Year Zero of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (with Hillel Cohen)

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Russ Roberts and historian Hillel Cohen examine 1929 as a foundational year in the Arab-Israeli conflict, contrasting Jewish and Palestinian narratives of the violence and exploring how memory, morality, and selective facts shape each side’s story. The conversation links 1929 to October 7th, emphasizing recurring holy-site tensions, civilian atrocities, mutual self-justification, and the importance of understanding the other side without excusing it.

Main Topics: The standard Jewish/Zionist narrative of 1929: Cohen outlines the common account: Jews sought national revival and peaceful coexistence, but rumors about changing the status quo at the Western Wall and Temple Mount sparked Arab violence across Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad, Jaffa, and elsewhere. The Palestinian narrative and Jewish atrocities in Jaffa: Cohen explains how Palestinian sources preserve a different 1929 story, including a Jewish policeman killing members of an Arab family in Jaffa—an episode largely unknown in Jewish memory but central to Palestinian memory. Historiography, bias, and emotional methodology: Cohen describes how he learned to treat unsettling documents as especially important, and how his own emotional reactions as a Jew helped him understand how narratives are formed from the bottom up, not imposed only by elites. Moral judgment versus moral understanding: The discussion probes whether recognizing the other side’s narrative weakens moral clarity. Cohen argues that people seek moral legitimacy and that understanding the opposing narrative is necessary for preventing endless conflict, not for justifying violence. Parallels between 1929 and October 7th: Russ Roberts and Cohen repeatedly connect the rumor-driven violence, killings of civilians, and competing justifications in 1929 to the rhetoric and brutality of October 7th and the Gaza war. Settlements, occupation, and competing claims to self-defense: The conversation turns to whether Palestinian acceptance of Jewish presence depends on political conditions, and whether Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank undermines peace prospects by signaling rejection of a Palestinian state. Possibility of coexistence and limited optimism: Cohen says optimism is limited but possible only if both peoples conclude they have reached enough bloodshed to seek another way to live together, potentially with international help.

Key Arguments: 1929 cannot be understood in isolation; both religious holy-site disputes and earlier anti-Zionist unrest set the stage. Jewish and Palestinian communities remember the same events through different moral frameworks and factual emphases, so each side’s narrative is internally coherent but incomplete. The Hebron killings were devastating, but so were lesser-known Jewish killings of Arabs; ignoring either side distorts history. Historians should pay special attention to documents that make them uneasy, because those are often the ones most likely to reveal hidden truths. Narratives are built bottom-up through family, peers, and emotional reactions, not only by governments or school systems. Recognizing the other side’s narrative does not mean morally equating all actions; it means understanding what each side believes it is defending. Settler expansion in the West Bank matters because Palestinians judge intentions by what happens on the ground, not by Israeli rhetoric. Cohen rejects the idea that Palestinian refusal to empathize is mainly due to a 'police state'; he emphasizes occupation and lived political conditions instead. The current conflict is fueled by both sides’ conviction that they are acting in self-defense and moral necessity. True peace requires each side to understand the other’s fears, claims, and historical memory, not just reinforce its own. Jabotinsky’s 'Iron Wall' is discussed as a realist recognition of Arab rejection, but Cohen argues that settlement expansion transformed a defensive wall into a movable 'curtain.'

Data Points: Jews killed in Hebron (1929): 66 - Cohen describes the Hebron attack on the Jewish community during the August 1929 violence. Total Jews killed in the 1929 wave of violence: 133 - Combined fatalities across Jerusalem, Hebron, Safad, Jaffa, Moza, and other areas. Arab family members killed in Jaffa: 5 - Cohen’s archival discovery about a Jewish policeman killing an Arab family, central to Palestinian memory of 1929. Victims in Jaffa account details: 2 women, 2 children, 1 old person - Cohen notes that later court records corrected some details of the Jaffa killings. Year of Balfour Declaration: 1917 - Roberts situates the Zionist project and British rule before the 1929 violence. Date of Western Wall fence incident: September 28 (Yom Kippur) - Cohen explains that Jews placed a fence for prayer separation, then a British officer removed it. Date of major Jerusalem violence: August 23, 1929 - Thousands leaving Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa attacked Jews near the city gates. Settlers in West Bank before Oslo: 100,000 - Cohen uses this figure to illustrate Palestinian skepticism toward peace rhetoric. Settlers in West Bank after 7 years of Oslo: 200,000 - Cohen argues settlement growth undercut trust in negotiations. Current settlers in West Bank: 480,000 - Cohen cites the present scale of settlement expansion as evidence Palestinians see on the ground. Time span of Cohen’s fieldwork: 30 years - He says he spent decades talking with Palestinians from multiple political and social backgrounds.

Pivotal Quotes: "You are the easiest person to fool." — Russ Roberts: Russ invokes Richard Feynman while discussing the danger of self-deception in historical and political narratives. "every document, every document who makes me uneasy, this is, I know that I have to use it" — Hillel Cohen: Cohen explains his historiographical method of treating uncomfortable evidence as especially important. "Ignoring others brings October 7th." — Hillel Cohen: Cohen argues that refusing to understand the other side helps perpetuate catastrophic cycles of violence.

Implications: The episode argues that peace requires more than moral certainty: it requires confronting uncomfortable facts, recognizing the other side’s lived narrative, and treating claims on the ground as more persuasive than slogans. Without that, history is likely to rhyme again.