Ari Shavit interviews historian Benny Morris about Israel and Zionism.#

The interview introduces Benny Morris as a Zionist who has had a reputation as being against Zionism, because of the neutral way he describes the crimes and cruel deeds of Israelis and the Zionist movement. He is simply a historian he says, these things happened and some of them had to happen.

And at the same time historian Morris completed the new version of his book on the refugee problem, which is going to strengthen the hands of those who abominate Israel. So that in the past two years citizen Morris and historian Morris worked as though there is no connection between them, as though one was trying to save what the other insists on eradicating.

This description of his energy is particularly frightful and attempts to show the double nature of Morris:

Morris spews out his words, rapidly and energetically, sometimes spilling over into English. He doesn't think twice before firing off the sharpest, most shocking statements, which are anything but politically correct. He describes horrific war crimes offhandedly, paints apocalyptic visions with a smile on his lips. He gives the observer the feeling that this agitated individual, who with his own hands opened the Zionist Pandora's box, is still having difficulty coping with what he found in it, still finding it hard to deal with the internal contradictions that are his lot and the lot of us all.

After describing how Ben-Gurion created an atmosphere where massacres were encouraged and describing how he covered up for the soldiers and no own got charged, Benny Morris says:

Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.

Morris thinks that some of these incidents should be classified as war crimes, while others were necessary. He uses the 'egg breaking / omelet' rational.

"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."

This is an interesting thought: The Jews deserved a handicap because the Arabs had been winning the genocide game for so long.

"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."

Benny Morris makes the comment that while these are war crimes, only about 1 percent of the population was "lost," and this makes them not as severe and thus okay. If such a small group needed to be displaced, then why was it essential to do so? Actually, Morris then says that he wish Ben-Gurion had expelled more Arabs and "resolved [it] once and for all."

When the interviewer brings up that the Israelis maybe in part responsible for Palestinian terrorism, because of the goading of the hatred. Morris retorts:

"You don't have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday's closure but for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don't see African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture."

It is interesting the Morris uses the word "oppressed," as if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed and they just haven't gotten over it.

Reading this is so surreal, Morris says people should not try to find out why serial killers have become killers, they should just imprison and execute them. That seems like a great way to assure that no more will come about. Actually, his idea for making sure new ones don't appear (or rather, can't harm him) is to lock them up before hand. He advocates a "cage" for the Palestinian people.

"Yes. Exactly. We are the greater victims in the course of history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate us. So it's possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late."

Norman Geras comments on the above interview.#

I just want to argue for a distinction which Morris's discussion does not observe.

That is the distinction between justifying crimes committed in the foundation and initial defence of the state of Israel, more generally justifying the origin of the state of Israel, on the one hand, and justifying its continued existence, on the other. War crimes and crimes against humanity are not justifiable, on any side, as a matter of state or organizational policy. That is precisely one of the meanings the global human community legislates by designating them so. Therefore such crimes committed in the foundation of Israel or its defence cannot be justified retrospectively. If, as Morris argues, such crimes were, and had to be, a part of the foundation of the state of Israel - if Israel's very foundation, in other words, could not have happened without crimes of this kind - then the conclusion would have to be drawn that the foundation of the state was not justifiable at the time and so should not have happened.

Norman then argues for a two state solution. There is another option though: A no-state solution, a Libertarian state that allows each group to do what they will and build new groups as they see fit. This still has the problem of returning property to the displaced, but the idea of imposing laws on one another is avoided.

The Israeli/Palestine issue is a particularly emphasized damnation of Government. It is common to refer to governments as the wielders of the weapon of Public Force, but it is hard to get people to recognize this. In Israeli, all arguments recognize this by their nature: The government threw out the Palestinians. A one state system would not work because one group (the majority) could coerce the other. The government has to be convinced.

But, governments will never be compelled to give up their own power. And the people will never take it back from them as long as they think they need it. This is why the terrorism will never stop, it gives the governments too much power. The reason for the government to be there is to "protect" the population from terrorism, but they can't be too effective or else they will have no reason to be.

This is the road that the United States government is going down. This is why in 1984, a central concept was that of perpetual war.