RadioRaheem84
6th May 2011, 13:09
The once rebel Israeli historian turned right wing Likkud sellout is exposed for being a reactionary Zionist while debating Norman Finkelstein and Saree Makdisi on Democracy Now!
Listen to the insane presuppositions that Benny Morris holds on the history of 1948.
And what happened in the—after the Turkish Ottoman conquests in the fifteenth century and subsequently belittled the Arab world, disempowered it. And then came the European imperial incursions, sometimes conquests in the nineteenth century. And topping all that came the Zionist influx and the unsuccessful Arab war against it in 1947-48. And this was a humiliation the Arab world could not take. 630,000 Jews had bested a 1.2 million Palestinians and 40 million Arabs surrounding that 630,000-strong community. And this humiliation is something which they have never been able to erase and still, I think, motivates them in large measure in their desire to erase the state of Israel.
First boasting about the Israeli victory over displaced Arabs in Palestine and the Arab armies that defended their right to remain on their land.
My belief is the cause, the Zionist cause, was just, and they had good reasons to believe—to see themselves as good. But every war has its dark side, especially civil wars, which are notably vicious. And ’48 also had a dark side, which involved the displacement of 700,000 people and the decision by the Israeli government—and this is the crucial decision—there was never a decision to expel, but there was a decision not to allow back the refugees. And this, in some ways, is a dark side to the ’48 war, which was a glorious war of the creation of the state of Israel; the defeat of larger armies, ultimately larger countries, by a small and weak community. But they preferred not to look at the dark side.
So there was no expulsion of the Palestinians from their land, but there was a war that pushed them out and then they were not allowed back in by the Israelis?
What is the big difference here that Morris is trying to push?
The Jews felt they had a moral right to live in the country and to reestablish their sovereignty in the country, at least in part of it. And the Palestinians thought not. They didn’t care about Jewish history. They cared nothing about Jewish tragedy or persecution over the 2,000 years and wanted to expel them from the country. They didn’t get the chance, because they lost the war. So the war—something like the reverse had happened.
His logic is asinine. So apparently, he is appalled because Palestinians decided not to share their land (or more accurately give up the land) with the Jews because of a long history and tradition tied with the land?
What sensible person would accept this logic?
But the fact is—and this is something most Arab commentators ignore or don’t tell us—the Palestinians rejected the UN partition resolution; the Jews accepted it. They accepted the possibility of dividing the country into two states, with one Arab state and a Jewish state. And the Jewish state, which was to come into being in 1947-48, according to the United Nations, was to have had an Arab population of 400,000 to 500,000 and a Jewish population of slightly more than 500,000. That was what was supposed to come into being, and that is what the Zionist movement accepted. When the Arabs rejected it and went to war against the Jewish community, it left the Jewish community no choice. It could either lose the war and be pushed into the sea, or ultimately push out the Arab minority in their midst who wanted to kill them. It’s an act of self-defense, and that’s what happened.
The idiot continues by insisting that because the Palestinians did not want to be pushed off their land, that it gave the Jews no choice but to engage in war to defend their colonization.
My point in the Haaretz interview, and I repeat it since then, is that a Jewish state could not have arisen with a vast Arab minority—40, almost 50, percent of its population being Arabs—which opposed the existence of that Jewish state and opposed their being a large minority in that state. And they went and they showed that by going to war against the Jewish state, which left the Jews in an intolerable position: either they give in and don’t get a state, or they fight back and in fighting back end up pushing out Arabs.
He is essentially admitting that the Jewish State would not have worked without kicking out the Arab population off the land.
He is acting like anyone who doesn't understand his insane logic is silly.
My point also was that had—and this is really the point, and I think you would agree with it and understand it perhaps on the logical plane, if not on the emotional plane—had the war ended, the 1948 war ended with all the Palestinian population being moved—moving, it doesn’t matter how—across the Jordan River and there establishing their state in Jordan, across the river, a Palestinian Arab state, and had the Jews had their state without or without a large Arab minority on the west bank of the Jordan River, between the river and the Mediterranean Sea, the history of the Middle East, the history of Israel-Palestine, the history of the Palestinians and of the Jews, would have been much better over the past sixty years
So in other words, had those damn dirty Arabs just moved on to Jordan and stopped crying about being forcefully removed from their land, none of the continued suffering they're enduring would be happening?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/16/as_israelis_celebrate_independence_and_palestinian s
This is the logic of the Zionists! A pure defense of racist colonialism!
They act like anyone who doesn't see it their way is daft too and that is what irks me about these Zionist pricks.
Especially a fucking sell out like Benny Morris.
Listen to the insane presuppositions that Benny Morris holds on the history of 1948.
And what happened in the—after the Turkish Ottoman conquests in the fifteenth century and subsequently belittled the Arab world, disempowered it. And then came the European imperial incursions, sometimes conquests in the nineteenth century. And topping all that came the Zionist influx and the unsuccessful Arab war against it in 1947-48. And this was a humiliation the Arab world could not take. 630,000 Jews had bested a 1.2 million Palestinians and 40 million Arabs surrounding that 630,000-strong community. And this humiliation is something which they have never been able to erase and still, I think, motivates them in large measure in their desire to erase the state of Israel.
First boasting about the Israeli victory over displaced Arabs in Palestine and the Arab armies that defended their right to remain on their land.
My belief is the cause, the Zionist cause, was just, and they had good reasons to believe—to see themselves as good. But every war has its dark side, especially civil wars, which are notably vicious. And ’48 also had a dark side, which involved the displacement of 700,000 people and the decision by the Israeli government—and this is the crucial decision—there was never a decision to expel, but there was a decision not to allow back the refugees. And this, in some ways, is a dark side to the ’48 war, which was a glorious war of the creation of the state of Israel; the defeat of larger armies, ultimately larger countries, by a small and weak community. But they preferred not to look at the dark side.
So there was no expulsion of the Palestinians from their land, but there was a war that pushed them out and then they were not allowed back in by the Israelis?
What is the big difference here that Morris is trying to push?
The Jews felt they had a moral right to live in the country and to reestablish their sovereignty in the country, at least in part of it. And the Palestinians thought not. They didn’t care about Jewish history. They cared nothing about Jewish tragedy or persecution over the 2,000 years and wanted to expel them from the country. They didn’t get the chance, because they lost the war. So the war—something like the reverse had happened.
His logic is asinine. So apparently, he is appalled because Palestinians decided not to share their land (or more accurately give up the land) with the Jews because of a long history and tradition tied with the land?
What sensible person would accept this logic?
But the fact is—and this is something most Arab commentators ignore or don’t tell us—the Palestinians rejected the UN partition resolution; the Jews accepted it. They accepted the possibility of dividing the country into two states, with one Arab state and a Jewish state. And the Jewish state, which was to come into being in 1947-48, according to the United Nations, was to have had an Arab population of 400,000 to 500,000 and a Jewish population of slightly more than 500,000. That was what was supposed to come into being, and that is what the Zionist movement accepted. When the Arabs rejected it and went to war against the Jewish community, it left the Jewish community no choice. It could either lose the war and be pushed into the sea, or ultimately push out the Arab minority in their midst who wanted to kill them. It’s an act of self-defense, and that’s what happened.
The idiot continues by insisting that because the Palestinians did not want to be pushed off their land, that it gave the Jews no choice but to engage in war to defend their colonization.
My point in the Haaretz interview, and I repeat it since then, is that a Jewish state could not have arisen with a vast Arab minority—40, almost 50, percent of its population being Arabs—which opposed the existence of that Jewish state and opposed their being a large minority in that state. And they went and they showed that by going to war against the Jewish state, which left the Jews in an intolerable position: either they give in and don’t get a state, or they fight back and in fighting back end up pushing out Arabs.
He is essentially admitting that the Jewish State would not have worked without kicking out the Arab population off the land.
He is acting like anyone who doesn't understand his insane logic is silly.
My point also was that had—and this is really the point, and I think you would agree with it and understand it perhaps on the logical plane, if not on the emotional plane—had the war ended, the 1948 war ended with all the Palestinian population being moved—moving, it doesn’t matter how—across the Jordan River and there establishing their state in Jordan, across the river, a Palestinian Arab state, and had the Jews had their state without or without a large Arab minority on the west bank of the Jordan River, between the river and the Mediterranean Sea, the history of the Middle East, the history of Israel-Palestine, the history of the Palestinians and of the Jews, would have been much better over the past sixty years
So in other words, had those damn dirty Arabs just moved on to Jordan and stopped crying about being forcefully removed from their land, none of the continued suffering they're enduring would be happening?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/16/as_israelis_celebrate_independence_and_palestinian s
This is the logic of the Zionists! A pure defense of racist colonialism!
They act like anyone who doesn't see it their way is daft too and that is what irks me about these Zionist pricks.
Especially a fucking sell out like Benny Morris.