For the past two decades, Benny Morris - a prominent Israeli and international academic, and a leading figure in Israel's Post-Zionism camp - has been advocating the notion that Israel's official version of history is filled with misconceptions and misleading myths. However, in a surprising recent interview, Morris now argues that others have misconstrued his thesis. He argues that the Palestinians, not Israel, are to blame for the ongoing conflict and for the current state of affairs.

In an interview with Yediot Ahronot, Morris clarified his positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (this interview followed a September 2001 lecture at UC Berkley's Theological Institute in which Morris first articulated these positions). Following are excerpts from the article, which included an interview with Morris:(1)

"The audience at UC Berkley's Theological Institute thought it knew what they were in for. They were promised a lecture on the peace process by Professor Benny Morris - an Israeli historian, well-known leftist, who had a hard time finding a niche in Israel's academia due to his extreme opinions, which reject [Israel's] official Zionist history. Berkley is still the stronghold of America's radical left [and] all the listeners who filled the lecture hall were sure that the lecturer would say exactly what they wanted to hear: that Israel is to blame for everything, that Israel is the aggressor and the evil perpetrator, that the Palestinians are the good guys..."

"Morris had different plans. He knew exactly what was in store for his audience: a surprise, a big surprise. [In the lecture] he told them that the Palestinians have been obstinately refusing to accept any compromise since the 1930's. They refused to accept the 1937 Partition Plan of the Peel Commission (a Jewish State on 20% of the Sharon and Galilee regions of territorial Palestine), they rejected the 1947 UN partition plan (an Arab state on 40% of the territory), they did not even want to hear about Sadat and Begin's [1979] Autonomy Plan (which was a part of the Camp David Accord and which was never implemented), and they rejected Bill Clinton's generous offer (which included 95% of the West Bank). To make a long story short, [Morris said that] the Jews always agreed [to various compromise offers] whereas the Arabs always refused to accept them, and the blame falls squarely on the Palestinians. They have been making historic mistakes for seventy years now, and there is a price for historic mistakes..."

"Yes, the Palestinians are to blame. And this is true not only because they rejected Ehud Barak's generous offer but also because they are unwilling to come to terms with Israel's existence here. They want to throw [the Jews] into the ocean, and anyone who holds a different opinion is mistaken. These are the words of the Historian."

"One has to go back in time thirteen years in order to understand how surprising [Morris'] statements are. Morris - a Jerusalem Post reporter at the time, a Cambridge University Ph.D, and a Kibbutz and [Israeli Defense Force] Paratroopers veteran - published his book The Birth of The Palestinian Refugee Problem in 1988. His book created an immediate outburst [of an acute debate in Israel]."

"Up until then, it was generally assumed that 700,000 Palestinians left their homes voluntarily during the 1948 War of Independence, following promises by their leaders that they will be able to return and plunder Jewish property when the war was over. According to what Morris wrote in his 1988 book, that never happened; these stories are nonsense. The leaders of the Yishuv [the Jewish Zionist community in pre-state Israel] believed in a transfer, and in their actions contributed much to the fleeing of the refugees. Some ran away to escape the battles, others left after the Jews made their lifes difficult, and still others were simply expelled. [According to Morris' 1988 book], the Palestinians did not leave and did not run away, these words are too soft. They were also not expelled - that word is too harsh. The Palestinians "were driven out."

"[After the book was published,] Morris became [Israel's] public enemy number one, and the price he paid was considerable. He was fired from The Jerusalem Post and he had a hard time finding a job in Israel's academia despite the success of his book outside of Israel..."

"In the heart of every Palestinian exists a desire that the State of Israel will not be here anymore."

"[Morris] is denying that his views have shifted. He claims that this was his opinion all along. However, no one knew it. Even when he expressed his opinion, the interviewers preferred not to quote him on that. 'It is not politically correct,' he says. Nevertheless, he admits, he has a lot of built up anger over the past two years against the Palestinians since they rejected Clinton's proposal. He says that Barak also made mistakes but that these were marginal. The bottom line is that Barak accepted Clinton's generous proposal which demanded [of him] to give up 95% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, and to divide Jerusalem."

"By the way, with regards to Jerusalem, Morris disagrees with Barak. Morris would not be willing to give up the Temple Mount."

Morris: "If there is a nation that deserves the title to the Temple Mount it is we. But injustice was perpetrated and two mosques were erected on the ruins of the [Jewish] Temple 1,400 years ago, and [now] the Arabs [also] have a claim to the Temple Mount. I accept a compromise in which both Jews and Arabs will control the Temple Mount. But why should the Palestinians have sole control over there? Why? What kind of justice is that?"

"In any case, everything shrinks when compared with Yasser Arafat's mistake [when he] rejected the Clinton proposal. "Both people - Israelis and Palestinians - are paying with their lives for [the Palestinian] mistakes" Morris says..."

"In Camp David and Taba the issue of the 'right of return' emerged; it was prominent [in the discussions]. The Israelis claimed that the Palestinian demand to allow millions of refugees to return into Israel destroys any possibility for peace, since this demand translates into the destruction of the state of the Jews. The Palestinian spokespersons tried to downplay the gravity of the dispute. Publicly they continued to demand the 'right of return,' while at the same time they were hinting [to the Israelis] that it would be possible to reach an agreement on this issue. In his book A Guide for the Wounded Dove, Yossi Beilin - who headed the Taba negotiation team in charge of the refugee issue - claims that he reached satisfactory agreements on this issue with the Palestinians."

"Morris, the one who brought this issue to public awareness, is very determined regarding this question. [He believes that] any mentioning of the right of return is a disaster, a recipe for the destruction of the State of Israel. Even if Arafat will agree that Israel will only recognize its responsibility in creating the refugee problem while the Palestinians give up the actual right to implement it, Israel must still object to such a proposal."

Morris: "If you recognize the responsibility, millions will demand their lands in return immediately thereafter. If the notion of the right of return will be recognized, there is also going to be an attempt to utilize that notion, and that will be the end of the State of Israel. [If that happens], there won't be a Jewish State here."

Yediot Aharonot (Y.A.): "In Taba it was proposed that Israel would recognize its responsibility in creating the refugee problem, but that the refugees will not be absorbed in Israel, except for a very small number on which Israel will decide. Do you think that this is also a bad idea?"

Morris: "The Palestinians told Beilin that they are willing to consider all kinds of formulas regarding refugees, but they lied to him. They will never back away from [the demand for] the right of return. They cannot come to their people in the refugee camps and tell them: 'We gave in on the right of return.' They are unable to do this."

Y.A.: "[But] Sari Nusaiba, head of the PA office of Jerusalem Affairs said it himself."

Morris: "He is an exception. His statements are putting his life in danger. He is not one of the first rank senior leadership. I never heard Mohammad Dakhlan, Jibril Rajoub, or Abu Allah and their guys saying this. Even if they will sign on such a text at one stage or another, a new generation will emerge in ten or twenty years and will argue that they had no right to give up [the right of return]."

Y.A.: "You are the man who revealed to the Israelis that they have responsibility for the refugee problem. Are you asking them to ignore what you revealed to them?"

Morris: "I revealed to the Israelis the truth of what happened in 1948, the historic facts. But the Arabs are the ones who started the fighting, they started the shootings. So why should I take responsibility? The Arabs started the war, they are responsible."

Morris: "We need to give some kind of a solution to the Palestinians but we must not recognize the right of return. Arafat and his generation cannot give up on the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true, because] this is a holy land, Dar-al Islam. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and its inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us would receive it. And besides, even if Arafat will sign an agreement, I find it hard to believe, in view of his behavior during the last two years, that he or his heirs will abide by it."

Morris: "Not because they are Arabs, but rather because they don't understand that justice exists on the other side as well. We do understand that justice exists on the other side. Have you ever heard a senior Palestinian official who says that the Jewish demand for the State of Israel is justified? I have never heard that being said..."

"We will not reach a compromise in this generation, and I have a sneaking suspicion that we will never reach a true and permanent agreement. In the heart of every Palestinian exists a desire that the State of Israel will not be here anymore. For many of them this translates into more than just a desire. As far as they are concerned, all of their misfortunes are a consequence of our deeds, and our destruction will bring about their salvation. Their salvation is the whole of Palestine."

Y.A.: "Do they not understand the reality? Do they not understand that they absorb all these blows as a consequence of their unwillingness to compromise?"

Morris: "Every nation has its own particular way to understand reality, and their reality is very fluid. They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred yeas, just like the Crusaders. Or [the Palestinians are hoping that] the Arabs will have nuclear weapons. Why should they accept a compromise that is perceived by them as unjust today?"

Y.A.: "And when you hear Palestinian leaders, like Abu Mazen and others, who say that they are willing to accept Israel, and living alongside it, do you not believe them?"

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request. E-Mail: memri@memri.org

The IF crowd just doesn't get it, cannot think through this complex world; it's either black or white, no other colors or shades.

To make it crystal clear for you: I've always known Morris was a zionist suupporter, but academic circles accept the research he has extracted from Israeli archives, rcently released. However, many academics take issue with Morris on the conclusions he draws from this body of evidence. I have known this for some time but your whacko pro-Israel sites had to put some spin on this, as if it came as a surprise. Please do a little more reading at serious sites before you come back with more garbage like this. As I said before you are at least 5 years behind on this stuff. Another source, three years ago, to show your inane twists:

		Al-Ahram Weekly On-line Date: 21 - 27 May, 1998 Issue No.378
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Current issue \| Previous issue \| Site map

New history, old ideas

By Edward Said Edward El-said The French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique together with the Revue d'etudes palestiniennes, a quarterly journal published in Paris by the Institute of Palestine Studies, held a conference last week which I attended and participated in. Although it was announced as the first time that the so-called "new" Israeli historians and their Palestinian counterparts had exchanged ideas in public, it was actually the third or fourth time; yet what made the Paris meeting so novel was that this was certainly the first time that a prolonged exchange between them was possible.

On the Palestinian side there were Elie Sambar, Nur Masalha and myself; on the Israeli side Benni Morris, Ilan Pappe, Itamar Rabinowitch (who is not really a new historian, but a former Labour Party adviser, Israeli ambassador to the United States, professor of history at Tel Aviv University, and an expert on Syria, but whose views seem to be changing), and finally, Zeev Sternhell, an Israeli historian of right-wing European mass movements, professor at the Hebrew University, author of a very important recent book on the myths of Israeli society (the main ones of which -- that it is a liberal, socialist, democratic state -- he demolished completely in an extraordinarily detailed analysis of its illiberal, quasi-fascist, and profoundly anti-socialist character as evidenced by the Labour Party generally, and the Histadrut in particular).

Because it was not well-advertised, the conference attracted rather small audiences on the whole, but because of the quality of the material presented and the fact that sessions went for several hours, it was a very valuable exercise, despite the unevenness of some of the contributions. One very powerful impression I had was that whereas the Israeli participants -- who were by no means of the same political persuasion -- often spoke of the need for detachment, critical distance, and reflective calm as important for historical study, the Palestinian side was much more urgent, more severe and even emotional in its insistence on the need for new history. The reason is of course that Israel, and consequently most Israelis, are the dominant party in the conflict: they hold all the territory, have all the military power, and can therefore take the time, and have the luxury to sit back and let the debate unfold calmly. Only Ilan Pape, an avowed socialist and anti-Zionist historian at Haifa University, was open in his espousal of the Palestinian point of view, and, in my opinion, provided the most iconoclastic and brilliant of the Israeli interventions. For the others in varying degree, Zionism was seen as a necessity for Jews. I was surprised, for instance, when Sternhell during the final session admitted that a grave injustice was committed against the Palestinians, and that the essence of Zionism was that it was a movement for conquest, then went on to say that it was a "necessary" conquest.

"The Palestinian side was much more urgent, more severe and even emotional in its insistence on the need for new history. The reason is of course that Israel, and consequently most Israelis, are the dominant party in the conflict: they hold all the territory, have all the military power, and can therefore take the time, and have the luxury to sit back and let the debate unfold calmly"

One of the most remarkable things about the Israelis, again except for Pappe, is the profound contradiction, bordering on schizophrenia, that informs their work. Benni Morris, for example, ten years ago wrote the most important Israeli work on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. Using Haganah and Zionist archives he established beyond any reasonable doubt that there had been a forced exodus of Palestinians as a result of a specific policy of "transfer" which had been adopted and approved by Ben-Gurion. Morris's meticulous work showed that in district after district commanders had been ordered to drive out Palestinians, burn villages, systematically take over their homes and property. Yet strangely enough, by the end of the book Morris seems reluctant to draw the inevitable conclusions from his own evidence. Instead of saying outright that the Palestinians were, in fact, driven out he says that they were partially driven out by Zionist forces, and partially "left" as a result of war. It is as if he was still enough of a Zionist to believe the ideological version --that Palestinians left on their own without Israeli eviction-- rather than completely to accept his own evidence, which is that Zionist policy dictated Palestinian exodus. Similarly, in his book Sternhell admits that the Zionists never considered the Arabs as a problem because if they did they would have openly admitted that the Zionist plan to establish a Jewish state could not have been realised without also getting rid of the Palestinians. But he still insisted during the conference in Paris that although it was morally wrong to expel Palestinians, it was necessary to do so.

Despite these discordances it is impressive that when pushed hard either by Pappe or by the Palestinians, both Morris and Sternhell appeared to hesitate. I take their changing views as symptomatic of a deeper change taking place inside Israel. The point here is that a significant change in the main lines of Zionist ideology cannot really occur within the hegemony of official politics, either Labour or Likud, but must take place outside that particular context, that is, where intellectuals are more free to ponder and reflect upon the unsettling realities of present-day Israel. The problem with other attempts by intellectuals on both sides to influence Netanyahu's policies, for instance, is that as in the case of the Copenhagen group they take place too close to governments who have a much narrower, much shorter range view of things. If the years since l993 have shown anything it is that no matter how enlightened or liberal, the official Zionist view of the conflict with the Palestinians (and this is as true of Left Zionists like Meretz or centre left people like Shimon Peres) is prepared to live with the schizophrenia I referred to above. Yes, we want peace with the Palestinians, but no, there was nothing wrong with what we had to do in 1948. As far as real peace is concerned this basic contradiction is quite untenable, since it accepts the notion that Palestinians in their own land are secondary to Jews. Moreover, it also accepts the fundamental contradiction between Zionism and democracy (how can one have a democratic Jewish state and, as is now the case, one million non-Jews who are not equal in rights, land owning, or work to the Jews?). The great virtue of the new historians is that their work at least pushes the contradictions within Zionism to limits otherwise not apparent to most Israelis, and even many Arabs.

It is certainly true that the great political importance today of the new Israeli historians is that they have confirmed what generations of Palestinians, historians or otherwise, have been saying about what happened to us as a people at the hands of Israel. And of course they have done so as Israelis who in some measure speak for the conscience of their people and society. But here, speaking self-critically, I feel that as Arabs generally, and Palestinians in particular, we must also begin to explore our own histories, myths, and patriarchal ideas of the nation, something which, for obvious reasons we have not so far done. During the Paris colloquium Palestinians, including myself, were speaking with a great sense of urgency about the present since, in this present, the Palestinian nakba continues. Dispossession goes on, and the denial of our rights has taken new and more punishing forms. Nevertheless, as intellectuals and historians we have a duty to look at our history, the history of our leaderships, and of our institutions with a new critical eye. Is there something about those that can perhaps explain the difficulties as a people that we now find ourselves in? What about the conflict between the great families or hamulas, the fact that our leaders have traditionally not been elected democratically, and the fact, equally disastrous, that we seem to reproduce corruption and mediocrity in each new generation? These are serious, and even crucial matters, and they cannot either be left unanswered or postponed indefinitely under the guise of national defence and national unity. There is perhaps a start of critical self-awareness in Yezid Sayegh's new book on the history of Palestinian armed struggle, but we need more concretely political and critical works of that sort, works whose grasp of all the complexities and paradoxes of our history are not shied away from.

So far as I know neither the work of Morris, Pappe, or Sternhell has been translated into Arabic. This absence should be remedied forthwith. Just as important, I think, is the need for Arab intellectuals to interact directly with these historians by having them invited for discussions in Arab universities, cultural centres, and public fora. Similarly I believe it is our duty as Palestinian and yes, even Arab intellectuals to engage Israeli academic and intellectual audiences by lecturing at Israeli centres, openly, courageously, uncompromisingly. What have years of refusing to deal with Israel done for us? Nothing at all, except to weaken us and weaken our perception of our opponent. Politics since l948 is now at an end, buried in the failures of the Oslo process of attempted separation between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. As part of the new politics I have been speaking about in these articles, a splendid opportunity presents itself in continued interaction with the new Israeli historians who, while a tiny minority nevertheless represent a phenomenon of considerable importance. Their work, for instance, had a great influence on the 22 part film series, Tekuma, shown on Israeli television as a history of the state produced for its 50th year celebrations. They are greatly in demand in Israeli schools as lecturers, and their work has attracted the attention of historians and others in both Europe and the United States. It seems anomalous, not to say retrograde, that the one place they have not been fully heard is the Arab world, but we need to rid ourselves of our racial prejudices and ostrich-like attitudes and make the effort to change the situation. The time has come.

It is hard to take Edward Said seriously, as it is hard to take Benni Morris seriously. All of them come from hardened ideological perspectives

But this is just the same for the pro-zionist, pro-Israel, sites you and so many others here are quoting from. They only add so much spin and emotion to these issues.

So much so, that it is nearly impossible to discuss these issues without someone making emotional attacks. Of course, as you point out, across the ocean, these attacks are much more than emotional.

I have provided you with enough evidence which proves the academic world was well aware of Dr Benny Morris's positions. Yet the post you gave us is trying to add some terrific spin to this, as if the academics at Berkely were "shocked" by a "180" taken by Morris.

This is all a bit much. You must also take a critical look at the sites you are frequenting. They also have a hardened ideologic perspective.

As for craeting a peace in the region, nothing works better than treating people justly, and creating a level of comfort in peoples' lives where they will be disinclined towards violence.

Perhaps the US model of a pleuralistic society, without a state religion, and equality of all, would be the best model. After all, the Palestinians and Zionists are genetically brothers, from the same semitic stock, the Americans are from a more diverse background, but still have a cohesive, egelatarian society.

These hardened ideological stances need to stop, a dialogue needs to begin. But even here on FR this has been a hard thing to do.

When I first discussed these issues I often quoted some facts from a simple Worldbook Encyclopedia. I was called a liar, anti-semite, .. .well, you get the picture. And this just for quoting a Grolliers published encyclopedia about the history of Palestine!

People are so wound up about these issues and I'll say it again, you need to look to the sites you frequent, they are laden with as much emotion as fact. Take it all with a grain of salt and do the American thing, go look at the oppositions sites and materials. Then try to discern what is truth and what is self-serving propaganda.

These hardened ideological stances need to stop, a dialogue needs to begin. But even here on FR this has been a hard thing to do.

Dialogue is not possible in my opinion. I also, think that it never was possible. There are individuals who have tried to have that dialogue in the holy land, and in the US and the same roadblocks appear without any compromise.

It begins with the basic propositions. The Arabs have defined the holy land as a place that no Jew can have a say in. The Jews have had the physical boundaries of their self definitions codified for thousands of years. There is no dialogue in that. There is no compromise in that. There is only war.

What you term injustice, can be turned around and said as easily in return to the Arabs. That is why the majority of Jews do not take it seiously. They view themselves every much as a victim as do the Arabs. How many intractible disputes can you name in this situation?

The Arabs and Jews both claim Jerusalem and the Temple mount for their own-

Both claim the cave of the patriarchs (cave of Mach Pelah) for their own-

Both claim the tomb of Rachel and the tomb of Joseph for their own-

The Arabs want the same right of return as Jews do to all of Israel proper. There are numerous other sites and issues over which niether will negotiate. The Jews will not give up military control for fear that the Arabs would bar them from their most holy sites, and they cannot let the Arabs jump enmass to Israel and vote. The Arabs teach that the Jews have no place on those sites. Period. Where is there negotiability in this? Where is there compromise?

Finally there is much to support the argument that the Arabs had only used any negotiation as a ruse to weaken Israel and the Jews militarily. They pursued Oslo only to set up a situation where they could arm themselves and then look for any pretect to begin armed assaults on civilians. They knew that the Jews would respond militarily and use this to further advantage in the court of world opinion.

IMHO, your desire for that dialogue is noble but flawed. As of my writing today, the Jews have just written off Arafat and are preparing for the disarming of the entire Arab population of Judea and Samaria (the west bank). Furthermore, there is tremendous support for this action in the US and in other quarters world wide. I have maintained that the only peace possible is through total annexation of Judea and Samaria by Israel and disarmament of Arab resistance. This will force them to talk because they are incapable of shooting and bombing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.