Talk:Benny Morris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents


There is sort of a contradiction in the article: First it states that Morris showed that "700,000 Palestinians who fled from their homes in 1947 were not dispelled with premeditation on the part of the Israelis [...] " ; but then the excerpts from the interview show that he changed his mind about this (atrocities part of conscious strategy). When and why did he change his mind? Since it's such a crucial question, it would be great to have more info on this. pir 22:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good observation. First, as both Norman Finkelstein and Edward Said have pointed out, he appears to not been willing to come to this conclusion in the first edition of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem despite the fact the evidence suggested it. Second, he appears to have found additional material that was previously unavailable to confirm that in fact that expulsion was in fact premeditated. Indeed the article should be updated to reflect this. -- Viajero 22:59, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
great, thanks for the info. - pir 02:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't know how valuable a response will be two years later, but the gist of his argument is this: yes: there was considerable discussion in Zionist (and other) circles of "transfer" (whether voluntary or compulsory) of Arab populations, before the outbreak of the war; but no: there was no "plan". The actual expulsions were not part of a comprehensive preexisting plan, but arose by and large ad hoc out of the military situation as it evolved during the course of the war. So, essentially, while many Zionist leaders recognized that the presence of large Arab populations would imperil Israel's ability to exist as a Jewish state, and "transfer" was regarded as desirable, there was no Zionist consensus about whether it needed to be accomplished or, among those who advocated "transfer," how it ought to be accomplished: by purchasing of Arab lands, or by agreements reached with neighboring Arab states to accept transferees, or by outright expropriation and forcible expulsion and so forth. When expulsion did take place -- and arguing that most refugees were actually driven out was what was novel, at least for an Israeli historian, about The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem -- it was not part of a comprehensive strategy but grew out of events -- often, for instance, as local retaliation for attacks on Yishuv interests. For example, a Yishuv convoy or Jewish civilians are attacked on a road, and the Haganah (or, often, the Irgun or the IPA) attacks the village from which the attack came and drives out its inhabitants.
In short, there was a widespread desire to have Arab populations move elsewhere, but that desire had not hardened into policy (not because it wouldn't have, but because circumstances overtook would-be policymakers), and in the absence of a policy, there certainly was no plan. So, essentially there is no contradiction between saying that Arab populations were driven out and that driving them out was not part of a comprehensive plan.
I should add that I'm not making any representations about the truth of these claims -- I mean only that this is the crux of Morris' argument. Hope this is useful, if not to the original posters, then to others who might edit this article. --Rrburke 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't object to anything you've said - in fact I agree with near enough every word of it. The Zionists of 1948 didn't set out to ethnically cleanse a considerable swathe of Palestine (not least because it would have impacted most of their own 2nd-class workers, neighbours etc).
But the whole Zionist enterprise was based on this expulsion. There are too many clips to know where to start, they include David Ben-Gurion, the "dove" whose reputation they fought to protect for so long.
Have you seen what Morris says [1] "For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt". The letters he quotes come from 1882, almost 125 years ago.
PalestineRemembered 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Haa'retz interview:

[interviewer:]They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.
"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."
And that was the situation in 1948?
"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."
The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."
-- Viajero 18:36, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

loss of faith in Oslo: left wing or right wing?

44% of all Israelis support the Oslo Accords in any form....Benny Morris is among the 29% that have changed their position from support the Accords to not support the Accords. The center of Israeli society has moved from supporting to not supporting. Furthermore 80% of all Israelis believe that the IDF has successfully dealt with the violence militarily. [1][2]

[edit] POV edits by 24.60.142.49

POV edits (see Diff), but some worthwhile material for the article. Points:

  • It is obviously POV to regard Karsh's attack on Morris as "proven", etc.
  • The link provided http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/karsh-morris.htm is broken. I've tried the usual google trickery to find it but with no success (eg. no hits for inurl:karsh-morris). Shame it's not possible to contact 24.60.142.49 to find out.
  • I've added a link to Finkelstein's criticism of Morris that I've been meaning to add for a while.
  • Most of the content of this article is a series of quotes, which is not really Wikipedia house style. I've put these in a separate section.

Hopefully these changes improve the article... ---- Charles Stewart 13:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The emperors-clothes article, in which Karsh is said to have attacked Morris, is probably the one currently at [3]. The article referenced there is probably this one: [4]. There's no "evidence" in either article, and I can't imagine anyone would take them very seriously. However, if you drill down still further, you finally get to this: [5], which is not by Karsh but by Jared Israel. So emperor-clothes is actually quoting themselves! The "ME Forum" article appears to contain some meat - but it's published in Arutz Sheva, a source one would have to call "very biased". Next to the article is written: "Jared Israel is the Editor of the Emperor's New Clothes website, dedicated to fully documented investigative journalism". PalestineRemembered 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic information

Hey, I miss som basics here, like; WHEN was he born? Also, some more background (e.g. where was he educated (before Cambridge)) would have been nice. If anyone can contribute on these points it would be appriciated. Thanks! Huldra 03:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

-Also; what year did he recieve his doctorate from Cambridge? Ok, he is currently professor at Ben-Gurion, -but what about his academic posts before this? -In general: as the article stands now it is a (very interesting! IMO) insight into his point of view, but I really miss the basic (& I assume: undisputed!) information/facts that should be a part of any dictionary entry on a person. I hope somebody out there can contribute on this. Regards, Huldra 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen an allegation somewhere in here that "Benny Morris was proved to have lied in court". I can find no evidence whatsoever for this, and I imagine it's just another smear from the Zionists (even though Morris is one of their own!).
However, on the wider point of his personal details, it is quite possible that he has to be very careful (like me). I'm almost tempted to take his picture off this article.
PalestineRemembered 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graded a B-class

Needs more info on his life, versus his views. The quotes section needs to be trimmed. And if it's possible to put some sort of objective assessment of how accepted his work is among various academic populations (which it might not be), that would be very helpful. Kalkin 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinians were also a politicized, armed community which was committed to fighting against Israel? Really?

I've added "Citation needed" because I don't recall Benny Morris talking about or implying "politicized, armed community". As best I recall, attacks on the Zionists were largely criminal in nature. Even when "organised" opposition arrived (in 1936, less so in 1948), the individuals regularily robbed the Arabs they were staying amongst. PalestineRemembered 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does Benny Morris self-identify as a post-Zionist?

In the Post-Zionism article someone has listed Benny Morris as a post-Zionist. There was no source listed. There is now a category for post zionists here Category:Post-Zionists. If someone finds a source for this, can you please add the category and describe him as such in the body of the article? Thanks. --Deodar 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently read an article where he described himself as a former Post-Zionist. Perhaps we should create a new catagory for him of post-post-zionists. Abu ali 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pappe

I keep getting my posts undone in the 'Criticism of Morris' section: the reasons given are patently wrong. 'Original Research' was the last reason, which is absurd since I simply cite a paper from the respected Journal of Palestine Studies. This is hardly me coming up with my own unpublished research to pass off as 'Criticism of Morris'. I had a look at the 'Original Research' definition (I'm new to Wikipedia): "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

MUST HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED BY A RELIABLE PUBLICATION TO THE TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE: The Journal of Palestine certainly counts as a reliable publication and EXPLICITLY mentions Morris. One of the people who undoes my changes was threatened with a ban because of posting defamatory material against the person I cite, Ilan Pappe. 86.145.179.1 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all The Journal of Palestine is not WP:RS it publishes one sided perspective on the conflict. Second there is already criticism in the article by the left so adding criticism from Pappe we breaking WP:NPOV#Undue_weightShrike 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Journal of Palestine Studies from University of California Press Journals is a peer-reviewed publication and is WP:RS. It is quite a lot better than, for instance, most newspaper accounts. Here's what JSTOR say about it "Since 1971, the Journal of Palestine Studies (JPS) has been the leading quarterly devoted exclusively to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Palestinian affairs. JPS provides an international forum for study of the region and peaceful resolution to the conflict. Comprehensive analysis of current developments in the peace process as well as a range of articles from the latest historical scholarship to coverage of cultural and societal trends, are included in JPS. In-depth feature articles by respected writers and behind-the-scenes interviews are supplemented by a wealth of concise documentation. Each issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies also carries book reviews, documents and source material, a chronology and a bibliography of periodical literature. There is also a settlement monitor assessing Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." PalestineRemembered 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead statement is misleading and unfit.

The lead of this article states that "Benny Morris (born in 1948) is an Israeli historian and unofficial leader of the New Historians, a group of scholars who dispute the mainstream historical view of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." This is clearly not the case, Morris (and other Israeli historians) have managed to investigate the birth of Israel, and have drawn attention to the fact (amongst others) that the natives were ethnically cleansed (95% according to a source Morris finds in the IDF archives), along with many other accounts that bear witness to atrocities. But Morris is not "the leader" of these historians, he is simply the most prominent. Furthermore, he doesn't "dispute the mainstream historical view", he (and others) wrote the first credible "mainstream historical view", or were at least the first to get their work into general acceptance. It is time that the Wikipedia Benny Morris article is written in a fashion that properly recognises the work he has done. There is no excuse for marginalising him in the fashion that this article apparently seeks to do. The only people (as best I know) still seriously disputing his results are deniers and defenders of the Stern Gang. PalestineRemembered 16:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes section

This section is pretty much a plain copyvio from the Haaretz interview and not even fair use (which in itself would've been removed anyway) and has no place in the article. Yonatan talk 15:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "unofficial leader"

This is a fairly odd phrase, unreferenced and seemingly unencyclopedic. I would not object to calling Morris the "most prominent" of the New Historians, I just have a hard time imagining Avi Shlaim or someone sitting around thinking "Hmm, what should I do... better call Benny Morris, my unofficial leader"... y'know? < eleland // talkedits > 12:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morris hard comments about Shlaim

If Morris published hard comments about Shlaim and if they are from a reliable source (which is the case), there is no reason we do not keep them. Why should there be any kind of censureship about what he wrote ? User Talk:81.244.46.93 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit gives the mind of Benny Morris (one of the most famous new historians) about Avi Shlaim (another one of the most famous new historians). Both are well-known and the information is perfectly sourced. It is relevant to see what these people think about each other. More, I don't see what could be "delicate" about this information (the purpose of BLP policy). You are influenced by your own judgements and scales of values. This edit shows the influence of politics in the debate between the new historians, nothing more. User:81.240.222.112 07:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of these hard words. Why not just mention that in Morris's opinion Avi Shlaim's analysis is anti-Israeli? --JaapBoBo 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I could see that until 1995 Shlaim appreciated Morris very much.
I don't know exactly what happened between 1995 and 2003 so that Shlaim and Morris quarrelled and what Morris refers to when he attacks Shlaim. It must be linked to 2nd Intifada but I don't know what exactly.
Nevertheless that is important to understand that Morris doesn't just claim that Shlaim is pro-palestinian or anti-israeli. Morris was 58 years old when he wrote that. He is adult and responsible. He is subtle enough to make the differences.
I think it is important to underline that these people left the academic level when they started to talk about their pairs after that time.
If one could consider that you can still comment with objectivity a pair's work when you state he is anti-israeli or pro-palestinian, everybody will understand reader must take his distances when the words "racist" (Pappé about Morris) or "pro-islamic" (Morris about Shlaim) fall...
Alithien 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pappé's comments about Morris

The comments about Morris given in this diff make a number of very serious allegations, including racism. WP:BLP is quite clear about this:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

"ElectronicIntifada" is in no way a reliable source, particularly for material that the New Republic refused to publish. The removal of this information is an admin action. Don't restore unless you have a better sources and a strong consensus for it remaining here. Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no serious contention that Pappe didn't write it and published it on "ElectronicIntifada" because NR wouldn't (which you conceed, for crying out loud). It is not in that sense "contentious material" (and that is the sense in which the sentence you quote - and the immediately preceeding sentence and ref, which you omit - uses the word; just follow the refs) and "ElectronicIntifada" is not in that sense a "questionable" source. "Get it right". Pappe wrote it? We're sure? We attribute it to him? It's clearly his opinion, not a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice? OK, passes that test.
So, where do we go to get you desysopped for abuse of admin status in a content dispute? Andyvphil (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and apply the same standards to Morris' comments about Ilan Pappé. <eleland/talkedits> 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
POINTy action, reverted. Hasn't Pappe's response to Morris drawn 3rd pty attention in RS coverage of their conflict? Go find it, then tell Jayg where to stick his POV-driven deletion. Andyvphil (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This shouldn't be an issue now that the comments have been sourced to Ha'aretz, but for the record, I don't think they needed to be. I agree that WP:BLP is clear:
The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
The relevant source here is not Electronic Intifada, but Ilan Pappe, who is a notable scholar of Israeli history. WP:V notes that even:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
... and of course this is not self-published material.
On a side note, The New Republic is a strange source to pick as an example of reliability in contrast to EI. TNR has a notable recent history of publishing fabrications, and an equal bias on the question of Israel/Palestine.
Kalkin (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources: Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material. I hope that's sufficiently clear. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy here. Nobody claims Pappe didn't dare to throw these personnal attacks at Morris's face. Even Pappe himself. And these attacks are notorious. I have references to them in a book written by a French historian.
Whatever, the source is now Ha'aretz. And this closes the case.
As soon as a scholar will write a long and detailled answer and analysis of Pappe's behaviour and lack of the minimum deontology, I will be the first to add the material at the right place. But this is not the case today. They decided to ignore him but don't even make publicity of this. He has just become personna non grata among academic Israeli scholars. I could write a WP:OR that proves that Pappé falsify some of his studies in exagerating some events, forgetting others and biaising situations. But I am not a scholar and that closes that case too. There is nothing wikipedia can do, yet but waiting for former Pappé peers do their job.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree on your conclusion but not fully on the argumentation.
The information here is (hopefully not) : "Benny Morris is racist".
The information is : "Ilan Pappé claimed that Benny Morris is racist".
So, the source is not Pappé (who is not a WP:RS concerning Morris's alleged racism (is he psychologist or psychiatrist ?)
The information is the claim and it is so well-known that Electronic-Intifada is a source and Ha'aretz an even better one.
Note that the answers are also on Ilan Pappé's article, I think. Ceedjee (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right, but I would think the notability of the criticism would be established by sourcing it to Pappe, not by sourcing it to EI, no? Kalkin (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. You are right. This information is notorious because it comes from Ilan Pappe, a former colleague and historian who works on exactly the same topic as Benny Morris does.
Ceedjee (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
DKalk has it exactly right. The "fact" for which we need a RS is not that BM is a "racist", but the notorious fact that IP insisted on calling him names. And I'm I'm reasonably sure Jayg knew perfectly well that this is not a controversial fact -- J's all over this subject area on WP. His bad faith deletion of material he simply doesn't like to see, with its implied threat of blocking anyone who reverted him, is really unacceptable. Andyvphil (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dkalk has it exactly wrong. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source. Period. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy here. Nobody claims Pappe didn't dare to throw these personnal attacks at Morris's face. Even Pappe himself. And these attacks are notorious. I have references to them in a book written by a French historian.
Whatever, the source is now Ha'aretz. And this closes the case.
As soon as a scholar will write a long and detailled answer and analysis of Pappe's behaviour and lack of the minimum deontology, I will be the first to add the material at the right place. But this is not the case today. They decided to ignore him but don't even make publicity of this. He has just become personna non grata among academic Israeli scholars. I could write a WP:OR that proves that Pappé falsify some of his studies in exagerating some events, forgetting others and biaising situations. But I am not a scholar and that closes that case too. There is nothing wikipedia can do, yet but waiting for former Pappé peers do their job.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the broader issues here, but I think it's quite clear that Jayjg was throwing his weight around, using implied threats of admin action against anyone who opposed his fairly ludicrous interpretation of WP:BLP. The chance that the highest-profile Palestinian website in the world, that the Jerusalem Post calls a "Palestinian CNN," would fabricate and falsely attribute statements to a prominent Israeli academic and get away with it is effectively zero. EI is hosted and incorporated in the United States, well within the reach of libel lawyers. <eleland/talkedits> 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Abuse of WP:BLP is an established pattern of Jay's; the addition of "Admin action" muscle to the abuse is new, so far as I know. It may make sense to contact him directly and if necessary file an RfC for admin abuse.--G-Dett (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, your recent comments on this issue seem to be claiming that Israel Shahak falls under WP:BLP, and that therefore there is some inconsistency in my actions.[6] While Benny Morris is quite alive, Shahak is not. The "LP" in BLP stands for Living People. And, regarding "established patterns", abuse of WP:CIVIL is an established pattern of yours: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence#User:G-Dett; please desist. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You are fond of typing WP:CIVIL talismanically; I see nothing in that policy that precludes plain dealing with serial policy abuse on the part of admins.--G-Dett (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys. I suggest you keep cool... There is nothing harmful and there is no need to threat each other.
I think there is a wide consensus for leaving the article the personnal attacks performed by these scholars toward each other. Ceedjee (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, it's hard to deal with things that are imaginary. Please restrict your comments to article content, rather than continually commenting on other editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research sentence?

In the current revision, the subsection "Efraim Karsh" under the section "Criticism of Morris's work" seems to read well except for one sentence near the end. It contains paragraphs of Efraim Karsh (or Anita Shapira) criticising Morris, interspersed with paragraphs of Morris' countercriticisms, all with relevant quotes and citations. However, the second last paragraph, a "Morris paragraph" if you will, reads like this:

  • Later Morris gave more details,[reference] saying that Karsh "belabor[s] minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence" and argued that "In Fabricating, Karsh, while claiming to have 'demolished' the whole oeuvre, in fact deal[t] with only four pages of Birth. These pages tried to show that the Zionist leadership during 1937-38 supported a 'transfer solution' to the prospective Jewish state's 'Arab problem.'" Karsh's point is that if some part of Morris's evidence is falsified or distorted, then there is reason to suspect the whole of the work.

The next (and final) paragraph, a "Karsh/Shapira" paragraph, then says:

  • Shapira criticized Morris's answer to Karsh, writing that "[w]hoever dares to oppose or to criticize the pronouncements of these self-styled iconoclasts is savagely maligned." [reference]

The last sentence of the second last paragraph seems out of place. For a start, is is on the end of a "Morris paragraph", and is clearly not part of Morris' criticism of Karsh. Secondly, as it stands, it appears to simply be an original research argument, attempting to justify Karsh's criticisms and to invalidate Morris' response. This is because, apart from its obviously favourable slant towards Karsh, it is merely stated as a fact, rather than an explanation Karsh has himself given for (presumably) dealing with "only four pages of Birth". Did Karsh in fact make such an argument in response to Morris' comments? If so, a relevant and properly cited quote should be placed at the start of the next paragraph, saying "Karsh responded to this by saying [insert relevant quote]...", with the next sentence saying "Furthermore, Shapira criticized...". If no such response can be found, the sentence should simply be reomved. Juwe (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that there has been no reply/amendment to the article, I have removed the sentence. Juwe (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)