Grok

The podcast transcript features a discussion between the host and Professor Alexander Jakobson, a scholar of Roman history and author of Israel and the Family of Nations. The conversation centers on defending Zionism against common criticisms, particularly the claim that it is a form of colonialism, and addressing the notion that Jews are merely a religious group rather than a people. Below are the main ideas from the questions and topics raised in the transcript, organized for clarity and thoroughness:

Introduction to Professor Jakobson and His Approach:
- The host introduces Jakobson as a mentor and scholar whose book Israel and the Family of Nations is a significant defense of Zionism, despite being less accessible in English due to its high academic pricing.
- Jakobson’s intellectual approach is highlighted as fearless and truth-driven, characterized by taking opposing arguments seriously and even strengthening them to ensure a fair debate. This contrasts with much of Western discourse, which the host finds lacking in such rigor.
- Question implied: What makes Jakobson’s intellectual approach unique, and how does it shape his defense of Zionism?
Zionism and the Colonialism Critique:
- A central question posed is: Why isn’t Zionism colonialism, or is it? How do we make sense of the claim that Zionism is colonialist?
- The discussion explores the definition of colonialism, typically understood as European powers conquering and settling non-European territories. Jakobson argues that Zionism does not fit this model because Jews were not a European power but a persecuted, stateless people seeking a homeland in their ancestral land.
- He contrasts Western colonialism with historical Muslim conquests (e.g., the Ottoman Empire, Byzantine conquests), noting that anti-colonial discourse often ignores non-Western colonization, revealing its selective focus.
- Jakobson acknowledges a serious argument against Zionism: the Jewish return to Palestine conflicted with the rights of the Arab population already living there, as Jews were not seeking independence where they currently resided (unlike other national movements). However, he argues that denying Jews self-determination, given their historical persecution and homelessness, is morally problematic.
- He cites a scholar who labels Zionism as colonialism due to European Jewish settlement but admits “salient differences” (e.g., Zionism as a national rather than economic project, Jews as refugees, no colonial metropole, and the historical Jewish connection to the land). Jakobson critiques this as semantic manipulation that ignores these differences’ significance.
Jews as a People vs. a Religion:
- Another key question is: Are Jews a people entitled to self-determination, or merely a religious group?
- Jakobson refutes the claim that Jews are only a religion, calling it “dishonest” and ahistorical. He argues that Jewish religious texts and traditions explicitly define Jews as a people tied to the land of Israel.
- He points to the Bund, a 19th-century Jewish socialist movement in Eastern Europe, which identified Jews as a people with a distinct national language (Yiddish) and sought cultural autonomy, not a state in Palestine. This shows that even non-Zionist, non-religious Jews saw themselves as a nation.
- The Soviet Union’s recognition of Jews as a nationality, with Yiddish as their language and even an autonomous region, further supports the historical view of Jews as a people, not just a religious sect.
- The question arises: Why do elite academics and influencers increasingly claim Jews are a religion, not a people, despite historical evidence? Jakobson attributes this to the dominance of postcolonial and anti-colonial discourse in Western academia, which oversimplifies Zionism as colonialism and ignores Jewish history.
Moral and Historical Implications of Anti-Zionism:
- The host asks: How can anti-Zionist arguments ignore the historical persecution of Jews, especially after the 20th century’s ethnic cleansing of Jewish communities?
- Jakobson argues that denying Zionism’s legitimacy is more morally problematic than affirming it, given the Jewish people’s desperate need for a homeland due to centuries of persecution and homelessness. He contrasts this with other national movements (e.g., Italian unification), which faced less existential threats.
- He acknowledges that Zionism’s settlement in Palestine created a moral dilemma by clashing with Arab rights but insists that Zionists, including figures like Jabotinsky, recognized this. Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall” essay, for instance, acknowledges Arab opposition as natural and proposes a compromise based on strength, not denial of Arab claims.
- Jakobson critiques anti-Zionists for ignoring the moral dilemma of denying Jews a homeland, especially given the 20th-century context of antisemitism and the Holocaust.
Impact of Postcolonial Discourse:
- The host questions: Why is the ahistorical view that Zionism is colonialism so prevalent in elite Western academia and the Arab world?
- Jakobson explains that postcolonial and anti-colonial discourse has become mainstream in Western liberalism, framing all Western actions (including Israel’s existence) as colonial. This discourse equates Israel with settler-colonial states like the U.S. or Australia, ignoring Israel’s unique context.
- He argues that this rhetoric harms Palestinians by encouraging unrealistic anti-colonial strategies (e.g., destroying Israel) that assume Jews can be “decolonized” like European settlers, despite Jews lacking a metropole or alternative homeland.
- The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack is cited as evidence of the dangers of this rhetoric, as Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel, supported by Iran, was not a marginal position but a strategic plan. This underscores the real-world consequences of labeling Zionism as colonialism.
Zionism’s Recognition of Arab Rights:
- An implied question is: Did Zionism ignore the rights of Palestinians?
- Jakobson argues that mainstream Zionist leaders, like Chaim Weizmann and even Jabotinsky, recognized the legitimacy of Arab national claims. Weizmann described the conflict as one between “two sorts of justice,” and Jabotinsky proposed collective rights for Arabs in a Jewish state, not just individual rights.
- He contrasts this with the Palestinian and broader Arab refusal to recognize Jewish national rights, which he sees as a greater moral failing, though understandable given their direct stake in the land.
Arab Nationalism and Palestinian Identity:
- The discussion addresses the claim that Palestinian identity is “invented” or a response to Zionism. Jakobson counters that Palestinian nationalism emerged alongside other Arab nationalisms (e.g., Iraqi, Moroccan) in the 20th century, reflecting a broader regional process, not a reaction solely to Zionism.
- This challenges the Israeli right’s argument that Palestinian identity is inauthentic, as well as the anti-Zionist claim that Jewish national identity is artificial.
Misunderstandings of Zionism’s Origins:
- The host raises a historical example: Why did Arab states, like Egypt in 1948, misunderstand Zionism as a Soviet-backed communist movement?
- Jakobson notes that Arab narratives often framed Zionism as an extension of foreign powers (e.g., Russia, Germany, or the U.S.), leading to persistent beliefs that defeating Israel merely requires overcoming its supposed patron. This misunderstanding fueled repeated wars, as seen in Egypt’s 1948 declaration against “communist nihilism and atheism.”
Contemporary Anti-Zionism in Academia:
- The host asks: Why do young people and academics increasingly adopt anti-Zionist views, and how do they justify them?
- Jakobson suggests that anti-Zionism has become a “moral identity” rather than a reasoned argument, driven by postcolonial ideology that ignores Jewish history and the realities of the Middle East. He cites conversations with students who claim “everyone is anti-Zionist” but cannot engage with the historical context of Jewish persecution or the Holocaust.
Jakobson’s Broader Political Stance:
- An underlying question is: How does Jakobson’s political perspective inform his views?
- The host notes Jakobson’s critique of both the Israeli left and right, such as his view that the Israeli Supreme Court is overly powerful (a right-leaning critique) but that the government’s judicial reform was poorly executed. This reflects his commitment to the public good over party loyalty, framing his defense of Zionism as principled rather than ideological.

These questions and ideas collectively address the intellectual, historical, and moral dimensions of Zionism, its critics, and the broader discourse surrounding Israel and Jewish identity. Jakobson’s responses emphasize a rigorous, truth-seeking approach that acknowledges complexities while defending Zionism’s legitimacy against oversimplified or ahistorical critiques.

ChatGPT

Here is a thorough breakdown of the main ideas discussed in the podcast episode featuring Professor Alexander Yakobson, a Roman history scholar and author of Israel and the Family of Nations. The conversation focuses on criticisms of Zionism, the claim that it constitutes colonialism, and debates over Jewish peoplehood. I’ve grouped the key themes and arguments below for clarity:

1. Yakobson’s Intellectual Approach

Yakobson is admired for his commitment to truth over ideology.
He often strengthens opposing arguments in debates to clarify distinctions and enhance fairness.
He holds complex views: critical of the Israeli Supreme Court’s power, yet supports judicial reform and acknowledges right-wing concerns.

2. Is Zionism Colonialism?

Colonialism Defined: Traditional colonialism involves a European power conquering a non-European territory and settling its population there, often for economic gain and political control.
Why Zionism Differs:
- Jews were not a European power but a persecuted people without sovereignty.
- Zionism was driven by a national and historical connection to the land, not imperial conquest.
- Most Jews who came were refugees, not settlers from a metropole (e.g., Britain, France).
- Jewish immigration lacked the organizational structure of colonial states.
- The “return to Zion” is embedded in Jewish religious and cultural tradition.

3. Historical Hypocrisy of Anti-Colonialism

Critics often ignore that Muslim empires colonized Christian lands for centuries (e.g., Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, Spain).
Selective historical memory undermines the credibility of anti-Zionist critiques.
Claims of colonialism directed only at Western or Jewish movements are intellectually dishonest.

4. Jewish Peoplehood vs. Religion

The claim that Jews are merely a religion (not a people) is historically and religiously ignorant:
- Jewish religious texts consistently describe Jews as a people tied to a land and history.
- Jewish identity persisted through language (e.g., Yiddish), culture, and national movements like the Bund, even among atheists.
- The Soviet Union classified Jews as a nationality, not a religion.
Zionism aligns with historical Jewish identity, not an invention.

5. Zionism’s Moral Complexity

Moral Tension: Zionism involved settling in a land where others already lived, inherently creating conflict.
Two Kinds of Justice: Weizmann famously said Zionism vs. Palestinian nationalism is “a clash between two kinds of justice.”
Zionists Acknowledged Arab Claims: Even Revisionist Zionists like Jabotinsky recognized Arab resistance as natural and justified.
Yakobson argues Zionists were more morally reflective than critics give them credit for.

6. Self-Determination and the Jewish Case

Self-determination is universally accepted—why not for Jews?
Objection: Jews didn’t live in Palestine at the time. Response: they were homeless and needed a national home more than most.
Denying Jews a homeland is morally more problematic than affirming Zionism, given their unique historical suffering and statelessness.

7. Palestinian Nationalism

Palestinian identity, like other Arab identities, coalesced in the 20th century—not uniquely reactive to Zionism.
National identities are often recent and fluid; this doesn’t invalidate them.
Zionists shouldn’t deny Palestinian peoplehood just as Palestinians shouldn’t deny Jewish peoplehood.

8. Dangers of Postcolonial Rhetoric

Postcolonial discourse in elite academia treats Zionism like Western imperialism, ignoring key differences.
Such framing emboldens destructive ideologies by suggesting that Zionism is illegitimate and can be resisted like colonial rule.
The October 7 Hamas attacks reveal that decolonization rhetoric isn’t abstract—it informs violent strategies backed by powers like Iran.

9. Critique of Academic Trends

Anti-Zionist positions in universities often stem from ideological fashion rather than serious historical engagement.
Land acknowledgments and settler-colonial language are cost-free in the U.S., but in Israel, they can legitimize existential threats.
Intellectual dishonesty arises when Jewish suffering, exile, and genocide are dismissed or abstracted away in the name of ideological purity.

10. Zionism’s Moral Imperative and Limits

Zionism must reckon with its impact on Palestinians.
Yakobson supports a two-state solution and calls for acknowledgment of both sides’ national rights.
However, critics rarely apply the same moral scrutiny to the rejection of Zionism and its consequences for Jewish safety and sovereignty.

If you’d like, I can format this into a Substack post, generate pull quotes, or add historical context and citations.

Transcript

Thoroughly provide me with the main ideas from the questions in this podcast transcript: hello folks welcome to Ask Khabiv Anything this is a bit of an odd episode
0:10
a fun episode um a bonus episode i sat down with a teacher of mine uh Professor
0:17
Alexander Jakobson of Hebrew University a scholar of Roman history i learned how
0:22
to do history from Alex um and I wanted to bring his voice to this podcast i’ve
0:32
often recommended his book uh Israel and the Family of Nations which I think is in the last 40 years 50 years maybe the
0:39
best single uh Defense of Zionism um out there in Hebrew you can buy it at any
0:45
bookstore at regular price in English it was classified as an academic book and it sells for $1 or $140 um which I don’t
0:53
know why that happened i can’t prove that there’s a conspiracy but um it’s a shame it’s a shame because it’s a book
0:59
worth having it takes on a lot of the tropes it’s already two decades old almost but it takes on a lot of the
1:05
tropes that are anti-ionist academics use that are sort of thrown at Israel
1:10
thrown in Zionism what’s special about him is his superpower and you get that superpower
1:16
when you learn when you sit in his class when you learn from him you get something of it you see it and therefore
1:21
you know something about how to do it and it’s desperately missing from so much of um western debates discussions
1:29
about this place but about many many topics it’s the fearlessness of taking the other side’s position seriously you
1:36
go into a debate and someone like Alex actually helps the other side make their case i have seen him in debates on
1:44
panels at think tanks at the university where the other side made an argument and then Alex chimed in and said you
1:50
know if you actually said you know this version of the argument it would actually be more convincing because then
1:56
I wouldn’t be able to say this in response you opened yourself up unnecessarily to my own right he advises
2:02
the other side in real time how to make the case um that kind of instinctive
2:09
commitment to the truth means that even if you don’t agree with him even if you find him too left-wing even if you don’t
2:16
agree with him because he’s also on the left a critic of the left for example he shares the my views as far as I know I
2:24
haven’t talked to him about it this particular topic in a few years uh that the Israeli Supreme Court is massively overpowerful and that it’s unhealthy and
2:31
unstable and we need judicial reform and that the government’s version of it was was a disaster but nevertheless that
2:38
that’s not necessarily substantively the same as saying that the right is wrong actually the right has a point the court
2:44
really is too powerful so this is a guy who pulls no punches for anyone has no
2:50
loyalty to party to policy his only loyalty is to the public good to the country itself um and um you see it you
2:59
see it we’re going to talk about a few things i’m going to bring um sections where he uh tackles accusations often
3:06
leveled at Zionism that it is colonialist um anti-ionists often say
3:12
the Jews are a religion not a people he offers a lot of perspective and you can’t quite place it politically for
3:18
example um he points out that Muslims have more often and for longer periods
3:24
conquered and colonized Christian lands than Christians have conquered and colonized Muslim lands now the Christian
3:30
colonization and colonialism has been more recent but the Muslim was more
3:36
often and longer that kind of sounds like a rightle leaning sort of cultural
3:41
discourse but he also points out that during the period when
3:46
Palestinians started calling themselves Palestinians an argument often made against the Palestinian national
3:52
movement is that there was a period where no Arab in the land called themselves Palestinian and then suddenly
3:58
they’re all calling themselves Palestinian there was a moment of invention of self-invention and that’s often on the
4:05
Israeli political right there’s often heard the argument that Palestinians are fake invented there’s of course a
4:13
mainstream Palestinian argument that the Jews are somehow in some innate sense because they’re a religion and not a
4:19
people usually fake and invented and Israeli identity is is
4:25
artificial except that all other Arab peoples were going through the same process at the same time the coalescing
4:31
of Palestinian nationalism Alex points out wasn’t something that happened only
4:36
to Palestinians as a response to the pressure of Zionism or Jewish immigration it was happening to Iraqis
4:42
it was happening to Moroccans and Algerians well if it was happening to other Arab peoples there’s some a bit of
4:47
a deeper process and a more potentially if you’re going to morally judge it authentic process underway
4:54
so it’s it’s a serious intellectual conversation that doesn’t come just to win brownie points it actually comes to
5:02
uncover the truth to sift away some of the sand um I’m going to just uh stop
5:07
talking here and just you know why repeat everything he says and then let you hear it um thank you very much for
5:13
joining um this episode is uh sponsored by an anonymous donor uh in honor of
5:20
battalion 363 of the Hal Brigade which is an infantry brigade in the IDF uh
5:26
where the sponsor’s loved one serves i think that’s a beautiful sponsorship and thank you for that uh
5:33
may all our sons and daughters come home safely here’s Alex i often tell people
5:40
the Arab world uh misunderstands us and always thinks that we are the arm of some patron some
5:47
other right and therefore they continue to believe that losing in a war to us doesn’t mean anything because in fact
5:55
the only reason they lost in the war is because the Russian Empire supported us or the German Empire supported us or
6:00
right now the Americans support us and so it’s still worth having another war against us and it from your book uh
6:07
Israel and the family of nations That was when I first came across the astonishing discovery that in 1948 Egypt
6:13
when it declared war on us declared war on communist nihilism and atheism right
6:20
because we were a branch of the Soviet Union that’s the resolution of the Egyptian parliament that the army go to
6:26
Palestine of course to protect Arab Palestinians and Arab Palestine and all that but also to confront the
6:32
destructive forces of communism and atheism many people on the Israeli right kind of accept this designation of the
6:38
Israeli of the Zionist labor movement that that’s a bit of an exaggeration but
6:45
so let me start this discussion at the beginning um I have spoken I have been on many
6:51
college campuses over the last um year and a half and I’ve spoken to a great many college students and a great many
6:57
American Jews who are very worried about the future of young people and what they think about Zionism in America and We’re
7:04
hearing from the American left the uh European left the academic left that
7:10
Zionism is colonialism that the Jews should be ashamed that there’s something fundamentally wrong in this thing called
7:17
the state of Israel there are even scholars Jewish scholars in American
7:22
universities who are now calling themselves non-Zionist anti-ionist trying to found a non-Zionist academic
7:28
movement why isn’t Zionism colonialism is Zionism colonialism how do we begin
7:34
to make sense of this argument this claim that we all at some point or another if we’re going to be in academic spaces in the west have to face well you
7:42
know every term like every political term every term that is used politically can you can argue about how to define it
7:49
and then whether you depending on whether you want to apply it against a particular object okay you can people
7:56
define communism socialism conservatism bibism and Trumpism in a way that but
8:02
but I think if if we look for a common sensical definition of of colonialism as
8:07
a modern uh phenomenon it is obviously a a a phenomenon in whereby western powers
8:18
European powers uh took over large parts of what is today the uh the third world of Asia and
8:25
Africa and colonization at the proper sense means that they send their people there in order to settle them that is
8:32
they colonize in the sense of settle okay but I think more broadly any taking
8:38
over of a territory by a European power against of a of a non-European
8:43
territories populated by non-European people is considered an act of colonism
8:48
very usually also accompanied by settling it to to a greater or larger extent now Of course so I’m stressing
8:56
the um that these are European powers because of course in history is full of
9:02
conquests and colonizations in the sense of settling of territories by
9:08
non-western powers of non-western territories by by non-western powers and
9:14
of Europe itself of course by Muslim conquerors and over hundreds of years large parts of Europe were conquered
9:21
ruled and colonized uh um to some extent by uh by by the Ottoman Empire by the
9:28
Muslim conquerors in Spain and uh um and things like that but that is not that is
9:33
not what is meant by anticolon discourse just ignores this fact and that in itself of course is a
9:40
is a means that there is it is very much open to criticism because there is something fundamentally dishonest about
9:46
this pretend that only as if only western powers ruled over non-western
9:52
peoples in fact everybody who knows anything about history knows that the conquest of Christian countries and
9:59
Christian peoples by Muslims was much more prevalent without any compar and
10:06
continued for much longer than the con conquest of of of Muslim peoples by European conquerors
10:14
that is the latest devel of course okay we leave that aside we speak about what is meant when people speak about just
10:21
before we leave that aside uh the entire Byzantine Empire is what you’re talking about well they know look they of course
10:30
the uh and then we Turkey is used to be
10:35
a minor settled conquered and settled of course by Greeks and Romans but at the
10:42
time at the point of time when Turks took over it and made it Turkey of course there was a Turkish conquest and
10:48
colonization of Aisha minor then of Constantinople of course or what is today you know Constantinople was
10:56
actually conquered shortly before what used to be called the discovery of America people rightly of course regard
11:03
the history of postc colombian America as a history of yeah European
11:09
colonization i don’t agree with that but nobody thinks of calling the history of
11:15
Turkey of Turkish presence in Istanbul or at least in the European parts of Turkey although even also the Asian
11:22
parts of Turkey of course had been conquered by people who came from what today is know Mongolia or something like
11:28
that originally so you know since it is more or less accepted that the first
11:35
homo sapiens came from Africa more or less everyone once conquered their
11:40
present territory we speak about now western colonialism okay that is to say colonialism is as it is called now there
11:48
are always there is always a European power that takes over a territory and then sends its people to that territory
11:56
and the Jews were not a European power that took over another country and and send its people to it the Jews were um
12:05
often persecuted and always discriminated against minority in
12:11
in Europe and not only in Europe but uh the European Jews who are accused of
12:18
colonialism they were not a power that conquered another country they were a people in in search of a national home
12:24
of a homeland which they sought to establish in their historic homeland in their ancestral home
12:31
zionism regards itself as a national movement of a of the Jewish people of a
12:36
homeless and persecuted people and in a case of a people lacking a homeland and independence and the question should be
12:43
why should the desire of this people to national dependence why should it be regarded as less legitimate than the
12:50
desire of other peoples to independence when the right of self-determination is you no there is not a single probably a
12:58
critic of Zionism who does not in principle recognize the the right of
13:03
peoples to self-determination it is not any principle you can say yeah I disagree with it but I don’t think there
13:09
is a single critic of Zionism will say self-determination nonsense i don’t I don’t recognize such a thing but there
13:15
is a debate about whether the Jews specifically fit that category how do I know how do I know if
13:21
the Jews deserve to fit into that maybe the Jews invented them their nationalism they use they’re just a religion maybe
13:27
right this is a discourse that seems to make sense if you think of Christianity as another kind of Abrahamic faith like
13:34
Judaism maybe Judaism and Christianity are are categorically alike and then why
13:39
do does Judaism have a state right if you can we we we will return to question colonialism which is connected but okay
13:45
you are raising very fundamental questions and I think we have a sometime so we will address it seriously the if
13:51
you want to to to to counter the Zionist claim that this is a legitimate movement
13:58
to realize for the Jewish people the universal right determination there are two ways of cont of of rejecting i
14:07
either you say Jews are not a people who were not a people and therefore the principle should never have applied to
14:12
them and the second uh argument possible argument to say well they may have been a people or to some extent a people but
14:20
but it should not have applied to them because for them to form a a because
14:25
they were a diaspora people and for them to form a state in Palestine that was
14:30
already populated by Arabs was was a majority Arab territory was always going
14:36
to conflict with the rights of of the natives of the locals okay so there are sort of you you don’t even you some
14:44
people say yeah Jews were a people in some sense but this people should have should not have try to establish a state
14:51
because usually peoples when they ask for independence they ask for independence where they sit where they
14:57
live okay and then national self-determination is actually another aspect of the principle of government by
15:05
consent okay consent of the governed it’s also it’s another way to saying
15:10
that that that people should be ruled by their decision not by someone else and if there are several people then each of
15:17
them has this right to serve government but this is the great American among
15:22
other things principle of of of consent of the governed so self-determination is another aspect of
15:29
the consent of the governed but the assumption is you live in a place and then you have a right to decide what how
15:35
you will be governed okay not just by whom by by in what national frame anymore now the Jews do not fit into
15:43
this perfectly because they were not sitting they were not living in the place okay where they demanded
15:50
independence unlike any other case of national self-determination so in order to say that the the the right of
15:57
self-determination should not have applied to Jews because they were not living in the territory unlike any other
16:04
national movement they were not living in the territory that in on which they
16:10
wanted to establish a state and other people lived and objected to their coming and to their state that it’s a
16:17
serious pleasure in order to say that the meaning the practical meaning
16:23
of it is that the right of self-determination is denied to the people who in the nature of the case
16:31
needed it more desperately than any other people you see when you compare Zionism with
16:38
other national movements and you ask for justification I think if you want to to
16:44
seriously confront the the criticism is very often malicious and hypocritical but that doesn’t mean there are no ser
16:51
there is a serious argument against Zionism and this is a serious argument against Zionism your self-determination
16:58
was always going to bring you into conflict with people who were living there and did not were not under any
17:04
obligation to make any concessions to some other people coming from some other place and it is not like people living
17:10
and saying we want to establish a government in our natural country even if there is a conflict there that’s a
17:16
conflict between two groups of people living in a a certain place not changing the character of a country okay so that
17:23
is a serious objection but but you have to understand what what the
17:29
implication are of accepting it the implication the meaning of the moral
17:35
implication is that the right of self-determination should not have been applied to the people who needed it more
17:42
desperately by definition because they were homeless people than any other people because you see when you again
17:49
when you’re comparing Zionism with any with Kurdish or whatever Basque or whatever i was just going to say why why
17:56
wouldn’t that count for any homeless people because specifically the Jews were persecuted at a different at a
18:02
different scale usually people’s people remain a people when they have a not all
18:08
of them live in a country but they at least have a territorial base jews have there was some Jews in this country but
18:13
that was a very small minority of the Jewish people and of person this country the Jews were
18:19
basically nearly 100% outside their historical homeland and it is not an
18:25
easy thing to say that they that it was legitimate for them to reclaim it or even a part of it while other people
18:31
were living there we have to address this but the opponents of Zionism need to address the moral implications of
18:38
denying Zionism now I’m going back now to the basic dilemma the difference between Zionism
18:45
and other people’s other people’s territorial mainly territorial
18:51
peoples i would say there is there are common traits and then there is a plus and a minus zion in some sense is less
19:00
justified than other national movements and in some senses is more justified than other national movements and the
19:06
plus and the minus are basically two sides of the same coin they both result
19:13
from the historical tragedy of the Jews that the Jews lost not just their
19:18
independence this is trivial more or less every people well except the Chinese or know even more or less
19:23
basically most people certainly lost at some point of history their independence but the Jews lost not just their
19:31
independence they lost the the homeland itself okay they were a homeless people
19:38
and and being a homeless people they also face the the challenges that
19:43
homeless people without a home to protect them you know and also for some
19:49
specific reasons of hostility to Jews in Europe and not only in Europe
19:55
now oh so a homeless people needs a national home more than a people who
20:01
live in their home but just want to change the political uh political regime
20:07
okay so they need it more than the usual peoples but but but by but by by
20:14
demanding this they also inevitably clash with the rights of other people
20:19
okay because they cannot by definition a homeless people cannot establish a home a national home where they live they
20:27
need to colonize in the sense of settle another territory and it is not empty
20:33
so you have to then you have to decide what is even worse what is more immoral
20:40
okay to settle to settle and we have to understand that it is not an easy thing
20:47
of course many Jews didn’t want to think about it naturally many Zionists didn’t want to face this problem but the
20:53
anti-ionists don’t want to face the opposite question to say that the right of
20:59
self-determination should not have applied to the Jews in this situation is to make a claim that is much more
21:05
blatantly immoral than the claim of the Zionists of the Zionist movement to
21:12
establish a Jewish national home in this country even at the when when it was
21:18
clear from the beginning that it was about to provoke a conflict of their but I think at the same time that if you the
21:27
Zionist demand should always have included a readiness to accept accept also the legitimacy of the national
21:34
demands of the other side i think in the case of the Zionist movement while I think that the denial of Zionism is much
21:41
more immoral than Zionism okay therefore Zionism is moral in this sense that
21:47
denying it is much more problematic morally than affirming it but I think
21:52
that a a a just a fair person who wanted
21:58
to be a Zionist to make this claim should always have been prepared to say
22:04
”Yeah this creates a conflict this comes at a price and we are willing to have a
22:12
not just a to not just to recognize personal rights of the other side but we are willing to accept the legitimacy of
22:18
the national claim of the other side.” And I have to say that historically the Zionist movement was not every Zionist
22:26
not every group of but the mainstream the leadership of the Zionist movement of course was prepared and while it was
22:34
of course mainly for pragmatic reasons there is no lack of Zionist rhetoric
22:40
that acknowledged the famously one of the most famous examples was Him Vitzman
22:46
very important person in the uh in the Zionist movement and he said famously
22:51
that the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was not a conflict between justice and injustice but it was a
22:58
conflict between two sorts of justice two sorts of justice you don’t hear you
23:03
know Greeks in Cyprus saying that the conflict between the Greek the the
23:09
Turkish claim on on part of Cyprus and the Greek claim that the Greek majority
23:15
should rule the whole of Cyprus there is a that it’s a it’s a clash between two kinds of justice both sides think that
23:22
they their demand is just then they may or may not compromise but I think it is
23:28
it was of course always the case and that has always been my view that in a
23:33
situation like that you know if you read Jabotinsky if
23:38
you go to the Zionist right not to the Zionist center left if you read Jabotinsk’s iron wall the famous article
23:46
that is the paper that is he more or less launched the revisionist right-wing Zionism by writing if you read it you
23:53
know it is famous for the hawkish militant headline iron wall this is what people
24:00
remember and it is doesn’t appear that by by mistake he was an he was a very good journalist he knew that the
24:06
headline is of course a very large part of the of the whole impact of it but if you read the text if you read the text
24:14
you understand that he is perfectly aware that Arab opposition to Zionism
24:20
was natural because for them it was a natural reaction of any population doesn’t doesn’t matter if
24:28
they at that point regarded themselves as a se they did not regard at that point themselves as a separate people
24:34
from other Arab people that is a notion that came later not just for Palestinians it’s a notion that took
24:40
over all of the Arab world it’s it’s not the idea that Arabs are peoples is not something that was invented polymically
24:47
against Zionism it is a development that all the Arab world underwent and I don’t think there is any any sense in us
24:54
arguing with it because we cannot dictate the national identity of the hundreds of millions of Arabs just
24:59
because it’s convenient for us to say that they’re all one people this is nonsense but even before Palestinian
25:06
Arabs claim that they are distinct people if you read this text he says
25:11
clearly for Palestinian Arabs Palestine is their homeland and they don’t want to give it up or even a part of it and
25:18
therefore the his conclusion is that there is no there is no hope for a for an agreement not forever but as long as
25:26
we are not strong enough and then they will compromise with it if we are not in a position of strength there will be no
25:31
compromise then he says there will be a compromise now I I’ve so so the question then which kind of a compromise but it
25:38
is a national compromise and he was prepared by the way if you read the if you know his true views he was he was
25:45
not in favor of partition but he was prepared to offer to Arabs and Palestine
25:51
not just civic rights that was never in purch but collective rights you know
25:56
much much more farreaching collective right than I am prepared to offer them i
26:01
am in favor of partition but but but my Jewish state is less of a bational state
26:07
than Jabotinski Jewish state if you if you know what he was actually proposing because it is a national compromise not
26:14
just a not just respecting individual rights so I think there was no lack of understanding it is unfair to the
26:21
Zionist movement to claim that Zionism was blind to the moral dilemma that was
26:27
created by by Zionist settlement of Palestine the truth is that the
26:32
opponents of Zionism were always blind to the moral dilemma of rejecting
26:37
Zionism of course Palestinian Arabs were always blind to the dilemma of their
26:43
claim against of of their refusal to recognize any kind of a Jewish natural home but worse you could say Palestinian
26:50
Arabanda they are personally affected in a way that you couldn’t jabotinsky thought that one couldn’t expect them to
26:56
accept he really thought that it was unrealistic to expect them to accept it
27:02
but other people who are not involved collectively or directly who pretend to
27:08
be fair-minded who to pretend to be in favor of equal justice for all of
27:13
justice to both sides or justice to people regardless of their ethnicity and religion these
27:20
people what they’re actually saying the Jews because they history deprived them
27:26
not just of their independence but of the of of the ground under their feet of of of the home itself and because
27:34
lacking a home they were persecuted in the way that they were persecuted not just their cultural collective cultural
27:41
identity wasn’t danger but their basic rights their
27:46
human dignity and in the end Their physical survival was in danger and
27:52
other countries did not want to accept them because they were regarded them as aliens as another people
27:59
anti-semites always regarded us as a people that the modern anti-se anti-semites never doubted that we are a
28:06
people and in a situation like that the Jews should have not have been offered a
28:13
national home of their own so there so the people who needed a homeland a a national home more than any
28:20
other people should have been denied this thing of course and we also know what it would have meant practically in
28:27
terms of the 20th century history but Zionism didn’t start with with a Nazi with a with a danger of genocide it
28:34
started with the with the anti-semitism of late 19th century but if you ask you
28:40
know if you say you know if you compare Zionism with you know with simento with
28:45
the um with the national with the movement for for liberating Italy from
28:51
foreign rule and uniting it into a Gary Baldi’s
28:56
uh classical case of a progressive universal reckon as a progressive national
29:02
movement you could say what was the danger to the Italian people if there
29:08
wouldn’t be a united Italy well they would be living under France Ysef um the
29:14
the Austrian emperor and some of them would be maybe living in a in in some separate I mean papal state it wouldn’t
29:22
stay a papal so what why there would be no Italians there would be no Italian language there would be no Italian
29:28
culture there there would be no country called Italy there would be no there
29:33
wouldn’t be a United States called Italy okay okay so so people more or less
29:39
universally accepted That was a code worth fighting for okay for the Italians
29:45
to become an independent nation and so you you ask if you compare the need of
29:51
Italians to the state with the need of the Jews to the state yeah that is a serious comparison that is not a
29:56
comparison that’s a joke so I would say that the the Jewish claim for
30:02
self-determination is not unproatic but denying it is much more problematic than
30:07
affirming it and because it is problematic inevitably problematic I
30:13
think it should always have come with a readiness to make a compromise but that and I I still think so but the there is
30:19
the other question is whether the other side is willing to compromise and that is a question of fact you know you
30:25
shouldn’t take it as a article of faith that if there is no compromise it must be because the Jews and the Israelis and
30:31
Dionist are not willing compromise you should seriously and honestly ask yourself whether the other side was and
30:37
is and what part of it is willing to compromise and that’s not that’s not an easy thing now we go to the question
30:44
whether the Jews are a people okay whether the whole comparison is valid because if it’s just a religious sect
30:51
then then of course all those notions don’t apply to it but it’s not really a serious claim to say about first of all
30:59
to say that the Jews are not a people but a religion is a kind of a joke because anyone who knows anything about
31:05
the Jewish religion anyone who read a one page of the text of this religion knows that the content of this religion
31:12
ion says that we are a people okay it is a very large part of the Jewish religion
31:19
that we are a people connected with certain country with a vision of
31:24
restoring what used to be the Jewish state Jewish kingdom Jewish rule in in
31:29
the land of Israel so to say that the Jews are religion and not a people you can say that seriously if you if you
31:36
have no idea what is the content of the Jewish religion okay and that is that is
31:41
the culture the traditional culture of the Jewish people so the Jews have
31:46
always they did need to to it is not true that the Zionist claims that Jews
31:51
are a people whereas the traditional religious Jews did of course traditional religion always regarded them called
31:58
themselves people all those words in Hebrew that denoted there was you know in late uh 19th century in Europe a
32:06
large Jewish national movement called the bunt no it’s it was defeated by history
32:13
because they its basis was speaking European Jews who were simply murdered
32:18
by the Nazis okay so it’s a tragic they lost their fight in a very tragic way
32:24
now they were a they were they define themselves as a national movement of the Jewish people they were strongly
32:32
anti-ionist they they rejected Zion and they did not want to have an independent state in Palestine they wanted to have
32:39
national autonomy cultural autonomy mainly in the East European in where the
32:45
millions of Jews lived there were millions of Jews who lived in Eastern Europe they spoke the overwhelming
32:51
majority of them spoke a language that made them different from other peoples
32:56
nobody in Eastern Europe where by the way most Jews lived okay in the 19th century no one doubted that the what in
33:04
a area where there are Russians Ukrainians Poles and Jews that the Jews are one of the peoples of the Russian
33:11
and Austrian Empire no one seriously doubted and if only because they did
33:17
have a national language that that was that made them different from us that is the basic the basic definition of being
33:23
a people that you have a distinct not always but usually you have a distinct language now there isn’t a religion that
33:30
has the that whose millions of believers speak a language that is different from
33:36
their neighbors it’s the religions don’t work like you have a lurggical language sometimes which you pray you can people
33:42
compare it with letter this is nonsense but there was a whole culture including the language of millions of people many
33:49
of whom were not religious some of them were zionist some of them were all kinds of things some of
33:55
them were communist some of them of ultra but many of them I speaking about the bund there were some other groups
34:01
the bund was was national they believed that the Jews are a people They were
34:07
non-religious i think were atheist really and non-zionist actually
34:12
anti-ionist and the national language of the Jewish people for them was Yiddish rather than Hebrew and they did not want
34:18
to go to Palestine they wanted to have Jewish autonomy in in where the millions of Jews live now
34:25
what you call them what you call them a religious sect those Marxist atheist
34:31
people who who were they were they were based they were the the movement of Jewish working class that was a large
34:37
group okay you call them you say that these people are these people are a
34:43
religious sect that that invents itself as a people it’s simply not a serious argument by the way I want to remind you
34:50
as someone who was born in the Soviet Union that the Boleviks who opposed
34:56
Zionism and the boon and they they they accuse them of
35:02
nationalism because basically because they wanted Jews to to to to choose
35:08
revolution Russian revolution rather than narrow national causes when the Soviet Union when they came to power and
35:15
the Soviet Union was established and it constituted itself as a as a multinational state as a state of many
35:24
nationalities now of course they recognize Jews as a nationality i know
35:29
the Soviet government wrote Jewish nationality nationality in the sense of ethnational affiliation that is the the
35:36
meaning of nationality in in Eastern Europe and in Israel okay so the Jewish
35:43
national affiliation is written in my Soviet birthguard not because they were
35:49
it was not religion they didn’t care about religion they said in the Soviet Union there are Russians Ukrainians
35:56
Tatars Armenians Kazaks Lithuanians and Jews okay and that was one of the
36:03
officially recognized nationalities of the multinational Soviet Union which was of
36:09
course supposed to be a happy family of brotherly peoples you know and building socialism together and they did not just
36:16
define Jews as a nationality they also recognized Yiddish as the of the popular
36:22
national language of the Jews and millions of Jews spoke before the Holocaust yeah millions of Jews spoke
36:29
Yiddish as their native language the Soviet Union also established schools in
36:34
Hebrew and theaters in Hebrew okay so they were for for a long time they were
36:39
quite consistent they even established you know a quasi autonomous
36:44
area that was supposed to give this Soviet nationality a national home of
36:50
its own of course very few Jews went there but the idea was that since all
36:56
Soviet nationalities have a either republic or autonomous religion the Jews should have an autonomous region okay so
37:04
so and these people did not recognize anyone’s religion religion was at best your your personal matter there were
37:11
there was no collective recognition of any religion so to say that the Jews
37:16
were merely religions not from the pupil of religious Jews and certainly not from
37:21
the viewpoint of non-religious Jews and not from the viewpoint of their neighbors who regarded them as as
37:28
another people and not from the viewpoint of the international community that recognized them as a people and so
37:35
this is just you know this is just nonsense this is just a this is this is really dishonest this is a thoroughly
37:41
dishonest claim how is it that serious people commonly heard among elites it’s
37:49
growing among among influencers and and scholars and thinkers you meet it in the
37:55
Middle East department um of elite universities in the west the Jews are
38:00
religion and not a people there’s some kind of a simple dichotomy there that you can just pick and choose and the
38:05
Zionist did this bad thing of peopleling them and then that turned into the evils
38:10
of Zionism or a Zionism without a metropole a Zionism that came to the land as refugees in desperate need is
38:16
nevertheless colonialism or uh just one thing after another or the very idea
38:22
that after the 20th century when every other kind of Jew in the Eastern Hemisphere is dead apologies to French
38:28
jewelry they’re 90% safari They’re very much a product of the ethnic cleansing of all Jews even if they’re still around
38:35
um how do you just ignore all that fundamental history all that clear and
38:42
direct and obvious stuff and just run with these things run with these ideas
38:48
in academia these are majority views at least in the elite academia that we’re exposed to in in the Arab world these
38:55
are majority arguments in all of the ideologies of the present day left this
39:01
is common stuff and it’s so utterly and stupidly ahistorical i find as I go to
39:08
fancy American universities Ivy League universities somebody comes to me and says to me everyone I know is anti-ionist and
39:15
then I say “What the heck’s an anti-ionist every Jew is dead.” And there’s no answer they don’t have they don’t grapple with it it is a moral
39:23
identity rather than any kind of argument what is that ahistoricity why is it so obvious and
39:30
simple and still they don’t get it if you if you decide to define colonialism
39:35
as people from Europe settling in a non-European territory okay then of
39:41
course yeah when Jews come from Europe to Palestine they come from Europe to Palestine and they don’t need it and
39:48
then people say that that a a a colonial power is not a real condition and you
39:54
know you you you know you know the story but I want to repeat it for the benefit of the viewers and um that there there
40:01
is a there is a professor of um in the BV university who wrote a lot on Zionism
40:08
being colonialism and he doesn’t really deny all kinds of arguments of but he
40:14
says in favor of Zion but he says you know the basic fact is a physical movement from Europe to Palestine and if
40:21
you decide that this is the main thing then all other things are are details
40:26
now he wrote I quote him in one of his papers that the actual process despite the
40:35
salient differences compared with other colonial movements you recognize that as salient differences the actual process
40:43
of European settlement in Palestine enable Zionism to be classified both pre
40:49
and post 4948 as a pure colonial settler movement
40:54
okay there are some differences but the actual process that is the settlement therefore I decide that that
41:02
that this is still this definition still applies then there is a footnote and he
41:08
gives the details of those salient salient difference he doesn’t hide
41:13
anything he gives full disclosure and he says so listen to how he
41:19
describes one of the main colonizers of the Zenist movement in the leftwing
41:26
postionist I don’t even I’m not sure never mind in the in the in the woke I
41:31
would say academia now what are the salient differences between Zionism and
41:37
other colonial movements that do not change the fact that Zionism is basically colonism zionism Zionism’s
41:44
nature as an ethnic and national rather than economic project okay number one it
41:50
is ethnic and national he doesn’t say the Jews are only here he doesn’t say this no he says it’s a national and
41:56
ethnic project and not an project of economic exploitation one the refugee
42:02
status of most of the Jews who came to Palestine the loose organization of
42:08
diaspora Jewish communities as opposed to well organized colonial mother
42:14
countries and lastly the ideal of the return to Zion which is grounded in
42:21
Jewish tradition he knows that they so so in other words Zionism was a colonial
42:27
phenomenon in all respects and fully resembled other examples of modern colonialism apart from the fact that it
42:35
was a national movement that it was not motivated by a desire for economic gain
42:40
that it arose out of Jewish suffering and was realized by people who may be
42:46
defined as refugees that the settlers had no colonial mother country and that
42:52
the bond with the land of Israel was part of the traditional historic identity of the Jewish people he doesn’t
42:59
ignore it it doesn’t say it was just a territory he he recognizes that of course but that’s that’s ignoring it
43:06
it’s like reading Rashid Khaled it’s that kind of it’s a kind of admission that functions as an ignoring but I
43:13
would say in a polite way that it he he doesn’t attach to those factors the the
43:19
due importance in a in a in a way that in my view is outrageous breath it’s not
43:25
it’s more than outrageous it does something really bad to Palestinians because if you do figure out some kind
43:33
of clever academic semantic way right because academics are good with words
43:38
academics have become convinced that the universe is made of nothing but words and they control the words and they
43:44
control the universe and so if you figure out this clever semantic path finding your way through the words to
43:51
being able to call Zionism colonialism to call Israelis colonialist to call this people this nation colonialism then
43:59
you tell Palestinians by doing so you can get rid of them you can attack them
44:05
you can weaken them through anti-colonial means if I am totally colonialist in every way that that
44:12
involves an epithet that involves cursing me that involves calling me colonial sure I figured out a way to
44:17
call you but I’m not colonialist in any functional way in which an anti-colonial strategy would work on me i don’t have a
44:24
metropole that does that’s just a moral category that means I have nowhere to run to if you terrorize me right so how
44:30
am I going to react so you have now boxed Palestinians into a vision because
44:35
in reality this is ideology this is not actually intellectually careful they’re only intellectually careful when they
44:41
have to excuse and defend the ideology where does this ahistoricity come from why this is the majority view of the
44:48
Middle Eastern studies departments of major American universities of the most elite ones where are we am I asking you
44:55
a psychology question instead of a history question what the hell’s going on you have to take into account that in
45:00
late in in last years and decades the postc colonial and anti-ostcolonial
45:05
discourse has become the mainstream discourse not just these are the Israel and Zionist it it is it it now very much
45:13
defines the woke the wokeish kind of liberalism it’s the essence of it
45:19
attitude to the United States not just to Israel now people when when when when
45:25
people in America say and they say it of course that we are America is a colonial
45:30
country and they you know when they start when they make speech and they start by acknowledging the rights of the
45:36
of the of the native but they don’t mean anything by it a
45:42
land acknowledgement is fake because it’s free it does it’s not costly they may feel that when what they say about
45:49
Israel is they apply to Israel the same standards that they apply to America to Australia to Canada now even in somehow
45:57
Britain is also colonial in Britain it’s crazy everything western is colonial but at least when it comes to the United
46:02
States of course originally it was a product of European colonization of the new world now when you acknowledge the
46:10
that America is a colonial entity that doesn’t mean really that you are
46:16
inviting anyone to fight against the existence to fight on against the existence of the United States there is
46:22
no threat to the existence of the United States so you can so you can very cheaply acknowledge all you want and at
46:28
best it means that you will offer maybe some compensation some reparation or some some reverse discrimination or
46:34
whatever but that is not a acknowledging the the uh the the the native peoplehood
46:41
the the original owners of this land there there isn’t for obvious reasons
46:47
nobody’s going to take over the to to reclaim those lands and I think that
46:53
some people have thought have persuaded themselves that actually Israel is in a
46:59
similar situation meaning that the claim for the whole of the historic pal
47:05
Palestine is really is a marginal uh um
47:10
position of of some some um uh of some radicals whereas the mainstream of the
47:16
Palestinian national movement and the Arab world def facto they’re not happy with anything but they are they have
47:22
they defacto accept Israel’s existence and therefore the only real issue is
47:29
whether Israel will continue to rule the Palestinians in the territories and deny them herit determination their
47:36
independence in order to encourage Israel and the Israeli Jews to make the necessary concessions that do not really
47:43
endanger anything because there is no real danger okay in order to do that you
47:48
it is good to make them feel less self-righteous about their past okay say
47:54
okay don’t be so don’t be so sure that you are the victims of aggression you
47:59
are okay at least you you know you are guilty of this tragedy at least as much
48:04
as the other side and now you have to to to to agree to a fair arrangement now
48:10
many of those people would I think at by the by the way is one of them he I spoke
48:17
to him i believe him when he says that he has no no intention at all at all of giving up the state of Israel for him
48:24
decolonization of Israel is turning Israel into a civic democracy of the American of like America we will discuss
48:32
maybe whether what exactly it means and how it could work but this is he doesn’t want to the for the state of Israel to
48:39
disappear his problem is that under the postcolonial notion the colonized decide
48:46
what kind of decolonization what they ask for he may not be in favor of this
48:51
brutal extremist radical decolonization he may not think it’s a good idea or even a moral idea given the realities on
48:59
the ground but he doesn’t he’s not really able if he accepts this discourse
49:05
the discourse this colonial Zionism is colonial discourse he cannot really say
49:11
that if the colonized actually insist on decolonization in the sense of of
49:17
destroying the state of Israel that this is fundamentally wrong may say it’s unrealistic it’s brutal the methods are
49:24
brutal now and I think that what has what is obvious is to and I think the
49:31
7th of October made it clear to many people that it is not just in any you
49:37
can argue about whether the PLO in fat whether and to what extent they are willing or may be persuaded to be
49:44
willing to accept Israel but there is no serious debate there could never be any
49:49
serious doubt that Hamas was never never pretended to accept the existence of Israel and it is obvious that that Hamas
49:57
was never a marginal small group among the Palestinians just a radical voice that should not be made too much of now
50:04
what we now know from the 7th of October that for this large and powerful
50:09
Palestinian movement the destruction of the state of Israel is not just some
50:14
distant future goal that they are not willing to renounce but they amazingly apparently
50:21
thought we know it from their documents that in the in the in the recent years they developed an idea that this is a
50:29
realistic goal and of course not alone nobody could ever think that Hamas but people when they think about Israel
50:36
being much more powerful than the Palestinians they allow themselves to ignore the fact that there is a regional
50:43
power that supports Kamas in Gaza and in Lebanon and this is Iran and so the idea
50:50
we know from Hamas Hamas documents that Sinoir’s idea of of of bringing down the
50:58
Zionist entity was of course not that Hamas would do it alone but for a
51:03
simultaneous attack by Hamas by by Hisbala on the north other elements and
51:10
a a rock Iranian rocket attack on the basis of the Israeli air force okay and
51:15
so uh that quote he they spoke about actual destruction of the state of
51:21
Israel but they all they said the second best Israel will be delivered such a
51:27
blow such a horrible blow that it will start a process of disintegration that
51:32
means that Jews who are not genu of colonizers they have no genuine connection to the country will just
51:39
start just immigrating leaving the country and so it will be even if not an
51:45
immediate total destruction of the state it will start the process of destruction this is what Nasala said many times and
51:52
this is which is this this became an operative military plan for Hamas that
51:58
was realized on the 7th of October so while in America you can be angry with
52:04
the with this rhetoric it doesn’t really threaten the existence of America the difference is that in that in in in this
52:11
area with with with these neighbors with these forces I think this rhetoric
52:17
really encourages the worst the most dangerous elements in the Arab Muslim
52:22
world arabs supported by Muslim fundamentalist power with with
52:28
potentially nuclear power and so you are right they are it’s a it’s this is no service at all to the
52:34
Palestinian people thank you very much Professor Alexander Akabson of Hebrew University

Prof. Alexander Yakobson on what it means to "decolonize Palestine" - Ask Haviv Anything