A Terrible Decision


By Jonathan Hoffman
February 3, 2010
Share

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/02/cambridge-university-israe...

Benny Morris has made some robust remarks about Palestinians, because he was worried by the Intifada, as most Israelis were. But the idea that he is "Islamophobic" is absurd. He has taught Jewish and Muslim students alike. He is concerned about terrorism but he is not, repeat not, "Islamophobic".

And I have sat through countless anti-Israel meetings at British Universities, many of which have crossed the boundary into antisemitism.

To revoke Morris' invitation was a terrible decision.

Cambridge University Israel Society invited him in the full knowledge of who he is, what he stands for and what he has said. I understand pressure was brought to bear on them by the Student Union. That was also wrong.

I have some knowledge of what has been happening at Cambridge as I spoke there last year, to a meeting organised by Cambridge Gaza Solidarity. It was well chaired, I was able to say what I wanted and was received politiely. In my book these things made it a success:

http://www.oyvagoy.com/2009/02/23/support-jonathan-hoffman/

COMMENTS

Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 19:45

Rate this:

0 points

Latest:

I am pleased to say that Benny Morris has been invited by Cambridge University to give a lecture on Friday morning, by the Department of Politics and International Studies.

http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 20:41

Rate this:

0 points

In other words, Hoffman, you it wrong. Again. And what's with this self-promotion?


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 20:44

Rate this:

0 points

The stupid troll who refuses to reveal his name and lies thinks situations do not change by the minute!


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 21:42

Rate this:

0 points

As usual, Mr Hoffman starts with the slurs. He probably looked before he leaped, and it's the only exercise he gets (an ad hom for an ad hom)


ibrows

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 21:44

Rate this:

0 points

Benny Morris has increasingly moved to the right since his 1988 publication of 'birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. He has argued more recently, that if Ben-Gurion had gone further in expelling Palestinians in 1948, then the Middle East would have subsequently been less violent in recent times. This is what Morris said in a Haaretz interview:

Interviewer: I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

Morris: "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 cleansed 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."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984

This is a racist argument advocating the ethnic cleansing of Arab/Palestinians in 1948 and legitimising it. If a 'mainstream' historian had used this same argument but replaced the word Arab, with Jews
there would rightly be outrage, so why is it allowed when it occurs to Palestinians? No-one could advocate Hitler did not go far enough (as this would be an outrageous statement), and keep their academic post, so why is this argument by Morris allowed. Jonathan you can say Morris is not 'Islamophobic' or whatever, but his argument is deeply racist and unacceptable and is in my book definately Islamophobic


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 22:22

Rate this:

0 points

"If he was engaged in expulsion..."

He wasn't.

Morris is a serious historian and an Israeli who has feared for his existence. In a 40 year career he is allowed the occasional comment in an interview which is offensive to some. That does not make him an "Islamophobe".

And there are University meetings every week which cross the border into antisemitism - look at Hajo Mayer last week at Goldsmiths comparing Israel with Nazis.

And those who invited Morris would have done their due diligence on who he was and what he said. They simply caved in to pressure.

Fortunately the academics in the Department of Politics and International Studies have some backbone.


ibrows

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 22:33

Rate this:

0 points

I will shortly find you some quotes from Birth of the Palestinian refugee Problem, again Jonathan, which as i will stress again, you will see, in this book Morris confirms that some expulsion occurred in 1948 such as the massacre in Deir Yassin.

So you dont think that advocating further ethnic cleansing is racist, or wrong, Benny Morris is essentially saying its ok for Palestinians to be expelled to create a Jewish state. Why is the persecution and ethnic cleansing of one community justifed in order to provide security and safety for another? I am not arguing the state of Israel is invalid or should not exist, merely that the rational behind its creation be extended to all people within the territory, Palestinians need security and protection, just as the Jewish people do. Can you not see this is crazy???


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 22:46

Rate this:

0 points

Hoffman plumbs new depths every time he accuses Holocaust survivors of anti-Semitism just because he disagrees with their views on Israel. Oh, and Ben-Gurion was engaged in ethnic cleansing, but according to Morris (once a self-hater, but now obviously one of your heroes since he went over to the "dark side") he just didn't do enough of it.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 22:55

Rate this:

0 points

Don't feed the trolls


ibrows

Wed, 02/03/2010 - 23:02

Rate this:

0 points

You can also see here Benny Morris advocating further ethnic cleansing (or involved in robust remarks, if your Jonathan) in an interview on Democracy Now, along with the brilliant Saree Makdisi. My internet is playing up but its either part 2 or part 3 of this Democracy Now - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBoAmylupHM&feature=related

Morris defends the ethnic cleansing on the grounds it was 'us' or 'them'. But fails to mention that the Palestinians opposed partition simply because they opposed the notion that the land they lived on was being given over to another state. Any nation would oppose losing half or more of their territory to create another state for another group of people.


amber

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 00:21

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzarfati, you seem to have a rather unhealthy obsession, and your ad hominem attacks are getting very boring. Please write something of substance, or nothing at all.


amber

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 00:25

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, that is revisionist nonsense. Consider this: One and a half million Arabs live in Israel as citizens, with rights guaranteed by law. What has become of the large Jewish populations that once lived in Arab lands? Baghdad, not so long ago, was a quarter Jewish - A QUARTER! Now not one Jew lives in the whole of Iraq. Similarly, look at Yemen, Syria, Egypt...no Jews, ibrows.

Who is the expert at ethnic cleansing?


Petra MB

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 01:29

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows wrote:
"Morris defends the ethnic cleansing on the grounds it was 'us' or 'them'."

ibrows, you might benefit from reading Prof. Muller's Foreign Affairs article "Us and Them" (free registration required: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63217/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them?... )

Muller makes the point that Europeans, esp. European liberals, tend to pride themselves on having "overcome" nationalism -- and, I would add, they like to preach to the rest of the world, and Israel in particular, that everyone should follow Europe's oh so progressive example. But, as Muller correctly highlights:

"a survey would show that whereas in 1900 there were many states in Europe without a single overwhelmingly dominant nationality, by 2007 there were only two, and one of those, Belgium, was close to breaking up. Aside from Switzerland, in other words -- where the domestic ethnic balance of power is protected by strict citizenship laws -- in Europe the "separatist project" has not so much vanished as triumphed.
Far from having been superannuated in 1945, in many respects ethnonationalism was at its apogee in the years immediately after World War II. European stability during the Cold War era was in fact due partly to the widespread fulfillment of the ethnonationalist project. And since the end of the Cold War, ethnonationalism has continued to reshape European borders.
In short, ethnonationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to reoccur elsewhere."

It is against the background of these historical facts that Morris's remarks should be seen. I'd also like to remind you that, beginning in late 1947, the Arab states began to systematically discriminate against their Jewish citizens, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of almost one million Jews from their ancient communities all over the Middle East. I'd say it worked pretty well for the Arabs -- or can you point me to any problems they are having due to this ethnic cleansing? And, BTW, that also enabled the Arabs to take over abandoned real estate property that would add up to about 3x the size of Israel in its 1967 borders.


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:05

Rate this:

0 points

these diversion tactics are attempts to fail to answer the simple question i posed. I have offered quotes from Morris where he advocated further ethnic cleansing than occurred in 1948 by stating the Middle East would less violent today, if more Palestinians had been expelled from Israel.

my point is, if this was a mainstream historian advocating that either the ethnic cleansing carried out by Bosnian Serbs in the 1990's should have gone further, or that Hilter should of gone further, he or she would have rightly been denounced as crazy and stripped of their academic status and all credibility. Whatever, context you see Morris comments in they are racist and encouraging discrimination against Palestinians. Petra you seem to imply the forcing out of Palestinians from Israel is ok, because some 'Arab' states discriminated against Jews? and because there is a rise in ethnic based states. What kind of crazy world are we living in, do you really think this can justify the continue efforts to expel Palestinians from their homes.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:09

Rate this:

0 points

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/

Well, well - the instigator of the ban on Benny Morris was none other than Ben White (hat tip: ModernityBlog, who spotted it on Facebook)

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/

That's the Ben White who said “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are” and who tried to contextualise comments of Ahmadinejad denoting a disbelief in the Holocaust.

That's the Ben White who wrote the book 'Israeli Apartheid' which is a farrago of lies and false quotations.............

http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/

Well well .... who'd have thunk it ....it's a small world ...


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:21

Rate this:

0 points

Petra

Shlomo Sand would i believe agree with your argument that nationalism was something constructed in many European states in the late 19th and early 20th Century. He also argues that Jewish nationalism was similarly constructed in order to create a linear genealogy for 'the Jewish people' to emphasis the groups distinct nature. where as according to Sand, this is not in fact the case and many converted to Judaism and others assimilated and integrated into many communities during the two thousand years of wondering in places such as Yemen, Morocco, Spain, Poland, and Russia.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:23

Rate this:

0 points

Shlomo Sand?

We really are in the realm of fantasy-land now


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:24

Rate this:

0 points

Your diversionary tactics are about as subtle as a rhinocerous on heat


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:26

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan, I was merely agreeing with Petra that nationalism is constructed.

you appear unable to address my criticism of Morris advocating further ethnic cleansing, and fail to see what is wrong with it


Petra MB

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:28

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, I see you haven't taken the time to check out the article by Prof. Muller. But since the topic apparently fascinates you so much, I'm sure you will...
I also see you continue to misrepresent what Benny Morris said, because essentially, he was saying: if the Israelis had behaved in 1948 like everyone else behaved back then -- including of course the Europeans, and we don't want to even think of what happened during the India/Pakistan partition -- then maybe there would have been no conflict afterwards.
Moreover, since you so much want a simplistic parallel -- as you imply with your repeated attempts to insinuate that what Morris said is somehow comparable to saying that Hitler should have gone further, let's consider this parallel: The Germans lost a war they started, as a result, about 12 million Germans were ethnically cleansed AFTER 1945, many of them from regions where they had lived for hundreds of years; and uncertain number died in the process, with estimates ranging up to 1 million dead. The numbers for the partition of India and Pakistan happen to be about the same magnitude.

The Arabs, with the enthusiastic support of the Arabs of Palestine, and with their cooperation, lost a war they started. By what was commonly practiced at the time, and thought acceptable at the time, the expulsion Morris considers would have been perfectly unremarkable, and in terms of the numbers involved, indeed negligible.

When the Arabs began to persecute their Jewish citizens, the UN was petitioned to prevent the ethnic cleansing in spring 1948. This request was ignored, and neither the UN nor the international community attempted any effective protest at the subsequent displacement of almost one million Jews, and no compensation or help was offered to them. Curiously, this seems to be of less interest to you than the musings of a historian who ponders what might have been different if something else than was done had been done.

Jonathan -- very interesting indeed about BW.


Petra MB

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:36

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, I saw your comment only now; apart from the fact that I can't see where I say that nationalism is "something constructed", this can of course be said for virtually any nationalism, and it can most definitely be said about Palestinian nationalism, because up to today, official Palestinian documents define the Palestinians as part of the "Arab nation" or the "Muslim nation" -- so it's kind of hard to see why for certain purposes they want to be considered a separate people. But that's up to them; however, you seem to believe that the Palestinians somehow qualified for self-determination, while the Jews didn't. But if you read up a bit on the question what criteria were considered relevant to qualify for self-determination at the time (i.e. first half of 20th century), it is quite clear that the Jews most definitely qualified, whereas the Palestinian Arabs didn't.


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:39

Rate this:

0 points

only on this blog would the expulsion and displacement of 700,000 Palestinians be considered alright as its 'what happened at the time'. How can 700,000 being removed from their homes be 'perfectly unremarkable, and in terms of the numbers involved, indeed negligible'.

You misrepresent my views, what i am saying is to advocate further ethnic cleansing occurring in 1948 as a 'solution' is surely 'Islamophobic', if someone advocated removing a community of Jews from somewhere this would be rightly considered antisemitic, so why is it acceptable to advocate ethnic cleansing as a 'solution' for the Palestinians.

Also, the India-Pakistan parallel is awful. India existed, the British colonised it and it was subsequently divided into two states, later three with Bangladesh in 1971. Israel was created on land where Palestinians lived already, so its not a good parallel Petra, no matter how much you blame the British for the partition, its Israel that continues today to occupy Palestinian land and territory


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 02:44

Rate this:

0 points

petra, can you give references to where these official Palestinian documents are, in which Palestinian wish to be part of the 'Arab world', do you really think they dont want their land back???

In terms of 'self-determination' you ignore the fact that Israel was not created as an exclusively Jewish state, why cant Israel offer equality to all its citizens and people, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever


Petra MB

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 03:05

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, there is no point in debating if you can't acknowledge reality, and in the context of the reality of the immediate post-WWII period and the era of decolonization, ethnic cleansing was commonplace -- that is a historic fact, of which Morris as a historian is of course perfectly aware. Also, you continue to willfully misrepresent what Morris said, and it makes little sense to debate what you imagine Morris might have really meant instead of what he really said.

You also make up your own criteria for self-determination, which may be fine for your private world, but when it comes to international politics and history, there were lots of specialists who thought about this issue and wrote books about it. This reality is also reflected in the language of the UN partition plan, which envisaged a Jewish state and an Arab state -- because nobody had yet heard of the Palestinians. The Palestinian "Declaration of Independence" from the late 1980s and the Palestinian constitution describe the Palestinian people as an inseparable part of the Arab and Muslim nation -- as you can verify with a bit of googling.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 07:52

Rate this:

0 points

http://heathlander.wordpress.com/

Another of the instigators (Jamie Stern-Weiner of Kings College) posts Norman Finkelstein videos on his blog


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 08:22

Rate this:

0 points

Hoffman, you need to remember this is thejc.com, not the ZF's website, Now, You can use the diversionary tactic of spewing hatred, or plumbing depths, or purveying sinat chinam for as long as you like. But I at least will keep on topic. And I notice that Ibrows, gold.sarah and the others with whom you disagree have also kept in topic.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 08:32

Rate this:

0 points

Amber, speaking of revisionism, let's talk about equal rights for Israeli Arabs. Their villages, towns and cities are underfunded compared to the Jews'. Their education system is poorly resourced compared to their Jewish counterparts'. They are denied jobs on the basis of ethnicity. They now face draconian legislation regarding "loyalty" and whether they can or cannot mark their Nakba. Despite being close to 25 per cent of the population, there are no Arab heads of Government ministries. There's only ever been one Arab government minister.
They may vote, but as they say in Hebrew: Lo sofrim otam. Their votes don't count.
Also, Baghdad may have been a quarter Jewish, but Iraq never claimed to be "the only democracy in the Middle East." Compare like with like.


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:34

Rate this:

0 points

petra
your arguments are awful. Your logic is that ethnic cleansing was common and acceptable after the war, so seen in this context it is ok. So does that make slavery alright in your book, as it was considered 'acceptable' at the time? Following your logic, it could also be argued then that the Nazi's ethnic cleansing was just due to the colonial context, and was simply a product of the time? Clearly to make these suggestions would be nonsense and their context cannot justify these actions.

This is a awful line of defence you use, in an attempt to defend and obscure such atrocities as Deir Yassin in which 107 Palestinians were killed. Petra do you really believe this ethnic cleansing is acceptable?

Also if the Palestinians were not recognised as existing until the 1980's, as you claim, what was the British Mandate for Palestine which began in 1917? the title is a clue, because Palestinians existed long before this. So maybe your the one who needs to check out, reality


Yvetta

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 14:16

Rate this:

0 points

Since Turkey ruled Palestine, Jews did not "steal" Palestine from the "Palestinians", as too many of Israel's detractors (not you, I hope, ibrows) assume. I believe the Arabs had no real notions of territorial sovereignty over the land until the 1930s, when certain clan heads began thinking in that direction. If I'm not mistaken, many of the present-day Palestinians descend from people who migrated from surrounding areas in the immediate pre-Mandate period to find work in Jewish-owned settlements.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 14:27

Rate this:

0 points

Wrong, Yvetta. The first instance of Palestinian nationhood was expressed in, gasp, the 1850s, when a Jaffo merchant started printing a pamphlet called "Filastinana" -- "Our Palestine".
That predates the first nationalistic awakenings of Zionism.


Harvey

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 15:09

Rate this:

0 points

It's back to Houmus and Tahina social events in future -that's if ISOC give their permission.


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 17:36

Rate this:

0 points

Yvetta

Moshe is right, your wrong Yvetta, your talking about the Ottoman empire i believe. The existence of an empire doesn't overide all Palestinian identity which already existed. Unless you similarly believe all Jewish identity was lost under the Babylonian, or Roman rule?

Your belief in the 'a land without a people, for a people without a land' myth is just that, a myth. Palestinians lived in Palestine during the Ottoman and British mandate, they did not begin migrating here from outside the territory. Census figures prove that there were more native Palestinians than Jews in this period. In 1856 it is estimated that of the 500,000 living in Palestine, 400,000 were Muslim, 60,000 Christian and 20,000 were Jews.


Yvetta

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 17:42

Rate this:

0 points

Out of interest, Moshe, was it a pamphlet or a periodical?
ibrows, for the record, I don't believe that the land was "empty".


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 17:46

Rate this:

0 points

It was a series of pamphlets.


ibrows

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 17:58

Rate this:

0 points

Yvetta, good i am glad.

various estimates exist for the number of Arab Palestinians in Palestine during the Ottoman period, these include in 1860 - 411,000, 1878 - 447,000 and the first British census of 1922 puts the figure at 660,641


amber

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 23:49

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzarfati, your views are typical of the complete departure from reality which characterizes most obsessive Israel bashers. Every instance of social injustice in Israel gets equated with the outright apartheid practised in the Arab and wider Islamic worlds. Try being a Copt in Egypt, Bahai in Iran, Jewish in Saudi Arabia - (not one Jew). Do you know Jordan denies you citizenship if you're Jewish - and that's supposed to be a "moderate" country.

Israeli Arabs have rights guaranteed by law. They have the vote. They have freedom of speech, which is often used to castigate Israel from the podium of the Knesset. They have access to an independent judiciary, and a free press, as you well know. There is simply no equivalent in the Arab world. And your equating the plight of Iraq's Jews, who have ceased to exist as a community at all, with the growing Arab population in Israel (a very strange ethnic cleansing, that), is grotesque.

Grow up.


amber

Thu, 02/04/2010 - 23:54

Rate this:

0 points

Another point - Palestinian nationalism grew as a result of Zionism. It has no roots, and was invented in 1964 - but only as a mean of delegitimizing the Jewish state..


zachary esterson

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 01:05

Rate this:

0 points

'This is a racist argument advocating the ethnic cleansing of Arab/Palestinians in 1948 and legitimising it. If a 'mainstream' historian had used this same argument but replaced the word Arab, with Jews'

Jews didn't threaten to eliminate or dispossess Germans, to destroy the German state, or that Germany was really Judea; never mind blow themselves up in Berlin cafes.

Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians did threaten to dispossess or eliminate Palestinan Jews.

Morris is saying that had Palestinan and Israeli Jews done to Palestinian Muslims and Christians as they intended to Palestinian Jews, they would have made less long term trouble for themselves.

I do not see how it is an essentially racist argument.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 08:15

Rate this:

0 points

Amber, compare like with like. Israel claims it is a Western liberal democracy, then compare it with other Western liberal democracies. In Western liberal democracies, people are not discriminated against because of their ethnicity, at least not be the authorities.
In Western liberal democracies, ruling parties do not seek to introduce laws about loyalty or the marking of national holidays/memorials.


Yvetta

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:21

Rate this:

0 points

A pamphlet series, eh, Moshe? Did it say anything about Jews?


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:04

Rate this:

0 points

Funnily enough, Yvetta, yes, despite the fact that there were not very many Jews there at the time. But it did say that all ethnicities and religions -- Muslims, Christians and Jews -- would enjoy equal rights. Basically, the pamphleteers were very influenced by French emancipation ideas.


amber

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 12:52

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzerfati, why compare like with like? This is a rather convenient way of ignoring centuries of apartheid suffered by Jews in Arab and Islamic nations. As you know full well, Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East - not one other country even comes close. Yet you save all your vitriol for the Jewish state.

Why, I wonder?


amber

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 12:54

Rate this:

0 points

Furthermore, moshetzerfati, can you explain why there were no calls for an independent Palestinian state when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and Egypt occupied Gaza in the years 1948-67?

Palestinian nationalism is all about delegitimizing Israel, nothing more.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 13:27

Rate this:

0 points

Why compare like with like, Amber? Because you wouldn't compare an orange with a rain of rice, would you? It's not a "convenient way of ignoring centuries of apartheid suffered by Jews in Arab and Islamic nations". It is a convenient way of comparing Israel, a country which declares itself to be a Western liberal democracy. with other western liberal democracies. If, however, you want Israel to be like its neighbours, then that's different.
Why do I criticise Israel? Because I can and, more importantly, it claims to be the state of the Jewish people (at least that's what Netanyahu wants the Palestinians to recognise) and as such it does things in our name which I don't like.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 13:29

Rate this:

0 points

I hate repeating myself, Amber, but it was John Maynard Keynes who said that when the situation changed, he changed his mind. The situation has changed since 1948-67. Palestinian nationalism is all about setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Nothing more.


Yvetta

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 15:47

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks, Moshe. Very interesting.


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 17:20

Rate this:

0 points

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/1956

Benny Morris' own verdict:

Morris also criticised the Israel Society for caving to pressure and cancelling the talk. He said, “I think the Israel Society’s bowing to Muslim-Arab pressures to cancel the lecture was a terrible mistake, evidence of weakness and a bad precedent.”

HT: Zachary


amber

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 19:16

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzerfati, don't kid yourself. Every Palestinian nationalist group is committed to destroying Israel, and Hamas is committed to the extermination of every living Jew. The Palestinian nationalist movement has no roots, and simply wouldn't have existed without Zionism.

Your "like for like" analogy is ridiculous. You are indeed comparing apples and oranges, because no other Western liberal democracy has found itself in the same situation as Israel - i.e. surrounded by a numerically superior enemy which wants to commit genocide against its inhabitants. Put Sweden in a similar situation and see how liberal they are after a century of facing this obsessive and maniacal hatred.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Fri, 02/05/2010 - 20:14

Rate this:

0 points

Amber, by the same token, every far right Israeli group is committed to ethnically cleansing the country of Arabs. As for Hamas, they are far more pragmatic than you think. The Palestinian nationalist movements' roots in the region are far stronger than those of Zionism, which after all is a construct of 19th-century European romantic nationalism.
Sorry, but if Israel claims it is a western liberal democracy -- and that's debatable because of the way it treats its minorities and now those Jews it doesn't like - then it has to be compared to others.


amber

Sat, 02/06/2010 - 01:16

Rate this:

0 points

Oh, please...How is it then that the Arab population of Israel continues to grow rapidly, whilst the Jewish populations of the Arab world have all but disappeared.

You live in a hateful fantasy, not in reality.

Of course, my point about "like for like" was completely lost on you...keep repeating the hateful mantras, maybe someone oneday will believe you.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS