Talk:Benny Morris

Praise and Criticism?

The Praise and Criticism section is 5% praise and 95% criticism. It's silly to pretend the section is balanced - it should be re-titled Criticism, and the single line of praise be moved up-page. Fig (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Or we could add more praise or controversy? Ben Azura (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, he is a well respected historian, I'm sure we can find more sources supporting that. Even then I think the praise should go in a separate section. That would be more consistent with other, similar wikipedia pages. DMH43 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an "bad" article... or at least a bad section.

The section on "Political views" begins with the sentence "Critics allege that Morris's first book ... is biased." The section is above the book, so a first time reader doesn't even doesn't know about the book or its significance. The section is too long, and needs to be broken down.

Good articles go like this: See: Abby Martin Slavery-slasher (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Undo Dovidroths revert

Dovidroth reverted my addition when my EC was revoked. I suggest we undo the revert since my original change improved the article. My EC status has been restored. DMH43 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Dovidroth has been banned from the Palestine/Israel Conflict topic for 90 days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dovidroth#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

this is @Dovidroth's revert DMH43 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The specific proposed additions:

Avi Shlaim, retired professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, and himself a New Historian, writes that Morris investigated the 1948 exodus of the Palestinians "as carefully, dispassionately, and objectively as it is ever likely to be", and that The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is an "outstandingly original, scholarly, and important contribution" to the study of the issue. Shlaim writes that many of Morris's critics cling to the tenets of "Old History", the idea of an Israel born untarnished, a David fighting the Arab Goliath. He argues that these ideas are simply false, created not by historians but by the participants in the 1948 war, who wrote about the events they had taken part in without the benefit of access to Israeli government archives, which were first opened up in the early 1980s.

Morris has also been criticized for being reluctant to accept the implications of the evidence he presents in his work. A particular example being his analysis of the root of the conflict which he has stated is that "they [the Arabs] didn't want the Jews to be here [Israel]", while his book Righteous Victims states: "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well)."

and criticisms from baruch kimmerling:

In an article in HNN, Baruch Kimmerling discusses an interview with Benny Morris in which Morris states:

if he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations... 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.

Kimmerling criticizes this analysis of Morris as misunderstanding the impact of the refugee problem on the current conflict, and the magnitude of an even larger refugee population.

DMH43 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is now done DMH43 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Removal of Ilan Pappe's comments due to WP:RS

@Amigao you removed a citation of an article by Ilan Pappe in electronic intifada. The section cites the article to source Ilan's comments. RS doesnt seem to apply here even if you consider electronic intifada unreliable. Even then, Ilan Pappe is a highly respected historian. I propose we reintroduce the citation. DMH43 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Add section where Benny morris says he'd rather be seen as racist than boring

Please can someone add a section where Benny Morris admits he's s racist at an LSE event in London?

Here is the newslink

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240307-israeli-historian-says-hed-rather-be-seen-as-racist-than-boring/ 86.5.202.27 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2024 based on recent statements

I want to suggest an addition to the "Controversies" section (or a relevant section if one exists) of the Benny Morris Wikipedia page concerning his recent public statements that have sparked significant discussion.

Suggested Addition:

In March 2024, during an event at the London School of Economics, the Israeli historian made remarks that led to controversy. When confronted by a student regarding his past characterisations of Arabs as a 'time bomb,' Morris stated he would "rather be seen as racist than boring." He further dismissed the student's concerns as boring, and when another student accused him of racism, Morris stood by his earlier statement, affirming his preference to be perceived as a racist rather than be considered uninteresting. This incident was reported by Middle East Monitor, highlighting the reactions and discussions it spurred among students and attendees.

Reference https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240307-israeli-historian-says-hed-rather-be-seen-as-racist-than-boring/

Rationale for Addition:

This event and Morris's statements have been covered by the media and are relevant to the public and scholarly understanding of his views and controversies surrounding his work. Including this information would provide a more comprehensive view of Morris's impact on discussions around history, race, and academic freedom. The source provided is a direct report from the event, contributing to the balanced representation of Morris's public statements and their reception.

I believe this addition aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and factual accuracy, providing readers with a well-rounded perspective on Benny Morris's public and academic life.

Thank you for considering this request. Japroer (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Irltoad (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Racist comments

Somebody that is able to (not me because I don't have enough edits) should edit this article to include the recent racist and anti-Palestinian statements he made after being interrupted during a lecture. He said, "I'd rather be a racist than a bore" after he was called a racist during his lecture. He has yet to apologize.
Article: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240307-israeli-historian-says-hed-rather-be-seen-as-racist-than-boring/
Raw video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BFx9sj_uHm8
Raw video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oF7iVEX6MNE Bisexual Antifa Terrorist
(talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

48 ethnic separation debate

The following sentence closed the lead, but is both unsourced and debatable:

"In his later career, Morris has often been condemned for his opinion that the expulsion of all Palestinian Arabs from Israel would have been justified."

Morris says that a clearcut separation, involving removal of all Arabs to lands west of the Jordan, so to today's Jordan, would have created a situation more beneficious to both nations, avoiding wars, occupation, deadlock w/o solution and offering good chances for development and progress for both sides - but he is doing it as a historian, who is not into nonfactual narratives and only offers limited matter-of-fact comments on such speculations. That is different from "regreting missed opportunities" and pursuing ways of creating circumstances under which such "mistakes" can be "repaired". Words have their power and some speculations are maybe better left not spoken out, but still, the distinction between him briefly analysing under pragmatic aspects a politically very incorrect scenario and what others, like fringe messianic nationalists, actively push for, must be made, and the difference is huge. An unsourced, very aggressively formulated and misleading sentence in the lead doesn't do justice to this aspect: he doesn't seem to "justify expulsion", that's a incorrect & over-interpretation his analysis. Morris always tried to present ALL the facts, giving fodder to all sides in the conflict, in his attempt to go to the bottom of historical facts. In the same manner, he touches on a hypothetical "what if" scenario and tries to see what it would have led to. This is not what the unsourced sentence said. I therefore moved it to this space for discussion. Arminden (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I put it back. Sourcing is not required in the lead for things sourced in the body. And this is explained and sourced in the body. His justification of expulsion was explicit and published. Your description here is whitewash. Zero^talk 12:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zero0000 above. Given that one-third of this article is devoted to praise and criticism (mostly criticism) of Morris's views, it is inadequate for the summary paragraphs to say only that he has been both praised and criticized. The casual reader (and most are) of the saccharine summary after your deletion will have no idea why he is both praised and criticized. Smallchief (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

To use Ari Shavit's terms, it also addresses "citizen" Morris, not "historian" Morris. His books are what counts most, now and in the long run. Arminden (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Disingenuous example of criticism

From Wiki page: "Morris has also been criticized for being reluctant to accept the implications of the evidence he presents in his work. A particular example being his analysis of the root of the conflict which he has stated is that "they [the Arabs] didn't want the Jews to be here [Israel]", while his book Righteous Victims states: "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well)."

These two quotes are not contrary to one another and they are presented without historical context. The second quote would be analogous to "the chief motor of the South's antagonism to the north was the fear of losing property and state rights." The quote is correct, but obviously lacks context. The second quote also appears to be cherry picked from the book to force the conclusion that Morris contradicts himself. Within the same book, Righteous Victim's:

1) Page 20 (kindle) chapter "Islam and Jews" Morris describes the second class nature of Jews in Muslim society. quoting " Arabs in Palestine in the 19th and early 20th centuries often referred to Jews as awlad al mault (children of Death.)

2) page 58 chapter "The Arabs Attitude toward the Olim." quote " The Arabs, like their Turkish rulers, disliked foreigners. Aliens embodied the threat of Great Power Penetration, a foreign culture, and a hostile religion."

3) Under chapter "Arab hostility toward the new jews." pg62 quote " But the major cause of tension and violence throughout the period 1882-1914 was not accidents, misunderstandings, or the attitudes and behaviors of either side, but objective historical conditions and the conflicting interests and goals of the two populations. The Arabs sought instinctively to retain the Arab and Muslim character of the region and to maintain their position as its rightful inhabitants; the Zionist sought radically to change the status quo, buy as much land as possible, settle on it, and eventually turn an Arab populated country into a Jewish home land.

4) under "conclusion" pg 728 Almost from the start the Arabs equated Zionism with expansionism. Indeed their leaders both inside and outside Palestine often charged, citing Scripture, that the Zionists were bent on forging a kingdom stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. And while one need not always take Arab asseverations at face value, they were solidly anchored in a perception that expansion, whatever its real extend, would be at the expense of their people, principally and initially those living in Palestine itself." Pg 729" The Palestinians, from the start, never really understood the Zionist claim to the land. They were not aware of or didnt care about the Jews' roots in the country, and took no interest in their current suffering, the main propellant of Zionism. Pg 736, Ideologically and politically, the Palestinians acted though their conflict with the Zionists were a zero sum game. They refused all compromise. But though they often talked in this manner (We'll throw the Jews into the sea). They systematically failed to translate their words into deeds., failed at every state to organize for total war.

Morris gives further explanation to the second quote. Page 63 under "local incidents" quoting "The Arab peasants' fear of being dispossessed was initially personal, tied to livelihood, and indeed, survival. In time it took on a local patriotic dimension- the Jews were taking over the district. Gradually, as the 20th century advanced, feelings of nationalism, and national displacement, replaced local patriotism." 71.6.4.43 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)