About a Mysterious Debate Between Netanyahu and Edward Said

In June 1996, Yedioth Ahronoth published a lengthy biography of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He had just risen to political prominence after being elected head of the Likud party in 1993, becoming the leader of the opposition. In the 1996 elections, he defeated Shimon Peres, becoming the first Israeli prime minister elected directly by popular vote, as well as the youngest prime minister in history.

The biography published by Yedioth Ahronoth became a primary source for later writings about Netanyahu. It traced his upbringing and its impact on his transformation into an obsessive reader of history and discussions concerning the succession of nations and civilizations, a tendency he inherited from his father, Professor Ben-Tzion Netanyahu. However, he channeled all his acquired knowledge toward pursuing Israel’s opponents, regardless of the immediate human costs of military operations, such as those currently ongoing in Gaza and Lebanon, which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and the displacement of over two million people in both countries.

Should there be a Palestinian state?

During the 1967 and 1973 wars, Netanyahu was based in the United States. On both occasions, he returned to Israel, where he volunteered to fight in each war before returning to the U.S. to resume his studies in Boston. There, he became engaged in giving speeches and writing pamphlets against Palestinian propaganda, which he observed was distorting his imagined image of Israel. During his time in Boston in the 1970s, the young academic and soldier had his first televised debate with Palestinian intellectual Edward Said, titled “Should there be a Palestinian state?”

Another source noted that after the October War in 1973, Netanyahu’s speaking skills began to emerge, with the Israeli consul in Boston, Colette Avital, being the first to notice. She invited him to take part in a debate about the October War and the situation in the Middle East on local Boston television with Professor Edward Said. Following that opportunity, Netanyahu began to appear frequently on American television, participating in interviews about the situation in Israel and the region, displaying great easiness in front of the camera.

Netanyahu did not mention this debate, presumably held a year or two after the 1973 war, in his book A Place Under the Sun. However, the Arabic edition included a follow-up from Yedioth Ahronoth on Netanyahu’s full biography, where the debate was mentioned. Edward Said did not indicate that he met Netanyahu on a television program except for once, which was not during the 1970s when Netanyahu was an Israeli activist in the United States.

They met in a television interview presumably around 1985 when Edward Said was significantly more famous as a critical thinker on Orientalism and a supporter of Palestinian rights, while Netanyahu was then Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations.

There is no recording of either meeting between Netanyahu and Said, but the latter spoke about the second debate, which took place a decade after the first, during a seminar he held in 1986, as confirmed by this clip which was only recently published.

A conversation from 1986 between Salman Rushdie and Said at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London has been shared in various postings. In the clip, Said describes a meeting with Netanyahu, who was then Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations.

On stage, the two men (Edward Said and Netanyahu) sat in silence, not exchanging words or glances. When the presenter turned to the audience, he stated, “Tonight’s guests are Professor Edward Said, Professor of English Literature at Columbia University, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations. I notice that the two men are not speaking to one another.” Edward Said interjected to clarify, “No, the truth is that he is the one who doesn’t want to talk to me; I have no problem.”

The presenter then directed his question to Netanyahu: “Mr. Ambassador, why don’t you want to talk to Edward Said?” Netanyahu responded, “Because he wants to kill me.”

He then proceeded to present his narrative of the “savage Palestinian” (referring to Edward Said), who had one mission: the extermination of the Jews.

In the seminar with Rushdie, Said explained about the encounter with Netanyahu: “I was invited to a televised debate with the Israeli ambassador, but Netanyahu not only refused to sit in the same room with me; he wanted to be in a different building so as not to be contaminated by my presence.” Netanyahu demanded this separation, claiming that Said, as a Palestinian, wanted to kill him. Said described Netanyahu’s stance as “absolutely ridiculous.”

This response indicates Said’s anger at Netanyahu’s dramatic maneuvering. The latter succeeded in fabricating a narrative about this debate that compelled Said to recount it. What Netanyahu ultimately did was a form of publicity stunt, which he believes constitutes a trap set by his adversary, Edward Said.

Netanyahu claims to possess a deep understanding of Israel’s opponents, particularly the hatred they conceal under the guise of intellectual and militant ideologies. Based on this perspective, he criticized Yasser Arafat for stating to some guests, upon returning from Tunisia to the Palestinian territories following the Oslo Accord, that the agreement was akin to the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

In an article published in the New York Times in October 1985, Netanyahu wrote: “The PLO is not a political organization that borders terrorism but a terrorist organization that engages in politics.” He has maintained this viewpoint nearly 40 years later.

Netanyahu also goes to great lengths to undermine the foundations of the Oslo Accords, asserting, for example, that calls to dismantle illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories constitute acts of “ethnic cleansing.”

During Said’s debate, Netanyahu sat in silence, fully aware that his position would generate questions and surprises. His response was prepared even before he arrived. This reflects his political persona: he focuses on what he perceives to be the root of the issue. For him, the pertinent question is whether Said would contribute to stopping the genocide faced by Jews in Israel. It is evident that Netanyahu believes that Said would be inclined to support that cause. For the Likud leader, the essence of the matter lies in recognizing the Jewish right to live on their historic land.

Edward Said wrote an article in the Al-Hayat newspaper titled “Intellectuals and the Crisis” on November 5, 1996. In his article, he addressed what he described as a crisis following the right-wing victory led by Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israeli elections held in May 1996. He expressed regret over the absence of the Israeli Labour Party as a left-wing faction in the Knesset, arguing that its presence or absence does not significantly impact the Palestinian cause.

It is evident that both Said and Netanyahu were familiar with each other, especially regarding the unspoken aspects of their respective beliefs. For Netanyahu, Edward Said represents an academic who aligns with those seeking the extermination of Jews. This perception manifested during their debate when Netanyahu sat silently with his head bowed, avoiding eye contact with Said.

Said, the most prominent Palestinian-American in the United States, frequently wrote and appeared in the media defending Palestinian rights and advocating for the establishment of a Palestinian state. In 1977, he was elected as an independent member of the Palestinian National Council, the Palestinian parliament in exile. Years after his encounter with Netanyahu, he resigned from the council in 1993 in protest over the secret negotiations and what he described as the “destructive content” of the Oslo Accords. He believed these agreements would never lead to genuine Palestinian self-determination; instead, they would merely convert the Palestinian leadership into “Israeli agents” of the occupation.

During that period, Said often found himself isolated in his analyses and became a fierce critic of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a sentiment shared by Netanyahu. He rejected the two-state solution, advocating instead for a one-state solution.

Said firmly believed that, in order to get rid of Netanyahu, seeking solutions from within Israel, or its political contradictions, would only plunge the Palestinian cause into a deeper crisis and undermine its effectiveness. Thus, as he frequently expressed in his writings about the Likud leader, to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu, one must confront him directly.