Benny Morris is the person I trust most to explain the past in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He’s fact based, balanced and so is likely disliked by both sides. What a shame. This learned man can teach us so much.
Same. He is clearly Zionist leaning, but is a careful scholar and doesn't let his side off the hook. I really liked his point in this lecture about generals not really caring about the expulsions because they were in an existential war.
Lol. Took me 13 minutes to decide this guy is some nasty zionist. He says jews didn't occupy Palestine before 1947 by arms... And then mentions, almost fading, that the british military, *only* the most powerful in the world, was backing them. Hahaha.
I admire him so much - he’s a true historian and his dispassionate approach is a gift to academia. The everything-is-political culture of subsequent generations will lose the science of history.
is that what you hear? this is all dripping w pro israel nonsense, every framing is not "just facts". it is "well, Israel didnt invade, they had to bc UK was leaving ... so i mean they did, but then they left voluntarily ...when the "hamr blows fell" it is crazy. you have to sift for the facts. _JC
@@jchan9761that conversation clearly demonstrated finklestein as the propagandist. He cited benny morris' work selectively to form a narrative. Palestinians, not just hamas, have always maintained they can't tolerate a Jewish state. This is borne out by history. Benny morris says as much and everybody calls him a propagandist. The reason why he gives more of the thoughts behind israeli actors is because there's more records left by them of their thinking. Same is not true of the arabs and only their large scale rhetoric and actions are available. That does not reflect the arabs as people who respected the jews rights to life, let alone a country.
They are, indeed, refugees! Would they be in the West or other countries if they weren't forcefully removed?! You seem to misunderstand what really happened and why it matters: massacres and expulsions established the state. Morris was once siding w/ them, before he joined the supremist, vile onslaught of his people. This comment makes no sense. The natives in the U.S. were compensated, get priorities in jobs, etc. b/c they were removed, and this is is an injustice!! They will should-and will-return to their homes-b/c the good people of the world will work to make it happen.
Were you granted citizenship in another country? Were you given perks, salaries, etc. Last I checked there were millions of Palestinians coming in waves-this is unprecedented for any tragedy. Every year people are being kicked out of the West Bank. Is this still happening in Ukraine? Are there 20 million Ukrainians there were forcibly evicted through massacres and explusions? Also, many Ukranians have returned post-war, is this the case w/ Palestinians?
@@LanceAlot-ku1sythe minority of Palestinian Arabs living in refugee camps do so because UNRWA never tried to find a solution. The heritability of the status and the preservation of the status regardless of other citizenships etc created a sort of perennial refugee (which gave way to a new national identity in the 60s, the "Palestinians" in the modern sense).
Benny Morris is historian who painfully looks at facts and real events. He does not place blame on anyone, as it is not the historian´s mission to do so, but rather explores the reality of events. Very different from other historian-activists who seek to blame only Israel for all the problems in the Middle East.
Nonsense. He's an Israeli court historian and a classic cherry picker who decided to turn his back on his own work in order to carve out a career in the halls of officialdom. His description of Palestinian society is laughable. He elides the fact that the Brits trained the Jewish militias and left them their weapons. His timeline is demonstrably false. But, it sounds good to people who want to hear a fairytale. He's ridiculous.
Elizabeth Ferrari benny morris's work is used by all, including those like Flinklestein and Chomsky, who heavily criticize Israel. You appear to be a troll as everything youve said has no weight whatsoever.
Actually, I haven't listened to him in a long time and I forgot how awful he was. Yes, he is an Israeli court historian. That doesn't make him a good historian. Finkelstein and Chomsky use him in that context. So, to answer your question, I suppose I am trolling but that was just collateral to refreshing my memory on this hack. Have a nice night.
Elizabeth Ferrari so because morris is peer reviewed that makes his work a false fabrcation? His works went against the main stream israeli narrative. Can you list some examples of his cherry picking? And some historians that you would consider "good historians." Pappe? Said? Id be interested to know. Sweet dreams to you too.
I've recently read the 'revisited' edition of Benny Morris' book from cover to cover and though exhausting and very sad to read, I think he did a great job of documenting the reality of the countless crimes committed by the Hagannah, IZL and LHI on the often poorly educated and relatively powerless bulk of the Palestinian population. Strangely, he's more muted about these crimes in this talk and is in my opinion, disingenuous in claiming that because there is no written record of a deliberate policy of expulsion, one cannot claim that there was one. His book makes quite clear that most (Israeli) military commanders and the soldiers under their command had no qualms about expelling Palestinians wherever they found them and by whatever means, including terrorising civilians by the use of and threat of summary execution, murder, rape and wholesale theft to achieve that end. An official policy? No. The actual policy of the people in control of events? Absolutely.
Ilan Pappé is a much better historian on this. Though he makes mistakes too - probably goes too far arguing that Herzl had expulsionary views, or that all types of Zionism were by definition colonialist. But otherwise I think he’s a more exact interpreter of the documents made public in 1978.
Irgun and Haganah are on record though for making up atrocities and saying it was done by the other group. This is because Jewish ethics rejects genociders. Does Morris acknowledge that they did this? In general, the Jews were fighting of British/Arab/nazi collusion and attempt to exterminate the Jews of palestine. The former also has much control over subsequent propaganda.
In the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm (prime minister of Syria 1948-1949) he wrote: "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes, when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them."
Wrote an article on this, the Arabs screamed at me how much of a liar I was, yet for some odd reason, when I show the actual testimony, the video of Abbas openly admitting this, the Arabs are at a loss for words. I find facts seem to offend them. news.0censor.com/did-israel-really-ethnically-cleans-the-palestinians/
@@timothybenton315 Thanks for the link! By the way, two links for testimonies by 'Palestinian' refugees from the time, confessing it was the Pan-Arabists themselves who told them to leave their homes cause, according to them, it would be just for a very short time, as they hoped to 'throw the Jews back into the sea', in their arrogant words. Refugee - Arab states told Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 war ruclips.net/video/FuGqpFxogRg/видео.html Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War ruclips.net/video/9iR5nDFhBL0/видео.html
@@timothybenton315 Ok, thanks for telling me in advance, I will check it later on today (I defend several causes on my web activism and many times I've got articles, vids and even books in line amid other ongoing readings, etc). I just wanted to share these two links as they are testimonies by eyewitnesses themselves and, in case you are also a proud Zionist too, to share it as often as possible. I will share your link as well, for sure, thanks again and greetings from Brazil!
Official Israeli intelligence from the time diagrees *”To summarize the previous sections, one could, therefore, say that the impact of "Jewish military action" (Haganah and Dissidents) on the migration was decisive, as some 70% of the residents left their communities and migrated as a result of these actions.* furthermore, on Palestinians being evacuated on Arab orders, it states *“compared to other factors, this element did not have decisive weight, and its impact amounts to some 5% of all villages having been evacuated for this reason.”* It lists “Hostile Jewish Military Action” as the leading cause of migration. www.akevot.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1948ISReport-Eng.pdf
The guy strictly sticks to the facts he knows. Nothing can rattle him. I read a lot about this issue and he has the best summary I have ever heard or read.
JUDEA (JUDE יהודי) ָ& Samaria teamed with Israeli, Jewish & Zionist indigenous inhabitants around 2900 years before Islam was invented (No ‘West Bank’ need apply…) Archeological artifacts & findings satisfy world class archeologists but not Antisemitic, pro genocide & Selective Justice sycophants… The Dead Sea Scrolls (archeology’s most telling findings in recorded history) on permanent display in the museum in Jewish biblical Jerusalem Jewish king of JUDEA, Herod I (72 - 4 or 1 BCE), known for his colossal real estate projects throughout JEWISH JUDEA such as: The Jewish 2nd Temple in Jewish Jerusalem Expansion of Temple Mount around the Cave of the Patriarchs in JEWISH HEBRON MASADA World renown mountainous fortress where besieged Jews escaped to in order to stave of Roman intention to exile them to Rome. Vital details recorded in the works of 1st century CE historian Josephus (readily available for debunking your maliciously anti Jewish & misleading shameless propaganda) Al-Aqsa Mosque (The Golden Dome) is nestled right on top of the 2nd Jewish Temple ruins (due to a troubling deficit in all things: Available & reasonably priced commercial real estate in the vicinity. Nothing to do with taking a dump on Jewish spiritual & national sensitivities…)
MARK TWAIN VISITED PALESTINE IN 1867 PT-1: He was fed up with the primitiveness of the settlements & roads that he encountered: “The further we went the hotter the sun got, more rocky, bare, repulsive & dreary the landscape became…Hardly a tree or a shrub. Even the olive & cactus, those fast friends of worthless soil, deserted the country. Palestine is desolate & unlovely. Lanky, dyspeptic-looking body-snatchers, with indescribable hats & long curl dangling down in front of each ear (Jews)…Tiberias a metropolis of Jews in Palestine. One of the 4 holy cities of the Israelites As Mecca is to the Mohammedan. The abiding place of many learned & famous Jewish rabbis.The great Rabbi Ben Israel spent 3 years here in the 3 rd century”.
MARK TWAIN VISITED PALESTINE IN 1867 PT-2: “Grass ought to be sparkling with dew, flowers enriching the air with fragrance & birds singing in the trees. But alas, no dew nor flowers birds or trees. There is a plain & an unshaded lake. Beyond them barren mountains. The tents are tumbling. Arabs are quarreling like dogs & cats, as usual We traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but given over to weeds - a silent, mournful expanse. We saw only 3 persons - Arabs, with nothing on but long coarse shirts. Part of the ground, not ground at all, but rocks - cream-colored rocks. No tree or a shrub to interrupt the view, No timber in Palestine - none for fire & not for mines of coal. Not a soul visible. Our horses’ hoofs roused the stupid population that came trooping out - old folks, kids, the blind, crazy & crippled. All in ragged, soiled & scanty raiment, & all abject beggars by nature, instinct & education. Vermin-tortured vagabonds begged for charity!. Jews & Arabs. Squalor & poverty.
- ISRAEL - The size of New Jersey - ‘47-UN recognized Israel. AS SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. Land divided between Jews & Arabs. 7 Arab armies invaded & lost. No West Bank - THE JEWISH NAQBA- 800,000 shell shocked Jews forced to flee Arab homelands over night. Leaving money, homes, properties, businesses, mistresses, clothes & personal possessions, sexual peccadilloes. The whole nine yards… - The term ‘Palestinians’ created in ‘64 (formation of P.L.O). - 1967 -5 Arab armies prepared a genocidal invasion into microscopic Israel (1/2 size of New Jersey at the time!). They lost. Tough luck…From now on, Israel occupies the West Bank
Microscopic Israel - The size of New Jersey The Palestinians elected the terror group Hamas to govern & represent them in Gaza At several locations the distance between THE Mediterranean Sea & the West Bank is approx 20 kilometers Hamas’ radically religiously indoctrinated ’Soldiers of Allah’ can target passenger jets landing & taking of from Israeli only International Ben Gurion airport at will. Nice… 3 Israeli prime ministers offered the Palestinian Authority %97 of the West Bank & East Jerusalem as capitol. They flatly refused. Even to negotiate.
For what? A deliberate or otherwise misinterpretation of the facts?...I suggest you do some additional reading or better yet, speak to a Palestinian not listen to a former IDF member.
@@abayomimanrique3701 Avi Schlaim is a former IDF soldier. Anybody who lived in Israel, during the war years, served. It makes no sense what you said. You cannot generalize.
Israeli Efraim Karsh, professor of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes that Morris engages in what Karsh calls "five types of distortion". According to Karsh, Morris "misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents... [he] tells of statements never made, decisions never taken, events that never happened ... at times [he] does not even take the trouble to provide evidence.....
Is that why he was one of a dozen new historians who all agreed on what happened, and then he feared losing his job or stepping aside, as they did, and he started convoluting information? Various historians have asked him to debate, but he flatly refuses.
the man at 1:25:00 makes a fantastic point! just like all the arab jews who were erased from history due to palestinian racism against jewish people during jewish immigration back to their homeland. but also, the nazi's do have photo evidence of what they did, written evidence of what they did, etc. we DO use german historical archives to learn what the germans did to the jewish people.
if only we had access to more than like 3% of the archives that cover the historical period Benny is talking about. I wonder why those records are difficult to access? I remember reading about how the IDF has always targeted Palestinian Archives & Libraries / Records in order to destroy cultural memory and weaken the historical roots of Palestinian society.
They had them in Israel but covered them up and hid them. Watch the documentary Tantura. You will get a clear picture what happened by testimonies of IDF and documents,. and how they went about creating an Israeli state. The truth was erased and the narrative has been rewritten to cover up atrocities done to Palestinians. But would love archives before that.
@@anon_researcher Problem is that much of the Arab records were Jordanian held. the Arab Palestinian record keeping wasn’t very methodical and robust unfortunately.
@@haroonrashid5090 Schlaim isnt bad although his claim the Jews didnt face antisemitism until the 40's is utterly deluded. Pappe is a bit slap dash whose lack of sources undermine his work but Finklestein is completely on the fringe, over emotional and simply cant take being challenged, he will scream and walk out of debates. He is in no way reliable and has no standing in academic circles due to his fringe views, he is just viewed as Chomskys pet and has been for some time, Morris is the most clear eyed and empirical and always brings reciepts.He is the only one to criticize both sides.He is also the only one who is an actual trained professor of history. F and P are political scientists and S is an economist, they view the conflict through different lenses.
@@endlessnameless6628 Pappe's research is the most and best sorted work out of all of them. Morris' opinion have moved from the center left to center right in the last 15 years and have simply moved with the Israeli society while the underlying facts have not changed. Which for me means he is motivated by a bias.
I have about 2 minor points that I have learned recently that Mr Morris either played down or were not a part of this point. One was to that girl ranting about perpetuating islamophobia. Mr Morris mentioned anti-semitic remarks about Jews, such as that Allah turned Jews into pigs, monkeys, and I read a verse about Moh inspecting lizard toes to check if the lizard was a Jew. He didn't mention the Gharqad Tree verse in the Hadiths that explicitly describes annihilation of Jews in which Nature participates too help the Arabs kill. Moh also says that Allah will withhold Judgment Day and Salvation for obedient Muslims until all Jews are killed (or crushed forever). This quote which is well confirmed as authentic was centuries before any Zionist Occupation. What DID happen is that the tribe at Khayber, which was either Hebrew or is considered to be Jews by today's Muslims, is a group refused to accept Moh as THE final Prophet and to become Slaves of Allah, so Mohammed had the men beheaded, one tortured with a fire built upon his chest. Moh took or married (raped) the wife of one of the leaders on the spot, moments after killing her husband and I think her children too. The women and children were kept as slaves or sold or traded. Except for the slavery part, 10/7 seems to be the same as the ancient Khayber massacre. Killing, mass brutal violent gang rape to the point of breaking bones, torture, hostages are similar to slaves. The second is that the British Mandate was utilized initially to create an *Arab* state on 3/4 of the Levant east of the River. Next, the Transjordan memorandum was submitted to _exclude_ this huge region from consideration with regards to the Jewish homeland. This results in the map today narrowed to arguments about whether the half and half split of Palestine west of the River was justified or unfair or stealing land. The perpetually "homeless" population of Palestinians were actually gifted more than 85% of the total land, when Jordan is considered. It's seldom understood that PRIOR to 1916, Arabs of Palestine were living under a somewhat brutal 400 years occupation by the Turkish caliphate, which the British helped abolish.
@@gg_riderJordan was never part of the plans of Palestine which indeed should have been independent like all the other countries under the Ottoman Empire. It was not the British who helped the Palestinians defeat the Ottomans, but vice versa change of independence. The promise of independence of the Arab countries under the command of the leader of Mecca was betrayed by the Sykes-Picot agreements and the declaration of Bealfur, Jordan (already since 1922) together with Iraq will be the sop for the children of the emir of Mecca . Before the UN Partition Plan, as also sanctioned by the 1939 White Paper, the birth of a Jewish state was never guaranteed, but of a home, therefore just as the English did not grant promises of sovereignty over Palestine, they certainly did not do so over Jordan.
@@gg_rider you must consult a psychiatrist quickly, you are suffering from a delusion of a psychopath. There is nothing you write in the Quran. Why do you use many lies? Today, everything is verified. you don't know that?
One problem. From 1948 until 1964, there were no "Palestinian" refugees. There were only Arab refugees, which the Arabs never stopped reminding the world. The phrase "Arab Refugee Crisis" rang and rang for years and years. I remember this because I came of age during that time. The phrase "Arab Refugee Crisis" was incessant and never ending. No one ever, repeat ever, heard the word "Palestinian". That is, until 1964 when all of a sudden that word replaced the word "Arab." And not just "Palestinian" but indigenous "Palestinian". Go back thirty years, during the British Mandate for Palestine, when all of the Jews were happily calling themselves and their institutions Palestinian, and the Arabs were bitterly complaining before the Peel Commission of 1936 that they despised the word "Palestinian" because it was "alien to the Arabs" and had nothing to do with them, since they considered that name to be associated solely with the hated Jews. This is all public record.
Its so relieving to see people state factual records of history like this. Thank you No one claims there aren't crises with the Palestinians I do however contest that it is solely due to the creation of Israel.
in fact you should take what westerners say with a grai nof salt and can generally believe the words of an arab based on their honor system. Especially in that time. This is one of the major issues Arabs had doing diplomacy with supremacist empires and colonial powers.@@melange78
@@melange78 Nope. It means exactly what it means, they either didn't make records or aren't making them available. He in no way said take arabs with a grain of salt. How did you get this?
Nobody ever talks about the Jordanians ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Jordanians destroyed over 35 ancient synagogues and Jewish historical sites, as well as the destruction of the Mount of Olives cemetery.
that sounds awful, I don't like undemocratic countries like Jordan. Oh also, no one ever talks about the active ethnic cleansing happening in East Jerusalem of Armenian Christian or Palestinian Muslim communities and historic/religious sites. The city, if the current government maintains present policy, will be monotheistic, when for centuries different faiths have shared it. A sad result of messianic zionism & settler violence.
The question time is so accusatory and full of 1/2 truths. The questioners are so blinded. Benny is not a politician, he’s was involved in the 1948 war. It’s history not misplaced emotions.
"Balanced"---you mean he pretends there is some legitimacy to "settlers" from Warsaw and Brooklyn showing up in Palestine for "free land." There is NONE. Armed "settlers" are simply the cutting edge of Israel's land-theft agenda, and Israel itself calls them "the internal army" for doing so.
According to Dr Ilan Pappe' , Professor Emeritus Exeter who is a jew, said with the expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-1949 there was bloodshed; Palestinians were injured, killed. This was after Zionist thugs bulldozed Palestinian homes and stole their worldy possessions. During the expulsion Zionist officials said to those leaving "if you leave you cannot come back. Shortly after the expulsions international media asked Israeli officials about the expulsions. Israeli officials said "we asked them to stay but they chose to leave." Leading up to the 1947, armed Jewish militia groups continually harassed, attacked an unarmed civilian population, the Palestinians. Zionist thugs , in order to hasten the expulsions Zionist Thugs poisoned the aquafers with Typhus. The wet lands were drained and water ways were diverted. Zionism is a brutal , racist ideology. Its also a Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide.
He's very professional at what he does. The main limitation is that he doesn't speak or read Arabic (and even if he did, there is a written resources problem). His main contribution in terms of the Israeli society are:1) acknowledging there were forced expulsions 2) acknowledging that the idea that Palestinians ran away because arab leaders told them to leave is generally a myth. If only most Israelis knew these 2 findings, it would already be an improvement.
@metsfan92286 That's an interesting perspective and it's new to me. Thanks! That explains for me a bit more why 48' arabs are often called "traitors" by some arabs, while from my perspective it always seemed like holding on to the land could be seen as patriotic or brave ('Tzumud'). I wonder how strict this distinction is and whether it's always possible to choose where to run in those situations. I'm not sure (I would say it's even not likely) that Palestinian refugees could choose to run west. I'm not aware of any example of "running west" in 1948. The ones who stayed (150,000 people), stayed. Either because they had prior agreements with the IDF or because of the decision of IDF commanders in the field.
Fair enough, but as for 1) and 2) these contributions are by no means original or unique to him. Other prominent historians have also made these points, including Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, Palestinian American historian Rashid Khalidi, and the British Jewish historian (RIP) Tony Judt.
I take great offence at him referring to the Palestinian population as Arab's all the time as though they were not the rightful owners of the land of palestin
You know it doesn’t work like that, first of all facts can’t be biased , opinions are and when you say facts are distorted you need to explain m , we already know that all antisemitists don’t like those facts
@@personofcolour6564 you know this is not how it works, we already know that antisemites think so, you need to explain how these facts are distorted. Facts can't be biased though, opinions can be, and it seems like you're expressing an opinion.
So grateful for his honest and straightforward research. In an era of so many distortions leading to tragic results, Benny is always a breath of fresh air and nuanced thinking.
What does that mean that you’re a Jewish anti Zionist? Do you believe the Jewish people have no right to have self sovereignty (whether in Palestine or some remote pacific island or wherever)? Just curious?
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 Which “land”? I presume you referring to the specific houses and plots of land that were owned by Arabs that fled/forced out of Israel during the 1948 war, right? If so, in theory you are right. But that is an issue inherent in all conflicts over the past many hundreds of years. There are millions of people who lost their homes as a result of conflict - Germans, Poles, Syrians, Pakistanis, Indians and of course hundreds of thousands of middle eastern Jews who had their homes “stolen” after 1948. All those people should have restitution to some extent. But that’s really complex. But for some reason this rhetoric of “stolen land” is uttered only in the context of Israel and 1948….
Deir Yassin is such an interesting event. I have noticed that the pro-Palestine side uses that example over and over as proof of an extermination plan by the Jews. Often the phrase sounds like this: "Deir Yassin and others...". But other than that one example, where Irgun lost its shit and committed war crimes there are no other examples whatsoever. This is in contrast to Arab perpetrated massacres between 1920-1947 which were designed to go after civilians as a form of terror. Not to downplay what happened in that village on that fateful day, but it sure feels like its used as the poster boy to advance a narrative.
If you are truly interested in learning about other attrocities like Deir Yassin‚ watch Tanrura or read Ilan Pappe's book on Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
@@armanrashid1010 Unfortunately Ilan has been so thoroughly criticized for his shoddy work and bias, that I do not believe he provides an objective viewpoint.
@@rkd80 criticized by the likes of Benny Morris for sure and they don't have a biased agenda!! Opportunistically or conveniently ignoring "oral history" speaks volumes!!
@@IbnTufayl1 I just want to clarify that Khalidi is a very nice man who thinks life is unfair and is unable to come up with any practical solutions to anything. He's not against the Jews.
This is enormously important. It’s unbelievable that a major American university actually holds up the PLO’s marketing guy as any kind of academic. There are real Arab scholars, he isn’t one of them.
@@LauranHazan It is fine that Khalidi is at Columbia. The whole point of the university is to have a free exchange of ideas, and he does very eloquently explain the Palestinian perspective. The problem, however, is that there is no one there who does as good a job explaining the Israeli side. Much of what Khalidi says would not stand up to a fact check, but it is important to have him there speaking it so students can learn what that side is. He's a nice, well meaning man with a very particular world view, and who also engages in some sloppy historical analysis. If only Columbia could hire Benny Morris..
1970 Black September. I remember it well. The Palestinian "refugees" were taken in on humanitarian basis and shown kindness. What did the Palestinians do in return? They formed street gangs and robbed Jordanians and caused much infighting. Jordanians asked for the Palestinians to be removed but a member of the Kings family asked that they stay and they'll be OK. A few months later one of the larger gangs attempted a coup and planned to assassinate the king. The Palestinians thought that the Jordanians were a soft touch, "not Arab minded enough" and that they were not sharing enough money, so that gave the refugees grounds to rob and plunder. It was a mess.
why are myths that Palestinians are inherently violent, duplicitous and deceitful so unbelievably common? They are often blamed for their own dispossesion! I've read numerous fact sheets from fervently pro-Israel, zionist websites on how to talk about subjects like refugees and the Nakba, and they essentially dismiss history that even Benny (!), no leftist himself, is quite clear about. Shown kindness? Like if thats how you would describe the experience of Palestinians post '48, that they were shown kindness in Jordan, or by Israel, or by the UN, you truly have a warped vision of what this people has experienced. Also I'd just note you inflate the actions of individuals to describe the entire refugee population, reducing the humanity of millions of people. I would never want to see someone blaming the worst crimes of messianic settlers or the soldiers who violently ethnically cleansed villages in '48 ascribed to all Jews, or more specifically, to all Israelis. That would be blatant anti-semitism. But we readily accept and frequently repeat such claims when discussing Palestinians. weird
Go read about the Salvadorian Civil War, the Cambodian War, settler colonialsm in Algeria, etc. Is the aftermath of such events not one of pain and disarray? A people were plundered and removed from their homes of millenia, and you're here saying what exactly? Also, this comment is inaccurate b/c throughout the Muslim world the rulers don't represent the people (look up why), and those against them were those of the rulers. All across the Muslim world, what are they saying in protests? What are they saying in protests in Jordan now? Why was there a crackdown on protestors? What happened in the Lebanese Civil War w/ the Palestinians? Here's your answer: the people are with them and want to help them get their land and homes back. And this is all 2 Billion Muslims, everywhere. They will side with them over their government. This is why rulers don't want them: its a front to their corrupt leadership, and a call for Muslim unity. And btw you need to look up more abt the king in Jordan, and how many ppl are in prison b/c they tried to overthrow or contest what's happening. Look this all up. Read Pity Thy Nation by Robert Fisk and the Lebanese Civil War: go see what Muslims were saying/doing, and how they opposed the ruling class.
One thing that strikes me about the way Benny Morris talks is his gentleness and, I would say, kind-heartedness. This is in stark contrast to the seething resentment and anger that exudes from N. Finkelstein’s every word.
In case you did not notice B.Morris side expelled, segregated, attempted to subdue to capitulation and now genocides the other side. If you want kindness you can listen to the Illan Pappe version of B.Morris's 'atmosphere of transfer! 😂
It was an attack not a question on her part. Civilian expulsion is common in most every war. Reparation never works, it just can't be justly administered.
36:21 I am a very cautious Jewish person who prefers to listen to multiple facets of discussion even though I may think initially I will disagree. However, and I will finish this lecture, this feels like a discussion had regarding the dispersion of the indigenous North Americans peoples. I’m making this note for myself.
[8:24] As it relates to Palestinians who were displaced from their homes in 1947-49, but landed elsewhere in the same state, what is the practical (ie, non-legal) significance and/or implication of remaining in the same state on their status as refugees?
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are not considered refugees. In practice, the Palestinian Arabs displaced from their homes who ended up in Israel became the Israeli Arabs.
@@joaopedrolang semantics would say that a person displaced from their home but remaining in their state is not a refugee, however, intellectual honesty would say that a person without a home and in a state that wishes for them to be further removed and dispossessed of land and dignity is a refugee.
Based on the definition of refugee, combined with the fact that there was no Palestinian country makes the term 'Palestinian Refugee' a complete and utter contradiction in terms.
@@rkd80 from the beginning Palestinians were always called refugees. And just because someone doesn’t recognize that a land is yours because they want it for their own agenda does not mean it isn’t your country. In the early days of Zionism the people scouting Palestine for a Jewish state they literally said, “the bride is beautiful but she is already taken.” Early Zionist also were intellectually honest enough to know that their state was to come at the expense and displacement of the Palestinians. Refugees, displaced people, whatever you want to call them - if you are intellectually honest in this history, you will have to say the last 120 plus years of the Palestinians is an atrocity of humanity and a serious abdication of morality.
Written history can be doctored too. You said many Muslim Palestinians were illerate therefore their oral accounts are important. Just because you are conditioned to a certain mindset, lifestyle and education style does not negate the importance of other cultures oral history. Remember many religious text we have down to this day initially relied on oral accounts before a written text was physically produced. How were they taylored.
He explains why oral history is problematic and you should listen to that part again. Oral history, especially passed down through generations, will be useless. How do you gauge it's trustworthiness? Documents written at the time, for other purposes, will be truthful in the small piece of the puzzle that they paint. You always have to put it in context still of the person writing and their motivations at the time, but oftentimes, most often, there is zero reason for them to lie. They couldn't have known about the historical significance of what they wrote. It could just be some mundane military report written to their commanders, or some official counting sheep, or whatever. The incredible amount of documents which Benny Morris must have read to reach his conclusions is astounding and by basing it on referenced sources you can fact-check him yourself and gauge his credibility as a historian and researcher. There are certainly historical records in arab archives, which he mentions, but in general arab powers refuse to let them be studied. You can't fall back to a useless source to make up for that. At the end of the day, there can only be one truth. If you go in without an agenda, then it doesn't matter who wrote the documents. You will judge the credibility of the evidence and you will draw what conclusions can be drawn from it. Equally, you will not draw conclusions where there is a lack of credible evidence.
@@autisticscooterdrivernot all text is accurate or complete 🇮🇱 like to write about how 6M Jews were killed in the holocaust but no mention is made of other groups who were wiped out To an 🇮🇱 semite means jew only but it includes Arabs
According to the oral history of my family, WWII was very funny and they had the best time of their lives. Took me 30 years to realize it was a coping strategy. When a child asks his mother, why they are living in a refugee tent camp, the answer "The jews stole our land." has much more explainatory power than "because Daddy made the wrong decision to flee and now they won't let us come back" .
He argues that there are no records from Arab states because they are dictatorships, Palestinians are also disorganized and without records. Oral history is also to be disregarded ( even though the story of the killing of animals was relayed to him from a guys memory and backed by documents) So we are left with records of the Isarili themselves! Perpetrators of crimes do not always leave records.
Right, I agree his anecdote about the man who relayed the story of animals being killed actually undermined his rejection of oral history. The oral history that was relayed to him actually helped him find the facts in the written record.
1:07:00 a harbinger of the woke revolution. Most people asked genuine questions, even if they already had their own opionion. This young women JUST wanted her gotcha moment. She wanted to take him down, based on some misquotes, and his actual opinion meant nothing to her. This was 2017. When this level of bad faith was still new and shocking.
I was at University in the mid 1980s - and those people were always there. Especially in the social sciences and left-leaning institutions of the university. The prefrontal cortex is only beginning to mature - and it shows.
@@llewellynjones1115 interesting. I graduated in 1981 and didn't see this, even among the most strident and radical of the lefties and activists I associated with, which included someone who got arrested at a protest in DC where he threw blood at a federal building (I forget the building and the cause). I give this example just to show that if people behaved like the student in this video, or like the students you describe, I would have seen it.
WOW! I really would love for more people to assess the Israeli Arab conflict side-by-side withe India Pakistan conflict. It would contextualize both conflicts so much better. I think the current mindset has so much difficulty getting into the mindset of these people in these 2 regions during the 1930s & 1940s. Both conflicts were like fraternal twins, born from the fall of the British Empire and from a rise in nationalism. Transfer was a thing that was not just Zionist mentality it existed in India-Pakistan. The Zeitgeist was different then.
Its a very interesting comparison. Indian Muslims demanded a Muslim state run by and for Muslims ( Pakistan ) and it involved ethnic cleansing of Hindus. Nobody on the Western left seems to have a problem with this but they do have a problem with Jews wanti ng a Jewish majority state where Jews govern Jews. The latter is denounced as 'racist', the former is off the radar , politically speaking.
@@michaelhussey440 I don’t have time write long paragraphs like you but ‘ you are a piece of shitt’ muslims lived there for hundreds of years’ when they got separated some Muslims rejected to leave their homes and decided to live in india ‘ and you are the ones who treating them badly ‘ look at the kashmir ‘ you should read history you have lack of knowledge
@@shoaibmalik6622 "he is a clown" who? Finkelstein or Morris? Which debate? I think they have debated more than once. I've read Benny Morris's book, Righteous Victim's. Benny Morris is a historian not a debater. He may debate but I think his strengths are in scholarly archival research and writing great insightful and thorough history. Benny Morris revolutionized Israeli history by being the 1st Israeli historian to base his accounting of the past mainly on written verifiable fact rather than oral recollections of the past which tend to get mythologized. I do see Norman Finkelstein as a bit of a ridiculous self promotional instigator and provocateur, and like a clown, he is entertaining. Now, I'm not sure we agree on which is more clownish.
Excellent overview mostly unbiased. Only criticism I have is not enough weight was given to the harm done by The Colonial Power Britain believing they had the right to give away the lands of another people, using their own arbitrary standards of land ownership and minimizing the attachment of that land for Palestinians. . Not that there wasnt a massive case for the Jews after the Holocaust. However, it left the Palestinians traumatised and forever wanting their lands back.
Damn, imagine how the native jews in israel felt when they had their entire country stolen by those same arabs in the 7th century, were made 3rd class citizens for over 1400 years, were constantly chased from country to country having their land stolen. Give me a goddamned break, no right to give the land away? Are you a moron? The brittish won the war, the muslim caliphates stole the land from the jews in the 7th century through invasion, the ottomans did the same to them, then the brittish did the same to the arabs. There were native jews living there throughout the muslim occupation all the way up into 1948, despite the arabs numerous attempts at slaughtering them and chasing them out.
They brought this on themselves, muslim arabs have been slaughtering, raping, enslaving, and stealing from jews for over 1400 years. The 2 most important "islamic" cities, mecca and medina, were both jewish cities originally which were stolen by their pedophile prophet Muhammad and his gang of thugs. They beheaded an entire tribe after exiling the other 2 tribes, took the women as sex slaves after raping them, and enslaved the children as long as they didn't have pubes, if they had pubes they beheaded them instead. It's all in the islamic sources. Islam is a racist and supremacist religion that constantly tells Muslims they are victims and deserve to control the entire world, that jews are literal pigs and rats who will be exterminated by their messiah on the final day of judgement, and that it's the right of muslims to enslave them and tax them into poverty as they did for those 1400 years. That's how war works, everybody got their land through war, big deal. They can keep crying instead of owning up to their own actions and screaming about victim hood to the west. Arabs stole more land and colonized more countries than any other group in the world, there are 49 muslim countries the arabs could move to, only 1 jewish state in the world. The only reason they are victims is because they refuse to be anything else.
800,000 jews were violently chased out of neighboring arab countries in 1948, countries they were chased into by arabs after they stole the jews land. 800,000 jewish refugees who would have had nowhere to go without israel, and this had been going on for over a millenia, the arabs were brutal to the jews and as I said were constantly chasing them from country to country stealing from them. The arabs religion blamed the jews for everything, their prophet blamed the jews for everything, the jews have been the islamic scapegoat since the 7th century. Let me get some fake tears so I can pretend to feel bad for the colonizers facing the music finally. They invaded and got what they asked for, they had been ethnically cleansing the area of jews since they invaded in the 8th century, Boohoo, they had to move 6km away, what a tragedy!
It was not exclusively Arabs’ land that was “given away”, this premise is ridiculous. The land doesn’t belong to an ethnicity, there was no other country than Britain in power in the area, and Palestinians refused to create their own country alongside Israel.
One question I’ve never heard asked much less answered is why Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States, are expected to take in hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees from war torn nations and to provide resettlement and humanitarian aid to them, yet for Arab nations, their fellow Arabs are left languishing in camps 75 years on, with the original refugees mostly having passed on. Why is no one pressing these Arab nations to solve that problem? Is it because Israel is a Jewish state that rules seem to be made especially for them and applied to no one else. The Palestinian Arabs have their own UN agency just for them, and claim that refugee status can be passed on through the father (not the mother - where are the feminists on that one?). International law doesn’t recognize that anywhere else and it should not here. The same is the case with this nonsense about "apartheid" - a convention the U.S. the U.K. and other western nations have rejected, it appears to be applied only against Israel, even though it is not legitimate international law. To be fair, much international law has been corrupted when it comes to Israel as the majority of nations of the world envy and hate the Jewish state - for reasons about which one can only speculate.
I'm curious why you reject the application of the term "apartheid" to the West Bank? How do you think the practice of occupation, settlement, provision of partial self-governance, dispossession of land and so on don't fit as an "apartheid" system?
other questions: per the existence of a refugee problem & support for a jewish state... For the establishment of the zionist project (a Jewish State) you need to maintain (through expulsion, annexation, aliyah, immigration and different laws for different populations) a Jewish majority. For the establishment of a Jewish state on land with a large Palestinian Arab community, you need for to control as much land as possible, with as few Palestinians as possible left within those borders. You cannot accept the whole population as subjects of the state with equal rights, as this would pose a demographic threat to the Jewish majority. Hence, transfer or expulsion /dispossession or whatever you want to call it is necessary. You need Palestinians to leave their homes, and they cannot return. The foundation for this happening is the idea of a Jewish right to self-determination, its a basic assertion of human rights that is applied to a religious and ethnic diaspora in their historic homeland. Why does the assertion of this national right claim priority over the security and property rights of Palestinian Arabs? Why does the assertion of this right come before a Palestinian right to self-determination? Finally, why is it the responsibility of neighboring arab ciuntries to "solve the problem," when it was actions of a wide range of actors that contributed to not only the creation but the maintenance of a permanent Palestinian refugee community. there are competing claims here. Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism, individual/familial property rights, right-to-return which has been a fundamental one for many refugees in past conflicts, and in fact is fundamental to Zionism as well. I try not to allow myself to imagine that there is purity among these ideas, communities or claims, that one is superior to another. This leads me to imagine more ways of co-existing, of a modern, pluralistic society capable of containing the cultural memory and collective aspirations of more than one people. Deeply idealistic! Completely contrary to the facts on the ground! But curious to hear your thoughts about my questions
2) The Islamic claim to Jerusalem is false - There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632 c.e. at the death of Muhammad... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian-occupied city ‒by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann, writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Excerpts of the article originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994‒ The muslim "claim" to Jerusalem is allegedly based on what is written in the koran, which although does not mention Jerusalem even once, nevertheless talks of the "furthest mosque" (in Sura 17:1): «Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the sacred mosque to the furthest mosque». But is there any foundation to the muslim argument that this "furthest mosque" (al-masujidi al-aqsa) refers to what is today called the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, NO! In the days of Muhammad, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian-occupied city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by caliph Omar only in 638 c.e., six years after Muhammad's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style. The Aqsa mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by caliph Abd el-Malik. The name "Omar mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, about 80 years after Muhammad died, Malik's son, Abd el-Wahd ‒who ruled in 705-715‒ reconstructed the Christian-Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the centre. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aqsa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the koran. Consequently, it is crystal clear that Muhammad could never have had this mosque in mind when he wrote the koran (if he did so), since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Muhammad intended the mosque in Mecca as the "sacred mosque", and the mosque in Medina as the "furthest mosque"
I have listened to llan Pappe and this guy. In my humble opinion, this giy has less of an agenda. Both are decent historians and highly enlightening about the facts of history as it relates to the creation of Israel.
The reason you think he has less of an Agenda (while in this talk it is very obvious at some points that he is gatekeeping hard) while I think he has more of an Agenda, is because you already have an opinion on that matter. You came here as "pro-Israel" even if you were "not sure". And this is why you do not see the cracks. Now you can say I do not see the cracks in Pappe, because I came here as someoen with a pro-Palestine bias. That is fine. Just don't forget the high likelyhood of your own bias. Also I am happy to show you a specific timestampe where I think he is totally framing it into his "Agenda". What he is in my by now not so humble opinion, is a Pro-Israel gatekeeper that is willing to make a few minor concessions that allow wiggle room for "recognition" without consequences. His thoughts about "expulsion happened, but it was not an order!" is a perfect example. "This atrocity happened, so this was indeed a Myth and the Palestinians are right - but see it happened at this time, in this order in this specific setup, therefore it is of no consequence for Israel or the Zionist project." You cannot miss it.
Interesting. Ilan Pappe is a well published professor, but has been criticized by other academics including Morris. Morris himself has also been criticized.
It’s funny how people who are more proisraeli like Morris and the others favour Pappe. Both are distinguished scholars and experts. But if it’s true that Morris relies heavily on Israeli documents and the others look at various ones - may make the difference in the facts
I think I mentioned either here or elsewhere… I can’t help thinking about what was it that Morris did that is so gruesome (maybe depraved) that Mossad or Shin-Beth may have found out and has been using against him in the shadows”… Somebody please remind me: it is called blackmailing?
It’s unfortunate that late Morris (as opposed to his early work) brings out the Nakba denialists, as is evident from the comments here. Three reasons why forced dispossession of Palestinians was necessarily central to Zionism by the early 20th century: 1) Zionists of various stripes, from Hertzl to Jabotinsky described dispossession as necessary for creating a Jewish majority state, and they did so in writing. This was at the end of the 19th century and early 20th well before the 1930s and the Peel commission. 2) Palestinians were not allowed back into Israel after 1948. If there was no project of ethnic cleansing, it makes little sense why they were never let back in, and the right of return has never been accepted as an even feasible demand by the Israeli government. 3) Palestinian citizens of Israel also had their land confiscated from them under present absentee laws. If there were no ethnocentric logic of expulsion, why would Israeli citizens who were Palestinians also be denied the right to their land? The whole “it was just the chaos of war” story is an alibi for dispossession that makes no sense. The talk is also full of snide negative comments about Palestinians and other Arabs. Morris’s narrative is only compelling if you already want to believe it.
@@timothybenton315 I can understand the all part but the nothing? I mean to have a state even a tiny one it's a start and it's always better than nothing. I think they thought they could beat the Jews.
I'm not sure why it matters what some leaders did or didn't "proclaim" (however this is defined exactly). This reminds me of the bit about the British arriving in India: "You haven't got a flag? Well, no flag, no country!"
75 years later and the two sides still can't find a solution. We like to fight! How about a two state settlement and sparing the rest of the world that has no dog in this fight to stop hearing about all of the grievances of both sides.
Morris's problem, which also emerges from reading his book "Righteous victims", is that being an Israeli he is unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to stop playing the Israeli in his historical interpretations. The problem lies in not taking into account that the Palestinian Arabs considered the arrival of Jewish settlers to be an invasion simply because they came to settle in their land (beyond the reasons themselves). Now, if tomorrow someone comes to knock on our house telling us that it actually belongs to him because his ancestors were there thousands of years ago, I think we will all answer him badly or consider his establishment to be an "invasion", that I know, in the garden. Unfortunately Morris in dealing with such sensitive historiographically issues fails to do what I believe a historian should always do to the end: completely dismantle a historical reading dictated by his being emotionally involved as one of the parties involved.
Every historical context is different. Here in Canada, for example, the Indigenous still lay claim (rightly or wrongly) to be the owners of this land, even though hundreds of years have passed since their colonialization and subjugation. And huge segments of the population actually agree with giving political power and autonomy back, along with actual land space. Granted, the Jews were expelled 2000 years ago, but where do we draw the line? 50 years? 400 years?
interesting comment usualy people compare the arabs of palestine with native americans orthe first people or first nations of canada and the jews who came initially mainly from eastern europe are compared with the white european setters who colonised what is now the united statse and canada
@@MulletKidhose indigenous who stayed in Canada will remain indigenous. If the indigenous people of Canada moved to Europe thousands of years ago, his descendents today would be Europeans. This is common sense. Not rocket science.
@@MulletKid It's a good question. Canada is probably big enough, rich enough, and secure enough to even be able to ask those questions. Time elapsed is not the main factor in my opinion. In the end it is a tension between "justice" manifested by redistribution of significant wealth vs. letting people with privileges and property keep it. On one extreme end you have injustice/colonialism and even slavery, at the other extreme you have failed states, economic breakdowns, civil wars and poverty.
I think you and Morris don't see the role of historians in the same way. I believe he doesn't see his main role as being the moral judge of the situation. He thinks the historian role is to use written documentation (and not aural testimony) to try to describe and interpret what happend to the best of his abilty. He's very limited by not knowing arabic. If you read his 1988 book I think you'll discover a different tone. I think expecting historians to not have an emotional bias is like thinking that someone can provide an objective narrative of why a married couple got divorced. It's simply Impossible. There are some facts that can be varified, some that can't, and much that is subjective and depends on ideology or feelings.
Great lecture, especially the Q and A about the differences between written and oral sources for historians. Too much propaganda out there especially in 2024.
Left unaddressed is the issue of the most powerful non-Jewish lpolitician, Haj Amin al-Husseini being a strong former ally of the Nazis, which must have freaked out a lot of the Jews, given the horrors of Holocaust being very fresh in the Jewish mind.
That's an over simplification of history. Many colonial resistance movements had loose ties with Nazis to help overthrow their British overlords‚ even when those leaders had nothing in common with Nazis. Hell‚ even Zionists made deals with Nazis in the early dayd to prevent expulsions of Jews from Germany to anywhere else but Palestine.
obviously this is an interesting historical note, but Benny isn't leaving it out. He doesn't include it because it wasn't of significance at the time. Likewise, the efforts of certain specific Zionist groups to get the German Nazi State to support settlement efforts & the establishment of a Jewish State in Mandatory Palestine do not equat with the Zionist project itself being associated in any material or significant way with Nazis. The Mufdi ultimately did not play a central role in the struggle for Palestinian Nationalism following partition or '48, and was simply not of great importance. Americans bring him up a lot as justification that Palestinians were = the Nazis, but its ahistorical.
*55:00** it is on the flag, the blue lines from the 1800s: FROM THE RVR 2 THE SEA.* wasnt planned to have a jewish ethnostate. yes an incredibly well organized & funded coincidence. _JC
@@chaim5397 if the Jews have the right of return to the land that they left 2000 years ago , you may as well accept the right of return of the Palestinians who left Palestine 75 years ago. You can laugh at this matter, but you are really laughing at yourself.
Yep the egyptian the saudi Bahraini and the Algerian don't forget the tunisian and yeah the yemeni the ARab . 😂😂😂 I wish they know they are not cousin they are the same poeple 😂😂😂
This is a good lecture and he explains the complex history as well as he can. But I do disagree a bit with his rejection of oral histories. I think it depends on what oral history one is referring to as well as how long after an event the history is recorded. In some cases all we have is oral history. The official government or military records won't always tell us exactly what happened. They will instead tell us the outline of what was proposed. And then afterwards the government has to rely on eyewitness accounts to complete the record, which are a bit like oral history. But some governments will cover up this information. Oral histories are essential to the overall perspective of history. Esp. when things go a different way than what was planned. Or when people are themselves part of a war and are therefore part of history. Their story may certainly be biased but it is their story. And any good historian understands that. So do the courts and judges and juries, which daily render verdicts based on what people say and what they remember.
Agreed . If you simply dissmiss oral histories, then the entire history of , say, the Native American people can be ignored and only the coloniser's voice heard. Inevitably this yields an unfair, one-sided view.
@kingsindian8948 It's not about "colonizers" it's about the fact that oral history is just inferior. Not as accurate, detailed, more prone to propaganda. There's a reason we know who was Emperor of China in 500 BC, but have no idea who ruled in the America's at the time.
Benny morris is an excellent and honest historian. If only there was the possibility for the Palestinian side to have a historian of this caliber, there would be hope. I’ve learned a lot from this lecture but the biggest thing I’ve taken from this lecture is why it is so. Unfortunate as it is, it allows me to understand the position Palestinians are in better, allowing me to stop for my search for public honest self reflection on their side. However, Saris Nussaiba does seem to be the one courageous Palestinian I’ve been searching for and I look forward to reading his book (that I’ve already ordered). Having said that, what impressed me most about Morris was not only his keeping his cool when attacked by the young lady at 108 but how he takes her seriously and responds seriously to her, keeping both, his own dignity, and perhaps even her dignity too, intact.
Vest un gros plaisir écouter le professeur Morris. Il parle un anglais aussi correct que jusqu'à poir moi, que je ne le parle pas, cest facile a comprendre. Merci beaucoup.
We should trust people based on their incentive to tell the truth. If the IDF presents a death toll for the number of people they killed in some battle in 1948, we tend to not trust this because they have an incentive to downplay that number. But if you see a document written from one Israeli commander to another mid-war talking about their concerns and expectations for the conflict, we should be able to trust this person is telling the truth, since they have every reason to (they want to win the war). This is the framework historians (like Morris) operate under
@@qutrb6790 and no.... details of massacres were redacted at various stages. Especially the worst cases. If you are committing a crime, you either hide the evidence or you speak in a veiled language... eg. Plan D.
Do you know why I’m more mad at ben gurion than hitler? Because ben gurion got away with it. He has his name everywhere, he was smart and careful. He was a monster
I'm wondering when I'll see an Arab Historian, and hopefully a Palestinian historian with this capacity for self-criticism, adherence to facts, and most of all, not demonizing the enemy.
The bottom line is the refugee "problem" (a degrading description of the displaced Palestinians) would never have been a "problem" if the Palestinians' land hadn't been invaded and taken from them permanently.
@@master1941 That makes no sense and is beyond vile!!! Who would dare say something like that?! You're basically saying they should be expelled, and go somewhere else. Is it easy to resettle ppl? Go see for yourself in the U.S. and the migrant crisis. Go ask a Salvadorian, 20 years after the Civil War, why they're now going back to THEIR COUNTRY. Every argument is supremist, vile and convoluted: starting a "war" (refuted); defending settler terrorism; "things happen" in a war (as if a massacre is ever an isolated incident). Caitlin Johnstone and independent journalists are right: the good people fo the world will stop this from continuing to happen.
They were never invaded, Jews migrated to the area and bought land from Ottoman landowners and then, as the new owners, kicked out the Palestinian tenant farmers, if that is an invasion, ok. But the invasion on a literal level was the invasion of the Jewish areas by the Palestinian leaders after the partition plan led them to believe that the Jewish locals were a threat. So the invasion/declaration of war was done by the Palestinians at first and later, after the Zionist militias won and Israel was declared, the Arab countries invaded the former mandate of Palestine to defeat Israel.
As per Dier Yassin, please see, *_"Palestinian leader Hazem Nusseibeh admits to false reports of rape at Dier Yassin"_* and also the book, *_"The Massacre that never was"_* by Professor Eliezer Tauber.
It is written in the Holy Jewish Torah, the Islamic Koran,and the Xtian Bible that G-d gave that land to the Jewish people. It was also given by the Nations of the world. The Palestinian myth was invented in 1967 and has No history, no capital, no currency, no borders, no military. What exactly is the argument?
the refugee problem was born in 1925, when irgun declared that non-jews must leave palestine. ww2 interrupted the ethnic cleansing process, but it's still visibly in motion.
Young people: "Every time you criticize the Israeli's you are called "Anti-semetic" " Probably because you mean "Zionism" not "Israel" Also, young people. Whenever you criticize the texts of Islam "You're racist" The irony. I'm against the ideas of Zionism in the sense of establishing a "Jewish state" meaning a state that prioritizes a specific religion over other groups. ( or even their own people who they designate us not Jewish enough) But I also understand the wants of a specific community who want a state. I understand it the same way I understand Palestinians wanting one themselves. Problem is the extremists on both sides sneak in the religious requirements of their states (You see this when they call people Racist when referring to a religion). Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc are not born Muslim. Islam is a school of thought, a religion. You can convert to a religion and also leave it. Therefore guaranteeing a regress in the future of their state when the future generations demand change. Because religious often claims to have a universal truth. Meaning to change it is to be against the universal truth. Which has caused problems throughout many civilizations that have integrated similar political solutions such as Monarchy, Nationalism, Communism, etc. Thomas Paine made this clear when he spoke about the parliament of Britain arguing that the law of Monarchy was agreed upon centuries before and therefore it was illegal to change. This as well as religious argues that each future generation should be bind by the laws established by one group, under the direction of a "greater good"
You are indeed racist when you criticize the texts of Islam , and forget to criticize the Torah and Bible which are WAY more disgusting than the Quran. Of the 3 books, the Quran is the most peaceful ! So yes, you had to be racist to give the very violent and disgusting Torah and Bible a "free pass" , while condemning the Quran. And I say this as a Hindu who is well read on all the Abrahamic texts (including the gospels of Mary and Thomas) and I have no horse in this race (before you start making the assumption that I am Muslim).
When a country is established on the basis of a religion or ethnicity, the manner in which it behaves….its government’s foreign and domestic policies and actions will, per force, rightly or wrongly, reflect upon that entire religion or ethnicity. People are irrational. They don’t distinguish between what a nation’s government does and the citizens of that nation. For whatever reasons, the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to find an equitable arrangement. They want justice for themselves but don’t seem to care enough about the rights or needs of the other. They can’t get beyond their tribal identities to see others as equally worthy . There are tremendous pressures to remain intractable on both sides. And the people…the inhabitants are caught in the middle. Like people everywhere, they just want peace, security, a measure of prosperity and a chance to live their lives and raise their families in safety. People become irrational when they are targets of propaganda. Easily fired up. Quick to join mass movements. Quick to fall into an “us and them” mentality. I’m dismayed but not surprised to see a rise in antisemitism after what happened on October 7th. When excited, people discard nuances. Zionism,like colonialism, and imperialism have consequences. Not all Americans supported our deeds in Vietnam. Not all Arabs or Muslims supported the attack on 9/11. But Arab -looking Americans were beaten or killed for it. Not all east Asian Americans are of Chinese descent. But they were blamed for Covid and attacked on the street and their businesses were vandalized and shunned . There are very many Jews who do not support the policies of the current Israeli government. But even they can be targets of pro-Palestinian anger. People are irrational.
@@adnanjunuzovic6531 Yousef Munayyer, an Israeli citizen and the executive director of The Jerusalem Fund, wrote that Palestinians only have varying degrees of limited rights in Israel. He states that although Palestinians make up about 20% of Israel's population, less than 7% of the budget is allocated to Palestinian citizens. He describes the 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel as second-class citizens while four million more are not citizens at all. He states that a Jew from any country can move to Israel but a Palestinian refugee, with a valid claim to property in Israel, cannot. Munayyer also described the difficulties he and his wife faced when visiting the country. According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens"
@@adnanjunuzovic6531 ya no thats not true. Limited rights, and recent laws have highlighted this. An American who is Jewish could immigrate to Israel tomorrow and have more rights, and much more access socially, culturally, and in the economy than a Palestinian Israeli. They have also suffered serious corruption and attacks on democratic institutions. Further, the occupation of Gaza/WB/East Jerusalem post '67 and the maintenance of different laws for Jewish Settlers within the occupied territories and military courts for Palestinians. Israel claims ultimate authority in the entirety of the West Bank, meaning that even with provisional governance over a small portion of the territory via the Palestinian Authority you essentially have a one-state solution, with Israel controlling freedom of movement, the legal system / rights that people are subject to, imports/exports, the collection of taxes, and enforcing a strict permit system for Palestinians controlling most aspects of basic life. Really encourage you to read more about whether either Arab (or Palestinian) Israeli citizens, or Palestinians (who are stateless & occupied by a belligerent foreign power, according to international law) enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis. If they don't have equal rights, what kind of system is being enforced?
I just watched a documentary on Gaza and it starts off with a little boy saying that he has 10 brothers and sister and his father has three wives. Later on is the presentation, there’s a man he says he has 40 children and three wives and he was thinking about getting a fourth one but they don’t have enough room so we decided it was a bad idea. They say half the population of Gaza is children which’s makes sense. They also show pictures of children throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. This is a cultural issue as well. If they aren’t going to use birth control they’re gonna have half the population being children and if there’s any kind of a conflict that’s the portion that’s going to get killed. They say there’s not enough food and water in Gaza. Well if you’re having 10 kids or have 40 kids that would make sense. I guess if your power is out for half the day, thinking back to the historical blackout in New York City, where they said, there was more babies conceived that night, than any other time in history, this would make sense. There’s no other western culture that procreate to this extent, other than maybe the Mormons in Salt Lake City. But I also read that having many babies is considered a form of Jihad.
I watched this piece in conjunction with a similarly presented (in format and length) one by Ilan Pappe, and it is quite thought provoking how the two can come to somewhat different conclusions. Pappe does not come off as well as he seems more interested in rhetoric in places and does mention Morris, sometimes critically and one gets the feeling he may be jealous of Morris’s accomplishments. I’ve read that he coined the phrase "new historians" for a group that tended to question the conventional line on Israel’s history but then parted ways with these others as they became analogs to the anti-American university professors in the U.S. - a villainous lot - only with Israel as the focus of their bile. Benny Morris doesn’t seem that way at all, and I get the feeling he genuinely seeks to tell an accurate story, one that provides appropriate context and realism. I’m reading through a couple of his books and recommend them as he writes in generally the same engaging manner.
Morris' work is despised by many in Israel as it goes way too far in acknowledging dispossession / injustices committed against the Palestinians, which isn't really compatible with Israels self-image as a Jewish State & Democracy, that has a historica and religious claim to the land that can more easily be justified than the claims of Palestinian families who left in '48. He's also a New Historian, and has drifted to the right over the years. His scholarship has many problems, as does Pappe's, but they both have contributed to vital retellings of core myths of Israel/Zionism/Palestine. Without theie work we basically have what only the official claims of the State of Israel, which are deeply rooted in national liberation/religious mythology meant to justify and explain away the real thorny history involving the zionist movement and creation of a Jewish State. Those myths are what the majority in the West are taught in elementary school, I remember being taught ideas of a basically empty desert made to bloom by righteous settlers who weren't in any way seizing land, settling or colonizing, but simply asserting an indigenous claim that goes without question. His work was initially lauded by Palestinians and hated by Zionists, but he also seems to increasingly attempt to support official narratives about subjects like transfer even as his scholarship deconstructs historical myths. Morris' primary contribution to scholarship has been locating the centrality of "transfer" to zionist thought, and creating a school of post-Zionist historical revision that was difficult for many Israelis to engage with, as it fundamentally altered the collective story they'd been told and contributed to telling. But ultimately, his critique is one of historical revision: uncovering a hidden and disputed history. His personal politics certainly influence his position in the academy and his view of the other New Historians, and he seems to have become much more right-wing and anti-Palestinian over time. So ya, something for both Israelis and Palestinians to hate :)
World history can be shocking. Regardless of the countries involved. The microscope on this Israel Palestine history makes the questioners sound naive. The world is not a utopia. Every country has some dark history where we could all get around and talk about. There’s always some injustice that could be talked about. That’s part of the sin of history. People learn some “facts” then superimpose their own value system to judge actions of people that are no longer alive. How far back in history do we go? How far back do we use history as a justification for present day hand wringing?
The Palestinian people were manly displaced by deliberate policy prior to the attack on Israel by Arab states. Ilan Pappe documents this in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. It was not the “hammer blows of war” as claimed by Mr. Morris. False history is being peddled here. The false narrative is most extreme in his claim that Palestinians would “transferred”. The future Israelis leadership knew their future country required the expulsion of the indigenous people.🐝🐝
Yes and still today the Jewish state cannot ever absorb many of the Palestinian not because they are a physical danger as such but because they are a danger of their so called democracy who decided Jews must keep right to own land and to vote at the exclusion of others (it is ok if the others are a minority) and having millions of Palestinian integrated into Israel would threaten the Jewish based privilege and also make obvious that Israel is de facto not a real democracy but an authoritarian religious state, very similar to what happened, in Ireland with the catholic majority oppressed by the English and ofc the apartheid in South Africa who was also a British colony for 100 years. and we want to make Britain Great again Really!!
the Jewish problem was only a problem for countries that let them in??? o my god what a hatful anti-Semitic things to say . but its ok for you to say it about Palestinians you pos
no he specifically says that palestinian arab authorities behaved throughout decades in british palestine way more violent than local settlers, once it was clear these arabs posed a clear security risk for the state of israel so yeah in few cases hagannah expelled, most left bc they were afraid of battle but there was no general policy of expulsion plus they are arabs, lots of places for aeabs
"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely...". - Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad", 1867 -
do you just deny the existence of the 700,000 people who were expelled and fled from their homes? Or are you trying to argue there was plenty of land for everyone (because there was).
1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state 2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. 4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state. 5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. 6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. 7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. 8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. 9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. 10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. 12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. 13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. 14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. 15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. 16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. 17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. 20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE. (Borrowed from a friend) A little more history for those wanting to 'restore Palestine'. In 132 AD the Emperor Hadrian resolved to stamp the Jews and their religion out of existence. He sold all Jewish prisoners into slavery after the revolt of Bar Kikhba, forbade the teaching of the Torah, renamed the province Syria Palaestina, and changed Jerusalem’s name to Aelia Capitolina. He renamed Israel to wipe out the national identity of Israel and the Jews. So if you are looking to 'restore Palestine to the Palestinians', you need to give it back to the Jews.
Your logic is fallacious. By the same token there was also no United States before 1776, there was no Canada even long after that, there was no Germany before Bismarck created one. The concept of nation-states didn't come into full fruition until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. So what if there was no Palestine during those periods you mentioned? What stops them from making one, like Kosovo, like Slovakia, like Slovenia? Israel as a kingdom is not supported by archeological studies, only in biblical accounts. So, what's the basis of Israel?
@@hanielgaribay7623The point is there were no Palestinian state in Palestine, only different people live in the land, so when UN proposed Resolution 181 for Two States Solution, Jews and 150,000 Arabs(Palestinians so called later)do the right thing accept and establish Israel. Whereas rest of Arabs don't, started war and lost... You cannot blame others for your miscalculation and wrong decisions.
@@jasonsccheung3831 You didn't bother to read my previous point and you based your conclusions on a sketchy and selective historical basis. The Palestinians have a right to self-determination and create their own state where there was none. This is true of all states in the world as the concept of nation-state (as opposed to kingdoms or principalities) didn't fully emerge until the mid-17th century. At the end of World War 1 the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires collapsed and the people on the lands that those empires once ruled opted to have their own nation-state. Yugoslavia (which later fragmented)and Romania came out of those, and others became integrated to Poland, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia (which also later fragmented). Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others also became independent from the French and British. The Palestinians wanted to do the same but the British handed Palestine to the Zionists. Now, the Palestinians were offered a raw deal by the UN, of getting only 20% of the land that used to be all theirs and hand it to newly arrived Jews from Europe, who were still the minority until later arrivals from North Africa and forced expulsion of Palestinians put Jews and Palestinians at almost equal in number. Remember that the UN in 1948 was thoroughly dominated by the big powers, which engineered the vote at the UN General Assembly to admit Israel into the UN. The UN then didn't have the African and Asian countries (like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam,,) that were still European colonies. If the UN General Assembly were to vote on admitting Israel into the UN now, it wouldn't have passed. Ok, accept the UN vote, fine. But the same Israel has violated UN resolutions on Palestine time and again before 1967. Since then the US vetoed every anti-Israel resolution. Your position also justifies Israel's brutal occupation that breeds the very resentment that impels Palestinians to resist. If you're Chinese, you must have known China was once under cruel Japanese occupation, so did the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia. You know what? Palestinians have suffered as much from Israeli occupation as well as those countries under Japanese occupation. Go on, blame the victims, but you do so under a benighted basis
@@hanielgaribay7623 UN offer 20% of land to Palestine? Give me a break. You still don't get it, the land doesn't belong to Palestinians (Palestinians so called only come about in 1950-60). UN resolution 181 proposed 45% of land to Palestine, 55% to Israel (which includes large parts of desert and marsh land, hence 55%, 150,000 Arabs stay in Israel). Why Arabs didn't accept but started war ? Because they believed they have the numbers and strength to wipe off Israel. If you want to wipe people off and start war, you bear consequences. And up until 1967, West Bank was annexed by Jordan, Gaza ruled by Egypt, Arabs had chances to establish a Palestine State then, why didn't they ? Because Arabs never wanted a Palestine State. Palestinians are being used as pawns against the Jews. Just look at all the Arab countries, every one of them, Jews are cleansed. While Israel would accept a Two States Solution, Palestinians would not. No one is denying Palestinian self-determination, get that in your head.
A people whose land is stolen by expulsion(be it at the end of the gun or the threat of a bomb) is a refugee. Claiming that "they were still in Palestine" is semantics -- admitted by the speaker, however, saying this attempts to marginalize the wrongs of Israel. If I live in Texas and Mexico comes in and takes my home and I have to move to Oklahoma I am a refugee. I no longer live in my home, I no longer have my land, and I no longer have my dignity. To state such things as the speaker does is disingenuous. No person in the position of a Palestinian would say, "it is ok that I am made to leave my home and land because I still live somewhere that just happens to also be called Palestine. NOW, lets also notate that there is no recognized Palestinian statehood and that Israel will not let them be recognized or have any self determination. History can be understood by the reality of today, just as much as the reality of today can be explained by history.
Also why would the Palestinians of 1947 accept to have their country cut in half when they've enjoyed the entirety of the country since 1000s yrs ago, it is only normal for them not to agree , this was a total no benefit offer. The disagreement of the Nashashibis and the Husseinis were not on power but on how to deal with the British Mandate as the Nashashibis were peaceful and the Husseinis were more believing in fighting for their rights as they saw it
Morris on a Palestinian state, “The Arabs said no. There’s a problem there. “. The problem is none of those offers by the Jews who stoled their land was even close to fair. Morris’s bias is proved by the fact that he never addresses that. He lies by omission.
@@master1941 Ah yes, and they aren't facing a supremist, convoluted, vile group, working to undermine their every turn? That's not happening at all? Torture in prisons, snipers shooting children in the West Bank (300+ killed in 2023 alone), raids in refugee camps, harassment at checkpoints. Look up videos-and more-here on YT. As a matter of fact, you dare to say this, even though they record themselves in Gaza urinating on corpses, bragging abt torture, writing threatening grafitti, ect. It's all available for you to see, and you want a plundered group to face a group that doesn't see them as worthy or human in the first place?! Where's the logic in that?!
How isn't it fair? When you have two very different groups of people in the same piece of land, who can't live together, a two state solution is the only fair solution there is
@@user-qy8ib4ef1g you ignore the fact that one group of people moved in on another and killed them an stole their land. Those are the European/ Russian/US zionist genocidal Jews called Israelis. You also ignore the fact that the 4-6 percent of native Arab Palestinian Jews lived peacefully with the native Arabs and Christians there before the colonial Jewish zionist settlers came and with help from Britain and then the US empires committed mass murder on the natives to steal their land. And you it seems you continue to ignore the genocide still going on in Gaza, which is inhuman and immoral. The racist jews are killing Christians too if that matters to you.
It's amazing that a scholar who lets so much go on between the lines/under the radar has such reputation. His homework on some Jewish people leaving their long-loved homes in Arab countries is half the story. We know from documents uncovered by Ilan Pappe and Miko Peled (only 2 examples) that Israel itself was desperate to have those people "come home" (!!!!), that Israel sent visiting agents to "warn" them of coming violence---and when the families refused to move to Israel, they sent their own disguised terrorists to burn fear into them, followed by "helpful" friendly second visits that made it happen. Apartheid colonial Israel: no crime they won't commit, no lie they won't tell.
would love a link to this scholarship, have read before files from gov discussions in the Knesset about the need for Mizrahi arab jews to immigrate to Israel for demographic and nationalist reasons, but mostly its framed as an expulsion. I imagine it is some of both.
Benny Morris is the person I trust most to explain the past in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He’s fact based, balanced and so is likely disliked by both sides. What a shame. This learned man can teach us so much.
Same. He is clearly Zionist leaning, but is a careful scholar and doesn't let his side off the hook. I really liked his point in this lecture about generals not really caring about the expulsions because they were in an existential war.
I enjoy Benny Morris. Matter-of-fact delivery. Easy to listen to. Well informed.
@@alexrothwell2053cite some sources that show some inaccuracies in this presentation
@@fabbeyonddadancer I didn't say it was inaccurate
Lol. Took me 13 minutes to decide this guy is some nasty zionist. He says jews didn't occupy Palestine before 1947 by arms... And then mentions, almost fading, that the british military, *only* the most powerful in the world, was backing them. Hahaha.
Unusually nuanced and contested thinking in a world that lacks these characteristics
Filthy lies from a nasty species.
I admire him so much - he’s a true historian and his dispassionate approach is a gift to academia. The everything-is-political culture of subsequent generations will lose the science of history.
is that what you hear? this is all dripping w pro israel nonsense, every framing is not "just facts". it is "well, Israel didnt invade, they had to bc UK was leaving ... so i mean they did, but then they left voluntarily ...when the "hamr blows fell"
it is crazy. you have to sift for the facts. _JC
Dispassionate? You should watch his debate with Norman Finkelstein who called him out on his propaganda.
You should watch his debate with norman finkelstien ‘ never let one side down and one up
@@jchan9761that conversation clearly demonstrated finklestein as the propagandist. He cited benny morris' work selectively to form a narrative. Palestinians, not just hamas, have always maintained they can't tolerate a Jewish state. This is borne out by history. Benny morris says as much and everybody calls him a propagandist. The reason why he gives more of the thoughts behind israeli actors is because there's more records left by them of their thinking. Same is not true of the arabs and only their large scale rhetoric and actions are available. That does not reflect the arabs as people who respected the jews rights to life, let alone a country.
It's a pleasure to listen the professor Morris.
Why he is protecting Zionists narrative? Watch the documentary Tantura. Much more accurate.
He’s a manipulator
If second and third generations are refugees, then I guess I am a refugee since my family fled Ukraine after the Russian Revolution.
They are, indeed, refugees! Would they be in the West or other countries if they weren't forcefully removed?! You seem to misunderstand what really happened and why it matters: massacres and expulsions established the state. Morris was once siding w/ them, before he joined the supremist, vile onslaught of his people. This comment makes no sense. The natives in the U.S. were compensated, get priorities in jobs, etc. b/c they were removed, and this is is an injustice!! They will should-and will-return to their homes-b/c the good people of the world will work to make it happen.
Do you live in a refugee camp?
Were you granted citizenship in another country? Were you given perks, salaries, etc. Last I checked there were millions of Palestinians coming in waves-this is unprecedented for any tragedy. Every year people are being kicked out of the West Bank. Is this still happening in Ukraine? Are there 20 million Ukrainians there were forcibly evicted through massacres and explusions? Also, many Ukranians have returned post-war, is this the case w/ Palestinians?
@@LanceAlot-ku1sythe minority of Palestinian Arabs living in refugee camps do so because UNRWA never tried to find a solution. The heritability of the status and the preservation of the status regardless of other citizenships etc created a sort of perennial refugee (which gave way to a new national identity in the 60s, the "Palestinians" in the modern sense).
@nefaristo Israel passed a law so they couldn't return. They destroyed their villages so they wouldn't return.
Benny Morris is historian who painfully looks at facts and real events. He does not place blame on anyone, as it is not the historian´s mission to do so, but rather explores the reality of events. Very different from other historian-activists who seek to blame only Israel for all the problems in the Middle East.
Nonsense. He's an Israeli court historian and a classic cherry picker who decided to turn his back on his own work in order to carve out a career in the halls of officialdom. His description of Palestinian society is laughable. He elides the fact that the Brits trained the Jewish militias and left them their weapons. His timeline is demonstrably false. But, it sounds good to people who want to hear a fairytale. He's ridiculous.
Nope. Learn some history because what you're repeating is propaganda.
Elizabeth Ferrari benny morris's work is used by all, including those like Flinklestein and Chomsky, who heavily criticize Israel. You appear to be a troll as everything youve said has no weight whatsoever.
Actually, I haven't listened to him in a long time and I forgot how awful he was. Yes, he is an Israeli court historian. That doesn't make him a good historian. Finkelstein and Chomsky use him in that context. So, to answer your question, I suppose I am trolling but that was just collateral to refreshing my memory on this hack. Have a nice night.
Elizabeth Ferrari so because morris is peer reviewed that makes his work a false fabrcation? His works went against the main stream israeli narrative. Can you list some examples of his cherry picking? And some historians that you would consider "good historians." Pappe? Said? Id be interested to know. Sweet dreams to you too.
Great lecture. The closing two questions were also fantastic and very incisive.
I've recently read the 'revisited' edition of Benny Morris' book from cover to cover and though exhausting and very sad to read, I think he did a great job of documenting the reality of the countless crimes committed by the Hagannah, IZL and LHI on the often poorly educated and relatively powerless bulk of the Palestinian population. Strangely, he's more muted about these crimes in this talk and is in my opinion, disingenuous in claiming that because there is no written record of a deliberate policy of expulsion, one cannot claim that there was one. His book makes quite clear that most (Israeli) military commanders and the soldiers under their command had no qualms about expelling Palestinians wherever they found them and by whatever means, including terrorising civilians by the use of and threat of summary execution, murder, rape and wholesale theft to achieve that end. An official policy? No. The actual policy of the people in control of events? Absolutely.
@@usbconnections Try reading his book.
Ilan Pappé is a much better historian on this. Though he makes mistakes too - probably goes too far arguing that Herzl had expulsionary views, or that all types of Zionism were by definition colonialist. But otherwise I think he’s a more exact interpreter of the documents made public in 1978.
You don’t really need to make a policy to force people when they are more then willing to do you bidding…
Irgun and Haganah are on record though for making up atrocities and saying it was done by the other group. This is because Jewish ethics rejects genociders. Does Morris acknowledge that they did this? In general, the Jews were fighting of British/Arab/nazi collusion and attempt to exterminate the Jews of palestine. The former also has much control over subsequent propaganda.
@@stevenkammerer8002Pappé admits to creating his own ideas and using them as facts.
In the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm (prime minister of Syria 1948-1949) he wrote: "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes, when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them."
Wrote an article on this, the Arabs screamed at me how much of a liar I was, yet for some odd reason, when I show the actual testimony, the video of Abbas openly admitting this, the Arabs are at a loss for words. I find facts seem to offend them. news.0censor.com/did-israel-really-ethnically-cleans-the-palestinians/
@@timothybenton315 Thanks for the link! By the way, two links for testimonies by 'Palestinian' refugees from the time, confessing it was the Pan-Arabists themselves who told them to leave their homes cause, according to them, it would be just for a very short time, as they hoped to 'throw the Jews back into the sea', in their arrogant words.
Refugee - Arab states told Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 war
ruclips.net/video/FuGqpFxogRg/видео.html
Palestinian refugee: Jordanian army told us to leave in 1948 War
ruclips.net/video/9iR5nDFhBL0/видео.html
@@joalexsg9741 Abbas himself is on video admitting this, it is in the article I gave.
@@timothybenton315 Ok, thanks for telling me in advance, I will check it later on today (I defend several causes on my web activism and many times I've got articles, vids and even books in line amid other ongoing readings, etc). I just wanted to share these two links as they are testimonies by eyewitnesses themselves and, in case you are also a proud Zionist too, to share it as often as possible. I will share your link as well, for sure, thanks again and greetings from Brazil!
Official Israeli intelligence from the time diagrees *”To summarize the previous sections, one could, therefore, say that the impact of "Jewish military action" (Haganah and Dissidents) on the migration was decisive, as some 70% of the residents left their communities and migrated as a result of these actions.* furthermore, on Palestinians being evacuated on Arab orders, it states *“compared to other factors, this element did not have decisive weight, and its impact amounts to some 5% of all villages having been evacuated for this reason.”* It lists “Hostile Jewish Military Action” as the leading cause of migration.
www.akevot.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/1948ISReport-Eng.pdf
The guy strictly sticks to the facts he knows. Nothing can rattle him. I read a lot about this issue and he has the best summary I have ever heard or read.
JUDEA (JUDE יהודי) ָ& Samaria teamed with Israeli, Jewish & Zionist indigenous inhabitants around 2900 years before Islam was invented (No ‘West Bank’ need apply…)
Archeological artifacts & findings satisfy world class archeologists but not Antisemitic, pro genocide & Selective Justice sycophants…
The Dead Sea Scrolls (archeology’s most telling findings in recorded history) on permanent display in the museum in Jewish biblical Jerusalem
Jewish king of JUDEA, Herod I (72 - 4 or 1 BCE), known for his colossal real estate projects throughout JEWISH JUDEA such as:
The Jewish 2nd Temple in Jewish Jerusalem
Expansion of Temple Mount around the Cave of the Patriarchs in JEWISH HEBRON
MASADA
World renown mountainous fortress where besieged Jews escaped to in order to stave of Roman intention to exile them to Rome.
Vital details recorded in the works of 1st century CE historian Josephus (readily available for debunking your maliciously anti Jewish & misleading shameless propaganda)
Al-Aqsa Mosque (The Golden Dome) is nestled right on top of the 2nd Jewish Temple ruins (due to a troubling deficit in all things: Available & reasonably priced commercial real estate in the vicinity. Nothing to do with taking a dump on Jewish spiritual & national sensitivities…)
MARK TWAIN VISITED PALESTINE IN 1867 PT-1:
He was fed up with the primitiveness of the settlements & roads that he encountered: “The further we went the hotter the sun got, more rocky, bare, repulsive & dreary the landscape became…Hardly a tree or a shrub. Even the olive & cactus, those fast friends of worthless soil, deserted the country. Palestine is desolate & unlovely.
Lanky, dyspeptic-looking body-snatchers, with indescribable hats & long curl dangling down in front of each ear (Jews)…Tiberias a metropolis of Jews in Palestine. One of the 4 holy cities of the Israelites As Mecca is to the Mohammedan. The abiding place of many learned & famous Jewish rabbis.The great Rabbi Ben Israel spent 3 years here in the 3 rd century”.
MARK TWAIN VISITED PALESTINE IN 1867 PT-2:
“Grass ought to be sparkling with dew, flowers enriching the air with fragrance & birds singing in the trees. But alas, no dew nor flowers birds or trees. There is a plain & an unshaded lake. Beyond them barren mountains. The tents are tumbling. Arabs are quarreling like dogs & cats, as usual
We traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but given over to weeds - a silent, mournful expanse. We saw only 3 persons - Arabs, with nothing on but long coarse shirts.
Part of the ground, not ground at all, but rocks - cream-colored rocks. No tree or a shrub to interrupt the view,
No timber in Palestine - none for fire & not for mines of coal.
Not a soul visible. Our horses’ hoofs roused the stupid population that came trooping out - old folks, kids, the blind, crazy & crippled. All in ragged, soiled & scanty raiment, & all abject beggars by nature, instinct & education. Vermin-tortured vagabonds begged for charity!. Jews & Arabs. Squalor & poverty.
- ISRAEL - The size of New Jersey
- ‘47-UN recognized Israel. AS SOVEREIGN COUNTRY.
Land divided between Jews & Arabs. 7 Arab armies invaded & lost. No West Bank
- THE JEWISH NAQBA- 800,000 shell shocked Jews forced to flee Arab homelands over night. Leaving money, homes, properties, businesses, mistresses, clothes & personal possessions, sexual peccadilloes. The whole nine yards…
- The term ‘Palestinians’ created in ‘64 (formation of P.L.O).
- 1967 -5 Arab armies prepared a genocidal invasion into microscopic Israel (1/2 size of New Jersey at the time!). They lost. Tough luck…From now on, Israel occupies the West Bank
Microscopic Israel - The size of New Jersey
The Palestinians elected the terror group Hamas to govern & represent them in Gaza
At several locations the distance between THE Mediterranean Sea & the West Bank is approx 20 kilometers
Hamas’ radically religiously indoctrinated ’Soldiers of Allah’ can target passenger jets landing & taking of from Israeli only International Ben Gurion airport at will. Nice…
3 Israeli prime ministers offered the Palestinian Authority %97 of the West Bank & East Jerusalem as capitol. They flatly refused. Even to negotiate.
Thank you very much Professor Benny Morris.
For what? A deliberate or otherwise misinterpretation of the facts?...I suggest you do some additional reading or better yet, speak to a Palestinian not listen to a former IDF member.
@@abayomimanrique3701will your parents teach us? Fokoff
@@abayomimanrique3701 Avi Schlaim is a former IDF soldier. Anybody who lived in Israel, during the war years, served. It makes no sense what you said. You cannot generalize.
Benny Morris a liar and an israeli propagandist. He is not a distinguidhed historian. Cnfr. N. Chomsky.
@@abayomimanrique3701lol for you liars only Arabs matter
Y’all are disgusting 🤢
When Mosab Hassan yousef spoke y’all also discredited him
Benny is incredibly knowledgeable.
He's.a hack.
Never read anything. 😂
Israeli Efraim Karsh, professor of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, writes that Morris engages in what Karsh calls "five types of distortion". According to Karsh, Morris "misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents... [he] tells of statements never made, decisions never taken, events that never happened ... at times [he] does not even take the trouble to provide evidence.....
@@00alda00so relieved to read this.
@@esjay2322 There is no such thing as an honest Israeli.
Is that why he was one of a dozen new historians who all agreed on what happened, and then he feared losing his job or stepping aside, as they did, and he started convoluting information? Various historians have asked him to debate, but he flatly refuses.
the man at 1:25:00 makes a fantastic point! just like all the arab jews who were erased from history due to palestinian racism against jewish people during jewish immigration back to their homeland. but also, the nazi's do have photo evidence of what they did, written evidence of what they did, etc. we DO use german historical archives to learn what the germans did to the jewish people.
if only we had access to more than like 3% of the archives that cover the historical period Benny is talking about. I wonder why those records are difficult to access? I remember reading about how the IDF has always targeted Palestinian Archives & Libraries / Records in order to destroy cultural memory and weaken the historical roots of Palestinian society.
They had them in Israel but covered them up and hid them. Watch the documentary Tantura. You will get a clear picture what happened by testimonies of IDF and documents,. and how they went about creating an Israeli state. The truth was erased and the narrative has been rewritten to cover up atrocities done to Palestinians. But would love archives before that.
@@anon_researcher Problem is that much of the Arab records were Jordanian held. the Arab Palestinian record keeping wasn’t very methodical and robust unfortunately.
Benny Morris is a professor extraordinaire
Let's not forget Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Avi Schlaim who I think are all a bit more reliable than Morris
@@haroonrashid5090 Schlaim isnt bad although his claim the Jews didnt face antisemitism until the 40's is utterly deluded. Pappe is a bit slap dash whose lack of sources undermine his work but Finklestein is completely on the fringe, over emotional and simply cant take being challenged, he will scream and walk out of debates. He is in no way reliable and has no standing in academic circles due to his fringe views, he is just viewed as Chomskys pet and has been for some time,
Morris is the most clear eyed and empirical and always brings reciepts.He is the only one to criticize both sides.He is also the only one who is an actual trained professor of history. F and P are political scientists and S is an economist, they view the conflict through different lenses.
@@endlessnameless6628 Pappe's research is the most and best sorted work out of all of them. Morris' opinion have moved from the center left to center right in the last 15 years and have simply moved with the Israeli society while the underlying facts have not changed. Which for me means he is motivated by a bias.
this talk adjusted much of my knowledge on the subject. it is so important to separate truth from lies.
you chose to learn from this racist? go watch some norman finkelstein. stupid.
I have about 2 minor points that I have learned recently that Mr Morris either played down or were not a part of this point.
One was to that girl ranting about perpetuating islamophobia. Mr Morris mentioned anti-semitic remarks about Jews, such as that Allah turned Jews into pigs, monkeys, and I read a verse about Moh inspecting lizard toes to check if the lizard was a Jew.
He didn't mention the Gharqad Tree verse in the Hadiths that explicitly describes annihilation of Jews in which Nature participates too help the Arabs kill. Moh also says that Allah will withhold Judgment Day and Salvation for obedient Muslims until all Jews are killed (or crushed forever).
This quote which is well confirmed as authentic was centuries before any Zionist Occupation.
What DID happen is that the tribe at Khayber, which was either Hebrew or is considered to be Jews by today's Muslims, is a group refused to accept Moh as THE final Prophet and to become Slaves of Allah, so Mohammed had the men beheaded, one tortured with a fire built upon his chest. Moh took or married (raped) the wife of one of the leaders on the spot, moments after killing her husband and I think her children too. The women and children were kept as slaves or sold or traded.
Except for the slavery part, 10/7 seems to be the same as the ancient Khayber massacre. Killing, mass brutal violent gang rape to the point of breaking bones, torture, hostages are similar to slaves.
The second is that the British Mandate was utilized initially to create an *Arab* state on 3/4 of the Levant east of the River. Next, the Transjordan memorandum was submitted to _exclude_ this huge region from consideration with regards to the Jewish homeland.
This results in the map today narrowed to arguments about whether the half and half split of Palestine west of the River was justified or unfair or stealing land.
The perpetually "homeless" population of Palestinians were actually gifted more than 85% of the total land, when Jordan is considered.
It's seldom understood that PRIOR to 1916, Arabs of Palestine were living under a somewhat brutal 400 years occupation by the Turkish caliphate, which the British helped abolish.
@@gg_riderJordan was never part of the plans of Palestine which indeed should have been independent like all the other countries under the Ottoman Empire. It was not the British who helped the Palestinians defeat the Ottomans, but vice versa change of independence. The promise of independence of the Arab countries under the command of the leader of Mecca was betrayed by the Sykes-Picot agreements and the declaration of Bealfur, Jordan (already since 1922) together with Iraq will be the sop for the children of the emir of Mecca . Before the UN Partition Plan, as also sanctioned by the 1939 White Paper, the birth of a Jewish state was never guaranteed, but of a home, therefore just as the English did not grant promises of sovereignty over Palestine, they certainly did not do so over Jordan.
He is lying
@@gg_rider
you must consult a psychiatrist quickly, you are suffering from a delusion of a psychopath.
There is nothing you write in the Quran. Why do you use many lies? Today, everything is verified. you don't know that?
One problem. From 1948 until 1964, there were no "Palestinian" refugees. There were only Arab refugees, which the Arabs never stopped reminding the world. The phrase "Arab Refugee Crisis" rang and rang for years and years. I remember this because I came of age during that time. The phrase "Arab Refugee Crisis" was incessant and never ending. No one ever, repeat ever, heard the word "Palestinian". That is, until 1964 when all of a sudden that word replaced the word "Arab." And not just "Palestinian" but indigenous "Palestinian". Go back thirty years, during the British Mandate for Palestine, when all of the Jews were happily calling themselves and their institutions Palestinian, and the Arabs were bitterly complaining before the Peel Commission of 1936 that they despised the word "Palestinian" because it was "alien to the Arabs" and had nothing to do with them, since they considered that name to be associated solely with the hated Jews. This is all public record.
Thank you. I mention this a lot. This is an often ignored historical piece of information.
Arafat became palestinian in 1964 after graduating the KGB school of young marxists who believe in the opressed and the opressor.
where? where can i access this material?
Its so relieving to see people state factual records of history like this. Thank you
No one claims there aren't crises with the Palestinians I do however contest that it is solely due to the creation of Israel.
@@el_chico1313history
Benny states a crucial facet of his speech when he admits that he had NO access to Arabic records, this lack of context is important.
Doesn't he say there were simply fewer Arab records?
So we should take what the Arabs say with a grain of salt in other words.
@@melange78 No it means , that his story (as bad as it looks for the Zionist) is based on mostly Zionist records.
in fact you should take what westerners say with a grai nof salt and can generally believe the words of an arab based on their honor system. Especially in that time. This is one of the major issues Arabs had doing diplomacy with supremacist empires and colonial powers.@@melange78
@@melange78 Nope. It means exactly what it means, they either didn't make records or aren't making them available. He in no way said take arabs with a grain of salt. How did you get this?
Nobody ever talks about the Jordanians ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Jordanians destroyed over 35 ancient synagogues and Jewish historical sites, as well as the destruction of the Mount of Olives cemetery.
that sounds awful, I don't like undemocratic countries like Jordan. Oh also, no one ever talks about the active ethnic cleansing happening in East Jerusalem of Armenian Christian or Palestinian Muslim communities and historic/religious sites. The city, if the current government maintains present policy, will be monotheistic, when for centuries different faiths have shared it. A sad result of messianic zionism & settler violence.
When ?
@@r.b6170
1948 through 1967 before Israel took their land back from Jordan. *Is Google broken?*
@@shainazion4073 Google doesn't go back thousands of years; neither does Zionism, nor Eastern European Jews.
The question time is so accusatory and full of 1/2 truths. The questioners are so blinded. Benny is not a politician, he’s was involved in the 1948 war. It’s history not misplaced emotions.
Great interview, Benny Morris is balanced and those that are unwilling to listen to the facts come with their own agenda.
"Balanced"---you mean he pretends there is some legitimacy to "settlers" from Warsaw and Brooklyn showing up in Palestine for "free land." There is NONE. Armed "settlers" are simply the cutting edge of Israel's land-theft agenda, and Israel itself calls them "the internal army" for doing so.
"balanced"
I fully agree!
agreed. That's why I think Israel has not been fair in negotiating peace
According to Dr Ilan Pappe' , Professor Emeritus Exeter who is a jew, said with the expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians in 1947-1949 there was bloodshed; Palestinians were injured, killed. This was after Zionist thugs bulldozed Palestinian homes and stole their worldy possessions. During the expulsion Zionist officials said to those leaving "if you leave you cannot come back. Shortly after the expulsions international media asked Israeli officials about the expulsions. Israeli officials said "we asked them to stay but they chose to leave." Leading up to the 1947, armed Jewish militia groups continually harassed, attacked an unarmed civilian population, the Palestinians. Zionist thugs , in order to hasten the expulsions Zionist Thugs poisoned the aquafers with Typhus. The wet lands were drained and water ways were diverted. Zionism is a brutal , racist ideology. Its also a Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide.
He's very professional at what he does. The main limitation is that he doesn't speak or read Arabic (and even if he did, there is a written resources problem).
His main contribution in terms of the Israeli society are:1) acknowledging there were forced expulsions 2) acknowledging that the idea that Palestinians ran away because arab leaders told them to leave is generally a myth.
If only most Israelis knew these 2 findings, it would already be an improvement.
@metsfan92286
That's an interesting perspective and it's new to me. Thanks!
That explains for me a bit more why 48' arabs are often called "traitors" by some arabs, while from my perspective it always seemed like holding on to the land could be seen as patriotic or brave ('Tzumud').
I wonder how strict this distinction is and whether it's always possible to choose where to run in those situations.
I'm not sure (I would say it's even not likely) that Palestinian refugees could choose to run west. I'm not aware of any example of "running west" in 1948. The ones who stayed (150,000 people), stayed. Either because they had prior agreements with the IDF or because of the decision of IDF commanders in the field.
Fair enough, but as for 1) and 2) these contributions are by no means original or unique to him. Other prominent historians have also made these points, including Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, Palestinian American historian Rashid Khalidi, and the British Jewish historian (RIP) Tony Judt.
He is very biased.
I take great offence at him referring to the Palestinian population as Arab's all the time as though they were not the rightful owners of the land of palestin
there are numerous citations by Arabs making it clear that Arab leaders told people to clear out.
I've sent this link to my students, this is basic information you have to know before you talk about Israeli- Palestine conflict
Yes, spread the lies of your cursed species.
Highly biased and distortion of facts
You know it doesn’t work like that, first of all facts can’t be biased , opinions are and when you say facts are distorted you need to explain m , we already know that all antisemitists don’t like those facts
@@personofcolour6564 you know this is not how it works, we already know that antisemites think so, you need to explain how these facts are distorted. Facts can't be biased though, opinions can be, and it seems like you're expressing an opinion.
@@TakoGoksadze the fact that you called the people who doesn't agree with him as anti semites proves that he has a bias for the apartheid
I am glad he said he cannot predict the future, being a historian
“Transfer”. Just like Native Americans were “transferred” to reservations.
Det som bör nämnas är det tal, som Andrei Gromyko höll i FN 1947 där han framförde Sovjetunionens syn i frågan, mycket intressant tal
Where can I find this?
So grateful for his honest and straightforward research. In an era of so many distortions leading to tragic results, Benny is always a breath of fresh air and nuanced thinking.
I am a Jewish Anti-Zionist, but this talk was very very informative. Thank you for the lecture Professor Morris. I think I learned some stuff
What does that mean that you’re a Jewish anti Zionist? Do you believe the Jewish people have no right to have self sovereignty (whether in Palestine or some remote pacific island or wherever)? Just curious?
a zionist simply means supporting the existence of israel.
@MrXammos they don't have the right to steal land
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 you’re right! We agree totally
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 Which “land”? I presume you referring to the specific houses and plots of land that were owned by Arabs that fled/forced out of Israel during the 1948 war, right? If so, in theory you are right. But that is an issue inherent in all conflicts over the past many hundreds of years. There are millions of people who lost their homes as a result of conflict - Germans, Poles, Syrians, Pakistanis, Indians and of course hundreds of thousands of middle eastern Jews who had their homes “stolen” after 1948. All those people should have restitution to some extent. But that’s really complex. But for some reason this rhetoric of “stolen land” is uttered only in the context of Israel and 1948….
Deir Yassin is such an interesting event. I have noticed that the pro-Palestine side uses that example over and over as proof of an extermination plan by the Jews. Often the phrase sounds like this: "Deir Yassin and others...". But other than that one example, where Irgun lost its shit and committed war crimes there are no other examples whatsoever. This is in contrast to Arab perpetrated massacres between 1920-1947 which were designed to go after civilians as a form of terror. Not to downplay what happened in that village on that fateful day, but it sure feels like its used as the poster boy to advance a narrative.
If you are truly interested in learning about other attrocities like Deir Yassin‚ watch Tanrura or read Ilan Pappe's book on Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
☝THIS!
@@armanrashid1010 Unfortunately Ilan has been so thoroughly criticized for his shoddy work and bias, that I do not believe he provides an objective viewpoint.
@@rkd80 criticized by the likes of Benny Morris for sure and they don't have a biased agenda!! Opportunistically or conveniently ignoring "oral history" speaks volumes!!
The expulsion of Lydda and Ramle was pretty messed up
Love the way you call out Rashid Khalidi as a spokesperson for the PLO dressed up as a professor.
Ahahahaha! Me too! I was looking to see if someone else had made the same comment.
@@IbnTufayl1 I just want to clarify that Khalidi is a very nice man who thinks life is unfair and is unable to come up with any practical solutions to anything. He's not against the Jews.
This is enormously important. It’s unbelievable that a major American university actually holds up the PLO’s marketing guy as any kind of academic. There are real Arab scholars, he isn’t one of them.
@@LauranHazan It is fine that Khalidi is at Columbia. The whole point of the university is to have a free exchange of ideas, and he does very eloquently explain the Palestinian perspective. The problem, however, is that there is no one there who does as good a job explaining the Israeli side.
Much of what Khalidi says would not stand up to a fact check, but it is important to have him there speaking it so students can learn what that side is. He's a nice, well meaning man with a very particular world view, and who also engages in some sloppy historical analysis. If only Columbia could hire Benny Morris..
@@christinehill1038Or if they dared to hire Ilan Pappe
Why is Benny's microphone so muted. Sack the sound engineer.
1970 Black September. I remember it well. The Palestinian "refugees" were taken in on humanitarian basis and shown kindness. What did the Palestinians do in return? They formed street gangs and robbed Jordanians and caused much infighting. Jordanians asked for the Palestinians to be removed but a member of the Kings family asked that they stay and they'll be OK. A few months later one of the larger gangs attempted a coup and planned to assassinate the king. The Palestinians thought that the Jordanians were a soft touch, "not Arab minded enough" and that they were not sharing enough money, so that gave the refugees grounds to rob and plunder. It was a mess.
why are myths that Palestinians are inherently violent, duplicitous and deceitful so unbelievably common? They are often blamed for their own dispossesion! I've read numerous fact sheets from fervently pro-Israel, zionist websites on how to talk about subjects like refugees and the Nakba, and they essentially dismiss history that even Benny (!), no leftist himself, is quite clear about.
Shown kindness? Like if thats how you would describe the experience of Palestinians post '48, that they were shown kindness in Jordan, or by Israel, or by the UN, you truly have a warped vision of what this people has experienced.
Also I'd just note you inflate the actions of individuals to describe the entire refugee population, reducing the humanity of millions of people. I would never want to see someone blaming the worst crimes of messianic settlers or the soldiers who violently ethnically cleansed villages in '48 ascribed to all Jews, or more specifically, to all Israelis. That would be blatant anti-semitism. But we readily accept and frequently repeat such claims when discussing Palestinians. weird
Go read about the Salvadorian Civil War, the Cambodian War, settler colonialsm in Algeria, etc. Is the aftermath of such events not one of pain and disarray? A people were plundered and removed from their homes of millenia, and you're here saying what exactly? Also, this comment is inaccurate b/c throughout the Muslim world the rulers don't represent the people (look up why), and those against them were those of the rulers. All across the Muslim world, what are they saying in protests? What are they saying in protests in Jordan now? Why was there a crackdown on protestors? What happened in the Lebanese Civil War w/ the Palestinians? Here's your answer: the people are with them and want to help them get their land and homes back. And this is all 2 Billion Muslims, everywhere. They will side with them over their government. This is why rulers don't want them: its a front to their corrupt leadership, and a call for Muslim unity. And btw you need to look up more abt the king in Jordan, and how many ppl are in prison b/c they tried to overthrow or contest what's happening. Look this all up. Read Pity Thy Nation by Robert Fisk and the Lebanese Civil War: go see what Muslims were saying/doing, and how they opposed the ruling class.
One thing that strikes me about the way Benny Morris talks is his gentleness and, I would say, kind-heartedness. This is in stark contrast to the seething resentment and anger that exudes from N. Finkelstein’s every word.
In case you did not notice B.Morris side expelled, segregated, attempted to subdue to capitulation and now genocides the other side.
If you want kindness you can listen to the Illan Pappe version of B.Morris's 'atmosphere of transfer! 😂
The silence in 1:27:55 is telling!
1:09:00 was a whole fool and ignorant. The professor handled that well.
It was an attack not a question on her part.
Civilian expulsion is common in most every war.
Reparation never works, it just can't be justly administered.
36:21 I am a very cautious Jewish person who prefers to listen to multiple facets of discussion even though I may think initially I will disagree. However, and I will finish this lecture, this feels like a discussion had regarding the dispersion of the indigenous North Americans peoples. I’m making this note for myself.
my ancestors were expelled from Sclesia in 1945. we have a right to return?
[8:24] As it relates to Palestinians who were displaced from their homes in 1947-49, but landed elsewhere in the same state, what is the practical (ie, non-legal) significance and/or implication of remaining in the same state on their status as refugees?
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are not considered refugees. In practice, the Palestinian Arabs displaced from their homes who ended up in Israel became the Israeli Arabs.
@@joaopedrolang semantics would say that a person displaced from their home but remaining in their state is not a refugee, however, intellectual honesty would say that a person without a home and in a state that wishes for them to be further removed and dispossessed of land and dignity is a refugee.
Based on the definition of refugee, combined with the fact that there was no Palestinian country makes the term 'Palestinian Refugee' a complete and utter contradiction in terms.
@@joaopedrolang Not all. Shouldn't the ones in Gaza and the West Bank be allowed the same Right of Return that Jews have?
@@rkd80 from the beginning Palestinians were always called refugees. And just because someone doesn’t recognize that a land is yours because they want it for their own agenda does not mean it isn’t your country. In the early days of Zionism the people scouting Palestine for a Jewish state they literally said, “the bride is beautiful but she is already taken.” Early Zionist also were intellectually honest enough to know that their state was to come at the expense and displacement of the Palestinians. Refugees, displaced people, whatever you want to call them - if you are intellectually honest in this history, you will have to say the last 120 plus years of the Palestinians is an atrocity of humanity and a serious abdication of morality.
Written history can be doctored too. You said many Muslim Palestinians were illerate therefore their oral accounts are important. Just because you are conditioned to a certain mindset, lifestyle and education style does not negate the importance of other cultures oral history. Remember many religious text we have down to this day initially relied on oral accounts before a written text was physically produced. How were they taylored.
He explains why oral history is problematic and you should listen to that part again. Oral history, especially passed down through generations, will be useless. How do you gauge it's trustworthiness?
Documents written at the time, for other purposes, will be truthful in the small piece of the puzzle that they paint. You always have to put it in context still of the person writing and their motivations at the time, but oftentimes, most often, there is zero reason for them to lie. They couldn't have known about the historical significance of what they wrote. It could just be some mundane military report written to their commanders, or some official counting sheep, or whatever.
The incredible amount of documents which Benny Morris must have read to reach his conclusions is astounding and by basing it on referenced sources you can fact-check him yourself and gauge his credibility as a historian and researcher. There are certainly historical records in arab archives, which he mentions, but in general arab powers refuse to let them be studied. You can't fall back to a useless source to make up for that.
At the end of the day, there can only be one truth. If you go in without an agenda, then it doesn't matter who wrote the documents. You will judge the credibility of the evidence and you will draw what conclusions can be drawn from it. Equally, you will not draw conclusions where there is a lack of credible evidence.
@@autisticscooterdriver today's media accounts are evicence of conflicting versions of conflicting versions of certain alarming events
Oral history is not comparable at all to written history.
@@autisticscooterdrivernot all text is accurate or complete
🇮🇱 like to write about how 6M Jews were killed in the holocaust but no mention is made of other groups who were wiped out
To an 🇮🇱 semite means jew only but it includes Arabs
According to the oral history of my family, WWII was very funny and they had the best time of their lives. Took me 30 years to realize it was a coping strategy.
When a child asks his mother, why they are living in a refugee tent camp, the answer "The jews stole our land." has much more explainatory power than "because Daddy made the wrong decision to flee and now they won't let us come back" .
The question at the minute 1:28 is great! the man is a hypocrite
1:24:37 I think you mean this time step.
He argues that there are no records from Arab states because they are dictatorships, Palestinians are also disorganized and without records.
Oral history is also to be disregarded ( even though the story of the killing of animals was relayed to him from a guys memory and backed by documents)
So we are left with records of the Isarili themselves!
Perpetrators of crimes do not always leave records.
Right, I agree his anecdote about the man who relayed the story of animals being killed actually undermined his rejection of oral history. The oral history that was relayed to him actually helped him find the facts in the written record.
Thank you Prof. God please bring peace to Israel.
May the same god return the displaced palestinians to their solen property and houses.
1:07:00 a harbinger of the woke revolution. Most people asked genuine questions, even if they already had their own opionion. This young women JUST wanted her gotcha moment. She wanted to take him down, based on some misquotes, and his actual opinion meant nothing to her. This was 2017. When this level of bad faith was still new and shocking.
I was at University in the mid 1980s - and those people were always there. Especially in the social sciences and left-leaning institutions of the university. The prefrontal cortex is only beginning to mature - and it shows.
@@llewellynjones1115 interesting. I graduated in 1981 and didn't see this, even among the most strident and radical of the lefties and activists I associated with, which included someone who got arrested at a protest in DC where he threw blood at a federal building (I forget the building and the cause).
I give this example just to show that if people behaved like the student in this video, or like the students you describe, I would have seen it.
It was an attack not a question
she is not "woke" she is an id**t
WOW! I really would love for more people to assess the Israeli Arab conflict side-by-side withe India Pakistan conflict. It would contextualize both conflicts so much better.
I think the current mindset has so much difficulty getting into the mindset of these people in these 2 regions during the 1930s & 1940s.
Both conflicts were like fraternal twins, born from the fall of the British Empire and from a rise in nationalism. Transfer was a thing that was not just Zionist mentality it existed in India-Pakistan. The Zeitgeist was different then.
You should watch his debate with norman ‘ he is a clown 🤡
Its a very interesting comparison. Indian Muslims demanded a Muslim state run by and for Muslims ( Pakistan ) and it involved ethnic cleansing of Hindus. Nobody on the Western left seems to have a problem with this but they do have a problem with Jews wanti ng a Jewish majority state where Jews govern Jews. The latter is denounced as 'racist', the former is off the radar , politically speaking.
@@michaelhussey440 I don’t have time write long paragraphs like you but ‘ you are a piece of shitt’ muslims lived there for hundreds of years’ when they got separated some Muslims rejected to leave their homes and decided to live in india ‘ and you are the ones who treating them badly ‘ look at the kashmir ‘ you should read history you have lack of knowledge
@@shoaibmalik6622 "he is a clown" who? Finkelstein or Morris? Which debate? I think they have debated more than once. I've read Benny Morris's book, Righteous Victim's. Benny Morris is a historian not a debater. He may debate but I think his strengths are in scholarly archival research and writing great insightful and thorough history. Benny Morris revolutionized Israeli history by being the 1st Israeli historian to base his accounting of the past mainly on written verifiable fact rather than oral recollections of the past which tend to get mythologized. I do see Norman Finkelstein as a bit of a ridiculous self promotional instigator and provocateur, and like a clown, he is entertaining. Now, I'm not sure we agree on which is more clownish.
@@honeybeechanger benny is clown 🤡 norman is a legend
Excellent overview mostly unbiased. Only criticism I have is not enough weight was given to the harm done by The Colonial Power Britain believing they had the right to give away the lands of another people, using their own arbitrary standards of land ownership and minimizing the attachment of that land for Palestinians. . Not that there wasnt a massive case for the Jews after the Holocaust. However, it left the Palestinians traumatised and forever wanting their lands back.
Damn, imagine how the native jews in israel felt when they had their entire country stolen by those same arabs in the 7th century, were made 3rd class citizens for over 1400 years, were constantly chased from country to country having their land stolen. Give me a goddamned break, no right to give the land away? Are you a moron? The brittish won the war, the muslim caliphates stole the land from the jews in the 7th century through invasion, the ottomans did the same to them, then the brittish did the same to the arabs. There were native jews living there throughout the muslim occupation all the way up into 1948, despite the arabs numerous attempts at slaughtering them and chasing them out.
They brought this on themselves, muslim arabs have been slaughtering, raping, enslaving, and stealing from jews for over 1400 years. The 2 most important "islamic" cities, mecca and medina, were both jewish cities originally which were stolen by their pedophile prophet Muhammad and his gang of thugs. They beheaded an entire tribe after exiling the other 2 tribes, took the women as sex slaves after raping them, and enslaved the children as long as they didn't have pubes, if they had pubes they beheaded them instead. It's all in the islamic sources. Islam is a racist and supremacist religion that constantly tells Muslims they are victims and deserve to control the entire world, that jews are literal pigs and rats who will be exterminated by their messiah on the final day of judgement, and that it's the right of muslims to enslave them and tax them into poverty as they did for those 1400 years. That's how war works, everybody got their land through war, big deal. They can keep crying instead of owning up to their own actions and screaming about victim hood to the west. Arabs stole more land and colonized more countries than any other group in the world, there are 49 muslim countries the arabs could move to, only 1 jewish state in the world. The only reason they are victims is because they refuse to be anything else.
800,000 jews were violently chased out of neighboring arab countries in 1948, countries they were chased into by arabs after they stole the jews land. 800,000 jewish refugees who would have had nowhere to go without israel, and this had been going on for over a millenia, the arabs were brutal to the jews and as I said were constantly chasing them from country to country stealing from them. The arabs religion blamed the jews for everything, their prophet blamed the jews for everything, the jews have been the islamic scapegoat since the 7th century. Let me get some fake tears so I can pretend to feel bad for the colonizers facing the music finally. They invaded and got what they asked for, they had been ethnically cleansing the area of jews since they invaded in the 8th century, Boohoo, they had to move 6km away, what a tragedy!
It was not exclusively Arabs’ land that was “given away”, this premise is ridiculous. The land doesn’t belong to an ethnicity, there was no other country than Britain in power in the area, and Palestinians refused to create their own country alongside Israel.
“The land doesn’t belong to an ethnicity”
Tell that to the Zionist Jews.
This was very interesting and as relevant now as ever before
One question I’ve never heard asked much less answered is why Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States, are expected to take in hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees from war torn nations and to provide resettlement and humanitarian aid to them, yet for Arab nations, their fellow Arabs are left languishing in camps 75 years on, with the original refugees mostly having passed on. Why is no one pressing these Arab nations to solve that problem? Is it because Israel is a Jewish state that rules seem to be made especially for them and applied to no one else. The Palestinian Arabs have their own UN agency just for them, and claim that refugee status can be passed on through the father (not the mother - where are the feminists on that one?). International law doesn’t recognize that anywhere else and it should not here.
The same is the case with this nonsense about "apartheid" - a convention the U.S. the U.K. and other western nations have rejected, it appears to be applied only against Israel, even though it is not legitimate international law. To be fair, much international law has been corrupted when it comes to Israel as the majority of nations of the world envy and hate the Jewish state - for reasons about which one can only speculate.
I'm curious why you reject the application of the term "apartheid" to the West Bank? How do you think the practice of occupation, settlement, provision of partial self-governance, dispossession of land and so on don't fit as an "apartheid" system?
other questions: per the existence of a refugee problem & support for a jewish state... For the establishment of the zionist project (a Jewish State) you need to maintain (through expulsion, annexation, aliyah, immigration and different laws for different populations) a Jewish majority. For the establishment of a Jewish state on land with a large Palestinian Arab community, you need for to control as much land as possible, with as few Palestinians as possible left within those borders. You cannot accept the whole population as subjects of the state with equal rights, as this would pose a demographic threat to the Jewish majority. Hence, transfer or expulsion /dispossession or whatever you want to call it is necessary. You need Palestinians to leave their homes, and they cannot return.
The foundation for this happening is the idea of a Jewish right to self-determination, its a basic assertion of human rights that is applied to a religious and ethnic diaspora in their historic homeland. Why does the assertion of this national right claim priority over the security and property rights of Palestinian Arabs? Why does the assertion of this right come before a Palestinian right to self-determination? Finally, why is it the responsibility of neighboring arab ciuntries to "solve the problem," when it was actions of a wide range of actors that contributed to not only the creation but the maintenance of a permanent Palestinian refugee community.
there are competing claims here. Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism, individual/familial property rights, right-to-return which has been a fundamental one for many refugees in past conflicts, and in fact is fundamental to Zionism as well. I try not to allow myself to imagine that there is purity among these ideas, communities or claims, that one is superior to another. This leads me to imagine more ways of co-existing, of a modern, pluralistic society capable of containing the cultural memory and collective aspirations of more than one people. Deeply idealistic! Completely contrary to the facts on the ground! But curious to hear your thoughts about my questions
2) The Islamic claim to Jerusalem is false - There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632 c.e. at the death of Muhammad... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian-occupied city
‒by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann, writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Excerpts of the article originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994‒
The muslim "claim" to Jerusalem is allegedly based on what is written in the koran, which although does not mention Jerusalem even once, nevertheless talks of the "furthest mosque" (in Sura 17:1): «Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the sacred mosque to the furthest mosque». But is there any foundation to the muslim argument that this "furthest mosque" (al-masujidi al-aqsa) refers to what is today called the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, NO!
In the days of Muhammad, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian-occupied city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by caliph Omar only in 638 c.e., six years after Muhammad's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style. The Aqsa mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by caliph Abd el-Malik. The name "Omar mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, about 80 years after Muhammad died, Malik's son, Abd el-Wahd ‒who ruled in 705-715‒ reconstructed the Christian-Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the centre. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aqsa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the koran.
Consequently, it is crystal clear that Muhammad could never have had this mosque in mind when he wrote the koran (if he did so), since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Muhammad intended the mosque in Mecca as the "sacred mosque", and the mosque in Medina as the "furthest mosque"
Dude ginger mohammed was in Jerusalem and he had arab jew tribe with him that's why your foundation stone was preserved. 😂.
I have listened to llan Pappe and this guy. In my humble opinion, this giy has less of an agenda. Both are decent historians and highly enlightening about the facts of history as it relates to the creation of Israel.
Ilan pape is no historian
Agree! When I heard Ilan Pappe, I thought the same.
The reason you think he has less of an Agenda (while in this talk it is very obvious at some points that he is gatekeeping hard) while I think he has more of an Agenda, is because you already have an opinion on that matter. You came here as "pro-Israel" even if you were "not sure". And this is why you do not see the cracks.
Now you can say I do not see the cracks in Pappe, because I came here as someoen with a pro-Palestine bias. That is fine. Just don't forget the high likelyhood of your own bias.
Also I am happy to show you a specific timestampe where I think he is totally framing it into his "Agenda". What he is in my by now not so humble opinion, is a Pro-Israel gatekeeper that is willing to make a few minor concessions that allow wiggle room for "recognition" without consequences. His thoughts about "expulsion happened, but it was not an order!" is a perfect example.
"This atrocity happened, so this was indeed a Myth and the Palestinians are right - but see it happened at this time, in this order in this specific setup, therefore it is of no consequence for Israel or the Zionist project." You cannot miss it.
Interesting. Ilan Pappe is a well published professor, but has been criticized by other academics including Morris. Morris himself has also been criticized.
It’s funny how people who are more proisraeli like Morris and the others favour Pappe. Both are distinguished scholars and experts. But if it’s true that Morris relies heavily on Israeli documents and the others look at various ones - may make the difference in the facts
I think I mentioned either here or elsewhere… I can’t help thinking about what was it that Morris did that is so gruesome (maybe depraved) that Mossad or Shin-Beth may have found out and has been using against him in the shadows”… Somebody please remind me: it is called blackmailing?
Amazing, thank you
You rock Mr Morris. I appreciate your work
It’s unfortunate that late Morris (as opposed to his early work) brings out the Nakba denialists, as is evident from the comments here. Three reasons why forced dispossession of Palestinians was necessarily central to Zionism by the early 20th century: 1) Zionists of various stripes, from Hertzl to Jabotinsky described dispossession as necessary for creating a Jewish majority state, and they did so in writing. This was at the end of the 19th century and early 20th well before the 1930s and the Peel commission. 2) Palestinians were not allowed back into Israel after 1948. If there was no project of ethnic cleansing, it makes little sense why they were never let back in, and the right of return has never been accepted as an even feasible demand by the Israeli government. 3) Palestinian citizens of Israel also had their land confiscated from them under present absentee laws. If there were no ethnocentric logic of expulsion, why would Israeli citizens who were Palestinians also be denied the right to their land?
The whole “it was just the chaos of war” story is an alibi for dispossession that makes no sense. The talk is also full of snide negative comments about Palestinians and other Arabs. Morris’s narrative is only compelling if you already want to believe it.
46:00 so leaving bc of israeli torture & military aatrocity threat ... thats under "voluntary leaving" , right? ok then. _JC
What I was hearing too
Indeed, the Arabs never proclaimed their own state in 1948...i never thought of this !!!
That is because they demanded it all or nothing.
@@timothybenton315 I can understand the all part but the nothing? I mean to have a state even a tiny one it's a start and it's always better than nothing. I think they thought they could beat the Jews.
But they were the majority living there. Then they were expelled because of their ethnicity. That’s the only thing that matters.
We were occupied by the British. The british did not kick us out like the jews did.
I'm not sure why it matters what some leaders did or didn't "proclaim" (however this is defined exactly). This reminds me of the bit about the British arriving in India: "You haven't got a flag? Well, no flag, no country!"
75 years later and the two sides still can't find a solution. We like to fight! How about a two state settlement and sparing the rest of the world that has no dog in this fight to stop hearing about all of the grievances of both sides.
Morris's problem, which also emerges from reading his book "Righteous victims", is that being an Israeli he is unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to stop playing the Israeli in his historical interpretations. The problem lies in not taking into account that the Palestinian Arabs considered the arrival of Jewish settlers to be an invasion simply because they came to settle in their land (beyond the reasons themselves). Now, if tomorrow someone comes to knock on our house telling us that it actually belongs to him because his ancestors were there thousands of years ago, I think we will all answer him badly or consider his establishment to be an "invasion", that I know, in the garden. Unfortunately Morris in dealing with such sensitive historiographically issues fails to do what I believe a historian should always do to the end: completely dismantle a historical reading dictated by his being emotionally involved as one of the parties involved.
Every historical context is different. Here in Canada, for example, the Indigenous still lay claim (rightly or wrongly) to be the owners of this land, even though hundreds of years have passed since their colonialization and subjugation. And huge segments of the population actually agree with giving political power and autonomy back, along with actual land space. Granted, the Jews were expelled 2000 years ago, but where do we draw the line? 50 years? 400 years?
interesting comment usualy people compare the arabs of palestine with native americans orthe first people or first nations of canada and the jews who came initially mainly from eastern europe are compared with the white european setters who colonised what is now the united statse and canada
@@MulletKidhose indigenous who stayed in Canada will remain indigenous. If the indigenous people of Canada moved to Europe thousands of years ago, his descendents today would be Europeans. This is common sense. Not rocket science.
@@MulletKid
It's a good question. Canada is probably big enough, rich enough, and secure enough to even be able to ask those questions.
Time elapsed is not the main factor in my opinion. In the end it is a tension between "justice" manifested by redistribution of significant wealth vs. letting people with privileges and property keep it. On one extreme end you have injustice/colonialism and even slavery, at the other extreme you have failed states, economic breakdowns, civil wars and poverty.
I think you and Morris don't see the role of historians in the same way.
I believe he doesn't see his main role as being the moral judge of the situation. He thinks the historian role is to use written documentation (and not aural testimony) to try to describe and interpret what happend to the best of his abilty.
He's very limited by not knowing arabic.
If you read his 1988 book I think you'll discover a different tone.
I think expecting historians to not have an emotional bias is like thinking that someone can provide an objective narrative of why a married couple got divorced. It's simply Impossible. There are some facts that can be varified, some that can't, and much that is subjective and depends on ideology or feelings.
Great lecture, especially the Q and A about the differences between written and oral sources for historians. Too much propaganda out there especially in 2024.
Left unaddressed is the issue of the most powerful non-Jewish lpolitician, Haj Amin al-Husseini being a strong former ally of the Nazis, which must have freaked out a lot of the Jews, given the horrors of Holocaust being very fresh in the Jewish mind.
That's an over simplification of history. Many colonial resistance movements had loose ties with Nazis to help overthrow their British overlords‚ even when those leaders had nothing in common with Nazis. Hell‚ even Zionists made deals with Nazis in the early dayd to prevent expulsions of Jews from Germany to anywhere else but Palestine.
obviously this is an interesting historical note, but Benny isn't leaving it out. He doesn't include it because it wasn't of significance at the time. Likewise, the efforts of certain specific Zionist groups to get the German Nazi State to support settlement efforts & the establishment of a Jewish State in Mandatory Palestine do not equat with the Zionist project itself being associated in any material or significant way with Nazis. The Mufdi ultimately did not play a central role in the struggle for Palestinian Nationalism following partition or '48, and was simply not of great importance. Americans bring him up a lot as justification that Palestinians were = the Nazis, but its ahistorical.
If you doing something that lead you to get hated by both side, it means you are doing it well, truth are always and forever be uncomfortable
Would be interesting to see him debate Noam Chomsky.
that would be an elite debate
He debated Norman Finkelstein and for every Finkelstein fact, Morris responded with personal attack.
*55:00** it is on the flag, the blue lines from the 1800s: FROM THE RVR 2 THE SEA.* wasnt planned to have a jewish ethnostate. yes an incredibly well organized & funded coincidence. _JC
There would have been no refugee problem should the Palestinians’ right of return was recognized.
lol “right of return”
@@chaim5397 if the Jews have the right of return to the land that they left 2000 years ago , you may as well accept the right of return of the Palestinians who left Palestine 75 years ago.
You can laugh at this matter, but you are really laughing at yourself.
I assume recognizing their right of return would present a security concern
@@qutrb6790 that applies on the Jews “right of return “ as well.
Always a great sign when you start your talk by talking about "the Arabs" as a monolithic block.
Yep the egyptian the saudi Bahraini and the Algerian don't forget the tunisian and yeah the yemeni the ARab . 😂😂😂 I wish they know they are not cousin they are the same poeple 😂😂😂
This is a good lecture and he explains the complex history as well as he can. But I do disagree a bit with his rejection of oral histories. I think it depends on what oral history one is referring to as well as how long after an event the history is recorded. In some cases all we have is oral history. The official government or military records won't always tell us exactly what happened. They will instead tell us the outline of what was proposed. And then afterwards the government has to rely on eyewitness accounts to complete the record, which are a bit like oral history. But some governments will cover up this information. Oral histories are essential to the overall perspective of history. Esp. when things go a different way than what was planned. Or when people are themselves part of a war and are therefore part of history. Their story may certainly be biased but it is their story. And any good historian understands that. So do the courts and judges and juries, which daily render verdicts based on what people say and what they remember.
Agreed .
If you simply dissmiss oral histories, then the entire history of , say, the Native American people can be ignored and only the coloniser's voice heard. Inevitably this yields an unfair, one-sided view.
@kingsindian8948 It's not about "colonizers" it's about the fact that oral history is just inferior. Not as accurate, detailed, more prone to propaganda. There's a reason we know who was Emperor of China in 500 BC, but have no idea who ruled in the America's at the time.
Doesn't mention that the Israelis bombed the British out of Israel. Under cars, roadside bombs sort if thing.
Thank you for the coverage
Benny morris is an excellent and honest historian. If only there was the possibility for the Palestinian side to have a historian of this caliber, there would be hope. I’ve learned a lot from this lecture but the biggest thing I’ve taken from this lecture is why it is so. Unfortunate as it is, it allows me to understand the position Palestinians are in better, allowing me to stop for my search for public honest self reflection on their side.
However, Saris Nussaiba does seem to be the one courageous Palestinian I’ve been searching for and I look forward to reading his book (that I’ve already ordered).
Having said that, what impressed me most about Morris was not only his keeping his cool when attacked by the young lady at 108 but how he takes her seriously and responds seriously to her, keeping both, his own dignity, and perhaps even her dignity too, intact.
Morris can't even read Arabic sources and you call him an excellent historian?
Searching for Palestinian historian who will be as impartial and with views based on archival research. I couldn't find one yet 😐
Who have you looked into?
@@pragmatic-no-nonsense9363 Rashid Khalidi
@@svanalpmisha5171what did you find?
@@svanalpmisha5171 Specific refutation not discussed 56:00 he is mentioned
Vest un gros plaisir écouter le professeur Morris. Il parle un anglais aussi correct que jusqu'à poir moi, que je ne le parle pas, cest facile a comprendre. Merci beaucoup.
The historian who bases his work exclusively on IDF records. So impartial...
Yeah. That made the whole talk hard to swallow
Maybe because the other side doesn't wany to release their records/archives ?
We should trust people based on their incentive to tell the truth. If the IDF presents a death toll for the number of people they killed in some battle in 1948, we tend to not trust this because they have an incentive to downplay that number. But if you see a document written from one Israeli commander to another mid-war talking about their concerns and expectations for the conflict, we should be able to trust this person is telling the truth, since they have every reason to (they want to win the war). This is the framework historians (like Morris) operate under
@@yahyaalami6379 no because Morris never tried and was nit willing to pay translators. It was convenient
@@qutrb6790 and no.... details of massacres were redacted at various stages. Especially the worst cases. If you are committing a crime, you either hide the evidence or you speak in a veiled language... eg. Plan D.
The silenence in 1:27:55 is telling
interesting how "removal" of Palestinians is substituted "transfer" by the speaker...when it fits his explanation...
transfer is such a euphanism lol
Do you know why I’m more mad at ben gurion than hitler? Because ben gurion got away with it. He has his name everywhere, he was smart and careful. He was a monster
I'm wondering when I'll see an Arab Historian, and hopefully a Palestinian historian with this capacity for self-criticism, adherence to facts, and most of all, not demonizing the enemy.
"Religion poisons everything.". -- Christopher Hitchens
The bottom line is the refugee "problem" (a degrading description of the displaced Palestinians) would never have been a "problem" if the Palestinians' land hadn't been invaded and taken from them permanently.
They have neighbours to take them in...
@@master1941 That makes no sense and is beyond vile!!! Who would dare say something like that?! You're basically saying they should be expelled, and go somewhere else. Is it easy to resettle ppl? Go see for yourself in the U.S. and the migrant crisis. Go ask a Salvadorian, 20 years after the Civil War, why they're now going back to THEIR COUNTRY. Every argument is supremist, vile and convoluted: starting a "war" (refuted); defending settler terrorism; "things happen" in a war (as if a massacre is ever an isolated incident). Caitlin Johnstone and independent journalists are right: the good people fo the world will stop this from continuing to happen.
They were never invaded, Jews migrated to the area and bought land from Ottoman landowners and then, as the new owners, kicked out the Palestinian tenant farmers, if that is an invasion, ok.
But the invasion on a literal level was the invasion of the Jewish areas by the Palestinian leaders after the partition plan led them to believe that the Jewish locals were a threat. So the invasion/declaration of war was done by the Palestinians at first and later, after the Zionist militias won and Israel was declared, the Arab countries invaded the former mandate of Palestine to defeat Israel.
As per Dier Yassin, please see, *_"Palestinian leader Hazem Nusseibeh admits to false reports of rape at Dier Yassin"_* and also the book, *_"The Massacre that never was"_* by Professor Eliezer Tauber.
It is written in the Holy Jewish Torah, the Islamic Koran,and the Xtian Bible that G-d gave that land to the Jewish people. It was also given by the Nations of the world. The Palestinian myth was invented in 1967 and has No history, no capital, no currency, no borders, no military. What exactly is the argument?
the refugee problem was born in 1925, when irgun declared that non-jews must leave palestine. ww2 interrupted the ethnic cleansing process, but it's still visibly in motion.
Young people: "Every time you criticize the Israeli's you are called "Anti-semetic" "
Probably because you mean "Zionism" not "Israel"
Also, young people.
Whenever you criticize the texts of Islam
"You're racist"
The irony.
I'm against the ideas of Zionism in the sense of establishing a "Jewish state" meaning a state that prioritizes a specific religion over other groups. ( or even their own people who they designate us not Jewish enough)
But I also understand the wants of a specific community who want a state. I understand it the same way I understand Palestinians wanting one themselves.
Problem is the extremists on both sides sneak in the religious requirements of their states (You see this when they call people Racist when referring to a religion). Arabs, Persians, Kurds, etc are not born Muslim. Islam is a school of thought, a religion. You can convert to a religion and also leave it.
Therefore guaranteeing a regress in the future of their state when the future generations demand change. Because religious often claims to have a universal truth. Meaning to change it is to be against the universal truth. Which has caused problems throughout many civilizations that have integrated similar political solutions such as Monarchy, Nationalism, Communism, etc.
Thomas Paine made this clear when he spoke about the parliament of Britain arguing that the law of Monarchy was agreed upon centuries before and therefore it was illegal to change.
This as well as religious argues that each future generation should be bind by the laws established by one group, under the direction of a "greater good"
Jews are not a religion, they are an ancient Tribe of people, a nation of people that came from Judea.
The Zionism of the 1930s was a secular movement. Israel is a secular state.
You are indeed racist when you criticize the texts of Islam , and forget to criticize the Torah and Bible which are WAY more disgusting than the Quran.
Of the 3 books, the Quran is the most peaceful !
So yes, you had to be racist to give the very violent and disgusting Torah and Bible a "free pass" , while condemning the Quran.
And I say this as a Hindu who is well read on all the Abrahamic texts (including the gospels of Mary and Thomas) and I have no horse in this race (before you start making the assumption that I am Muslim).
What is really fun to read is how guests quote him and he teaches them on how to quote correctly.
you learn how to quote kinda in what 8th grade?
that one stupid activist beech, right
When a country is established on the basis of a religion or ethnicity, the manner in which it behaves….its government’s foreign and domestic policies and actions will, per force, rightly or wrongly, reflect upon that entire religion or ethnicity.
People are irrational.
They don’t distinguish between what a nation’s government does and the citizens of that nation.
For whatever reasons, the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to find an equitable arrangement.
They want justice for themselves but don’t seem to care enough about the rights or needs of the other.
They can’t get beyond their tribal identities to see others as equally worthy .
There are tremendous pressures to remain intractable on both sides.
And the people…the inhabitants are caught in the middle.
Like people everywhere, they just want peace, security, a measure of prosperity and a chance to live their lives and raise their families in safety.
People become irrational when they are targets of propaganda.
Easily fired up.
Quick to join mass movements.
Quick to fall into an “us and them” mentality.
I’m dismayed but not surprised to see a rise in antisemitism after what happened on October 7th.
When excited, people discard nuances.
Zionism,like colonialism, and imperialism have consequences.
Not all Americans supported our deeds in Vietnam.
Not all Arabs or Muslims supported the attack on 9/11.
But Arab -looking Americans were beaten or killed for it.
Not all east Asian Americans are of Chinese descent.
But they were blamed for Covid and attacked on the street and their businesses were vandalized and shunned .
There are very many Jews who do not support the policies of the current Israeli government.
But even they can be targets of pro-Palestinian anger.
People are irrational.
Yet, 20% of Israelis are Arabs and have all the rights - including some of them obtaining high functions in the country.
@@adnanjunuzovic6531
Yousef Munayyer, an Israeli citizen and the executive director of The Jerusalem Fund, wrote that Palestinians only have varying degrees of limited rights in Israel. He states that although Palestinians make up about 20% of Israel's population, less than 7% of the budget is allocated to Palestinian citizens. He describes the 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel as second-class citizens while four million more are not citizens at all. He states that a Jew from any country can move to Israel but a Palestinian refugee, with a valid claim to property in Israel, cannot. Munayyer also described the difficulties he and his wife faced when visiting the country.
According to the 2004 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government had done "little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens"
@@adnanjunuzovic6531 ya no thats not true. Limited rights, and recent laws have highlighted this. An American who is Jewish could immigrate to Israel tomorrow and have more rights, and much more access socially, culturally, and in the economy than a Palestinian Israeli. They have also suffered serious corruption and attacks on democratic institutions. Further, the occupation of Gaza/WB/East Jerusalem post '67 and the maintenance of different laws for Jewish Settlers within the occupied territories and military courts for Palestinians. Israel claims ultimate authority in the entirety of the West Bank, meaning that even with provisional governance over a small portion of the territory via the Palestinian Authority you essentially have a one-state solution, with Israel controlling freedom of movement, the legal system / rights that people are subject to, imports/exports, the collection of taxes, and enforcing a strict permit system for Palestinians controlling most aspects of basic life. Really encourage you to read more about whether either Arab (or Palestinian) Israeli citizens, or Palestinians (who are stateless & occupied by a belligerent foreign power, according to international law) enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis. If they don't have equal rights, what kind of system is being enforced?
I just watched a documentary on Gaza and it starts off with a little boy saying that he has 10 brothers and sister and his father has three wives. Later on is the presentation, there’s a man he says he has 40 children and three wives and he was thinking about getting a fourth one but they don’t have enough room so we decided it was a bad idea. They say half the population of Gaza is children which’s makes sense. They also show pictures of children throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. This is a cultural issue as well. If they aren’t going to use birth control they’re gonna have half the population being children and if there’s any kind of a conflict that’s the portion that’s going to get killed. They say there’s not enough food and water in Gaza. Well if you’re having 10 kids or have 40 kids that would make sense. I guess if your power is out for half the day, thinking back to the historical blackout in New York City, where they said, there was more babies conceived that night, than any other time in history, this would make sense. There’s no other western culture that procreate to this extent, other than maybe the Mormons in Salt Lake City. But I also read that having many babies is considered a form of Jihad.
I watched this piece in conjunction with a similarly presented (in format and length) one by Ilan Pappe, and it is quite thought provoking how the two can come to somewhat different conclusions. Pappe does not come off as well as he seems more interested in rhetoric in places and does mention Morris, sometimes critically and one gets the feeling he may be jealous of Morris’s accomplishments. I’ve read that he coined the phrase "new historians" for a group that tended to question the conventional line on Israel’s history but then parted ways with these others as they became analogs to the anti-American university professors in the U.S. - a villainous lot - only with Israel as the focus of their bile.
Benny Morris doesn’t seem that way at all, and I get the feeling he genuinely seeks to tell an accurate story, one that provides appropriate context and realism. I’m reading through a couple of his books and recommend them as he writes in generally the same engaging manner.
Morris' work is despised by many in Israel as it goes way too far in acknowledging dispossession / injustices committed against the Palestinians, which isn't really compatible with Israels self-image as a Jewish State & Democracy, that has a historica and religious claim to the land that can more easily be justified than the claims of Palestinian families who left in '48. He's also a New Historian, and has drifted to the right over the years. His scholarship has many problems, as does Pappe's, but they both have contributed to vital retellings of core myths of Israel/Zionism/Palestine. Without theie work we basically have what only the official claims of the State of Israel, which are deeply rooted in national liberation/religious mythology meant to justify and explain away the real thorny history involving the zionist movement and creation of a Jewish State. Those myths are what the majority in the West are taught in elementary school, I remember being taught ideas of a basically empty desert made to bloom by righteous settlers who weren't in any way seizing land, settling or colonizing, but simply asserting an indigenous claim that goes without question.
His work was initially lauded by Palestinians and hated by Zionists, but he also seems to increasingly attempt to support official narratives about subjects like transfer even as his scholarship deconstructs historical myths. Morris' primary contribution to scholarship has been locating the centrality of "transfer" to zionist thought, and creating a school of post-Zionist historical revision that was difficult for many Israelis to engage with, as it fundamentally altered the collective story they'd been told and contributed to telling. But ultimately, his critique is one of historical revision: uncovering a hidden and disputed history. His personal politics certainly influence his position in the academy and his view of the other New Historians, and he seems to have become much more right-wing and anti-Palestinian over time.
So ya, something for both Israelis and Palestinians to hate :)
Even you decide in gaza what eat how much elektrik consume it is normal become a terorist you say teroris we say defender of their land hero
World history can be shocking. Regardless of the countries involved. The microscope on this Israel Palestine history makes the questioners sound naive. The world is not a utopia. Every country has some dark history where we could all get around and talk about. There’s always some injustice that could be talked about. That’s part of the sin of history. People learn some “facts” then superimpose their own value system to judge actions of people that are no longer alive. How far back in history do we go? How far back do we use history as a justification for present day hand wringing?
The Palestinian people were manly displaced by deliberate policy prior to the attack on Israel by Arab states. Ilan Pappe documents this in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. It was not the “hammer blows of war” as claimed by Mr. Morris. False history is being peddled here. The false narrative is most extreme in his claim that Palestinians would “transferred”. The future Israelis leadership knew their future country required the expulsion of the indigenous people.🐝🐝
Yes and still today the Jewish state cannot ever absorb many of the Palestinian not because they are a physical danger as such but because they are a danger of their so called democracy who decided Jews must keep right to own land and to vote at the exclusion of others (it is ok if the others are a minority) and having millions of Palestinian integrated into Israel would threaten the Jewish based privilege and also make obvious that Israel is de facto not a real democracy but an authoritarian religious state, very similar to what happened, in Ireland with the catholic majority oppressed by the English and ofc the apartheid in South Africa who was also a British colony for 100 years. and we want to make Britain Great again Really!!
@@blacksnow129 Sadly true.
The inability to have a philosophy of cooperation on both sides make this inevitable.
The Palestine refugee problem is only a problem for countries that let them into a country.
the Jewish problem was only a problem for countries that let them in??? o my god what a hatful anti-Semitic things to say . but its ok for you to say it about Palestinians you pos
no he specifically says that palestinian arab authorities behaved throughout decades in british palestine way more violent than local settlers, once it was clear these arabs posed a clear security risk for the state of israel so yeah in few cases hagannah expelled, most left bc they were afraid of battle but there was no general policy of expulsion plus they are arabs, lots of places for aeabs
"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely...".
- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad", 1867 -
do you just deny the existence of the 700,000 people who were expelled and fled from their homes? Or are you trying to argue there was plenty of land for everyone (because there was).
1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state
2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.
8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state.
17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE.
(Borrowed from a friend)
A little more history for those wanting to 'restore Palestine'.
In 132 AD the Emperor Hadrian resolved to stamp the Jews and their religion out of existence. He sold all Jewish prisoners into slavery after the revolt of Bar Kikhba, forbade the teaching of the Torah, renamed the province Syria Palaestina, and changed Jerusalem’s name to Aelia Capitolina. He renamed Israel to wipe out the national identity of Israel and the Jews.
So if you are looking to 'restore Palestine to the Palestinians', you need to give it back to the Jews.
Your logic is fallacious. By the same token there was also no United States before 1776, there was no Canada even long after that, there was no Germany before Bismarck created one. The concept of nation-states didn't come into full fruition until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. So what if there was no Palestine during those periods you mentioned? What stops them from making one, like Kosovo, like Slovakia, like Slovenia? Israel as a kingdom is not supported by archeological studies, only in biblical accounts. So, what's the basis of Israel?
@@hanielgaribay7623The point is there were no Palestinian state in Palestine, only different people live in the land, so when UN proposed Resolution 181 for Two States Solution, Jews and 150,000 Arabs(Palestinians so called later)do the right thing accept and establish Israel. Whereas rest of Arabs don't, started war and lost... You cannot blame others for your miscalculation and wrong decisions.
@@jasonsccheung3831 You didn't bother to read my previous point and you based your conclusions on a sketchy and selective historical basis. The Palestinians have a right to self-determination and create their own state where there was none. This is true of all states in the world as the concept of nation-state (as opposed to kingdoms or principalities) didn't fully emerge until the mid-17th century. At the end of World War 1 the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires collapsed and the people on the lands that those empires once ruled opted to have their own nation-state. Yugoslavia (which later fragmented)and Romania came out of those, and others became integrated to Poland, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia (which also later fragmented). Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others also became independent from the French and British. The Palestinians wanted to do the same but the British handed Palestine to the Zionists. Now, the Palestinians were offered a raw deal by the UN, of getting only 20% of the land that used to be all theirs and hand it to newly arrived Jews from Europe, who were still the minority until later arrivals from North Africa and forced expulsion of Palestinians put Jews and Palestinians at almost equal in number. Remember that the UN in 1948 was thoroughly dominated by the big powers, which engineered the vote at the UN General Assembly to admit Israel into the UN. The UN then didn't have the African and Asian countries (like Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam,,) that were still European colonies. If the UN General Assembly were to vote on admitting Israel into the UN now, it wouldn't have passed. Ok, accept the UN vote, fine. But the same Israel has violated UN resolutions on Palestine time and again before 1967. Since then the US vetoed every anti-Israel resolution. Your position also justifies Israel's brutal occupation that breeds the very resentment that impels Palestinians to resist. If you're Chinese, you must have known China was once under cruel Japanese occupation, so did the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia. You know what? Palestinians have suffered as much from Israeli occupation as well as those countries under Japanese occupation. Go on, blame the victims, but you do so under a benighted basis
@@hanielgaribay7623 UN offer 20% of land to Palestine? Give me a break.
You still don't get it, the land doesn't belong to Palestinians (Palestinians so called only come about in 1950-60).
UN resolution 181 proposed 45% of land to Palestine, 55% to Israel (which includes large parts of desert and marsh land, hence 55%, 150,000 Arabs stay in Israel). Why Arabs didn't accept but started war ? Because they believed they have the numbers and strength to wipe off Israel. If you want to wipe people off and start war, you bear consequences.
And up until 1967, West Bank was annexed by Jordan, Gaza ruled by Egypt, Arabs had chances to establish a Palestine State then, why didn't they ? Because Arabs never wanted a Palestine State. Palestinians are being used as pawns against the Jews. Just look at all the Arab countries, every one of them, Jews are cleansed.
While Israel would accept a Two States Solution, Palestinians would not.
No one is denying Palestinian self-determination, get that in your head.
I’ve learned not to pay much attention to stories that are not supported with facts. Sounds like “hearsay” to me.
He sounds frenetic it is hard to trust a frenetic person...
I agree. Although cultures can vary in this way. Not every one is like the Southern US, sheeeeeeeeeeet.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
The last questioner exposes all of bennys travesty
53:00 just a personal note for me like a bookmark to use to argue against derogatory positions on Arabs (not saying the professor is doing this)
A people whose land is stolen by expulsion(be it at the end of the gun or the threat of a bomb) is a refugee. Claiming that "they were still in Palestine" is semantics -- admitted by the speaker, however, saying this attempts to marginalize the wrongs of Israel. If I live in Texas and Mexico comes in and takes my home and I have to move to Oklahoma I am a refugee. I no longer live in my home, I no longer have my land, and I no longer have my dignity. To state such things as the speaker does is disingenuous. No person in the position of a Palestinian would say, "it is ok that I am made to leave my home and land because I still live somewhere that just happens to also be called Palestine. NOW, lets also notate that there is no recognized Palestinian statehood and that Israel will not let them be recognized or have any self determination. History can be understood by the reality of today, just as much as the reality of today can be explained by history.
Also why would the Palestinians of 1947 accept to have their country cut in half when they've enjoyed the entirety of the country since 1000s yrs ago, it is only normal for them not to agree , this was a total no benefit offer. The disagreement of the Nashashibis and the Husseinis were not on power but on how to deal with the British Mandate as the Nashashibis were peaceful and the Husseinis were more believing in fighting for their rights as they saw it
Morris on a Palestinian state, “The Arabs said no. There’s a problem there. “. The problem is none of those offers by the Jews who stoled their land was even close to fair. Morris’s bias is proved by the fact that he never addresses that. He lies by omission.
Tell the Palestinians to come with something..
@@master1941 Ah yes, and they aren't facing a supremist, convoluted, vile group, working to undermine their every turn? That's not happening at all? Torture in prisons, snipers shooting children in the West Bank (300+ killed in 2023 alone), raids in refugee camps, harassment at checkpoints. Look up videos-and more-here on YT. As a matter of fact, you dare to say this, even though they record themselves in Gaza urinating on corpses, bragging abt torture, writing threatening grafitti, ect. It's all available for you to see, and you want a plundered group to face a group that doesn't see them as worthy or human in the first place?! Where's the logic in that?!
It’s ok to reject the offer but you also have to be prepared to deal with the consequences
How isn't it fair? When you have two very different groups of people in the same piece of land, who can't live together, a two state solution is the only fair solution there is
@@user-qy8ib4ef1g you ignore the fact that one group of people moved in on another and killed them an stole their land. Those are the European/ Russian/US zionist genocidal Jews called Israelis. You also ignore the fact that the 4-6 percent of native Arab Palestinian Jews lived peacefully with the native Arabs and Christians there before the colonial Jewish zionist settlers came and with help from Britain and then the US empires committed mass murder on the natives to steal their land. And you it seems you continue to ignore the genocide still going on in Gaza, which is inhuman and immoral. The racist jews are killing Christians too if that matters to you.
1:00:36 So this historian just makes up why the Zionist general doesn’t remember? Very helpful.
It's amazing that a scholar who lets so much go on between the lines/under the radar has such reputation. His homework on some Jewish people leaving their long-loved homes in Arab countries is half the story. We know from documents uncovered by Ilan Pappe and Miko Peled (only 2 examples) that Israel itself was desperate to have those people "come home" (!!!!), that Israel sent visiting agents to "warn" them of coming violence---and when the families refused to move to Israel, they sent their own disguised terrorists to burn fear into them, followed by "helpful" friendly second visits that made it happen. Apartheid colonial Israel: no crime they won't commit, no lie they won't tell.
would love a link to this scholarship, have read before files from gov discussions in the Knesset about the need for Mizrahi arab jews to immigrate to Israel for demographic and nationalist reasons, but mostly its framed as an expulsion. I imagine it is some of both.