazareth.
Yes, I agree this is difficult. But I think what is important to understand is that ethnic cleansing is a paradigm as much as settler colonialism is. The Israelis perfected the notion of ethnic cleansing and adapted it to the 21st century much better than any other political movement that I know in history. For instance, they found out that actually you can achieve the same goal of having a space without the people in it by not allowing people to leave the place in which they live. You don’t have to expel people from villages. You can enclave them. You can siege them in villages and you get the same result; namely you don’t have demographically to include the enclaved, imprisoned, incarcerated people in your demographic balance, which is the most important thing for a settler colonial state.
Even liberal people around the world somehow agree that Israel has the right to talk in these racist terms, as if this is acceptable. So you don’t need massive expulsion in order to annex Area C, for instance. And they’re already doing it. I don’t know how many of you have been to ’Anata, how many of you have been to the Shuafat refugee camp, how many of you have been to Tulkarm – a whole town that is surrounded by a fence with one gate to the town in the hands of the Israeli soldiers. It’s a big jail, and the only reason people are incarcerated in this jail is because they are Palestinians-for no other crime.
Now this is the model Israelis of the left like, because they are against expulsion. They’re against expulsion. They say expulsion is the Israeli right-wing notion. Our notion is separation or, as they call it in Hebrew, hafrada, which means in English “apartheid.” Hafrada – segregation, more literally. We really believe that it’s much better for the Palestinians to be incarcerated, enclaved in homogenic Palestinian areas. They don’t even need Green Lines, the Palestinians, because they’re not the Western modernized society. We can keep it forever like this because we have hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are part of the police state – this is not an occupation – that manages the colonization of Palestine whether it is in the Naqab, in the Galilee, in the Gaza Strip, or in the West Bank.
There’s no need for mass expulsion. You have built an amazingly big apparatus that so many Israelis are involved in that you have the manpower to police daily the control over six million Palestinians within the one state that you have created 15, 16 years ago, and still even sell this to the world as a democracy that unfortunately had to occupy a certain area, but of course is just looking for the right Palestinian partner to get it back to them. We are still hearing this bullshit today, unbelievably. [APPLAUSE] Thank you.
Dale Sprusansky: A question about terminology here. One person says, why didn’t you choose to label the Palestinians’ suffering as genocide instead of ethnic cleansing? This person contends that Palestine is a classic example of the U.N.’s definition of genocide.
Ilan Pappé: Because I think there is a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I did use the term genocide for Gaza. I called it incremental genocide. This was reiterated by the United Nations report last year that talked about the de-development of Gaza in 2020, which means the Gaza Strip is under such circumstances that massive death of people and young people is inevitable. So it becomes an incremental genocide. But for me, genocide is also a term that talks about intention and ideology and racism.
Now there is a kind of in between, but that’s a bit too scholarly and I don’t like to use it in the world of activism. But I’ll do this. There is something in between the term of genocide and ethnic cleansing that, again, if I’ll refer to Patrick Wolfe, who I mentioned before. For those of you who haven’t read his work, I really recommend this. He has an amazing article called “The Logic of the Annihilation [sic] of the Native.” As I said, it’s 2:00 in the morning for me, so maybe it’s not annihilation. Where is Andrew? Andrew, are you there?
Andrew: The elimination.
Ilan Pappé: The elimination. I knew it was wrong. Thank you. He’s my student, so he knows he has to be awake and answer these questions even at midnight if I ask him.
So the title is “The Logic of the Elimination of the Native.” He refers to all the settler colonial societies including in this country, in the south of America, in Australia, in New Zealand and so on, in which he explains quite simply and very convincingly that the people who escaped or fled from Europe in the last three or four centuries because of all kinds of persecutions and looked for a new homeland encountered native populations that they believed they had to eliminate for the success of building this new homeland. Here it resulted in genocide. The same happened north of the border and south of the border. Also in Australia it ended in genocide.
In South Africa, in Palestine, in Algeria, the methods of eliminating the native as an obstacle for creating the new homeland was not genocidal but it was bad enough. It was bad enough. So, yes, you can talk about the elimination of the Palestinians as a natural consequence of the logic of Zionism of all its shades and colors. However, elimination in the 21st century with international focus on human rights and civil rights, with the internal wish of the Israelis to be part of the democratic world and maybe even genuine Israeli impulses of democracy, elimination becomes something far more complex than what I associate with genocide.
In fact, we saw the need for an accurate conversation when the terrible events unfolded in Syria in 2011. We, as activists on behalf of Palestine in the West, struggled to keep Palestine as an issue. When people said to us how can you compare what happens to the Palestinians with what happens in Iraq and what happens in Syria? We were trying to say, yes, but you know, we are talking about the same brutality, the same inhumanity, but we are talking about a span of 100 years. Not four or five years. This incremental inhumanity happens every day. And when it happens on a daily basis, it’s not very dramatic. It doesn’t catch the media’s attention, and you can put it aside compared to the huge massacres and horrible things that are happening in Syria and Iraq.
This is where the idea of settler colonialism as a structure is so important. This is why it’s not necessary to talk about genocide as much as it is necessary to say that the DNA of the settler colonial state of Israel is to continue the project, as I put it in simple terms, of having as much of Palestine with as few Palestinians in it.
Now they have the whole of Palestine. In the last 50 years they don’t have a geographical ambition anymore. Israelis of all kinds do not want to occupy Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt. They are satisfied with the borders that they have today. They have a demographic issue, not a geographical issue. And when they deal with the demographic issue, they have found a formula that one could say is working, unfortunately. That formula says you can police six million Palestinians and still the world will believe you that this is a temporary oppression, and still the world will believe you that you will stop this oppression once peace will arrive. You still can convince the world that you are the only democracy in the Middle East and the oppression of six million people is not a relevant item when you analyze the country as a democratic state.
This is the importance of analyzing what’s happening in Israel as settler colonialism that can sometimes resort to genocide, sometimes resorts to ethnic cleansing, and quite often resorts to a charade of peace that provides it a shield of immunity from any genuine rebuke and condemnation in the global community. [APPLAUSE]
Ilan Pappé: Thank you. Thank you very much.


En su columna de los jueves, el analista político internacional Julián Schvindlerman habló acerca de la visita del académico antisionista israelí residente en Inglaterra, Ilan Pappe. Schvindlerman describió la agenda de Pappe, sus anfitriones (UBA, UNTREF, y la Embajada Palestina) y lamentó que la dirigencia comunitaria y la Embajada de Israel luzcan carentes de iniciativas para contrarrestar a difamadores importantes del estado judío como este militante del BDS.

Julián Schvindlerman


Israel comienza a sufrir el aislamiento de su política criminal


Inicio » Ilan Pappé en Buenos Aires: ‘La política sionista hacia los palestinos es peor que el apartheid sudafricano’
“Soy optimista porque hay un viraje importante, especialmente entre los jóvenes en Estados Unidos, donde Israel ha perdido los campus y ha dejado de ser el único Estado democrático de Medio Oriente, como se promocionó durante décadas”, señaló Pappé durante su conferencia en la Embajada de Palestina, donde presentó su libro Genocidio progresivo en Palestina y el BDS editado por la editorial Canaan.
Pappé está cometiendo el peor de los pecados para la derecha de su país: alienta la campaña mundial BDS, al que impulsa como “un movimiento de la sociedad civil que pide a sus gobiernos acciones más duras contra Israel”. Por eso le llueven las diatribas de “traidor” y “renegado”, además de las amenazas de muerte que lo han obligado a buscar el autoexilio.
El historiador defendió a aquellos que fustigan el sionismo y negó que pueda asimilarse como una actitud “antisemita” como suelen replicar las organizaciones judías de derecha y ortodoxas.
“Hoy el peor racismo en el mundo no es contra los judíos sino contra los musulmanes”, enfatizó durante su conferencia en la Embajada de Palestina, bajo un cielo estrellado y cautivando con sus análisis a un nutrido auditorio que llenó el amplió patio de la sede diplomática.
“Somos un Estado racista y antiético”, enfatizó sobre Israel, afirmando que el apartheid que se practica contra los palestinos “es mucho más cruel que practicaron los gobiernos blancos sudafricanos”.
En el caso sudafricano nadie podía decir que se boicoteaba a un gobierno democrático, como sucede todavía con Israel. Y tampoco se aplicó en Sudáfrica una política de limpieza étnica como la que practica Israel en los territorios ocupados”, explicó.
Pappé expresó su pesimismo sobre el interminable proceso de paz, al que tildó como una estrategia adoptada por Israel luego de ocupar los territorios de Cisjordania y Gaza en 1967.
“Los protocolos israelíes ya decían en 1967 que había que extender el proceso indefinidamente mientras se seguía avanzando sobre el terreno. Incluso la ocupación de Cisjordania y Gaza ya estaba planificada antes de 1967 y solo tenían que esperar el momento oportuno”, recordó.
También derribó el “mito” de que el Río Jordán debe ser la frontera “natural” de Israel hacia el Oriente, “porque es un río que se puede cruzar en una pierna, con muletas, por lo que no tiene valor estratégico. Israel inventó ese mito para su proceso de paz y de cara al mundo. Con éxito, al punto de que es lo que se enseña en las academias militares de los Estados Unidos”.
El gobierno de Israel “nunca tuvo intenciones de avanzar en el proceso de paz” y persiste “en un debate táctico acerca de cómo retener los territorios que hayan sido despojados de población palestina”, afirmó.
Esa “limpieza étnica” comenzó en 1948, aunque el historiador Pappé asegura que “los colonos sionistas llegaron tres años antes con la idea ya concebida de expulsar a los pobladores nativos”.
“Todavía algunos palestinos creen que cometieron un error al no aceptar la partición en 1947. Y sin embargo no se equivocaron porque nunca debieron existir dos Estados”, afirmó.
En tal sentido, recordó que al firmarse los Acuerdos de Oslo en 1993 “Israel habló de concesiones a los palestinos, pero fue el pueblo palestino el que hizo concesiones al sostener que podían convivir los dos Estados”.
El relato sionista comienza desde las escuelas primarias “donde se les enseña a los chicos que fueron los colonos los que hicieron que el desierto floreciera. Ese es otro mito. No es verdad pues los palestinos ya habían alcanzado un nivel importante de urbanización y los colonos llegaron a una tierra que ya estaba poblada”, destacó Pappé.
Otro de los mitos para sostener la ocupación es “el mito del retorno, que han vuelto a casa después de dos mil años, pero suena a chiste porque nadie vuelve a un lugar después de dos mil años y encuentra la tierra vacía”, enfatizó.
Para Pappé, lejos de compartir esos mitos “fundacionales”, Israel “es el último enclave europeo en Medio Oriente y un Estado militar segregacionista”.
“Si la lucha de los palestinos es tildada de terrorista, es porque el sionismo no es reconocido como colonialismo”, completó.
Durante la conferencia de Pappé, también fue presentada la revista Al Zeytun, que lleva el nombre de una población palestina y que se propone como un material para el debate.
El consejo académico de la publicación está integrado por Luz Gómez de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Silvana Rabinovich de la Universidad Autónoma de México, y Elena Arigita Maza, de la Universidad de Granada.
Fuente: Alberto Ferrari, Pájaro Rojo / Rebelión



Vídeo: Palestra do historiador israelense Ilan Pappé na PUC

Palestra de Ilan Pappe sobre o tema de seu livro “A Limpeza Étnica da Palestina” na PUC. Um mestre pela primeira vez em nosso país, defendendo a solução de um único estado laico e democrático em todo o território da Palestina, com plenos direitos para todos e revertendo as injustiças feitas à população original.
Via Waldo Mermelstein.


‘O que vemos no mundo hoje não é imigração, mas pessoas buscando vida’

  1. Paulo Henrique Pompermaierdisse:
‘O que vemos no mundo hoje não é imigração, mas pessoas buscando vida’
O historiador israelense Ilan Pappé (Foto: Divulgação)

O historiador israelense Ilan Pappé, autor de A limpeza étnica da Palestina, fala sobre linguagem, intolerância e sobre o conflito Israel-Palestina: ‘Se não empoderarmos os palestinos, ele irá continuar’

A substituição dos termos “sionismo” por “colonialismo” e de “questão palestina” por “limpeza étnica” é um dos dispositivos propostos pelo historiador israelense Ilan Pappé para repensar a linguagem e seus mecanismos de opressão. Doutor em História pela Universidade de Oxford e professor da Universidade de Exeter, na Inglaterra, Pappé esteve no Brasil entre os dias 24 e 27 de abril para o lançamento do livro A limpeza étnica da Palestina, lançado no país pela Editora Sundermann.
Frente aos fluxos migratórios recentes, Pappé defende que imigrantes deveriam ser chamados, na verdade, de “buscadores de vida”, uma vez que não deixaram seus países de origem por mera opção: “As pessoas que vêm hoje ao Brasil não são mais imigrantes, e se o país não abrir suas portas, se os Estados Unidos não abrirem suas portas, elas provavelmente morrerão”, diz à CULT.
Baseando-se em estudos em historiadores palestinos e em arquivos do exército israelense, Pappé busca comprovar a existência de uma limpeza étnica do povo palestino, iniciada em 1948. A este ano, inclusive, ele dedica numerosos estudos, pois foi quando a ONU determinou a criação do Estado de Israel, como forma de reparar o holocausto. Atualmente, os árabes ocupam uma pequena parte de Israel, como a Faixa de Gaza, Cisjordânia e a Jerusalém Oriental, envolvidos em constantes conflitos.
Em entrevista à CULT, concedida durante sua passagem por São Paulo, Ilan Pappé desdobra alguns aspectos de sua revisão crítica da história da Palestina e reforça a necessidade de se revisar o uso da linguagem.
CULT – Em A limpeza étnica da Palestina (2017), você se preocupa com o uso correto da linguagem, denominando o sionismo [os apoiadores da criação do Estado de Israel] de colonialismo, e a questão palestina de limpeza étnica. Por que essa revisão é importante?
Ilan Pappé – Porque foi a língua que protegeu Israel do criticismo. Quando se fala sobre o conflito entre duas nacionalidades, sobre ocupação de territórios, sobre o processo de pacificação, é comum pensar que essas coisas vão mudar muito rápido, mas se não repensar a linguagem elas não vão mudar tão cedo. E não vão mudar nunca se não confrontarmos Israel. Em todo conflito há um equilíbrio entre dois lados. E eu uso a linguagem dos ímpares para mostrar que no caso palestino não há equilíbrio. Na colonização, há o colonizado e o colonizador. Na limpeza étnica, há os que promovem a expulsão e suas vítimas. Então, para mim, a mudança de linguagem é importante para mostrar ao mundo que essa não é uma história entre dois lados iguais, e sim sobre vítimas e algozes. Eu espero que usando essa linguagem as pessoas não entrem mais no falso paradigma do “lado palestino”, ou do “lado israelense”, ou do “ouvir os dois lados”.
As pessoas normalmente relutam em utilizar o termo colonialismo para essa situação, com medo de soar anacrônico. Esse julgamento faz parte da visão orientalista, como estudouEdward Said, que impede o ocidente de ter um julgamento claro e empático do mundo islâmico?
Sim, acho que você tem razão. Você também pode ver isso no modo como o mundo ocidental está analisando e descrevendo nossas revoluções do mundo árabe. Na Europa, quando se fala sobre revolução, pensa-se em algo positivo, importante, em mudanças boas. Agora, quando se fala em revolução no mundo árabe, antes da Primavera Árabe principalmente, pensa-se sempre em coisas negativas, não em liberdade. O quadro ainda se agrava quando falamos de uma revolução feita por um grupo muçulmano. O anti-colonialismo também pode ser uma luta islâmica, não apenas luta de não-islâmicos. Eu acho que você está certo, o mundo tem dificuldade de aceitar isso, mas é algo que ajuda a luta. E faz parte dela dizer que na Palestina há uma batalha anti-colonialista, não uma campanha terrorista.
Atualmente, a xenofobia e a imigração são questões muito importantes globalmente. A política de guerra norte-americana contra a Síria, assim como a intenção de Trump construir um muro na fronteira do México apontam para uma tendência de intolerância, preconceito e racismo. Como você pensa essas questões?

Também precisamos mudar a linguagem que empregamos aqui. Imigração é, normalmente, um movimento de pessoas que tinham uma opção de ficar, mas decidiram partir para fazer uma vida melhor, o que é totalmente legítimo e deveria ser permitido. Mas, o que nós vemos no mundo hoje não é imigração, nós vemos pessoas buscando vida, elas são “buscadores de vida” [life-seekers], não imigrantes. Imigrantes são os italianos que vieram ao Brasil. As pessoas que vem hoje ao Brasil não são mais imigrantes. Se o Brasil não abrir suas portas, se os Estados Unidos não abrirem suas portas, elas provavelmente morrerão. Eles [os imigrantes] são os “buscadores de vida” e não podemos pensar nos mesmos termos que a imigração. Quando alguém bate na sua porta, e se há a chance de essa pessoa morrer se ninguém abri-la, você não se preocupa com quanta comida tem na geladeira ou quantas camas estão disponíveis. Eu realmente penso que nós devemos mudar nossa linguagem. É desconfortável receber esses “buscadores de vida”, você realmente precisa mudar alguns aspectos da sua vida. E por isso, talvez, as pessoas tenham tanta dificuldade em aceitar essa situação. Eu estava na Alemanha quando eles receberam os “buscadores de vida” sírios e vi que grande parte dos alemães entendeu a condição deles, então acho que a sociedade consegue lidar com isso. Seres humanos são capazes de mudar sempre suas narrativas, só precisam estar conscientes de como é importante fazê-lo.
Por que a visão orientalista persiste por tanto tempo no imaginário ocidental?
Said nos disse que o orientalismo é um discurso. E um discurso, como uma língua, tem várias forças poderosas por trás. Said diz no livro que o discurso tem “instituições” para sustentar a linguagem. E por isso ele quer dizer os acadêmicos, jornalistas, políticos, pessoas que lidam com cultura. Se estão em posições poderosas, influenciam a maneira como você fala sobre o oriente. Era muito claro para Said que, mesmo que uma pessoa, como eu, mude a linguagem, isso não vai ser suficiente se você não mudar os poderes das instituições. Mas é o que podemos fazer. Como Said analisa no famoso artigo Permission to narrate [1984], em que, partindo do ataque israelita ao Líbano em 1982, ele diz que nunca seremos capazes de atingir um equilíbrio militar entre as forças palestinas e israelenses. Mas que podemos ao menos equilibrar a narrativa, sendo capazes de contar a história tal qual ela é, independente do poder concreto que os israelenses possuem. Vamos ver se conseguimos desafiá-los no lugar em que a história é contada, na academia, na imprensa.
E talvez essa pluralidade de vozes seja uma das mais importantes lutas contra essa visão orientalista.

Eu concordo totalmente e acredito que apenas recentemente nós começamos a ouvir outras vozes. E não apenas na história da Palestina, também na história do Brasil, como você sabe.
O Estado de Israel foi criado em 1948 e, desde então, o conflito parece apenas crescer. Por ele se estende por tanto tempo sem soluções aparentes?
O povo palestino não é muito forte, em termos de capacidade econômica, militar e política. Eles foram seriamente destruídos em 1948, ficaram fragmentados para enfrentar diversos grupos e estavam encarando um movimento colonialista respaldado pelo suporte global. Temos, no entanto, esse paradoxo absurdo, em que os palestinos são os únicos que podem realmente garantir uma solução para o problema. Mas, ao mesmo tempo, os israelitas tem o poder para prevenir e evitar essa solução. Então, enquanto não empoderarmos os palestinos, o conflito irá continuar, porque apenas os israelenses têm o poder concreto para determinar mudanças. E eu acredito que, mesmo que os judeus pudessem encontrar uma solução, poucos palestinos concordariam com ela, a grande maioria iria continuar a resistir ao projeto de estabelecimento colonialista dos judeus. E, enquanto a resistência continuar, o que a imprensa chama de “conflito” também irá continuar.
Em algumas declarações você parece discordar da solução apontada por grandes intelectuais, como Noam Chomsky, para a questão palestina. Quais são seus pontos de discordância com outros intelectuais a favor da causa palestina?
Chomsky, em primeiro lugar, ainda acredita na solução dos dois Estados, ele acredita que essa ainda é a única forma realista de resolver o conflito. Eu acredito que, se alguma vez essa solução foi possível, já faz muito tempo. E esse é um debate sério, porque eu realmente acho que estamos perdendo energia e tempo quando conversamos sobre a solução dos dois Estados. Nós também não concordamos quanto ao boicote acadêmico a Israel. Chomsky acredita que isso pode alienar os israelenses futuramente e deixá-los contrários a qualquer forma de solução, além de acreditar que tal estratégia sai da questão palestina e entra no problema da liberdade de expressão – o que é um bom ponto. Às vezes falamos tanto de boicote que esquecemos para o que ele serve. Mas acho que ele está errado, talvez por não viver lá, não conviver com os sionistas e não perceber os impactos positivos do boicote acadêmico a Israel. E finalmente nós discordamos quanto ao direito de retorno dos refugiados. Ele acredita que é errado dizer aos refugiados que algum dia eles vão poder voltar, porque isso provavelmente nunca vai acontecer. Eu acredito que pode acontecer, e é certo dar a essas pessoas o direito de voltar à Palestina.
Por que a solução dos dois Estados não é uma ideia realizável?
Porque Israel criou tantas colônias na Cisjordânia, que se desenvolveram em vilas e cidades, que não há governo israelita no mundo que vá se preocupar em devolver esses territórios. E há um consenso em Israel que eles devem ficar de qualquer forma. E você não pode criar outro estado com o que sobrou da Cisjordânia. E, de qualquer forma, Palestina não é apenas a Gaza ou a Cisjordânia, e sim toda Palestina. E palestinos não são apenas aqueles que vivem nesses dois territórios. Também são palestinos os que vivem em Israel e os refugiados, e se você não incluir todas essas pessoas a solução nunca vai ser boa. É como ter uma doença e tratar apenas os sintomas, ao invés de lidar com toda a doença. Então, para mim, a ideia dos dois Estados está errada, faz parte da visão colonialista de partilhar nossa pátria, quando um movimento de descolonização deve, na minha visão, incluir todas as partes do território.
Como você percebe a ação das Nações Unidas e a reação global ao problema da Palestina?
A ONU carrega responsabilidade pelo que ocorreu em 1948. Ela tentou, desde então, ter uma visão mais equilibrada da problemática palestina. Mas sempre que a ONU está preparada para tomar uma decisão séria no Conselho de Segurança, os EUA vetam essa decisão. Então ela até reflete certa opinião pública internacional, mas não tem dentes para mudar a realidade concreta. Quanto à comunidade internacional, acredito que, finalmente, nos últimos 15 anos, nós vemos uma mudança na percepção da sociedade civil. Há, atualmente, muito mais suporte público favorável à Palestina ao redor do mundo do que havia no início do conflito. Mas o problema aí não está na posição das pessoas, e sim nas posições do governo. E quanto a esse respeito ainda temos muito a caminhar. Há todo um sistema global que não permite que o apoio internacional seja efetivo na Palestina. E são esses mesmos fatores que causam tantas outras injustiças no mundo. Por isso acho que há uma conexão entre a luta por justiça social e a luta por justiça na Palestina. Há conexões entre o direito dos trabalhadores e o direito dos palestinos de tantas formas que o sistema neoliberal parece funcionar igual ao movimento de colonização. Há desumanização do nativo no sistema colonialista assim como há desumanização do trabalhador no neoliberalismo. Em qualquer país do mundo, infelizmente, o sistema político não reflete o que as pessoas querem que aconteça, tanto domesticamente como em âmbito público.

24 abril, 2017

“No puedo vivir en Haifa por culpa del sionismo. No creo en una ideología que reprima a los palestinos en nombre del holocausto. Necesitamos la descolonización de Palestina”, resumió, de manera precisa y concreta, el historiador Ilan Pappe durante la charla brindada ayer en el Centro Cultural Borges y auspiciada por la Universidad de Tres de Febrero.
Claro, seguro de sus argumentos, y sin vacilar cuando explica y defiende sus posturas, Pappe es uno de los intelectuales más lúcidos que en la actualidad puede deshilvanar el conflicto palestino-israelí (como se conoce mediáticamente) o, como lo dice el propio Pappe, el “genocidio progresivo” que el Estado de Israel comente contra el pueblo palestino desde 1948.
La vida de este historiador nacido en 1954 en Haifa, ciudad palestina anexada por Israel, muestra un recorrido pocas veces visto: formado bajo los parámetros de la educación judía, sustentada en la ideología sionista, Pappe fue rompiendo con la “historia oficial” construida por un Estado que desde hace varias décadas se posiciona como gendarme de Medio Oriente. Eso tuvo como consecuencia su expulsión de la Universidad de Haifa y su retiro a Gran Bretaña, donde se desempeña como profesor en la Universidad de Exeter.
Su visión heterodoxa sobre los “orígenes” israelíes y sus investigaciones rigurosas y documentadas, desarrolladas en más de una docena de libros, intentan hacer caer el muro construido por el sionismo alrededor del mito bíblico de un “pueblo sin tierra en una tierra sin pueblo”, justificación para la implantación del Estado israelí y la permanente limpieza étnica contra las palestinos y los palestinos.
Pappe charla 8“Pertenezco a la tercera generación de colonos judíos, pero los palestinos son los habitantes nativos”, se sincera Pappe ante un auditorio de 150 personas que lo escuchan con atención y aplauden no sólo sus palabras certeras, sino también algunos chistes que deja escapar entre la audiencia, tal vez para hacer más llevadero un tema cargado de dolor y muertes.
Durante la conferencia, -en la que estuvo acompañado por Saad Chedid, director de la editorial Canaan-, Pappe deshizo, como lo viene haciendo hace años, una historia plagada de mentiras y justificaciones construida desde finales del siglo XIX por el sionismo, y que le permitió fundar un Estado que no respeta los derechos humanos más básicos del pueblo palestino.
“La propaganda israelí se basa en que esta historia es compleja y sólo los israelíes la entienden”, explica Pappe, para dejar en claro que la resolución del conflicto es simple: respetar los “derechos igualitarios para los palestinos” y una concepción de “vida natural”, que el pueblo de Palestina tiene desde sus orígenes.
Pappe cuestionó duramente al mundo académico que, en muchos casos, tiene posturas morales progresistas, pero a la hora de abordar la cuestión palestina se pliega a los mandatos de la historia oficial israelí. “Después de setenta años de limpieza étnica, las políticas criminales de Israel ya no puede ser escondidas. Pero todavía hay un ‘escudo de excepción’ que permite que la gente no pueda ver lo que sucede”, denunció. “Es increíble que se repitan falacias y mentiras sobre el pasado y el presente, que ya fueron rebeladas por académicos israelíes”, agregó.
A Pappe se lo ubica en la camada de académicos denominados los “nuevos historiadores israelíes”, que a finales de 1980 comenzaron a cuestionar los lineamientos sostenidos por el sionismo. El caso de Pappe es diferente, ya que fue más allá de esa corriente y hasta hoy no dejó de investigar y cuestionar el “mito” de Israel.
Pappe charla 3
El historiador alertó sobre una política sistemática llevada adelante por el lobby judío a nivel mundial y que “acusa de antisemitismo a quienes investigan la otra historia de Palestina”. A su vez, criticó la posición de Estados Unidos y las potencias europeas que permitieron la creación de Israel en base a la limpieza étnica del pueblo palestino. En 1948, “hubo periodistas, miembros de la Cruz Roja y diplomáticos que reportaron lo que sucedía”, cuando las fuerzas israelíes comenzaron a desalojar pueblos y ciudades de Palestina, pero “sus jefes no publicaron las evidencias”.
Pappe también apuntó contra el supuesto “proceso de paz” entre Israel y Palestina, y sostuvo que esa instancia sólo le conviene al sionismo, porque mientras tanto el Estado israelí puede seguir cometiendo asesinatos, desplazamientos forzados de personas y sostener su política de implantación de colonos judíos en territorios palestinos. Y esto sucede, según el historiador, con el beneplácito de Estados Unidos y Europa que justifican que cuando ese “proceso de paz” concluya, se podrán resolver todos los problemas y terminar los “abusos”.
“Por eso Israel sostiene la teoría del proceso de paz, porque le permite completar la colonización”, aseveró el historiador, que sentenció: “Nunca hubo un esfuerzo israelí hacia la paz”.

Ilan Pappé lança em São Paulo seu livro “A limpeza étnica da Palestina”

qui, 20/04/2017 - 10:47

A Cátedra Edward Said de Estudos da Contemporaneidade, iniciativa conjunta da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) e do Instituto da Cultura Árabe (Icarabe), a Catedra Edward W. Said de Estudios Palestinos Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) e a Editora Sundermann trazem à América Latina o historiador israelense Ilan Pappé, que estará no Brasil entre os dias 24 e 27 de abril para uma série de atividades, organizadas em parceria com diversas entidades (confira programação abaixo).
A primeira visita de Ilan Pappé ao país marcará o lançamento de seu livro “A limpeza étnica da Palestina”, publicado pela primeira vez em português pela Editora Sundermann. Nesta obra, o autor debruçou-se em reexaminar criticamente os acontecimentos de 1948. Ao aliar documentos oficiais israelenses e a memória palestina, conclui que houve limpeza étnica do povo palestino à criação do Estado de Israel.
Quem é Ilan Pappé
Um dos mais importantes entre os chamados novos historiadores israelenses, Pappé é professor da Universidade de Exeter, na Inglaterra. Filho de imigrantes judeus alemães, nasceu em Haifa em 1954, apenas seis anos após a criação do Estado de Israel – para os palestinos, a Nakba (termo árabe que significa catástrofe). Lecionou na Universidade de Haifa entre 1984 e 2007. Após a publicação de “A limpeza étnica da Palestina” e de expressar apoio ao movimento BDS (boicote, desinvestimentos e sanções) a Israel, passou a enfrentar pressão e ameaças, o que o levou a exilar-se na Inglaterra, onde vive hoje. Pappé não reviu suas conclusões, como fizeram outros “novos historiadores”. Ao contrário, tem dedicado seu conhecimento à denúncia vigorosa da limpeza étnica do povo palestino. E vai além: afirma que sem o reconhecimento histórico do que ocorreu em 1948, não é possível haver uma solução justa, o que implica necessariamente assegurar o direito de retorno dos milhões de refugiados palestinos as suas terras – como prevê a Resolução 194 da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). A obra está disponível para aquisição no site da Editora Sundermann (www.editorasundermann.com.br).
Programação completa
Apresentação e lançamento do livro “A limpeza étnica da Palestina”, com Ilan Pappé
Promoção: Editora Sundermann, Cátedra Edward Said de Estudos da Contemporaneidade (Unifesp) e Catedra Edward W. Said de Estudios Palestinos Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
Apoio: Instituto da Cultura Árabe
Dia 24/4 – segunda-feira
19h15 – Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC), Auditório 239 (Rua Monte Alegre, 984, Perdizes). Parceria com a Associação dos Professores da PUC e vários departamentos da instituição. Transmissão simultânea online.
Dia 25/4 – terça-feira
12h – Universidade de São Paulo (USP)/Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Auditório  da História (Cidade Universitária, Butantã). Parceria com o Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da USP e outras entidades representativas da instituição.
17h30 às 20h30 – Livraria Martins Fontes (Avenida Paulista, 509), apresentação no auditório, seguida de noite de autógrafos. Parceria com Lente Cultural e Martins Fontes.
21h – Recepção, bate-papo e jantar com refugiados palestinos no Al Janiah (Rua Rui Barbosa, 269, Bela Vista). Parceria com Al Janiah.
Dia 26/4 – quarta-feira
12h – Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Auditório da Associação dos Docentes da Unicamp - Adunicamp (Av. Érico Veríssimo, 1.479, perto do Hotel da Funcamp, Campinas). Parceria com Sindicato Nacional dos Docentes das Instituições de Ensino Superior, seção São Paulo (Andes-SP) e entidades representativas da instituição.
Dia 27/4 – quinta-feira
8h às 9h – Café da manhã com embaixadores árabes, quando será feita uma homenagem a Ilan Pappé
12h – Almoço com a comunidade árabe e palestina oferecido pela Federação das Associações Muçulmanas do Brasil (Fambras)


Ilan Pappé: hay un Estado apartheid que se llama Israel


Sábado 22 de abril | 12:21

Conocido como un incasable luchador y activista por los derechos del pueblo palestino, Pappé es actualmente Profesor de la Universidad de Exeter en Gran Bretaña. Historiador israelí que reescribió la narrativa del conflicto palestino-israelí, juega un rol central en la campaña por el boicot, desinversiones y sanciones (conocida internacionalmente bajo la sigla BDS) en la que se convoca a la comunidad internacional a tomar medidas activas contra las políticas del estado de Israel.
Ilan Pappé concedió a La Izquierda Diario una entrevista antes de comenzar la conferencia que dio este viernes en el centro cultural Jorge Luis Borges, invitado por la Cátedra de Estudios Palestinos Edward Said, de la que estaremos publicando una crónica en próxima edición de La Izquierda Diario.
¿Cómo surgen los refugiados palestinos?
Hay una versión que dice que la guerra de 1948 empezó con un ataque de los árabes al nuevo Estado judío y es por eso que los líderes árabes le dijeron a los palestinos que se retiren, y así los palestinos se convirtieron en refugiados.
Lo que yo investigué y otras personas también, demostró que la verdad es que la mitad de los palestinos devinieron en refugiados inclusive antes de que un solo soldado árabe entrara en Palestina; entonces la guerra árabe fue en reacción a la expulsión de palestinos por las fuerzas judías.
La expulsión fue parte de un plan antes de que la guerra comenzara, del comando militar y político judío, para poder apropiarse de la mayor parte del territorio palestino, con la menor cantidad de presencia de palestinos que se pueda.
Parte de este plan se implementó cuando los británicos aun eran los responsables de la ley y el orden, de hecho, toda la expulsión de las ciudades y pueblos, se llevó a cabo antes de que comenzara la guerra, en abril de 1948. La guerra comenzó el 15 de mayo de 1948.
Por eso pienso que es importante entender que la guerra fue utilizada por Israel para intentar vaciar a Palestina de palestinos, no fue que los palestinos se convirtieron en refugiados por la guerra, sino por la ideología sionista.
¿Por qué opina que tanto las potencias imperialistas, como su agencia, la ONU, rechazan el concepto utilizado por usted de limpieza étnica?
Desde 1945, desde la segunda Guerra mundial, especialmente el mundo occidental decidió que no quería lidiar con el sionismo y sus crímenes contra los palestinos. Por varios motivos; uno de ellos es que debemos recordar que ya desde el siglo XIX el mundo cristiano no quería que la tierra santa sea tierra musulmana o árabe y por eso hubo un fuerte apoyo de líderes y grupos cristianos a la idea de que sean los judíos quienes vuelvan a Palestina, además esto fue antisemita, porque de esa forma los judíos no se quedarían en Europa.
En segundo lugar, la islamofobia, el odio al islam no es algo nuevo, existía también en el siglo XIX. Y por supuesto, luego fue el holocausto, Europa prefirió no lidiar con lo que significó el holocausto, y todo lo que tenía que hacer fue apoyar la colonización de Palestina. Respecto a esto, no creo que Trump sea muy distinto a otros, de hecho, creo que para Palestina es mejor Trump que Clinton, ya que hubiera sido mucho peor para los palestinos que nos hubiera hecho creer que había un proceso de paz y una situación razonable. Al menos con Trump hablamos con un poco más de honestidad acerca de cuál es el problema.
Tenemos un problema básico con la forma en que la comunidad internacional trata a los palestinos los últimos setenta años y creo que tenemos que trabajar para cambiarlo.
¿Qué cambios puede observar con Trump como presidente de EEUU?
Es difícil saber con Trump. Sera más fácil hablar de la realidad con Trump porque no juega el juego de Clinton u Obama y es mucho más fácil decirle a la gente que hay dos opciones, o apoyas un estado apartheid, que se llama Israel, o apoyas un Estado democrático para todos, entre el Jordán y el Mediterráneo.
Bajo Trump, al menos las conversaciones serán más honestas, no sé qué hará; creo que no será muy distinto a otros presidentes americanos, todos dejaron que Israel hiciera lo que quisiera y pienso que necesitamos limitar la intervención norteamericana y podremos tener mejores oportunidades.
Entrevistaron: Mirta Pacheco y Gloria Grinberg
Cámara: Gigi Legeia


El historiador israelí Ilan Pappé dice que "Israel no ofrece un verdadero Estado palestino"

De visita por primera vez en Buenos Aires para dar varias charlas, una de ellas este sábado en la embajada palestina, el pensador indicó que Israel "creó un proceso de paz que no lleva a ningún lado".

Por María Laura Carpineta



El historiador Ilan Pappé vivió casi toda su vida en Israel, conoce "el ADN de la política y la sociedad" de ese país y es una de las voces más criticas en el conflicto con Palestina. En una entrevista con Télam, advirtió hoy que "Israel no ofrece un verdadero Estado palestino" y que "creó un proceso de paz que no lleva a ningún lado".

De visita por primera vez en Buenos Aires para dar varias charlas, una de ellas mañana sábado en la embajada palestina a las 17, el autor de una de las obras que más marcó el polarizado y siempre tenso debate sobre el conflicto israelí-palestino -La limpieza étnica de Palestina- ofreció un análisis histórico de la ocupación israelí de los territorios palestinos a sólo meses de su 50 aniversario. 

"El gobierno de Israel en 1967 y los sucesivos gobiernos israelíes consensuaron tres puntos: primero, Israel no puede existir si no controla directa o indirectamente Cisjordania; segundo, no se puede expulsar a los palestinos de Cisjordania y de la Franja de Gaza, como se hizo en (el territorio actual de Israel en) 1948; y tercero, no se les puede dar ciudadanía a esos palestinos porque si no los judíos no van a ser mayoría y, entonces, no van a poder decir que defienden un Estado democrático judío", explicó el historiador.

"Ellos crearon su propio problema: quieren el territorio, deciden no expulsar a la gente ni darles ciudadanía ni derechos", agregó el historiador, de 62 años, quien perdió su trabajo y tuvo que abandonar su país en 2007, luego de apoyar públicamente el boicot académico y económico contra su universidad y el estado en general, en reclamo del fin de la ocupación.

Pappé, hijo de alemanes que escaparon del nazismo en los años 30 y nacido en la ciudad israelí de Haifa, vive actualmente en el Reino Unido y es profesor de la Universidad de Exeter. 

El propio primer ministro Benjamin Netanyahu confirmó parcialmente las palabras de Pappé cuando visitó recientemente la Casa Blanca para su primera visita oficial con el presidente Donald Trump y afirmó que "en cualquier acuerdo de paz, Israel debe mantener un control de la seguridad dominante sobre toda la zona al oeste del río Jordan". 

Al oeste del río Jordan, lo único que divide a Israel es el territorio palestino de Cisjordania. 

Según Netanyahu, Israel necesita mantener ese control porque "si no otro estado islamista radical y terrorista se instalará en las zonas palestinas, que hará explotar la paz y a Medio Oriente", en referencia a la victoria en las urnas del movimiento islamista Hamas en la Franja de Gaza, tras la retirada de la colonias israelíes de ese territorio.

Pappé rechazó estos argumentos securitarios y eligió concentrarse en las consecuencias de los tres consensos que, dice, sustentan hoy la ocupación: "crearon una mega prisión, en la que millones de personas no tienen derechos plenos ni derechos civiles básicos, y crearon un proceso de paz que no lleva a ningún lado porque en realidad el proceso de paz busca ganar tiempo para que los israelíes construyan una nueva realidad en el territorio".

Por ejemplo, explicó, alrededor de medio millón de colonos israelíes viven hoy en los territorios ocupados de Cisjordania y Jerusalén este. 

Para el historiador, la ocupación israelí ha oscilado a lo largo de las décadas entre dos modelos de lo que él llama la mega prisión.

"La abierta, la liberal, en la que los palestinos tienen permitido ir a trabajar a Israel y circular sin problemas. Los palestinos reciben ese premio, si se comportan bien. Si no cuestionan a Israel, reciben estos beneficios". explicó.

"En cambio si resisten, -continuó- como lo hicieron en las intifadas (levantamientos populares palestinos), entonces reciben el otro modelo, una mega prisión de máxima seguridad, en la que hay castigos colectivos, demoliciones de casas, arrestos sin juicios, represión y las ofensivas militares contra la Franja de Gaza".

La conclusión de esta dinámica, para el historiador, es unívoca.

"Según la visión de Israel, lo mejor que los palestinos pueden conseguir es una mega prisión abierta, en la que tienen permitido trabajar en Israel, moverse sin problemas, pero en la que nunca tendrán derechos plenos ni una ciudadanía real", aseguró.

Pappé sostuvo que esa misma conclusión le cabe al último proceso de paz, reivindicado por Israel, Estados Unidos y gran parte de la comunidad internacional como exitoso. 

"Al contrario de lo que muchos recuerdan, el proceso de paz de Oslo no propuso la creación de un Estado palestino, sino apenas una transición. En otras palabras, propuso la versión light de la mega prisión israelí, nada más. Por eso creo que la segunda intifada que vino después fue provocada por la ira que generó entre muchos palestinos entender que eso era lo mejor que podían conseguir", explicó el historiador. 

Israel -tanto la dirigencia política como la mayoría de la sociedad- interpretó de otra manera el fracaso del proceso de paz de Oslo. De hecho, el momento que para ellos marcó el fin de los esfuerzos diplomáticos fue el inicio de la segunda intifada y, por ende, consideran que la responsabilidad de romper el diálogo fue de los palestinos por haber elegido la violencia. 

De hecho, pese a que la mayoría de los puntos acordados en el proceso de Oslo ya no son respetados, los sucesivos gobiernos israelíes siguen citando ese texto como base para defender la solución de dos Estados, la propuesta diplomática que la ONU y la mayoría de la comunidad internacional propone para terminar de una vez y por todas el conflicto israelí-palestino. 

Por eso, Argentina, como más de cien países, reconoció hace unos años la existencia de un Estado palestino sobre las fronteras previas a la guerra de 1967, que inauguró la ocupación militar israelí en los territorios de Cisjordania, la Franja de Gaza y Jerusalén este. 

Pappé apoya este tipo de reconocimientos porque cree que le da aire al reclamo palestino, pero advierte que Israel está deformando el concepto de Estado cuando habla de una solución de dos Estados.

"Israel no propone crear un verdadero Estado palestino. Le pueden llamar Estado, pero en ningún libro de texto se define como Estado lo que propone. Israel quiere que Palestina no tenga un Ejército, no tenga contigüidad territorial y quiere reservarse el derecho a controlar la seguridad de la zona, es decir, las entradas y las salidas. En resumen, -concluyó el historiador- quiere una prisión".



Ilan Pappé en Buenos Aires: genocidio del pueblo palestino y el BDS

on 21 abril, 2017
Resumen Medio Oriente/Diario Sirio Libanés, 21 de Abril de 2017 – Bajo el auspicio de la Cátedra de Estudios Palestinos “Edward Said” (FFyL-UBA), el Dr. Ilan Pappé visita la Argentina ofreciendo dos conferencias magistrales.
La conferencia tendrán lugar en la Embajada del Estado de Palestina (Riobamba 981, CABA) el próximo sábado 22 de abril a partir de las 17. Además de la disertación de Pappé, el día sábado se presentará la revista iberoamericana de pensamiento, análisis y cultura palestina, Al Zeytun. Para quienes no puedan asistir, la actividad en la Embajada Palestina será transmitida en vivo por el Diario Sirio Libanés a través de: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owmsBu-4I9o
Sobre Pappé
Nació en Haifa en 1954, es hijo de inmigrantes alemanes que huyeron de la persecución nazi, obtuvo una licenciatura en la Universidad Hebrea en Jerusalén en 1979, y un doctorado en la Universidad de Oxford en 1984; fundó y dirigió el Instituto Académico por la Paz en Givat Haviva entre 1992 y 2000, y enseñó historia en la Universidad de Haifa entre 1984 y 2006.
Desde 2007 se desempeña como profesor de historia del Departamento de Ciencias Sociales y Estudios Internacionales, co-director del Centro de Estudios Etno-Políticos, y director del Centro Europeo de Estudios Palestinos de la Universidad de Exeter (Reino Unido), ofrecerá dos conferencias magistrales en la ciudad de Buenos Aires.
Autor de más de una docena de libros sobre el conflicto israelí-palestino, entre los que se destacan: La Limpieza Étnica de Palestina (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006), El Medio Oriente Moderno (The Modern Middle East, 2005), Una Historia de Palestina Moderno: Una tierra, dos pueblos (A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, 2003), y La Creación del Conflicto Árabe-Israelí  (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947–1951, 1992).

‎جفرا - التّجمّع الطلّابي في تل أبيب‎'s photo.

الشيخ مونّس تستضيف أيلان بابيه|שיך מוניס מארחת את אילן פפה
148 going · 121 interested
Share this event with your friends

  • Tomorrow at 17:3020:00

  • בניין ווב 001, אונברסיטת תל-אביב
148 going · 121 interested
Share this event with your friends
العبرية بعد العربية| עברית אחרי ערבית 

في ذكرى نكبة الشعب الفلسطيني ال-69 واستمراراً للمشروع التثقيفي التوعوي الذي تبنيناه، تدعوكُم جفرا -التّجمّع الطّلابي في جامعة تل-أبيب لحضور الندوة الثقافية بحضور المحاضر والناشط العالمي البروفيسور ايلان بابيه، وذلك يوم الاثنين الموافق 8.5.2017 الساعة 17:30 مساءً في مبنى ويب 001-جامعة تل أبيب.

تتخلّل الندوة:
1) د.امطانس شحادة-الأمين العام للتجمع الوطني الديمقراطي-ترحيب.
2) بروفيسور ايلان بابيه-مؤرخ وباحث-ندوة تحت عنوان "النكبة والتطهير العرقي في فلسطين، وإمكانية الحل للصراع الفلسطيني-الاسرائيلي ".
3)نقاش مفتوح وطرح أسئلة.
-يدير الندوة الرفيق يوسف طه-سكرتير التجمّع الطلابي في جامعة تل أبيب.

لمحة تعريفية عن البروفيسور ايلان بابيه: 
إيلان بابيه هو مؤرخ ومحاضر في العلوم السياسية في جامعة "اكسيتر" البريطانية، وأحد المبادرين لحركة المقاطعة الأكاديمية على اسرائيل وناشط في ال BDS حركة المقاطعة التي تهدف لسحب الاستثمارات وفرض العقوبات ضد إسرائيل.
تميّز ايلان بابيه بوضوح تحليله وموقفه الرافض للحركة الصهيونية وممارستها العنصرية البشعة، خاصة فيما يتعلق بتنفيذها لعملية التطهير العرقي التي أدت إلى قتل وتشريد وطرد ثمان مائة ألف فلسطيني من وطنهم تحولوا منذ منتصف عام 1948 إلى لاجئين. كما وتعرّض للكثير من النقد في اسرائيل بسبب تأييده للحقوق الفلسطينية في عودة اللاجئين وفي مقاومة الاحتلال.
ترأس اكاديمية معهد السلام في "جبعات حبيبة" خلال السنوات 2000-1993 و لديه مقعد في معهد اميل توما للدراسات الفلسطينية. 

له مؤلفات عديدة حول الصراع العربي الإسرائيلي اشهرها كتاب "التطهير العرقي لفلسطين", الذي يتحدّث حول عملية التطهير العرقي التي تمّ التخطيط لها بصورة واعية ومسبقة, عبر شبكة مترابطة وتنظيم محكم ينطلقان من الفلسفة الصهيونية المرتبطة كلياً بالمخطط الرأسمالي العالمي, باعتباره صاحب المصلحة الرئيسية في قيام دولة اسرائيل في بلادنا.


במלאת 69 שנים לנכבה, ובמסגרת סדרת המפגשים שמקיימת ג'פרא- תא הסטודנטים של בל"ד באוניברסיטת תל-אביב, אנו מזמינים אתכם להרצאה ומפגש עם ההיסטוריון והפעיל הבינלאומי פרופ' אילן פפה. 
המפגש יתקיים ביום שני 8.5.2017 בשעה 17:30 בבניין ווב 001, אונברסיטת תל-אביב 

1) התכנסות, קבלת פנים והרשמה.
2) דברי פתיחה מאת מזכ"ל בל"ד אמטאנס שחאדה.
3) פרופ' אילן פפה: הנכבה והטיהור האתני בפלסטין – והאפשרות לפתרון הסכסוך הישראלי-פלסטיני. 
4) דיון פתוח ושאלות מהקהל.

-את המפגש ינחה מזכיר תא הסטודנטים של בל"ד באוניברסיטת תל אביב, יוסף טאהא. 

על הפרופ' אילן פפה:

אילן פפה הוא היסטוריון ומרצה למדע המדינה באוניברסיטת אקסטר הבריטית, מיוזמי תנועת החרם האקדמית על ישראל ופעיל בתנועת ה-BDS שקוראת לחרם, משיכת השקעות והטלת סנקציות מדיניות ועיצומים כלכליים על ישראל. פפה חבר בהנהלת מכון אמיל תומא למחקרים פלסטיניים, ובין השנים 1993-2000 עמד בראש מכון השלום בגבעת חביבה. 

פפה נודע בעמדותיו הביקורתיות כלפי התנועה הציונית ובתרומתו המחקרית לחשיפת הפרקטיקות הגזעניות שעליהן היא מתבססת – ובמיוחד של הטיהור האתני שהתבצע בשנת 1948, ושבמסגרתו גורשו כ-800 אלף פלסטינים מארצם והפכו לפליטים. בשל כך, ובשל תמיכתו בשיבת הפליטים ובהתנגדות הפלסטינית לכיבוש, ספג פפה ביקורת קשה בישראל. 

פפה פרסם ספרים ומחקרים רבים ומשפיעים. הידוע שבהם הוא "הטיהור האתני של פלסטין" שבו חושף פפה את ממדי הטיהור האתני של 1948 ואת התכנון שקדם להוצאתו לפועל, תוך הצבעה על קשרי הגומלין ההדוקים בין התנועה הציונית לאינטרסים הקפיטליסטיים והאימפריאליסטיים שאותם שירתה הקמתה של מדינת ישראל בארצנו.

* الدخول إلى الندوة مشروط بالتسحيل مسبقاً عبر الرابط المرفق, الدخول لغير المتسجلين مرهون بتوفر اماكن داخل القاعة|ההשתתפות מחייבת הרשמה דרך הקובץ המצורף, לכל מי שלא ירשם הכניסה לאולם על בסיס מקום פנוי:

News Feed

مهم جداً!חשוב מאוד!
**الدخول إلى الندوة مشروط بالتسجيل مسبقاً عبر الرابط المرفق, الدخول لغير المتسجلين مرهون بتوفر اماكن داخل القاعة**
 **ההשתתפות מחייבת הרשמה דרך הקובץ המצורף, לכל מי שלא ירשם הכניסה לאולם על בסיס מקום פנוי**
في ذكرى نكبة الشعب الفلسطيني ال-69 واستمراراً للمشروع التثقيفي التوعوي الذي تبنيناه، تدعوكُم جفرا -التّجمّع الطّلابي في جامعة تل-أبيب لحضور ندوة ثقافية تحت عنوان "النكبة والتطهير العرقي في فلسطين، وإمكانية الحل للصراع الفلسطيني-الاسرائيلي ". ستقام الندوة يوم الاثنين الموافق 8.5.2017 الساعة 17:45 مسا...
Yoav Haifawi shared a link.
(מאמר זה פורסם גם באנגלית.) על ההזמנה להרצאת ההסטוריון אילן פפה בערערה שבמשולש, שהתקיימה ביום שישי ה-12.9, חתומות שלוש תנועות מקומיות של צעירים פלסטינים. ההזמנה…
الندوة ستكون في مبنى ويب، قاعة رقم 001
ההרצאה תתקיים בבניין ווב, אולם מספר 001
كونوا على الموعد!
في هذا المقطع يروي المؤرخ والناشط العالمي ايلان بابيه عن دور الاستخبارات الصهيونيّة في احتلال أرض فلسطين، وفي 8.5 سيكون هو ضيفنا في جامعة تل أبيب ويروى الرواية كاملةً، سيروي كيف تمت اكبر عملية سطو مسلح في تاريخ البشرية. كونوا على الموعد!
 בסרטון הזה מספר פרופ' אילן פפה על מעורבות המודיעין של התנועה הציונית בכיבוש פלסטין, ב 8.5 אילן יהיה האורח שלנו באוניברסיטת תל אביב ויספר לנו את הסיפור המלא, הוא יספר לנו איך קרה השוד הנוראי לארץ פלסטין, בואו!
יצחק שפי
26 April at 14:522 ·


פרופ' ישראלי באוניברסיטת ת"א: המוסד - פשע נגד האנושות

משתתפי הכנס עמדו בהמנון הפלסטיני, ושמעו את הרצאתו של המרצה פרופסור אילן פפה, שטען: "מועדון הסגל נבנה מאבנים שהיו שייכות לכפר הפלסטיני החרב, עליו הוקמה האוניברסיטה"

ישי פרידמן | 14/5/2017 12:43
ארגון ג'ופרא, תא הסטודנטים של בל"ד באוניברסיטת תל אביב, קיים כנס לציון "יום הנכבה" בתוך הקמפוס. אורח הכבוד שהשתתף בכנס היה הח"כ לשעבר שהורשע  במסירת טלפונים לאסירים, באסל גטאס. את תחילת הכנס ציינו הסטודנטים, ביניהם גם אורחים יהודים, בעמידה לכבוד ההמנון הלא רשמי של הפלסטינים "מולדתי מולדתי", שחובר על ידי המשורר הפלסטיני איברהים טוקאן. 

משתתפי הכנס שרים את ההמנון הפלסטיני האלטרנטיבי 
360 - המנון הפלסטיני "מולדתי" באונ' תל אביב

הדובר המרכזי בכנס היה ההיסטוריון האנטי ציוני, פרופ' אילן פפה, שטען כי אוניברסיטת תל אביב הוקמה על חורבות כפר פלסטיני והקמתה היא ביטוי ל"טיהור האתני" ולפשע הציוני. "קשה לי להבין איך הפשע הזה הוסתר והודחק", אמר פפה על הקמת האוניברסיטה. "ב-1959 מה שהפך להיות אוניברסיטת תל אביב - את ההוראה הראשונה עשו בבתים של הכפר שעליו נבנה הקמפוס הזה. אנשים לא שאלו למי שייך הבית הזה? שום דבר. לא עניין אותם אפילו. לא טרחו להבין מה הקשר בין האידיאל של אוניברסיטה שהוא חופש מחקר, של מוסר, לבין הנוכחות היומיומית שלהם בבית של מישהו אחר?". 

עוד אמר פפה כי מועדון הסגל של אוניברסיטת תל אביב נבנה בחלקו מאבנים שהיו שייכות לכפר הפלסטיני החרב, וכי הסגל האקדמי של תל אביב עוסק בהשכחת הנכבה. "מי ממלא את הקמפוס הזה? לא אנשי קשי יום שהולכים לשוק. לא אנשים שהולכים למשרדיהם בבנק, אלא אנשים שהמדינה משלמת להם לחשוב על המציאות, על מוסר, על אמת ומה שקר ומה נכון או לא נכון"

"מדהים לראות את ההשכחה, את החוסר הידיעה של מה שקרה במקום שבו אתה חוקר ומלמד והדברים האלה לא מציקים לך. וזה קורה בחברה שמקדשת את הזיכרון. דורשים מגרמניה להתנהג בצורה מסוימת בשם הזיכרון, אבל כשזה מגיע פה לבית, למועדון של הסגל - שום שאלה, שום תהיה שום התלבטות." בהמשך, הגדיר פפה את המפעל הציוני כטיהור אתני מתמשך, וכפשע נגד האנושות. 

בנוסף, טענו מארגני הכנס כי האוניברסיטה חייבה אותם לשלם על האבטחה במקום וכי מנהלי המוסד ניסו לטרפד את קיומו. 

Back to "Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 256567952Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version