Talk:Benny Morris

48 ethnic separation debate

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

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

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

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

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

That sentence misses important context: Morris asserted that the expulsion of all Palestinian Arabs from Israel could justified to prevent a Jewish genocide. As it currently stands, the sentence grossly misrepresents his views and doesn't belong in the lead. Amayorov (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

This sentences is currently incorrectly sourced. A reference is made to Ben-Ami's book "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace", p.43. In fact, there is nothing on that page, nor anywhere else in the book, regarding Morris' statement.

I also suggest that either this statement be removed altogether, or expanded to "Morris has been condemned for his opinion that the expulsion of all Palestinian Arabs from Israel would have been justified to prevent a Jewish genocide." Amayorov (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Morris' post-2000 views – shouldn't this be merged with Praise and criticism?

Do we need really another section here? Especially given that most of the text focuses on criticism of Morris's conclusions as a historian, rather than his political views. Besides, there is nothing in Shlomo Ben-Ami's book about Morris' "post-2000 reversal of position".

Commenting on the post-2000 reversal of position by Morris, Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote that Morris' more recent "thesis about the birth of the Palestine refugee problem being not by design but by the natural logic and evolution of war is not always sustained by the very evidence he himself provides: 'cultured officers ... had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle ... but out of a system of expulsion and destruction; the less Arabs remained, the better; this principle is the political motor for the expulsions and atrocities' [quoting from Morris' major 2004 work: 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited']".[26]

Amayorov (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Besides, this sentence is repeated and can be merged into one:

His work has been criticised by Arab writers for failing to act on the evidence he found of forced evictions.

Morris has also been criticized for being reluctant to accept the implications of the evidence he presents in his work.

Amayorov (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Questionable and potentially biased use of blockquotes

All the blockquotes are long citations that are critical of Morris and his work. By contrast, support and praise for Morris' work are quoted "in-line". A cursory reader might draw a biased impression from this page. I suggest that this be improved for balance. Amayorov (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Superfluous and partisan details

There are a few phrases that seem out-of-place and seem to be agenda-pushing. An example is

1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians (1990) is a collection of essays dedicated to the Palestinian exodus of 1948 and subsequent events. It analyses Mapai and Mapam policy during the exodus, the IDF report of July 1948 on its causes, Yosef Weitz's involvement in the events, and some cases of expulsions that occurred in the fifties. Although Morris dismisses the claim that the Palestinians were systematically expelled due to orders from Israeli officials, he nevertheless cites an IDF Intelligence Report that concludes that 70% of the exodus was caused by Israeli forces and Jewish dissidents.

This subsection is supposed to provide a brief overview of Morris' 1990 work. Instead, the last sentence takes a single source that Morris used, namely an IDF Intelligence Report, and uses it to challenge Morris' conclusions. This is both out-of-place and in bad faith. Amayorov (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph is also unsourced – should we delete it?

In his first book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949, Morris supported Israeli actions during 1948, such as the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs, stating that the only alternative to expelling them was the genocide of the Jewish population in Israel. Some critics have alleged this book was biased against Israel, but Morris responded that they failed to read his book with moral detachment, assuming that when he described Israeli actions as cruel or as atrocities, he was condemning them.

Amayorov (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think that this statement

Scholars have perceived an ideological shift in Morris's work and a departure from the critical scholarship of his New Historian colleagues starting around 2000 during the Second Intifada.

should be restated as

Scholars have perceived an ideological shift in Morris's work starting around 2000 during the Second Intifada.

"Departure from the critical scholarship" is questionable, as Morris has since published plenty of "critical" scholarly work since 2000, such as his discovery of the Haganah's involvement in well poisoning, published only a few years ago. Amayorov (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)