Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
I was referring to Henry Siegman the originator of the comments. Here is the entire interview, perhaps you can tell me where he takes Morris out of context.
|
If you actually read through Morris's books, he spends a lot of time detailing acts committed by both sides. He's one of the "new historians" that look at the issues in shades of grey, as opposed to one side being right or wrong.
This is particularly true of the 1949 war, where you had a total breakdown of law and order and gangs of militias running wild on both sides. However, it's very easy to just read portions of Morris' works (as he outlines atrocities committed by both sides) and conclude that the conflict was the result of just one side. So, while pointing out Jewish/Israeli atrocities and aggression, unless you include the portions where Morris refers to Arab atrocities and aggression, you would be taking Morris out of context. Morris has also revised several of his opinions through the years. Once again, it's very easy to refer to or cherry pick quotes out of his earlier works, without acknowledging that his opinions have changed.
For example, he blames the failure of peace process on Israeli leaders who are not committed to giving up land. But then he also blames it on Palestinians and states they have a deep seeded hatred of Israelis and will never accept a Jewish state. He stated that suicide bombing express the "deep will" of the Palestinian people as a whole and that the Palestinian people need to be physically contained and potentially removed in the future.
Quote:
|
If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. 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....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. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.[5]
|
Hardly the words of someone as critical of Israel as you state, but it's easy to just cherry pick his passages and present them out of context.
I'm also not sure what the purpose of you pointing out this video was. I was responding to the argument that speech against Israel was limited. You then show me a video openly discussing the issues...thanks I guess?