gordon.coale
 
Home
 


Weblog Archives

   
 
  Tuesday  January 13  2004    12: 54 AM

Here are two very important pieces about the Israeli side of the conflict with the Palestinians. The first is an interview with one of the leading Israeli historians, Benny Morris. The second is a rebuttal by Aron Trauring at Aron's Israel Peace Weblog. They both get down to the some of the basic issues of Israel/Palestine.

Survival of the fittest

 

 
Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality, with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the sins of Zionism in fact identifies with those sins. That he thinks some of them, at least, were unavoidable.
[...]

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."
[...]

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

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."
[...]

And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

"That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."
 

 
[more]


The Unfit

 

 
I urge you all to read the entire interview. It certainly is an eye-opener. And to his credit, Morris does not mince words. Unlike many Israelis and their Jewish supporters who hide behind hypocritical rhetoric, Morris speaks clearly and openly about what he believes. In fact, I would argue that he is an impassioned spokesperson for what the vast majority of Israelis and their Jewish supporters believe. And that precisely is what is so apalling.

Essentially, in this interview Benny Morris says:

1. We committed and continue to commit horrible crimes against the Palestinians to create the "Jewish" state.
2. These crimes are justified, since the founding of the state of Israel is the supreme value.
3.Besides, Arabs and Palestinians are sub-human savages so they deserve to die.

Essentially Morris is rehashing Jabotinsky's famous polemic the Iron Wall. Morris' unique contribution is to:

Document the fact that the crimes committed by the Zionist founders of the State of Israel were far worse than Israeli propaganda tried to make out
Explicitely add the sub-human argument (point 3). Jabotinsky was more liberal, and did not relate to the Arabs as sub-human "barbarians," even within his colonial world-view

If we abstractly state Morris' position, his argument is this: as a member of group X, I am justified in committing genocide against group Y because I know group Y is out to kill me. The premise of my justification is the "well-known fact" that group-Y are irredeemable, bloodthirsty savages capable of the most heinous crimes against humanity. Hence I justifiably conclude that I my pre-emptive act of genocide is morally justified self-defense. In any case I am killing evil people who are basically sub-human, so what I am doing is really not such a bad thing at all.

If you accept this argument as valid, then now substitute X = German and Y = Jew. In fact, if you substitute the word "Jew" for "German" and "Arab" for "Jew" in the interview, it sounds quite a bit like one Goebbels would have given. Interestingly, like Morris, the Nazis used the American slaughter of the indigineous population as justification for their own policies against the Jews. Do you still think it's a valid argument?
 

 
[more]


I urge everyone to read both pieces.