What’s in it for me? Learn how the conversation around Palestine has evolved over the years.
On Palestine isn’t your typical book on world affairs.
The majority of the book is simply a transcript of conversations that were had between Noam Chomsky and the Israeli professor Ilan Pappé, moderated by the French activist Frank Barat.
But a large part of the book is also made up of individual essays written by Chomsky and Pappé, republished in the book to add context to their conversation.
In the sections ahead, we’ll stick to the basic structure of the book by summarizing the large essay that makes up the first section of the book, then cover the highlights from the conversations, and finish by looking at the group of essays that close out the book.
As you’ll see, the thing that unites these elements is a highly critical analysis of Israeli policies toward Palestinian people and an effort to find a way forward to a more just future.
It should be mentioned that these essays and conversations date back to around the start of 2014.
While a lot has changed since then, they remain relevant in helping to explain the events that have happened since.
Changing the conversation
What has happened to Palestine over the past century, and what can be done about it?
This is the pressing question that professor Ilan Pappé has devoted much of his life to answering.
Much of Pappé’s efforts are focused on changing the conversation.
For years, there has been what the author calls an “old conversation” about Israel and Palestine.
Pappé has been at the forefront of not only bringing about a new conversation, but also in recognizing a “new history” in the story of Israel and Palestine – one that corrects the historical record.
These efforts have already been somewhat successful.
The global public opinion has begun to shift in favor of the Palestinian cause.
However, Israel’s political and economic allies in the West remain determined to keep the old conversation alive.
As a result, Israel’s policies of dispossession continue unabated, with no real consequences.
Part of the effort in putting forth a new conversation is to have people focus less on individual Israeli policies and more on the broader ideology that underpins them.
Much like how apartheid was condemned in South Africa, Pappé argues that Zionism itself should be challenged.
Yet public discourse avoids this, often out of fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.
Another aspect of the old conversation is that we’re supposed to view the Palestinian struggle as being overly complex, when, at its core, it is a straightforward story of colonialism and dispossession.
Despite efforts by Palestinian historians and Israeli scholars, these revisions haven’t translated into significant progress in peace talks, which continue to ignore the root causes of the conflict.
In the old conversation, the two-state solution was held up as the most viable path to peace.
This vision, often endorsed by international diplomats and even some Palestinians, called for Israel to retain 80 percent of the land, leaving 20 percent for a Palestinian state.
But in the new conversation, this approach is increasingly seen as outdated.
Activists and scholars now advocate for a one-state solution, rooted in the idea of decolonizing Israel and Palestine, and transforming the Israeli regime into a democracy that represents all people, not just Jewish Israelis.
How can we make this happen?
One of the main tactics is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (or BDS) campaign, modeled after the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.
The aim is to apply external pressure on Israel, recognizing that real change is unlikely to come from within the country itself.
This movement advocates not only for an end to the occupation but also for the recognition of Palestinian refugees’ right to return, a demand that many Palestinian leaders have been reluctant to fully endorse.
It’s true that every past injustice can't be rectified.
The emphasis instead is on stopping ongoing oppression.
It's not about vengeance or naïveté but a realistic hope for justice and equality.
Some might fear a single or binational democratic state, thinking that such an arrangement would reduce Palestinians to second-class citizens.
Yet, on the ground, these concerns pale in comparison to the reality of continued occupation and ethnic cleansing.
In the sections ahead, Pappé talks with Noam Chomsky for a more in-depth exploration of the issues: the history of Zionism, the public opinion within Israel, the effectiveness of activism, and what else can be done to advocate for the Palestinian people.
What is Zionism?
Around the start of 2014, Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky had a series of discussions about Palestine, moderated by the activist Frank Barat.
One of the main questions concerned the complex history and evolution of Zionism.
Chomsky has a long history with the subject.
He recalls that, before the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionism was not the state-focused ideology it later became.
It was a secular movement.
Even as a Zionist youth leader, he was not alone in opposing the idea of a Jewish state, favoring instead a cooperative, socialist future for Jewish and Arabic people in Palestine.
After the establishment of Israel, however, Zionism transformed into what Chomsky describes as a "state religion," with the idea of the Jewish state becoming central to Israeli identity.
He notes that this shift intensified after the 1967 war, when nationalism surged in Israel.
In the 1970s, it got even more problematic when Israel raised barriers to peace negotiations by insisting on its "right to exist.
" As Chomsky points out, states generally do not claim such a right.
For instance, Mexico may recognize that the US exists, but it will never recognize that it has a “right to exist” on what used to be Mexican territory.
More than that, Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that Pakistan recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which shows how Zionism has gone from being a secular movement to a religious one.
Chomsky compares this to the absurd idea of the US trying to force other nations to recognize it as a Christian state.
Barat tries to clarify the issue of a Jewish state, asking why it is problematic for Jewish people to have their own state if they define themselves as a people.
Pappé explains that the issue is not with the right of people to define themselves, but with the consequences of such a definition.
If the establishment of a Jewish state comes at the expense of other people – in this case, the Palestinians – it becomes a moral problem.
Chomsky builds on this by arguing that the concept of a Jewish state is an anomaly in the modern world.
Most state formation involved violence.
Europe was once a neverending hotbed of violence in this regard.
But the big difference is, once established, states generally treat all citizens equally, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
In Israel, however, being an Israeli citizen does not automatically make someone Jewish, making the concept of a Jewish state unique and problematic.
When asked if they agree with the characterization of Zionism as a settler-colonial movement, both Chomsky and Pappé agree.
Chomsky compares Israel's history to other settler-colonial societies, like the United States, Great Britain and Australia, suggesting that this historical parallel explains the support Israel receives from these nations.
He adds that since the 1960s, there has been a growing awareness in these countries of their own colonial pasts, which in turn has led to increased criticism of Israel's own practices of oppressing the indigenous population.
Today, activists may understand that Israel’s actions and policies are representative of a continued settler-colonial approach.
But many still find it hard to grasp that such nineteenth century behavior still exists.
This is part of the challenge Pappé continues to face in changing the dialogue around the conflict.
Effective activism
Activism is a central part of the conversation between Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé.
In particular, Frank Barat asks whether activists should focus on pragmatic actions or adopt more radical, ethical stances.
Chomsky emphasizes that while ethical positions are important, pragmatism is essential for helping Palestinians.
He points to past movements like the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa as models for selecting effective actions.
These are strategies that not only target the oppressive regime but also work to gain support from people in their home countries.
Chomsky suggests that successful activism, like boycotting Israeli settlements in the Jordan Valley, should be both understandable to a wider audience and impactful.
South Africa’s history of apartheid is often used as a fitful comparison point.
While he stresses that there are some significant differences, Chomsky agrees that activists can use this analogy wisely by putting pressure on the US.
Just as the apartheid regime in South Africa was sustained by backing from the US and Britain, Israel relies heavily on US support.
Historically, it takes pressure from grassroots movements to change US policy, such as in the case of civil rights or women’s rights.
This same bottom-up pressure, Chomsky asserts, will be needed to change the US foreign policy toward Israel.
Already, the BDS movement has been effective, especially on university campuses.
Activists there have already succeeded in transforming the conversation around Palestine.
What was once a hostile environment for pro-Palestinian discussions has shifted dramatically, and Chomsky sees this as a significant step forward.
However, Chomsky stresses that boycott targets need to be easily understandable.
Chomsky put his name on the American Studies Association’s (or ASA) academic boycott of Israel, but he now sees that it was poorly drafted.
Despite coming from a widely respected organization, the boycott wasn’t fully thought out, which made it vulnerable to accusations of anti-Semitism.
Rather than opening up a debate about Israeli policy, it turned into a debate about academic freedoms.
Pappé and Chomsky both agree that while the BDS movement is important, it needs a clearer strategy and more widespread understanding, particularly concerning Israel’s actions beyond just the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Pappé stresses that many people in the West are unaware of the larger injustices facing Palestinians, not only in the occupied territories but also within Israel itself.
Chomsky concludes by restating the importance of raising awareness in the US in an effort to change American policy toward Israel.
He reminds us that apartheid in South Africa continued even without British support.
It wasn’t until the US changed its stance that it came to an end.
Looking for solutions
As the discussion continues, the question moves toward the future and a consideration of what could be the best outcome for Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This of course leads to a talk about the viability of solutions such as the two-state or one-state options.
But first Barat asks if it’s possible that change might come within.
Could an "Israeli Spring" emerge, akin to the Arab Spring uprisings?
Both Chomsky and Pappé offer dim hopes of such internal change.
Chomsky notes that, if anything, there’s been a shift in the other direction, that Israeli politics have gotten more extreme in terms of nationalism and right-wing ideologies.
As he sees it, Israel is on a path of self-destruction.
He traces this back to the 1971 decision that Prime Minister Golda Meir made in rejecting Egypt’s offer of full peace in exchange for withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula.
Chomsky believes this was a crossroads moment, and by prioritizing territorial expansion over peace and security, Israel's fate towards self-destruction was sealed.
Pappé adds that the internal conditions for change in Israel are unlikely.
He highlights the disappearance of liberal Zionism from Israeli politics and the pervasive indoctrination within Israeli society.
Pappé explains that, from birth to death, citizens are deeply conditioned to accept certain beliefs, particularly regarding Zionism.
Unlike some societies where coercion enforces conformity, in Israel, indoctrination is more subtle but just as powerful.
For someone raised in Israel, rejecting Zionism is akin to a religious person becoming an atheist – that’s how deeply ingrained the ideology is.
However, younger generations have had more access to information due to the internet, which could lead to broader awareness, although only a small number of young Israelis actively question Zionism.
As the dialogue continues, Pappé emphasizes the urgency of addressing the ongoing destruction on the ground in Palestine, stressing that while time is not on their side, solutions must be found to halt the ethnic cleansing that accelerates when Israel faces no consequences.
When talking of possible outcomes in Israel, comparisons with South Africa come up again.
One of the major differences however is that, in South Africa, there was a Black majority that was essential to the economy and workforce.
This fact was essential in creating pressure for change from both internal and external forces.
Israel, by contrast, has no comparable dependency on the Palestinian population, and therefore it can continue to pursue its policy of separation, not integration.
Now, when discussing the differences between one-state and two-state solutions, Chomsky believes that the one-state solution, while intriguing, is not a viable option.
Instead, the two more likely futures are either a two-state solution or the establishment of Greater Israel, the latter of which would minimize or eliminate the presence of Palestinians within its borders.
He predicts that if a two-state solution is achieved, it will be deeply flawed, with limited Palestinian autonomy and with internal boundaries that would eventually dissolve and become meaningless.
Pappé sees the two-state solution as little more than a legitimization of Greater Israel in the eyes of the international community.
He views it as a Western, colonial idea of partition, that is unfortunately deeply ingrained in political discourse.
Pappé believes that partition is outdated, especially since, on the ground, a one-state reality already exists in the form of an apartheid regime.
The focus, he says, should be on changing this regime and rethinking the relationships between the different communities.
Ending the open air prison
In the last section of the book, there is a series of essays by Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky, which set out to further explain how we got to this point, as well as the severity of the situation on the ground.
Pappé starts by pointing out that since Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967, the state has sought to maintain control without granting rights to the indigenous population.
This approach has been accompanied by a deceptive peace process, which Israel has used to mask its continued colonization.
In the West Bank, the strategy has involved dividing the area into Jewish and Palestinian zones, creating a fragmented system that isolates Palestinians into what Pappé refers to as "bantustans.
" While this division has somewhat contained resistance in the West Bank, Gaza’s unique geography has made it less amenable to such a strategy.
Instead, Gaza has been treated as a ghetto, subjected to harsh restrictions and repeated military bombardments when it resists.
Pappé describes the attacks on Gaza as genocidal in nature, particularly as they have escalated since the early 2000s.
He asserts that Israel’s ultimate goal remains the same: to reduce the Palestinian population, and, in Gaza, this has taken its most brutal form.
The result is that an "open-air prison" model has been maintained, with Gaza under siege and the West Bank fragmented.
This model has been supported not only by Israel but by key international players like the United States and the European Union, who provide legitimacy to what is essentially a system of control disguised as peace efforts.
In one of his essays, Noam Chomsky elaborates on what exactly happened in the 2000s that led to Israel’s escalated attacks.
The story promoted by Israel is that it handed Gaza over to the Palestinians in hopes of peace, only to be met with violence from Hamas.
However, what really happened is that, in 2006, Palestinians held democratic elections, with Hamas emerging victorious – a result that defied US and Israeli expectations.
This, he asserts, was the "crime" that led to immediate punitive actions by Israel and the West.
After Hamas’s electoral win, Israel, backed by the US and Europe, imposed severe sanctions and ramped up violence.
They even initiated plans for a military coup to overthrow the elected government.
When Hamas thwarted these efforts, the situation worsened, leading to repeated military assaults on Gaza.
These operations involve devastating periodic bombardments of Gaza, often justified as self-defense.
Chomsky recounts the events of 2014, when Israel launched Operation Protective Edge following the murder of three Israeli teenagers.
Though the Netanyahu government quickly knew Hamas was not responsible, it used the incident as a pretext to target Hamas and dismantle the fragile Palestinian unity government.
The ensuing military operation left much of Gaza in ruins, with thousands of Palestinians killed, most of them civilians.
Chomsky critiques Israel’s justification of their attacks as being rooted in "security" concerns.
He points out that knowledgeable Israeli figures, such as former air force commander Ezer Weizman, have admitted that security would not be an issue if Israel simply withdrew from the territories it occupied in 1967.
Chomsky concludes by suggesting that US policy could change.
Public opinion, particularly among younger generations, has shifted, and there is potential to pressure Washington into cutting military aid to Israel, which US law prohibits for countries engaged in gross human-rights violations.
Chomsky believes that with sustained education, activism, and legal efforts, it’s possible to hold Israel accountable, which could significantly improve the situation for Palestinians who have suffered for decades under occupation and violence.
Final summary
In this Blink to On Palestine by Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé, you’ve learned that… Israel's policies, driven by Zionist ideology, have consistently aimed at expanding its territory while marginalizing the Palestinian population.
This process is rooted in settler colonialism, with the goal of creating a Jewish state that excludes Arabs, resulting in systematic ethnic cleansing and the long-standing occupation of Palestinian land.
Chomsky and Pappé highlight the role of international powers, particularly the United States, in enabling these actions, providing military, economic, and diplomatic support that shields Israel from accountability.
They challenge the notion that Israel's actions are purely defensive, pointing to missed opportunities for peace and the deliberate undermining of Palestinian autonomy.
Meanwhile, the so-called peace process has only succeeded in entrenching the occupation, turning Gaza and the West Bank into what Pappé describes as open-air prisons.
As with the end of apartheid in South Africa, they emphasize that real change can only come through international pressure, particularly from the United States, where shifting public opinion offers hope for a re-evaluation of foreign policy.
Okay, that’s it for this Blink.
We hope you enjoyed it.
If you can, please take the time to leave us a rating – we always appreciate your feedback.
See you in the next Blink.