This video is taken from a public debate between Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Dr. Israel Eldad and Dr. Menachem Brinker in 1980.
In the 50:40 minute an Israeli farmer asking what should he tell the Ismaili (apparently referring to the Biblical term used in the debate by members from the right portraying the Palestinians as the arch-enemies of the Jews in Biblical Israel/Palestine friend), who works in his farm and asks him:
“This land that you’re working, I sat in just 30 years ago… In a friendly manner he says that… How can you explain the fact you are working it now? And sometimes, with my labor… You hire me and my friends, to work for you on the land that belongs to me.”
The Israeli farmer continues…
“What will I explain to that Arab, which I want to live with in peace, that I want to reach the day in which he will think of me as a friend and will not think bad thoughts about me.”
The basic statement by Professor Leibowitz (philosopher, scholar, political thinker, radical), is that no people have no right over no land, but only the perception/consciousness of connection to the land. A consciousness that cannot be disputed or revoked, but at the same time does not provide any moral or political rights. He views the nation as a mean rather than an end and insists there are no 3 scenarios for the fate of this land, only two: A bloody war to the death or the division of the land to two peoples, as hard, unjust or difficult as it might be.
Israel Eldad (philosopher, scholar, political thinker, radical) believes we (the Jews) have a stronger right to the land, that the term “Palestinian People” has only existed for a decade or two. He invokes the famous story about King Solomon’s verdict choosing in favor of the mother who will not allow the disputed baby to be divided between her and the other mother.
The debate continues with another remark from the audience by someone quoting ‘Chazal’ and ‘Rashi’ claiming the land was given to us by god for keeping. To that Leibowitz responds that we can not read this sentence and just stop there: “He (God) took it from the Knaanites and has given it to us, and has taken from us and given to the Romans, and taken from the Romans and given to the Arabs, and taken from the Arabs and given to Crusaders, and taken from the Crusaders and given to the Mamluks, and taken from the Mamluks and given to the Turks and so on… and so on…”
Indeed, it’s biblical. Ismaeli actually refers to the legend of Abraham which had two sons Ismael and Isaac. Sons of Isaac are jews and sons of Ismael are arabs (not just Palestinians).
I wish I could speak Hebrew. It seems really interesting.
Yes, it is interesting/sad that the Biblical rivalry was the aspect that was emphasized rather the biblical kinship.
I wonder if/when will Youtube include a built-in interface for croudsourced translations and transcripts. (we do know they have a clear interest in that)
At heart the discussion is about the nature of faith. the contrast between faith in and of itself, as opposed to ways to faith through action. one is a faith with no instrumental function, for the sake of faith alone. The other is faith for the sake of reward. it is important to not that both are recognized as legitimate forms.
Leibowitz represents the ideal in which gods intention is not knowable and the faithful must work without any expectation of redemption or prize – as exemplified by the highest symbol of the Jewish faith, that of Abraham, where all human values were annulled and overridden by fear and love of God. It is contrasted with the idea of redemption through the means of the state.
In this point of view, patriotism (as exemplified by his detractors)is a human motive devoid of sanctity, as such the existence of the state has no particular religious value. (because the earth belongs to god, and he was before the earth existed)
This position does not recognize redemption as it is often posited by those who seek to tie the work of the land with the work of god. Indeed, from this vantage point, the union between the State of Israel (a state ruled by law and not by the guidance of the halakah as Ben gurion liked to say) and the religious entity is a form of spiritual corruption.
“no people have no right over no land”… this Leibowitz dude is a fucking hippie But still, he is absolutely right! It’s a shame he haven’t done some rapping for the masses before he past away. I also agree with what Doron is saying regarding the core of the discussion which is actually the nature of faith.
only thing I’m not too sure of is Leibowitz ‘s statement saying that only 2 solutions can end the hatred…