Benny Morris!!!! Thrilled to read this and see you chiming in. I have relied on and learned so much from your work. 1948 and Righteous Victims especially. This sentence for me, encapsulates so much of the present dialogue: “The uninformed reader, as most of Coates’s American readers are, will, of course, be seduced into accepting the equation.” Millions of uninformed are purporting to be the moral arbiters and truth tellers everyday. It’s so maddening.
Touché, mon ami. The scurrilous propagandist, Coates, is, indeed, as awful as you say, as ignorant, tendentious, and mendacious on American history as he is on Israel. Race, race, race...bullshit. It cannot explain everything the way he says. ("Maybe he's colorblind," lol, that's a good one!) But anyway, whatever people want to believe about Coates when in comes to his own country, he certainly knows nothing of ours. That said, it kind of begs the question, what kind of a self-serving prima donna pronounces like he does on a reality that is, indeed, as "complex" as it gets, after a short, ten day visit typified by one of those deceptively calculated, brief little tours (I once got one too) of an unrepresentative part of the West Bank, obsessively marketed to naive visitors by the execrable Avner Gvaryahu. In short, well done. Good that you took on this infamous bs artist.
Regarding his thoughts on Yad Vashem, Coates wrote "at the end of my trip to Palestine, I went to Yad Vashem" As if the Palestinians would build a Holocaust museum.
I guess there can be moral hazards in too much historical complexity, but they're not nearly so prevalent as the moral abysses of too much ideological simplicity. Thank you, Benny Morris, for exposing this "insubstantial pageant" of a book by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I have not read Coates’ book but have read and heard various summations. I recall a brief tv interview where he defended his decision not to access any contrary views while in Israel/West Bank. When asked why he didn’t, he said that he just could not stand to hear the ‘justification’. What I found strange was that he eluded to being a journalist. How does a journalist not seek a broad and full blown perspective? He is no journalist. He is an essayist with an ideological bias. No use for most of us.
Thank you for the astute commentary Mr. Morris! I think another problem with Coates’ book is that he supposedly visits the West Bank after 2001. However, as we all know, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ended in 2001, as it is the final year covered in Righteous Victims. Let me know what you think about this inconsistency.
Always appreciate hearing your perspective! I agree that repeated Palestinian rejection of compromise and peace offers is highly unfortunate. At the same time if we were still serious about peace the Arab Peace Initiative seems to be a solid gesture we’ve ignored. What are your thoughts? Thanks!
Why does the fact that the European Jews who founded Israel (leaving aside the Mizrahim who migrated mostly after 1948) had ancient ancestry in the Levant matter? From the Palestinian-Arab perspective - and frankly the Zionist perspective as well - the Zionist migrants were Europeans in looks, culture, and politics; and they were coming to transform an Arab society into a European-style ethno-state.
It was a colonial project, and the ZIonists (while recognizing their ancient roots in the land) understood this and called themselves colonizers. This is the primary reason for the negative and violent reaction from the Palestinian Arabs.
You are missing an important point. The Zionist project only succeeded because the Ottoman empire collapsed. And it's the same reason why you have Lebanon Syria Jordan irak Egypt... And if you understand the Arab Israeli conflict under that paradigm, the truth becomes self evident. The "Palestinians" should surrender and accept that they lost their "independence war". They are only Arabs and move or be moved from the area.
That's the cope but "colonialism" was not understood in a profoundly different way in the early 20th century vs now. The difference is that colonialism is now seen negatively whereas it could be seen positively then. That's why Israel supporters have retconned Israel as "decolonial," a truly laughable proposition.
The Palestinian Arabs are indigenous to the land, not Arabians. Speaking Arabic and having Arabic names/culture doesn't mean they are descended from the Arabian Peninsula.
History Speaks's comment has reminded me of a lie he wrote on his Substack:
"When partition was under consideration in the UN in 1947, the Arab leaders proposed to UNSCOP a policy for single state in Palestine where all current Jewish residents would enjoy citizenship, equal civil rights, and Jews as a group would have minority status (although all future Jewish immigrants would be banned)."
This is not what the Arab leaders proposed at all. You can read a transcript of their meeting with UNSCOP on the UN website, which is accurately quoted by UNSCOP member Jorge García Granados in the excerpt in my previous comment. To quote what Hamid Frangieh (Lebanese foreign minister and "spokesman for the Arab States") told UNSCOP, "The Arabs consider that all Jews who entered Palestine since the Balfour Declaration are illegal immigrants" whose "condition will be determined by the future independent government of Palestine". This was not remotely an offer of citizenship and equal rights, and was in fact an implied threat of expulsion for most of the Jews, as Garcia Granados notes.
You fail to address many issues too.. it was the Christians in the Byzantine empire who conquered Palestine, and the Muslims who defeated them. It wasn't just Arabs came waltzing and decided to take land from Jews. In fact, it was the Muslims, up to and including Saladin, who protected the Jews from the Crusaders, who did succeed in massacring Jews. You said Arabs were offered a deal which they rejected, which is true, but at the time, Jews owned 6% of the land, but the partition gave them 55%. Of course the Jews rejoiced. You also glossed over the Nakba (oh, the Jews killed some Arabs, but Arabs also killed Jews), but it was a deliberate effort to displace a population who was living there peacefully for hundreds of years to take their land. And make no mistake - Israel is an ethnostate - which you failed to mention - yes, they allow a percentage of the population to be Arab, so maybe they can claim to be a democracy, but they would never allow Arabs to come close to reaching parity with the Jews in Israel. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel is no angel here - they've committed war crime after war crime, and largely have gotten away with it because of the protection of the United States.
It's rather amusing that you're trying to give Benny Morris a history lesson on the UNSCOP partition plan.
This is from the memoirs of Guatemalan UNSCOP committee member Jorge García Granados:
"One of the first subjects we took up was the future status, in an Arab State, of illegal Jewish immigrants and immigrants who had not acquired Palestinian nationality.
Hamid Frangie, Foreign Minister of Lebanon, replied succinctly: all Jews who entered Palestine since the Balfour Declaration - since November 1917 - would be considered illegal im-migrants.
"However," he added, "the Mandatory Power gave Palestinian nationality to a number of those immigrants. They are citizens de facto. The term “illegal,” as it is put in the question, seems to des-ignate Jews who enter Palestine without the permission of the Mandatory Power. They should be answerable to the same rules as Arab illegal immigrants: they, too, should be expelled from the country. As for those who entered Palestine according to pres-ent immigration laws, but who have not acquired Palestinian na-tionality, their condition will be determined by the future inde-pendent government of Palestine. Those who fulfill the required conditions for acquisition of nationality should be considered as citizens. The others will be considered as foreigners.”
The implication of this was clear: of the 700,000 Jews now in Palestine, perhaps 400,000 - most of those who had entered since 1917 - would be subject to deportation, depending upon the be-nevolence of the future Arab Mufti-dominated government of Palestine.
Something of this must have gone through Sandstrom's mind for he asked, "Does anyone else wish to give another answer to this question?" He looked around the room.
Frangie spoke up promptly: "What I am reading now has been decided by the various States. There should be no indi-vidual replies to the questions."
Sir Abdur, who undoubtedly would have liked to see a less ex-treme statement, asked, "Are they all agreed on this answer?"
No one else had a chance to reply, for Frangie said quietly and emphatically, "Yes."
Emir Adel Arslan of Syria ventured to add, "We consider these Jewish immigrants as illegal because they entered Palestine after the Balfour Declaration which we considered to be illegal.""
So the Arab leaders made clear that most Jews would be at risk of expulsion or worse if the Jews weren't given their own state. The primary Arab objection to partition was not the percentage of land given to the Jews but the idea that Jews would have any self-determination at all. The Arabs wanted to be free to expel the Jews. The 1948 war took place against that backdrop.
Benny Morris!!!! Thrilled to read this and see you chiming in. I have relied on and learned so much from your work. 1948 and Righteous Victims especially. This sentence for me, encapsulates so much of the present dialogue: “The uninformed reader, as most of Coates’s American readers are, will, of course, be seduced into accepting the equation.” Millions of uninformed are purporting to be the moral arbiters and truth tellers everyday. It’s so maddening.
Touché, mon ami. The scurrilous propagandist, Coates, is, indeed, as awful as you say, as ignorant, tendentious, and mendacious on American history as he is on Israel. Race, race, race...bullshit. It cannot explain everything the way he says. ("Maybe he's colorblind," lol, that's a good one!) But anyway, whatever people want to believe about Coates when in comes to his own country, he certainly knows nothing of ours. That said, it kind of begs the question, what kind of a self-serving prima donna pronounces like he does on a reality that is, indeed, as "complex" as it gets, after a short, ten day visit typified by one of those deceptively calculated, brief little tours (I once got one too) of an unrepresentative part of the West Bank, obsessively marketed to naive visitors by the execrable Avner Gvaryahu. In short, well done. Good that you took on this infamous bs artist.
Regarding his thoughts on Yad Vashem, Coates wrote "at the end of my trip to Palestine, I went to Yad Vashem" As if the Palestinians would build a Holocaust museum.
I guess there can be moral hazards in too much historical complexity, but they're not nearly so prevalent as the moral abysses of too much ideological simplicity. Thank you, Benny Morris, for exposing this "insubstantial pageant" of a book by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
I have not read Coates’ book but have read and heard various summations. I recall a brief tv interview where he defended his decision not to access any contrary views while in Israel/West Bank. When asked why he didn’t, he said that he just could not stand to hear the ‘justification’. What I found strange was that he eluded to being a journalist. How does a journalist not seek a broad and full blown perspective? He is no journalist. He is an essayist with an ideological bias. No use for most of us.
Brilliant. Thank you. Learning a lot. 🤍💙
Thank you for the astute commentary Mr. Morris! I think another problem with Coates’ book is that he supposedly visits the West Bank after 2001. However, as we all know, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ended in 2001, as it is the final year covered in Righteous Victims. Let me know what you think about this inconsistency.
Professor Morris,
Always appreciate hearing your perspective! I agree that repeated Palestinian rejection of compromise and peace offers is highly unfortunate. At the same time if we were still serious about peace the Arab Peace Initiative seems to be a solid gesture we’ve ignored. What are your thoughts? Thanks!
Why does the fact that the European Jews who founded Israel (leaving aside the Mizrahim who migrated mostly after 1948) had ancient ancestry in the Levant matter? From the Palestinian-Arab perspective - and frankly the Zionist perspective as well - the Zionist migrants were Europeans in looks, culture, and politics; and they were coming to transform an Arab society into a European-style ethno-state.
It was a colonial project, and the ZIonists (while recognizing their ancient roots in the land) understood this and called themselves colonizers. This is the primary reason for the negative and violent reaction from the Palestinian Arabs.
You're effectively asking why it matters that Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jews. And the answer is obviously that it matters a great deal.
You are missing an important point. The Zionist project only succeeded because the Ottoman empire collapsed. And it's the same reason why you have Lebanon Syria Jordan irak Egypt... And if you understand the Arab Israeli conflict under that paradigm, the truth becomes self evident. The "Palestinians" should surrender and accept that they lost their "independence war". They are only Arabs and move or be moved from the area.
You’re understanding the word colonization anachronistically.
That's the cope but "colonialism" was not understood in a profoundly different way in the early 20th century vs now. The difference is that colonialism is now seen negatively whereas it could be seen positively then. That's why Israel supporters have retconned Israel as "decolonial," a truly laughable proposition.
Then I guess the Arabs colonized Palestine.
https://www.jta.org/archive/moslem-supreme-council-begins-arab-colonization
The Palestinian Arabs are indigenous to the land, not Arabians. Speaking Arabic and having Arabic names/culture doesn't mean they are descended from the Arabian Peninsula.
History Speaks's comment has reminded me of a lie he wrote on his Substack:
"When partition was under consideration in the UN in 1947, the Arab leaders proposed to UNSCOP a policy for single state in Palestine where all current Jewish residents would enjoy citizenship, equal civil rights, and Jews as a group would have minority status (although all future Jewish immigrants would be banned)."
This is not what the Arab leaders proposed at all. You can read a transcript of their meeting with UNSCOP on the UN website, which is accurately quoted by UNSCOP member Jorge García Granados in the excerpt in my previous comment. To quote what Hamid Frangieh (Lebanese foreign minister and "spokesman for the Arab States") told UNSCOP, "The Arabs consider that all Jews who entered Palestine since the Balfour Declaration are illegal immigrants" whose "condition will be determined by the future independent government of Palestine". This was not remotely an offer of citizenship and equal rights, and was in fact an implied threat of expulsion for most of the Jews, as Garcia Granados notes.
The "majority of Palestinian Arabs carry Y-Chromosomal lineages that are of Peninsular Arab origin"
https://open.substack.com/pub/agamemnon1993/p/a-deeper-dive?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31wdhh
Thank you for this! I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
(also --mild typo: "Bu “Palestine” he meant the occupied territories.")
Very happy Prof Benny Morris is writing on substack.
Interested to read all of your posts ASAP !
This article is more propaganda than history
You fail to address many issues too.. it was the Christians in the Byzantine empire who conquered Palestine, and the Muslims who defeated them. It wasn't just Arabs came waltzing and decided to take land from Jews. In fact, it was the Muslims, up to and including Saladin, who protected the Jews from the Crusaders, who did succeed in massacring Jews. You said Arabs were offered a deal which they rejected, which is true, but at the time, Jews owned 6% of the land, but the partition gave them 55%. Of course the Jews rejoiced. You also glossed over the Nakba (oh, the Jews killed some Arabs, but Arabs also killed Jews), but it was a deliberate effort to displace a population who was living there peacefully for hundreds of years to take their land. And make no mistake - Israel is an ethnostate - which you failed to mention - yes, they allow a percentage of the population to be Arab, so maybe they can claim to be a democracy, but they would never allow Arabs to come close to reaching parity with the Jews in Israel. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel is no angel here - they've committed war crime after war crime, and largely have gotten away with it because of the protection of the United States.
It's rather amusing that you're trying to give Benny Morris a history lesson on the UNSCOP partition plan.
This is from the memoirs of Guatemalan UNSCOP committee member Jorge García Granados:
"One of the first subjects we took up was the future status, in an Arab State, of illegal Jewish immigrants and immigrants who had not acquired Palestinian nationality.
Hamid Frangie, Foreign Minister of Lebanon, replied succinctly: all Jews who entered Palestine since the Balfour Declaration - since November 1917 - would be considered illegal im-migrants.
"However," he added, "the Mandatory Power gave Palestinian nationality to a number of those immigrants. They are citizens de facto. The term “illegal,” as it is put in the question, seems to des-ignate Jews who enter Palestine without the permission of the Mandatory Power. They should be answerable to the same rules as Arab illegal immigrants: they, too, should be expelled from the country. As for those who entered Palestine according to pres-ent immigration laws, but who have not acquired Palestinian na-tionality, their condition will be determined by the future inde-pendent government of Palestine. Those who fulfill the required conditions for acquisition of nationality should be considered as citizens. The others will be considered as foreigners.”
The implication of this was clear: of the 700,000 Jews now in Palestine, perhaps 400,000 - most of those who had entered since 1917 - would be subject to deportation, depending upon the be-nevolence of the future Arab Mufti-dominated government of Palestine.
Something of this must have gone through Sandstrom's mind for he asked, "Does anyone else wish to give another answer to this question?" He looked around the room.
Frangie spoke up promptly: "What I am reading now has been decided by the various States. There should be no indi-vidual replies to the questions."
Sir Abdur, who undoubtedly would have liked to see a less ex-treme statement, asked, "Are they all agreed on this answer?"
No one else had a chance to reply, for Frangie said quietly and emphatically, "Yes."
Emir Adel Arslan of Syria ventured to add, "We consider these Jewish immigrants as illegal because they entered Palestine after the Balfour Declaration which we considered to be illegal.""
So the Arab leaders made clear that most Jews would be at risk of expulsion or worse if the Jews weren't given their own state. The primary Arab objection to partition was not the percentage of land given to the Jews but the idea that Jews would have any self-determination at all. The Arabs wanted to be free to expel the Jews. The 1948 war took place against that backdrop.