Notify me of new HIR pieces!
On the supposed ‘about face’ of some anti-Israeli Historians (Benny Morris and Nathan Weinstock)
Perhaps it is not what it seems.
Historical and Investigative Research - 22 June 2006
Table of Contents
█ Preface: The ‘New Historians’
█ Benny Morris
█ Benny Morris makes an ‘about face’
█ Nathan Weinstock makes an ‘about face’
Preface: The ‘New Historians’
There is a group of people who have been dubbed the ‘New Historians.’ These ‘New Historians’ have passionately dedicated themselves to blaming the Israeli Jews, totally, for any and all problems connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I exaggerate only slightly.
These ‘New Historians’ have simply heaved to one side the manner in which, in the first half of the 20th century, the British government in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ promoted to positions of political authority precisely those Arab leaders who had the fanatical desire to exterminate any and all Jews, at the expense of Arab leaders who welcomed the Zionist project and the economic benefits it brought to the Middle East. These ‘New Historians’ also heave to one side how the same British government energetically assisted the anti-Jewish terrorist violence of their fanatically antisemitic Arab puppets.
Contrary to what the ‘New Historians’ would have you believe, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a consequence of this British policy, carried out in the fertile antisemitic soil of the Muslim world, where for many centuries the Jews (and Christians) have been traditionally considered slaves who deserve to be slaughtered the minute they complain about their status as slaves or dhimmis. The Zionist attempt to create a Jewish state -- the ultimate act of insubordination -- triggered jihad, which is to say the attempt to exterminate uppity infidels.
Perhaps the most famous and influential of the ‘New Historians,’ Benny Morris, has blamed the Israeli Jews for supposed atrocities against the Arabs during the war of 1948, constructing a tale that, to the innocent, appears to legitimize the claims of Arab opponents of Israel. But historian Efraim Karsh has produced a detailed demonstration that Benny Morris is dishonest, and Benny Morris then publicly admitted to the fact!
Writes Efraim Karsh:
[Quote from Efraim Karsh begins here]
“Among the new historians, none has been more visible or more influential than Benny Morris, a professor at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, whose 1987 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, became the New Historian’s definitive work.
Prominent Palestinian politicians such as Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) [who inherited the leadership of the PLO/Fatah from Yasser Arafat] and Hanan Ashrawi cited the ‘findings’ of the New Historians to support extreme Palestinian territorial and political claims. Academics lauded Morris for using newly available documents to expose the allegedly immoral circumstances of Israel’s creation. With frequent media exposure, the New Historians had an impact on mainstream Israeli opinion, which became increasingly receptive to the notion that both the fault and the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict lay disproportionately with Israel’s own actions.
Such plaudits, however, were undeserved. Far from unearthing new facts or offering a novel interpretation of the Palestinian exodus, The Birth recycled the standard Arab narrative of the conflict. Morris portrayed the Palestinians as the hapless victims of unprovoked Jewish aggression. Israel’s very creation became the ‘original sin’ underlying the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had there been an academic foundation to Morris’s revisionism, such acclaim may have been warranted. But rather than incorporate new Israeli source material, Morris did little more than rehash old historiography. While laying blame for the Palestinian refugee crisis on the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces and its pre-state precursor, the Haganah, Morris failed to consult the millions of declassified documents in their archives, even as other historians used them in painstaking research.
Once this fact was publicly exposed, Morris conceded that he had ‘no access to the materials in the IDFA [Israel Defense Forces Archive] or Haganah archive and precious little to firsthand military materials deposited elsewhere.’ ” (my emphasis)
[Quote from Efraim Karsh ends here]
That’s quite an admission for Benny Morris to make.
The most serious and famous accusation of supposed atrocities against the Arabs during the war of 1948 is the allegation of a massacre of Arab civilians in the town of Deir Yassin (Dir Yasin). Historians who unlike Benny Morris have looked at the documents that have recently become available have now decisively refuted such accusations. For example, historian Uri Milstein, who has written the most exhaustively documented history of the War of 1948. As it turns out, the fraudulent Deir Yassin accusation was put out by agents of Hajj Amin al Hussieni, who before the war had been Britain’s instrument of anti-Jewish terrorist violence in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’
So a leading ‘New Historian,’ accuser of the Israeli
Jews, cared not one whit for the documentary evidence -- he had not even
looked at it. And those who have looked at the documentary evidence
have shown the most important accusations against the Israeli Jews are frauds
concocted by violent antisemites. Should we be surprised? I don’t think so.
The War of 1948 was a war of aggression launched by the Arabs, who
proudly announced to the world that their objective was the extermination of the Israeli Jews (that the Holocaust was
still fresh did not embarrass them). Under such circumstances, one
should expect the Arabs, not the Jews, to have been guilty of war crimes. And
indeed, war crimes were the Arab policy, to such an extent that Israeli
soldiers quickly learned that if trapped behind enemy lines without hope of
rescue the thing to do was to commit suicide by exploding a grenade, because
the alternative was death by torture. This is without mentioning
that the Arab armies routinely targeted civilians.
makes an ‘about face’
Recently there was much noise in the press because Benny Morris had supposedly made an ‘about face’: according to many sources, Benny Morris had retracted his claims. This led many patriotic Jews -- under siege in an antisemitic world, and desperate for another defender -- to embrace the supposedly new Benny Morris. But Jared Israel of Emperor’s Clothes pointed out in a piece published in Israel National News that Benny Morris had not really changed his tune.
Wrote Jared Israel:
[Quote from Jared Israel begins here]
“I have seen several defenders of Israel react with pleasure to the supposed transformation of Benny Morris. I cannot read the mind of Benny Morris, but I can read his statements. Looking at them, and especially his recent and much-discussed interview with Haaretz, I see that Morris still claims that what he wrote about the Israeli War of Independence is true. The only difference is that now he claims to have ‘realized’ that Israel was justified in doing bad things because the Palestinian leaders were never sincere about peace.
Israel, and indeed the Jewish people worldwide, are under assault from an organized propaganda campaign aimed at justifying anti-Semitism and genocide. The crucial battlefield is the minds of millions of Gentiles. The weapons used against the Jews are lies about Israel. In that battle, the new Benny Morris is even more harmful than the old.
For years, Benny Morris fabricated ‘facts’ -- mistranslated passages so that, for example, Ben-Gurion seemed to be saying Arabs should be expelled when in fact he was saying they should not be expelled. Morris took statements out of context or left out parts of quotations so that Israeli leaders seemed to be calling for the harshest conduct, when they were in fact calling for the most humane conduct possible under the circumstances. He even fabricated evidence wholesale -- manufactured documents -- to make Israel look bad. This is proved in devastating detail by Efraim Karsh. One of Prof. Karsh’s best exposés is on the Internet. It is worth reading.
In order for Morris’ supposed transformation to be positive he would have to repudiate his own writings. He would have to admit that he lied wholesale. By exposing his own lies, he would, to some extent, undo the damage he has done.
Morris has made no such admission. Instead, Morris still claims his writings were based on facts; only his moral conclusions were wrong. However, it wasn’t Morris’ moral conclusions that hurt Israel. When he wrote that Israel was formed through rape, murder and ethnic cleansing, and justified by deceit, he did not have to add, ‘And I disapprove.’ It was his lies, his manufactured ‘scholarship,’ which was picked up and spread worldwide by an eager media, and which poisoned the thinking of millions of people against Israel. Here was a Jewish scholar, supposedly driven by a passion for truth wherever it might lead, who accused Israel of terrible crimes.
I was one of the people affected by Morris. In large measure it was because of him that -- and I am ashamed to have to say this -- I once supported the PLO.
When I read Karsh and realized Morris had lied -- not made mistakes, but fabricated evidence -- I was sickened. Morris’ lies were criminal, just as much as if he had attacked Israel with bombs. He helped undercut worldwide disgust for Palestinian terror; he helped create the political basis for a Palestinian terror state next door to Israel. Morris is responsible, like Yasser Arafat, for the murder of thousands of Israelis. But Arafat is not an Israeli Jew. Morally, Morris is worse than Arafat.
Over the past few years, Morris has found himself in danger of losing credibility due to the exposés written by Karsh and others. Moreover, many Israelis have learned through terrible experience that the PLO wants genocide. So, adapting to the new climate, Morris does a supposed about-face, claiming that while what he said about Israel was true, he was wrong about the Palestinian leaders. And because of this, says Morris, he was wrong to condemn Israeli actions.
What is the effect of this ‘change’?
Where honest scholars were once inspired to expose Morris’ lies, now they will hold back. After all, Israel has so few friends and one does not want to abuse an important person who has seen the light. This is very understandable, but politically harmful, because Morris has not seen the light. He has seen his way out of a hole. By claiming what he wrote is true, but that he supports Israel anyway, he continues to attack Israel while undermining the exposure of his lies. He is far deadlier ‘defending’ Israel than he was when he openly condemned her.
Now the enemies of Israel can say, ‘See? The friends of Israel are immoral scum -- look at Morris. He has no trouble defending the ‘Zionist entity’ even though he, better than anyone, knows it was founded on what even he admits were crimes!’ Notice that by supposedly switching sides, Morris’ lying accusations are transformed into ‘admissions’!
Defenders of Israel seem slow to realize that we are facing a twenty-year propaganda blitz aimed at using the demonization of Israel to build a worldwide anti-Semitic movement with genocidal goals, including the physical destruction of Israel. The simplest explanation for Benny Morris’ twenty-year campaign of lies against Israel -- I have found his anti-Israel lies in the New York Times as far back as 1983! -- is that he is a high-placed kapo, a propagandist assigned to stir up hatred against his own people.
But whether Morris is a professional liar, or just a lying amateur, he continues to uphold his lies. And he makes matters worse by claiming to be a friend.
With friends like Benny Morris, the Jewish people don’t need enemies.”
[Quote from Jared Israel ends here]
Was Jared Israel’s analysis correct? Well consider what Ilan Pappe now says about Benny Morris:
“Morris [argues]… that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Jews was justified in the past and would be acceptable in the future.”
This is precisely what Jared Israel predicted would happen. But what is most interesting here is that Ilan Pappe is also a ‘New Historian.’ Is this a staged fight? In any staged fight, the public is the dupe: no matter who wins, the truth loses. In this case, so does the Jewish state.
Take a look at the “different point” that Ilan Pappe defends, which he explains in the same piece:
“I had a different point to make [from Benny Morris]: I condemned the uprooting of the Palestinians and the violence inflicted on them, as well as the de-Arabization of Jews who came from Arab countries to Israel, the imposition of military rule on Palestinians in Israel before 1967 and the de facto Apartheid policies put in place after 1967.”
Pappe condemns what Morris now applauds, but his “different point” has nothing to do with the claims about what happened: they both accuse the Israelis of committing massacres in the war of 1948. Who will you pick? It doesn't matter. Heads the Jews lose, tails the Jews lose. Jared Israel was right: “With friends like Benny Morris, the Jewish people don’t need enemies.” The new Benny Morris is indeed worse than the old, because some defenders of Israel have committed the absurdity of embracing him.
The lesson I draw from the above is that when a historian who has attacked Israel, and who has been shown to be dishonest rather than misinformed, claims to have made an ‘about face,’ we should approach this claim with extreme caution before embracing this person.
In 1979 historian Nathan Weinstock published the following book:
Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd.
In the above book Nathan Weinstock documents that the ones oppressing the ordinary Arabs were the Arab feudal lords, with the help of their British friends. He also documents that the British authorities in British Mandate Palestine were helping the Arabs kill Jews. And yet he twists himself like a pretzel to produce a condemnation of the Jews, all the same. The British-backed, anti-Jewish terrorism of the Arabs was “understandable,” he says, because this was the “Palestinian anti-colonialist movement” expressing Arab “national consciousness.” This requires him to state that the Zionist Jews were “clearly allied” with the British against the Arabs, thus becoming targets. The only problem: Why then were the British colonialists, on Weinstock’s own admission, helping the Arabs kill Jews? Why weren’t the Arabs killing Brits? The obvious answer: this was not an anti-colonialist struggle, but simply a case of British and Arab antisemites allying together against the Jews in racist attacks. But in his 1979 book Weinstock doesn’t go there.
Recently, Nathan Weinstock now claims to have seen the light and changed his mind. This he supposedly does in the following book:
Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens : La dhimmitude dans le conflit israélo-palestinian. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard).
The title and subtitle of the book, translated, read as follows: History of Dogs: Dhimmitude in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
This title is an obvious reference to what the Arab terrorists chanted during one especially bloody anti-Jewish terrorist rampage in Jerusalem, in 1929: “The Jews are our dogs!” This chant was in fact reproduced in Nathan Weinstock’s original (1979) discussion of the 1929 riots, but it did not have much of an effect on him then, because he defended this murderous violence as “understandable” (the quotation is in footnote ). His new book is supposed to correct this. Thus, Weinstock now boasts on the cover his new comprehension of the traditional anti-Jewish racism of Muslims, who for many centuries have considered the Jews to be their slaves -- their “dogs,” their dhimmis -- and in consequence cannot tolerate that Jews should graduate from the condition of dhimmitude to establish their own state. This is a cosmology deeply rooted in the Qur’an and in Islamic law.
Now the question is the following: Has Nathan Weinstock really made an about face? Or is his supposed ‘about face,’ like Benny Morris’s, just Nathan Weinstock’s way “out of a hole,” as Jared Israel would put it? In other words, is this just a new, more clever, way for Nathan Weinstock to continue attacking the Jewish state?
Nathan Weinstock himself, in no uncertain terms, provides the answer: he accepts Benny Morris’s fraudulent interpretation of the War of 1948! Here is Nathan Weinstock:
“As we know, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians lost their homes during the course of the War of 1948, so this year is inscribed in their collective memory and designated by the term nakba (catastrophe).”
To this, Weinstock affixes a footnote that reads:
“Though the main reference here is obviously the now classic work of Benny Morris (Morris, B. 1987. The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem. New York: Cambridge University Press), one must not neglect the pioneering work of Ronny E. Gabbay who was able to consult the parliamentary study (distributed confidentially) of the Iraqi parliamentary commission charged with investigating the causes of the Arab defeat: A political history of the Arab-Jewish Conflict, Geneva, 1959. Benny Morris will soon publish a revised edition of his classic study, based on numerous new elements that will show, on the one hand, that the policy of expulsion practiced by the Israeli army was harsher, and imposed more quickly, than he previously thought, and, on the other hand, that there were indeed appeals from the Arab Higher Committee and other Palestinian leaders exhorting the Arab population to flee, which had been assumed up to now was just Israeli propaganda (cf. Avi Shavit’s interview of Benny Morris in Haaretz, English edition, 9 January 2004).”
So Nathan Weinstock’s interpretation of the War of 1948 is supplied by Benny Morris. (And it is also supplied, notice, by the Iraqis, who in the decade before the ‘study’ mentioned by Weinstock, carried out a devastating pogrom against the Iraqi Jews -- the Farhud -- with the help of Hajj Amin al Husseini, who before this had been the British tool fomenting anti-Jewish terrorist violence in the Holy Land.)
What is Nathan Weinstock’s excuse for this? I cannot see that he has one. Efraim Karsh’s demonstration that Benny Morris is a liar was published in 1999, and Nathan Weinstock’s Histoire de Chiens came out in 2004. That’s plenty of time for Nathan Weinstock to notice.
So, although Nathan Weinstock’s new book recognizes that the ‘Palestinian movement’ is at root racist, how has he made an about face? This recognition of Arab racism was already included in his earlier book Zionism: False Messiah, and it did not affect his analysis then.[17a] Neither does it affect his analysis now: Nathan Weinstock defends Benny Morris’s fraudulent thesis that the Israelis supposedly had an ‘ethnic cleansing’ policy against the Arabs in the War of 1948. This fraudulent thesis is necessary to establish a kind of ‘moral equivalence’ between Arabs and Jews, because no one disputes that the Arab League announced in that war its goal of exterminating the Israelis (see footnote ). Without this phony ‘moral equivalence’ any perception that the Israelis owe anything to the Arabs evaporates.
Clear evidence that he pushes the ‘moral equivalence’ argument can be found in how Nathan Weinstock opens his new book. This is what he claims is the only proper description of the Arab-Israeli conflict:
“What terms shall we use to describe the drama that at this very moment bloodies the Holy Land? Let us use a neutral, factual, and dispassionate formula. Let us say, therefore, that this is a conflict that opposes the Israeli Jews to the Palestinian Arabs. How else to express it?”
But is it really “neutral, factual, and dispassionate” to blame both sides equally? This is a phony conception of ‘fairness.’ It would be absurd, for example, to claim that in the WWII conflict between the Nazis and the European Jews both sides were equally to blame! What is fair is to state things as they happened, and to put the weight of the blame on those who deserve it. The following facts, in my view, must be taken into account when making a characterization of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The leader of the Palestinians has been Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO. It was Hajj Amin al Husseini’s organization that created Al Fatah after the World War, and Husseini himself who created Yasser Arafat, the founder and leader of Al Fatah until his death (also: Mahmoud Abbas). This Husseini, mentioned earlier, had been the British tool of anti-Jewish Arab terrorism in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ from his perch of Mufti of Jerusalem, a job that British intelligence made sure he got after he demonstrated a definite skill in organizing terrorism against Jews. When World War II exploded, Husseini traveled to Berlin and met up with Hitler in 1941, subsequently becoming so important as a leader of Adolf Hitler’s extermination program against the European Jews that he may be considered Adolf Eichmann’s equal. So Al Fatah, which Husseini created, and which swallowed the PLO by 1970, is an outgrowth of the German Nazi Final Solution. In fact, Al Fatah was trained in Egypt by Nazi refugees there to ‘improve’ Gamal Abdel Nasser’s forces for a future attack against the Jewish State.[20a] This explains why the PLO Charter calls for the extermination of the Israeli Jews. The supposedly ‘rival’ organization, Hamas, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, which was closely allied with the Nazis during World War II (and according to some the go-between for the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazis was none other than Husseini).[21a] Hamas is always saying in public that it means to destroy Israel, and the Hamas Charter states very clearly that “Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason” (so one may not negotiate with Zionists). Moreover, despite appearances, the PLO and Hamas have always been allied.
In light of the above facts the Arab-Israeli conflict may be described as follows: the Israeli Jews are fighting a defensive war against the Nazis.
This way of putting it makes a whole lot more sense than what Weinstock writes, which is that we have a “conflict that opposes the Israeli Jews to the Palestinian Arabs.” First, because the Israeli Jews are not opposed to anybody. It is not the Israeli Jews who have repeatedly launched wars of extermination -- it is their Arab enemies who have done that; and it is not the Israeli Jews who call for the destruction of their Arab neighbors -- it is the Arabs who call for the destruction of the Israeli Jews. Second, because, as Weinstock’s documented in his earlier book, Zionism: False Messiah, there was no such thing as ‘Palestine’ before the British so baptized one of their Middle Eastern possessions in the early 20th c.
That didn’t stop Weinstock from defending, with bravado, the supposed reality of the “Palestinian identity” in his 1979 book. He repeats the maneuver in his new book, where he explains, again, in a section entitled “A Palestine that cannot be found,” that:
“Though it may seem paradoxical to affirm it, this is nevertheless true: Palestine did not exist in the 19th century. …Definitely, the territory of the Palestine Mandate corresponded to Mediterranean Syria and its inhabitants considered themselves as being part of Syria in the larger sense (bilad al-Sham). ...[but] this affirmation does not mean to invalidate Palestinian nationalism.”
Weinstock’s reasoning is amazing. Especially when you consider that the immediately following section, on the same page, has for title: “No Palestinian identity in the 19th century.” What then, in Nathan Weinstock’s view, might invalidate so-called “Palestinian nationalism”? Obviously not the fact that ‘Palestine’ never existed, nor the fact that a people with a Palestinian identity cannot be found. Neither, apparently, will the traditional Muslim racism against the Jews, which has made the extermination of the Israeli Jews the central goal of “Palestinian nationalism.”
Let us recapitulate. In his new book, Nathan Weinstock
But in the middle of all that Weinstock applauds Benny Morris’s interpretation of the 1948 War, which claims that the Israeli Jews carried out massacres and expulsions against the Arabs, which is all that is needed for the current demands on the Israeli state by the ‘Palestinian movement’ to seem justified. So is it unreasonable, then, to propose that Nathan Weinstock has merely found a clever way to continue his attack against Israel? After all, the leaders of the ‘Palestinian movement’ trace their roots to the German Nazi Final Solution (something Weinstock never mentions).
Nathan Weinstock ends his book by applauding Ariel Sharon’s cleansing of the Jews who lived in Gaza. At the time of Weinstock’s writing, this was to happen in the near future. The passage in question expresses the hope that this cleansing of the Gaza Jews by their own government will lead the ‘Palestinians’ to negotiate. In other words, Weinstock is hoping for a ‘Palestinian state’ in the West Bank and Gaza. And yet Weinstock writes these hopes after explaining that the entire PLO and Hamas leadership is irremediably racist (this is the leadership that will govern any ‘Palestinian state’)!
Nathan Weinstock’s new book is consistent with the old one: he defends interpretations that are absurd in the face of his own data, when this data is any good. And he defends the justice of the so-called ‘Palestinian movement,’ resorting to Benny Morris’s lies whenever necessary. The material effect is, once again, that he attacks Israel. Is this an about face, then? Or is Weinstock’s new tune, like the Pied Piper’s, merely a strategy to seduce and lure his victim? I believe it is the latter. Nathan Weinstock, in recognizing the racism of the Arabs, appears to the innocent reader all the more trustworthy when he accuses that the Israelis carried out massacres and expulsions.
I think Benny Morris -- with his angry endorsement of ethnic cleansing -- is the Pied Piper for what they call the ‘political right.’ He’s the tough mother. And I think Nathan Weinstock -- with his sudden realization of the importance of recognizing the racism of the Arabs -- is the Pied Piper for what they call the ‘political left.’ He’s the ‘fair-minded’ bleeding heart. They've got them all cornered, these ‘New Historians.’
Heads, the Jews lose; tails, the Jews lose.
Evidence to support that the Pied Piper of the ‘political
right’ is Benny Morris, and the Pied Piper of the ‘political left’ is Nathan
Weinstock, is that Jared Israel, an arch-leftist who has been known to call
himself a Marxist, is not fooled by Benny Morris, as we saw above. But he has
been seduced by his fellow Marxist Nathan Weinstock, whom he can be found
defending, and with some energy (see the comments below the main posting):
(It makes a strange loop).
Footnotes and Further Reading
“How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then
the German Nazis, and the US”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June
2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
“Was Arab anti-Jewish racism in the first half of the 20th c. fundamentally different
from the European variety?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 April
2006; by Francisco Gil-White;
 Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence. New York: University Press of America.
“WAS THERE A MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN?: The pro-PLO camp says yes; the
historical documentation says otherwise”; Historical and Investigative
Research; 20 November 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
 Immediately before the War of 1948, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, promised:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
SOURCE: Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)
 Historian Uri Milstein, who has produced the definitive history of the 1948 war, recounts many battles with great detail in his work “The Rabin File.” It becomes clear from these descriptions just how routine the suicide of wounded Jewish soldiers on the battlefield was, who feared the atrocities they knew only too well would follow at the hands of the enemy Arabs.
SOURCE: Milstein U. 1999. The Rabin file: An unauthorized exposé. New York: Gefen
 Just to give one example, though the Israelis did not conduct a massacre of civilians at Deir Yassin, the Arabs did ‘retaliate’ by murdering Jewish civilians. On April 12 Dana Schmidt, from the New York Times, insisted that
“Dr. Hussein Khalidi, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee...said...that the Arabs planned no reprisals [for Deir Yassin]”
And yet, the day after,
“on April 13, 78 Jews, mostly medical personnel riding to Hadassah Hospital, were slain. That was the Arab answer to Deir-Yassin.”
First Quote: ARABS SAY KASTEL HAS BEEN RETAKEN; JEWS DENY CLAIM; By DANA ADAMS SCHMIDT; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 12, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 -- 2001) pg. 1.
Second quote: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: Out of crisis came decision. Vol. 4. New York: University Press of America. (p.387)
 “ Benny
Morris: The Kiss That Kills”; Israel National News; Mar 02, '04 / 9 Adar
5764; by Jared Israel
 “...the Palestinian anti-colonialist movement was deformed by racism. The distorted national struggle expressed itself in anti-Jewish slogans (‘Palestine is our country and the Jews are our dogs’), followed up by attacks upon Jewish passers-by and store-owners, and eventually in mob violence akin to the all-too familiar pogrom [ pogrom = unprovoked racist attack against unarmed Jews, with the semi-unofficial assistance of the authorities (in this case, British)]. These attacks cannot, however, in any way be assimilated to straightforward anti-Semitic outrages which had their source in classical European coordinates of the Jewish problem, but should be seen as a deformed expression of national consciousness, all the more understandable as the Zionist leaders clearly allied with the British while the latter [i.e. the British] encouraged this distraction from the anti-imperialist struggle.” (my emphasis)
For a closer analysis, see the introduction to my
series on the Palestinian movement:
The documentation that the British "encouraged" the Arabs to kill Jews is in Part 4 of "Understanding the Palestinian Movement":
 Consult pages 163-64 of Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd.
For a detailed analysis of the issue, and Weinstock's treatment of it, consult:
 “Dhimmitude and slavery: The fates
of non-Muslims (and Muslims, too) in Islamic society”; from THE CULTURE OF
ISLAM, an HIR Series; Historical and Investigative Research; 14 October 2007;
by Francisco Gil-White
 « Comme on Ie sait, des centaines de milliers de Palestiniens ont perdu leurs foyers au cours de la guerre de 1948, de sorte que cette année est inscrite dans leur mémoire collective et désignée par le vocable nakba (catastrophe). »
SOURCE : Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (p.155)
This quotation is crucial, so I have provided here
the pdf to the page on Weinstock's book, for those French-speaking readers
who wish to compare.
 « Si l’ouvrage de base est évidemment l’ouvrage désormais classique de Benny Morris (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, New York-Londres, Cambridge University Press), il ne faut pas négliger pour autant l’étude pionnière de Ronny E. Gabbay qui a pu consulter l’étude parlementaire (a diffusion confidentielle) de la commission parlementaire irakienne chargée d’enquêter sur les causes de la défaite arabe: A Political History of the Arab-Jewish Conflict, Geneve, 1959. Benny Morris doit publier prochainement une édition revue de son étude classique, fondée sur de nouveaux éléments dont il résulterait, d’une part, que la politique d’expulsion pratiquée par l’armée israélienne a été plus dure et s’est imposée plus rapidement qu’il ne le pensait antérieurement et, d’autre part, qu’il y eut effectivement des appels répétés du Haut Comite arabe et de dirigeants palestiniens exhortant la population arabe a fuir, ce qui était tenu jusqu’ici pour de la propagande israélienne (Cf. l’interview de Benny Morris par Avi Shavit dans le Haaretz, édition anglaise du 9 janvier 2004). »
SOURCE : Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (p.155)
This quotation is crucial, so I have provided here
the pdf to the page on Weinstock's book, for those French-speaking readers
who wish to compare.
To learn about Hajj Amin’s role organizing anti-Jewish Arab terrorist violence for the British (and then for the Nazis), visit:
[17a] See footnote 12 for Weinstock's admission that the 'Palestinian' movement was racist. For a complete analysis:
 « …en quels termes convient-il de décrire le drame qui ensanglante en ce moment même la Terre Sainte ? Cherchons une formule neutre, factuelle et dépassionnée. Disons donc qu'il s'agit d'un conflit opposant les Juifs israéliens aux Arabes palestiniens. Comment l'exprimer autrement en effet? »
SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (pp.9-10)
 “The mufti [Hajj Amin] barely escaped trial for [war crimes] by fleeing to Egypt in 1946. There he made young Yasser Arafat, then living in Cairo, his protégé. The mufti secretly imported a former Nazi commando officer into Egypt to teach Mr. Arafat and other teenage recruits the fine points of guerrilla warfare. Mr. Arafat learned his lessons well; the mufti was so proud of him he even pretended the two of them were blood relations.”
“We are the Mighty People. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini? ...There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.”
“[the] radical Palestinian group in Syria, the Fatah (Arab Liberation Movement), organized several years earlier by veterans of the Mufti’s former Arab Higher Committee.”
To learn more, read:
“Hajj Amin al Husseini, leader of the ‘Palestinian movement,’ becomes an
architect of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, and then continues the
extermination effort beyond the World War”; from: HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN
MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? THE BRITISH SPONSORED IT. THEN THE GERMAN NAZIS, AND THE
US; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
 The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.” Doesn’t this agree perfectly with how the PLO, behaviorally, chooses to define ‘Palestine’ as ‘the territory that Jews live on’?
SOURCE: The PLO Charter articles were translated by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.
[21a] “…as Italian and German fascism sought greater stakes in the Middle East in the 1930s and '40s to counter British and French controlling power, close collaboration between fascist agents and Islamist leaders ensued. During the 1936-39 Arab Revolt, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence, sent agents and money to support the Palestine uprising against the British, as did Muslim Brotherhood founder and "supreme guide" Hassan al-Banna. A key individual in the fascist-Islamist nexus and go-between for the Nazis and al-Banna became the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini -- incidentally the later mentor (from 1946 onward) of a young firebrand by the name of Yasser Arafat.”
 The following is stated in article 27 of the Hamas Charter:
To see how closely Hamas and the PLO have cooperated in the killing of both Arabs and Jews, visit:
“Hamas vs. Fatah: A curious ‘fight’: What if Hamas and Fatah are not
really enemies?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 June 2007; by
 To see Nathan Weinstock’s claims on this question in Zionism: False Messiah, and my analysis, visit:
 « L’affirmation parait révéler du paradoxe, mais n’en est pas moins vraie : la Palestine n'existe pas au XIXe siècle. ...En définitive, le territoire de la Palestine mandataire correspond a la Syrie méridionale et ses habitants se considèrent comme faisant partie de la Syrie au sens large (bilad al-Sham). ...[mais] cette constatation ne vise pas a déconsidérer le nationalisme palestinien... »
SOURCE : Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (pp.37-38)
 Nathan Weinstock’s earlier accusations that the Zionist Jews were responsible for the peasant Arabs in Palestine losing their land went against his own evidence, as we show here:
Nathan Weinstock’s retraction in his new book reads as follows:
« L’éviction d’une fraction du paysannat arabe ne résulte pas de l’implantation agricole juive : cette spoliation est antérieure au sionisme. Les acquisitions foncières effectuées par les organisations sionistes ont agi comme un révélateur d’une dépossession préexistants. On peut ajouter -- j’y reviendrai plus loin -- qu’une enquête officielle britannique établira en 1931 que, sur le plan quantitatif, cette dépossession tant décrie n’a revêtu qu’un caractère tout a fait marginal. »
TRANSLATION : “The eviction of a fraction of the Arab peasantry did not result from the implantation of Jewish agriculture: this despoliation is prior to Zionism. The main acquisitions made by the Zionist organizations merely revealed the dispossession that had already happened. One may add -- and I will return to this -- that an official British inquiry established in 1931 that, in quantitative terms, this dispossession that has been so decried was in fact quite marginal.” (emphasis in original)
SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (p.64)
 This may be found in chapter 8 of Weinstock's book.
 « L’évacuation totale de la bande de Gaza annoncée par le Premier ministre israélien -- premier pas qui est le bienvenu -- aura valeur de test a cet égard. Les Palestiniens sauront-ils saisir cette chance de faire avancer la négociation? »
TRANSLATION: “The total evacuation of the Gaza strip announced by the Israeli prime minister -- a first and welcome step -- will count as a test. Will the Palestinians know to seize this chance and let the negotiations proceed?”
SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 2004. Histoire de chiens. Paris: Éditions Mille et Une Nuits (Groupe Fayard). (p.184)
Notify me of new HIR pieces!