It's inconvenient when those with specific professional credentials, speak from their role as private citizen rather than their professional role. One cannot tell if they are speaking authoritatively as a professional or as a humble private citizen. It happens in EVERY field in two forms. People use their credentials in one field to convey some authority in a field outside of their expertise. Dr " ****" will speak tonight. Dr. is a renowned nobel prize winning author (on liinguistics), but the content presented as an expert on Israel/Palestine politics (Noam Chomsky). In Benny Morris' case, he is renouncing his scholarly role for another credible role, VERY informed private citizen makng a personal judgment. It is what it is. You can differ with his conclusions, but you'd have to argue a more informed perspective to do so confidently. The effort to discredit his conclusions on the basis of "he's not writing history, but opinon", is really just too bad. The same criticism was levied against Judge Goldstone, when he wrote his personal opinions that Israel was not an aparthied state, not as a human rights judge, but merely an informed private opinion.
India court gives New Delhi given 3 days to come up with plan to fight pollution (Reuters)
from the article: Answering Benny Morris: Historians should have a commitment to the truth