If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs so wretched, maybe it’s a mistake?
Steeds weer terug naar de bron om het heden te duiden en om voorbereid te zijn op mogelijke ontwikkelingen. Een opgave die de Israëlische Benny Morris steeds trouw is gebleven. Na 2000 kwam een omslag in zijn opvattingen betreffende het bestaansrecht in Palestina van de oorspronkelijke bevolking. Nadrukkelijk omarmde hij nu de nieuwe oorlogsdoctrine van de USA ontwikkeld door Huntington.
Zijn opvattingen en verzameling van feitenmateriaal blijven desalniettemin van groot nut zeker nu de toestand aldaar dramatisch is verslechterd. Vandaar de verwijzing naar enkele interviews met hem die in 2004 plaatsvonden.
Elizabeth Wasserman in The Atlantic:
It seems a cruel irony that the Holocaust would cause Jews to feel even more inhibited about taking drastic measures to ensure their survival. I was surprised by the quotes in your book from several foreign emissaries who outspokenly compared Israeli actions to those of Nazi Germany.
“You have to consider that this was the mental background of these people. This was one of the things in very recent history that they could refer to. Now, I think the officials who spoke in these terms weren’t people who had actually seen Buchenwald and Auschwitz. They didn’t really know what had happened, they just heard about it in some second- or third-hand way. And apparently the Israelis didn’t know either, because some of them made these comparisons themselves when criticizing their own military actions. But of course the comparisons are absurd. A massacre of twenty or thirty villagers does not bear comparison to the Nazis. Numbers do make a difference.”
“Natuurlijk hebben de Palestijnen, en met hen de hele Arabische wereld, gelijk. Zonder het zionisme, zonder Israël zou er geen probleem zijn. Zonder Israël zouden er geen vluchtelingen zijn; zouden er geen nederzettingen zijn; zou er geen muur zijn. De kern van het probleem vanuit Palestijns perspectief is de komst van de joodse staat, waardoor de Palestijnse gemeenschap is versplinterd en vernietigd. Wij hebben hen in 1948 verjaagd, voorzover zij zelf niet op de vlucht waren geslagen. Wij hebben aan gedeeltelijke etnische zuiveringen gedaan. Maar wij zijn er en wij gaan niet weg.”
In de oorlog van 1948 werden 700.000 Palestijnen verdreven door de eenheden van het reguliere Israëlische leger en de voorloper daarvan, de Hanagah. De Arabische bevolking van steden als Jaffa, Haifa, Accre, Lidd (nu Lod), Ramle (nu Ramla), Tiberias en honderden dorpen werden, in de terminologie van Morris, “gedeeltelijk of helemaal etnisch gezuiverd”.
Toen hij dat in 1988 voor het eerst opschreef, ontketende hij een storm van verontwaardiging. Hij verloor zijn baan als militair correspondent van The Jerusalem Post en kreeg het etiket `extreem links’ opgeplakt, hij zou een `zichzelf hatende jood’ zijn. Zeven jaar was hij werkloos en schreef hij boeken.
Uit: “Israëlische fabels en Palestijnse mythes”, een interview van Oscar Garschagen met de Israëlische historicus Benny Morris n.a.v. van de bewerkte heruitgave van zijn boek uit 1988, nu onder de titel: “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited”.
NRC 21 februari 2004.
Ruim een maand eerder verscheen in de Haaretz een indringend gesprek van Ari Shavit met Benny Morris. Lichtelijk ingekort volgt dit hier.
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
Historian Benny Morris, who opened the Pandora’s box of Zionism, has found a new way to deal with the demons he unleashed. He justifies the expulsion of the Arabs in 1948, bemoans the fact that the job was left unfinished and doesn’t rule out future population transfers. In an interview, Morris lays out his self-described ‘politically incorrect’ views.
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.
Two years ago, different voices began to be heard. The historian who was considered a radical leftist suddenly maintained that Israel had no one to talk to. The researcher who was accused of being an Israel hater (and was boycotted by the Israeli academic establishment) began to publish articles in favor of Israel in the British paper The Guardian.
Whereas citizen Morris turned out to be a not completely snow-white dove, historian Morris continued to work on the Hebrew translation of his massive work “Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001,” which was written in the old, peace-pursuing style. 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.
Both books will appear in the coming month. The book on the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict will be published in Hebrew by Am Oved in Tel Aviv, while the Cambridge University Press will publish “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited” (it originally appeared, under the CUP imprint, in 1987). That book describes in chilling detail the atrocities of the Nakba. Isn’t Morris ever frightened at the present-day political implications of his historical study? Isn’t he fearful that he has contributed to Israel becoming almost a pariah state? After a few moments of evasion, Morris admits that he is. Sometimes he really is frightened. Sometimes he asks himself what he has wrought.
He is short, plump, and very intense. The son of immigrants from England, he was born in Kibbutz Ein Hahoresh and was a member of the left-wing Hashomer Hatza’ir youth movement. In the past, he was a reporter for the Jerusalem Post and refused to do military service in the territories. He is now a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be’er Sheva. But sitting in his armchair in his Jerusalem apartment, he does not don the mantle of the cautious academic. Far from it: 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.
Rape, massacre, transfer
Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book – the Israelis or the Palestinians?
The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.
At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.
According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?
About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg.
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.
What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?
“Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?
From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.
Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?
Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.
I don’t hear you condemning him.
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.
When ethnic cleansing is justified
Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?
There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.
We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.
A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it’s better to destroy.
There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.
If you expected me to burst into tears, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that.
So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?
I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.
You do not condemn them morally?
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.
The term “to cleanse” is terrible.
I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.
What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.
I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.
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. ………. 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.
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.
And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.
That’s what emerges.
And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields and the devastated villages of the Nakba?
You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. …….. that’s chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well.
The next transfer
You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.
Morris: You may be right. (…) I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?
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. (…)
I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.
If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. (…)
In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?
But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.
And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?
Morris: (…) I say not at this moment. (…) In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. (…) But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.
Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?
The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. (…)
Besides being tough, you are also very gloomy. You weren’t always like that, were you?
My turning point began after 2000. I wasn’t a great optimist even before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and Acre and Jaffa.
If that’s so, then the whole Oslo process was mistaken and there is a basic flaw in the entire worldview of the Israeli peace movement.
Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and conciliation.
Do you really believe Arafat wants to throw us into the sea?
He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent and wishes us a Crusader end. (…) But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is driven by the phased plan. (…)
If so, the two-state solution is not viable; even if a peace treaty is signed, it will soon collapse.
Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It’s the only alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. (…)
Your prognosis doesn’t leave much room for hope, does it?
It’s hard for me, too. There is not going to be peace in the present generation. There will not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the sword. I’m already fairly old, but for my children that is especially bleak. I don t know if they will want to go on living in a place where there is no hope. Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won’t see a good, normal life here in the decades ahead.
Aren’t your harsh words an over-reaction to three hard years of terrorism?
The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made me understand the depth of the hatred for us. (…) They express the deep will of the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us.
Yet we, too, bear responsibility for the violence and the hatred: the occupation, the roadblocks, the closures, maybe even the Nakba itself.
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. (…) There is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture.
Are you trying to argue that Palestinian terrorism derives from some sort of deep cultural problem?
There is a deep problem in Islam. It’s a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn’t have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons, it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide.
I want to insist on my point: A large part of the responsibility for the hatred of the Palestinians rests with us. After all, you yourself showed us that the Palestinians experienced a historical catastrophe.
True. But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it’s not so important to discover why he became a serial killer. What’s important is to imprison the murderer or to execute him.
Explain the image: Who is the serial killer in the analogy?
The barbarians who want to take our lives. The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. (…) It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers.
What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?
We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us.
To fence them in? To place them under closure?
Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another.
War of barbarians
Then what is your solution?
In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant, to defend the country as far as is possible.
The iron wall approach?
Yes. An iron wall is a good image. An iron wall is the most reasonable policy for the coming generation. (…) What Jabotinsky proposed is what Ben-Gurion adopted. In the 1950s, there was a dispute between Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett. Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to accept our presence here. He was right. That’s not to say that we don’t need diplomacy. (…) But in the end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force alone. (…)
For a left-winger, you sound very much like a right-winger, wouldn’t you say?
I’m trying to be realistic. I know it doesn’t always sound politically correct, but I think that political correctness poisons history in any case. (…) Preserving my people is more important than universal moral concepts.
Are you a neo-conservative? Do you read the current historical reality in the terms of Samuel Huntington?
I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and they may also destroy it.
The Muslims are barbarians, then?
I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians the attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is today is barbarian.
And in your view these new barbarians are truly threatening the Rome of our time?
Yes. The West is stronger but it’s not clear whether it knows how to repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within.
Is it really all that dramatic? Is the West truly in danger?
Yes. I think that the war between the civilizations is the main characteristic of the 21st century. (…) It s not only a matter of bin Laden. This is a struggle against a whole world that espouses different values. And we are on the front line. Exactly like the Crusaders. (…)
The situation as you describe it is extremely harsh. You are not entirely convinced that we can survive here, are you?
The possibility of annihilation exists.
Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?
The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. (…) I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It’s possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here.
If Zionism is so dangerous for the Jews and if Zionism makes the Arabs so wretched, maybe it’s a mistake?
No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here that lives in harmony with its surroundings.
Which leaves us, nevertheless, with two possibilities: either a cruel, tragic Zionism, or the forgoing of Zionism.
Yes. That’s so. You have pared it down, but that’s correct.
Would you agree that this historical reality is intolerable, that there is something inhuman about it?
Yes. But that’so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust, arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of cosmic justice, that’s terrible. It’s far more shocking than what happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in Palestine.
So what you are telling me is that you live the Palestinian Nakba of the past less than you live the possible Jewish Nakba of the future?
Yes. Destruction could be the end of this process. It could be the end of the Zionist experiment. And that’s what really depresses and scares me.
The title of the book you are now publishing in Hebrew is “Victims”. In the end, then, your argument is that of the two victims of this conflict, we are the bigger one.
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. (…) Everyone will understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late.
Uitgelichte foto : Haaretz – Credit: Yanai Yechiel