‘There is a clash of civilisations’: An interview with Benny Morris

[shira]

In this in-depth interview, Israeli historian Benny Morris speaks with Professor Gabriel Noah Brahm about his work, his critics and his regrets. He also charges Western academics with dishonesty about the Middle East, gives his prognosis for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and outlines his view on Israel’s place in the ‘Clash of Civilisations’.



Benny Morris hasn’t changed. One of the world’s leading chroniclers of the Arab-Israeli conflict tells the truth as he sees it, based on the facts he discerns as a historian. While some have perceived a dramatic shift from the ‘old’ (more optimistic and liberal) Morris of the Oslo period to the ‘new’ (more realistic/pessimistic) Morris of today, this is something of a myth. He hasn’t changed what he says about the reality of 1948, the Palestinian refugees, or anything else. Rather, he has added to his knowledge of the history of Israel’s rebirth as a modern nation-state, a painful analysis of more recent history. When Yasser Arafat walked away from Israeli peace offers in 2000 and 2001, a disillusioned Morris started to examine the possibility that the Palestinians weren’t serious about wanting a two-state deal. He has since come to rate more highly the importance of Islamism and jihadism as forces driving Palestinian rejectionism.

Moreover, as a firebrand who tends to ‘call a spade a spade,’ he is irked by a censorious political correctness that limits what can be talked about honestly — policing thought in line with ‘Western guilt’ over colonialism. He is equally disdainful of the romantic cult of ‘the Other’ in academia that tries to assuage that guilt. He regrets not the substance of some of the things he has said but only the ‘intemperate’ way he expressed himself. We talked about his books and his thoughts about the future of Israel and the region.

more...
http://fathomjournal.org/there-is-a-clash-of-civilisations-an-interview-with-benny-morris/

[shira]

1. Morris: "Politically, the thing which has changed for me (and you can see that in my journalism).."

Politically, the thing which has changed for me (and you can see that in my journalism), is my view of the Palestinians and their readiness to make peace with the Israelis. This is the crux. I would say that in the 1990s, while I was not persuaded by Arafat — the man was always a vicious terrorist and a liar— I thought maybe he is changing his approach because he now accepts the realities of power and what is possible.

But when it came to the crunch, when he was offered a two-state solution in 2000 by Barak, and then got an even better offer from Clinton at the end of 2000, Arafat said ‘no’. And I think this was the defining moment for me. He was simply unable to reach a compromise with Israelis.

[shira]

2. Morris: "Abbas can't reach a solution. Even if he were a real moderate..."

Abbas can’t reach a solution. Even if he were a real moderate, he would never sign on the dotted line. First, he would be shot by the Hamasnicks. Second, even if he wasn’t shot by the Hamasnicks, the deal would come unstuck because Hamas would send out suicide bombers and enrage the Israeli right. There are simply too many extremists; the moderates end up bowing to their will. This is what always happens when it comes to the crunch.

[shira]

3. Morris: "I understood that it wasn't really a question of a bit of territory here or there..."

I understood that it wasn’t really a question of a bit of territory here or there—it was a matter of the Palestinians non-acceptance of the legitimacy of the Jewish state. That was what lay behind Abbas’s inability to accept any Jewish state next to a Palestinian state. This is really what it has always been about: for Arafat, for Abbas, and before them for [Haj Amin] al-Husseini in the 1930s and 1940s.

[shira]

4. Morris: "The bigger obstacle (than settlements, occupation) is the essential rejectionism...."

The problem is that the Arabs rejected Zionist and Jewish presence in the area. They rejected the legitimacy of the Zionist and Jewish claims to even part of Palestine, and they continue to do that. But now they say, ‘well, the conflict is because of the settlements and the occupation.’ What I would say is this: the settlements and the occupation are obstacles to peace, without doubt; but the bigger obstacle is the essential rejectionism of the Palestinian national movement. The religious wing of the Palestinian movement is open about this, while the so-called secular variety (which is really not so secular) is more subtle. But for both, their rejectionism is the essential driving force of the conflict.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that we have a prime minister who is very right wing—a prime minister who appears dishonest, where you don’t know what he’s actually thinking or what he’s after. One day he says ‘two states’, one day he says ‘no two states’, so he generates a great deal of mistrust amongst enlightened people across the world. He may generate trust in the Katamonim [a Jerusalem neighbourhood] in Israel, but most thinking people don’t trust the man, and this includes most thinking Israelis as well. Abbas appears to be a much more genial character than Netanyahu. He dresses in suits, he speaks the language of two states—he sounds normal. And Netanyahu sounds fishy.

[shira]

5. Morris: "If Herzog won the last election...."

GNB: Do you think it would have made a difference if Isaac Herzog had won the last election in Israel?

BM: We’d be a bit better off, in terms of image and in terms of relations with the wider western world. We wouldn’t be any closer to peace, though, because I don’t think Herzog has it in him to do what is necessary. And even if he does what is necessary, I’m not sure that would bring peace either.

Somebody like Sharon might have been able to deliver Israeli withdrawal from the territories. He did this with the Gaza Strip and slightly with the West Bank. He promised or seemed to promise that this is what he would do—a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, if you cannot reach an agreement with the Palestinians. This wouldn’t have led to peace because, as I say, the Palestinians seem to want all of it—not just the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But, at least in terms of Western public opinion and governments, unilateral Israeli withdrawal from 90 per cent of the West Bank, back to what is called the Defence Barrier, this would certainly put us in better stead amongst Western governments and publics.

But the Palestinians—or a large segment of them—would continue the fight, shoot rockets into Israel, make life unlivable in Tel Aviv, or flights untenable at Ben-Gurion International Airport. And Israel would have to reconquer the West Bank.

[shira]

6. Is there a clash of civilizations....?

GNB: Is there a ‘clash of civilisations’ taking place in the world?

BM: I think there is a clash of civilisations. There are Western values at odds with an Islamic world whose attitude to life, to political freedom, to creativity, is completely different.

Arab regimes are all dictatorships—there’s absolutely no value to human life in such regimes. Families care for their loved ones, but the regimes themselves don’t show a great respect, not for civil liberties and not for life in general in the Arab world.

The Islamic world is resurgent and the radical wing in Islam is furthering the idea of actually taking over the world and turning it in to one Islamic polity—a Caliphate. In other words, Islam is the correct religion, everything else is wrong and Allah’s will is that Islam dominate the earth. This is what the radical Islamists want, though Hamas at the moment is busy with us so it doesn’t express its universal pretensions. Other movements like Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS—they talk more bluntly about a universal message, which they are trying to both propound and achieve around the globe. So yes, there is a clash of civilisations.

Leaders like Obama would prefer to wish away this clash of civilisations. Many television stations completely ignore it and, like Obama, don’t use the words ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamist’ when it comes to terrorism—they just talk about ‘international terrorism’ or ‘extremism’. Well, the real problem is Islamic terrorism and Islamic pretensions to world dominance. The fact that they sell millions of Osama [Bin-Laden] t-shirts in Cairo or Pakistan is a sign that they are popular. It’s not just some minor, small extremist group.

[Jefferson23]

8. What a bunch of fucking bullshit:

Leaders like Obama would prefer to wish away this clash of civilisations. Many television stations completely ignore it and, like Obama, don’t use the words ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamist’ when it comes to terrorism—they just talk about ‘international terrorism’ or ‘extremism’. Well, the real problem is Islamic terrorism and Islamic pretensions to world dominance. The fact that they sell millions of Osama t-shirts in Cairo or Pakistan is a sign that they are popular. It’s not just some minor, small extremist group.


He wouldn't be happy with Obama unless he was pushing the Likud line 24/7 about Arabs.

[shira]

10. Amos Oz is not a Likudnik

Remember how many centuries it took European countries to separate church from state, and to put an end to the chauvinism and the wars and the bloodshed. It took Europe a thousand years. We in Israel, we in the Middle East, are not going to take a thousand years. We are taking too long. Too long: I wish it would be faster. But give us time. We only appeared on the scene a few decades ago; it’s too soon to except Israel to become Sweden. It cannot, it’s impossible — only two or three generations after the holocaust, and in the middle of a life-and-death conflict with fanatic Islam. It is not possible.

... don’t expect anyone in this world to support the policies of Netanyahu’s government. They are disastrous policies, I think its an anti-peace policy, I think it’s a negative policy. At the same time, I think it would be a great mistake to embrace and hug Islamic fanatics and Islamic aggressors; and Hamas aggressors, and ISIS aggressors, just because Israel is wrongly building settlements in the West Bank.
http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/02/an-interview-with-amos-oz-on-literature-judaism-and-zionism/#.VkFDRq6rRo4

[Jefferson23]

11. Don't attempt to put Oz in with Morris's comments about Obama, you're skating on thin ice. n/t

[shira]

13. You mentioned Likud when Islamism is brought up. I responded to that.

And skating on thin ice?

[leftynyc]

22. Sounds like a threat to me

But I wont lower myself to the level of hysterical ninnies that alert at the drop of a hat.

[King_David]

23. Certainly does sound like a threat. nt

[shira]

7. Can Jews live as a minority within a greater Palestine (Muslim majority)?

When Arabs say ‘well, why can’t the Jews live with us together as equals in a joint society?’ this is nonsense. They’re presenting an imaginary future to Westerners which sounds like coffee shops in New York, but actually it’s not—we are talking about the Middle East. It’s not New York. A hundred years of what has happened between Israelis and Palestinians, the centuries of what happened to Jews in Arab lands, all of this means that the Arabs are not speaking honestly when they speak about living jointly in some sort of parity. Demography would tell. If it’s one person one vote, then they would control of what happened in the state and the Jews would of course prefer to leave. Arabs understand that. They are being dishonest.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Kind of a pity that the current leaders are working so hard

at establishing a single binational state.

Are you doing anything to try to counter this trajectory?

[shira]

26. I question why folks here push for this catastrophe of 1-state......

I don't think there's anything Israel can do. If Rabin were never killed, there still wouldn't be 2 states.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I'm not pushing for it, Israel's leaders are, and you are

when you defend the current status quo.

You're far more pro one state than I am, whether you admit it or not.

[shira]

31. Bullshit, all the BDS'ers and antiZionists want a one state catastrophe

I'm for a peaceful 2 state solution, not a 2 state solution that will lead to more war and misery.

Get the difference?

Rabin could have offered Arafat everything besides Israel's own suicide and Arafat would have rejected it (so would Abbas, and Hamas). The reason is because they want it all (greater Palestine with an Arab majority, Jewish minority). The BDS anti-Zionists support this cause.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. No, they're just recognizing a reality the leaders you support are creating.

I've said my piece, and I'm finished discussing this with you now.

[shira]

33. Should Arafat have accepted the Clinton Parameters 15 years ago?

They'd have their own state, no occupation or settlements, and half of Jerusalem.

Or were the last 15 years of misery worth it?

[Jefferson23]

9. Answering Benny Morris: Historians Should Have a Commitment to the Truth

Authors: Arie Arnon is a professor of economics at Ben-Gurion University in Be’er Sheva and a member of the steering committee of the Aix Group; Joseph Zeira is a professor of economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the AIX Group

Is there really no chance for peace with the Palestinians? Is it true that they don’t want to compromise? Two leading economists respond to an interview with Benny Morris.

From 2012, Morris hasn't changed:

Historian Benny Morris taught us a great deal about the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, but above all he’s taught us that the official Israeli version is not always right. When the original documents are made public, after many years, a very different historical picture often emerges. We know this from his studies on the Palestinian refugees and on Israel’s border wars in the 1950s.

In one of the articles in his book “Tikun Ta’ut” ?the Hebrew version of his “1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians”?, Morris writes explicitly about Israel’s “old historians”: “These historians forgot a basic rule of historiography: that official documents are suspect and that an effort should always be made to get to the original. This is especially true in the case of an ideological national movement which is immersed in an existential conflict with its neighbors, and for which survival and victory, and not universal values of morality and justice ?and certainly not historical accuracy?, are the top priority.” ?This quote is from an article in the Hebrew edition that does not appear in the English version of the book.?

Indeed, Morris followed this injunction until 2000. However, in his more recent publications he has completely discarded the rule which he himself laid down. Even though no official original documents exist about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – or about the discussions held by the cabinet and the army in the past decade and more – Morris has unhesitatingly adopted the official Israeli stance that “there is no partner for peace.”

He articulated this approach in a recent interview in Haaretz Magazine ?“End of the Road,” Sept. 21?, though he had already expressed it shortly after the failure of the talks. At that time he published a series of articles in The New York Review of Books together with a co-author by the name of Ehud Barak. Together they formulated the argument which has since then become the overarching myth in Israeli politics: the Palestinians, owing to their insistence on a settlement of their refugee problem, are unwilling to accept the two-state solution, and this is the reason for the failure of the peace negotiations. Historian Benny Morris lent his support to this contention without quoting even one document. The private conversations with Ehud Barak sufficed.

We too have no access as yet to the negotiations documents or the other documents of the period. However, over the years we have compiled information which casts a dark shadow over Benny Morris’ claims. This information comes from many sources, but the main one is our engagement with the economic side of the negotiations within the framework of the Aix Group. This group, which consists of Israeli, Palestinian and international experts, discusses and writes about the economics of a possible settlement between Israel and Palestine. The group’s work is not being done covertly. Our books are published on our website ? www.aixgroup.org?. Observers from the Israeli government and from the Palestinian side take part in our broad meetings.

Our work has made it possible for us to gain in-depth knowledge of the positions of the sides in the negotiations. To the best of our understanding a peace agreement is achievable. The main tenets of such an agreement are the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, within borders close to the 1967 lines ?with land swaps?; the partition of Jerusalem into two capitals; a comprehensive solution of the refugee problem in which a small number of refugees would settle in Israel; and the end of the conflict. An agreement along these lines is possible and can be extended to all the Arab states on the basis of the proposal made by the Arab League, which has been lying at Israel’s doorstep for more than 10 years.

It is important to point out that the Aix Group has discussed the refugee issue extensively and has formulated a blueprint for a solution which can be accepted by both sides. Indeed, the two negotiating teams displayed great interest in this approach. We also know, from the books by Gilad Sher and Shlomo Ben-Ami, that the subject of the refugees was barely touched on in 2000. Therefore, in our assessment, it was not the refugee issue that caused the negotiations to fail, but in fact the disagreement over the borders.

Gilad Sher, who negotiated on behalf of Barak, wrote that at every stage of the talks, Barak made it clear that he did not intend to return to the 1967 boundaries. Yet this is the only possible border – with adjustments. Israel can make do with 78 percent of the historic Land of Israel, the Palestinians will not make do with less than 22 percent. That is all that remains to them.

As we understand it, Ehud Barak did not want to return to the 1967 boundaries, because in his opinion Israel is strong enough to demarcate its border unilaterally. However, Barak never expressed this view honestly, but tried to cast the blame on the Palestinians. He can be forgiven for claiming this, because he is a politician. Politicians have no commitment to the truth, either historical or contemporary. However, historians and people of science have a commitment to the truth. In fact, that is their only commitment. And Benny Morris, who since 2000 has been mobilized to defend the Israeli position in the negotiations, is being disingenuous with the truth. He adopted Barak’s stance without examining it factually and in the knowledge that there are testimonies that contradict it. This is regrettable: The important historian has become a committed propagandist.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/answering-benny-morris-historians-should-have-a-commitment-to-the-truth.premium-1.470893

[shira]

12. This article is a crock. Ehud Barak agreed to the Clinton Parameters according....

...to both Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross.

The Israeli Cabinet fucking voted to adopt the Clinton Parameters!

[Jefferson23]

14. I think it's clear who the propaganda player is, Morris.

Enjoy your revisionist thread, I posted what I needed to.

[shira]

15. The revisionism is all yours. The record is clear.

The Israeli Cabinet - at Barak's behest - voted for the Clinton Parameters which was a deal based on the '67 lines with land swaps.

[leftynyc]

19. The wishing history was different

is delusional thinking that has invaded this topic. The Palestinians were offered the best deal they could have imagined and they turned it down. Clinton has told that story over and over and still they refuse to believe it. Why? Because they want it all and they have groups whispering in their ears that they could get it if they just remain victims for a little while longer. The leadership of the Palestinians has failed their charges over and over again - lying to them, stealing from them but they just close their eyes to that and continue to blame Israel. And now look at where they are. The far left thinks they're helping the Palestinians with their protests and their pickyune bds nonsense but all they're doing is giving false hope they could get a better deal....if they remain victims a little while longer. The cycle continues.

[shira]

27. I find the Palestinians biggest western defenders want Palestinians to stay miserable.....

I'm not sure I can find any who'd say Arafat was wrong 15 years ago to reject a sovereign Palestinian state free of occupation & settlements, with half of Jerusalem.

The Palestinians' western friends basically believe Arafat was right to reject Barak and that the last 15 years since has been worth it, where Palestinians killed during that time are acceptable sacrifices for the cause (destroying Israel).

[leftynyc]

28. They don't care about the

Palestinians as people - only as a cause. They'll never get an offer better than the one Arafat walked away from. Never. And they'll continue to live in misery and without a country.

[shira]

30. Totally agree. But I'll go further in saying they prefer Palestinian misery.....

....for reasons mentioned already. Also, we don't see them sticking up for Palestinian women or gays in Gaza or the W.Bank, or children used as human shields and militants.

The worse off Palestinians are, the more Israel can be blamed and THAT's what it's all about.

[leftynyc]

34. Well, as long as they blame

Israel, people will forget what their own leadership has brought them to. They could have had their own state - since 1947 - and instead they're reduced to stabbing old people. And yet nobody asks them if they've made a mistake all these years in continually saying no - they just pat them on the head, continue to treat them as children and tell them to keep waiting....they'll get what they want any day now.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Religious fundamentalists and extreme nationalists vs.

sane, humanistic secular types. There are Jews and Muslims on both sides of the divide.

[Little Tich]

18. I don't believe in the idea of the "Clash of civilizations".

I do believe however, that it's a euphemism for racism.

I don't know of someone using that term who wasn't a racist.

that being said, Benny morris is one of the "New" Israeli historians who dispelled the myth that Israel was the victim in the war of 1947-1948, and that Israel wasn't the cause of the Nakba. His book "The Palestinian refugee problem revisited" can be found floating around on the interwebs and is well worth a read.

[shira]

24. You don't? Well why don't u explain why we can't find any voices in the W.Bank......

...or Gaza (in the media or from government officials) condemning Palestinians for stabbing and running over Jews, or sending out teenage kids as militants to do the dirty work? Why no public condemnations?

[Little Tich]

20. Benny Morris is very intelligent although he's obviously a racist, and I think that some people

share his views.

Unlike the Hasbara garbage that some people like to peddle, Morris's views are grounded in reality, or at least a very distinct interpretation of it. This means that takes a little bit more difficult to refute him, but it's by no means impossible.

The OP was interesting and I'll bookmark it for later.

[shira]

25. What makes Morris a racist? There are anti-Israel folks currently on this forum......

....who do not believe Jews should be allowed on the Temple Mount, or allowed to live in the W.Bank. They never condemn violence against Jews without trying to draw comparisons to what Israel does. They never hold Palestinians accountable for anything (racism of low expectations). In fact, they support violent terror attacks & are against any action by Israel to protect its citizens.

Now THAT has to be more racist than whatever Morris can be accused of.

[bemildred]

21. "Clash of barbarians" is more like it.

Whatever is going on in the Middle East, it has nothing to do with being civilized.