No love for Muslims, unless they're Palestinian
Christopher Hitchens, one of the most important journalists in the English-speaking world, needs to take a long, hard look at Palestinian history and at the nature, behavior and aims of the Palestinian national movement.
By Benny Morris
Christopher Hitchens, one of the most important journalists in the English-speaking world (a columnist for Vanity Fair, a contributing editor to The Atlantic), is of two minds about the Islamic Arab world. Or, rather, for him it is divided in two - the Palestinians and all the rest.
About "the rest," he is fairly clear (as in his just-published book, "Hitch-22: A Memoir): It is a world riddled by corruption, violence and brutal autocracy, gradually falling into the grip of a nihilistic or medieval Islamism that is challenging the core values of the West - liberalism, democracy, tolerance and equal rights for women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities.
Hitchens broke ranks with his leftist colleagues (he had long written for the British New Statesman weekly, and later, the U.S. weekly The Nation) and famously supported both of the Gulf wars: in 1991 and 2003.
Hitchens has condemned the Sudanese Arabs for murdering their Christian and animist kinsmen in Southern Sudan and in Darfur, and the Iraqi Arabs (and Muslim Turks) for killing and oppressing the Kurds.
Indeed, he has written books on the Kurdish struggle for independence and on Cyprus in which he was critical of the 1974 Turkish invasion and ethnic cleansing of the northern third of the island.
Most recently Hitchens has expressed sympathy for a possible Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities (calling it an act of self-defense).
Yet he still has a soft and blind spot for the Palestinians, who can apparently do no or little wrong (similar to the attitude of Western leftists toward the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, despite their occasional massacres of Catholics, the internal purges by Communists of liberals and POUM-supporters, etc.).
In "Hitch-22" Hitchens approvingly cites (and expands) a metaphor coined (I think) by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic: A man (the Zionist Jew), to save himself, leaps from a burning building (anti-Semitic and Holocaust Europe) and lands on an innocent bystander (a Palestinian), crushing him. To which Hitchens adds - and the falling man lands on the Palestinian again and again (the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza, the suppression of the intifadas, the construction of settlements in the territories, etc.).
But the metaphor is disingenuous, and it requires amplification to conform to the facts of history. In fact, as the leaping man nears the ground he offers the bystander a compromise - let's share the pavement, some for you, some for me. The bystander responds with a firm "no," and tries, again and again (1920, 1921, 1929, the Arab Revolt of 1936-39 and the 1947-48 War of Independence), to stab the falling man as he descends to the pavement. So the leaping man lands on the bystander, crushing him. Later, again and again, the leaping man, now firmly ensconced on the pavement, offers the crushed bystander a compromise ("autonomy" in 1978, a "two-state solution" in 2000 and in 2008), and again and again the bystander says "no."
The falling man may have somewhat wronged the bystander, but the bystander was never an innocent one; he was an active agent in and a party to his own demise.
In "Hitch-22" this is somehow omitted. Rather, the often-enlightened Hitchens (who provided a roof and haven for his friend Salman Rushdie when he was under an Islamist death sentence, and who speaks quite forthrightly about "Islamist murderers" and cowardly, naive or deluded Western liberals bent on appeasing these "murderers"), fails to note the continuous, powerful religious impulse underlying the Palestinian national struggle since its inception in the 1920s. (What other national liberation movement in modern times, with the exception of that of the Greek Cypriots, was led by a cleric?). Who, if not the Islamists, won the Palestinian general elections in 2006?
Moreover, throughout Hitchens seems to accept the Palestinians' definition of themselves as "natives" struggling against an "imperialist" foreign enemy.
But what of Jewish residence in the Land of Israel between the 12th century B.C.E. and the late Byzantine period (5th and 6th centuries C.E.)?
And what of Jewish residence and "nativeness" in Palestine since 1882, nearly 130 years ago? If residence grants rights, surely Jewish residence counterbalances Arab residence in Palestine since 636 C.E.
And if it is conquest that affords a claim to territory, then how is the Arab conquest in the 7th century, by blood and fire, any more morally cogent than the Jewish conquests of 1200 B.C.E. or 1948/1967?
Hitchens needs to take a long, hard look at Palestinian history and at the nature, behavior and aims of the Palestinian national movement.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Once again, Morris presents a lucid, cogent, matter-of-fact analysis. At times critical of Israel, at times critical of the Palestinians, and at times critical of the West's political postures in general, Morris is invariably fair and unapologetic. Thank you, Professor Morris, for continuing to contribute to the Israeli-Palestinian discourse.
I agree this is not a helpful metaphor, but you try to then extrapolate the metaphor even deeper to show that Israel is not soley to blame. "The falling man may have somewhat wronged the bystander, but the bystander was never an innocent one; he was an active agent in and a party to his own demise. " If the above statement made any sense whatsoever, I'd love to hear an explanation. You might want to check the definition of bystander: a person present but not involved The metaphor is a poor choice in the first place, which you recongnize, yet then waste everyone's time trying to shift the metaphor's paradigm to show Israel in a better light - its frankly embarrasing and rather transparent
We need more articles by you. Benny Morris is one of the most uncorrupted historians today. He has no shame to "expose" wrongdoings by the Jews, yet he is among the few who is able to put things into perspective.
If Jews settled an island uninhabited except for bedbugs, the "International Community" would champion the rights of bedbugs.
As an atheist, I denounce Hitchens as the radical extremist motivated by hatred (and a superiority complex) that he is.
If Hitchens does not come out and lambast the Palestinians for their part in turning the conflict into a religious war, then Hitchen's is the mother of all hypocrites. By Hitchen’s account there is no G-d, not for Muslims and not for Jews. However Hitchen’s supports the Palestinian version of what G-d means to them. Never mind that the Palestinians have never in all of history controlled Jerusalem. An yet the Palestinians make religious claims to the Temple Mount without any acknowledgment that Jews were there long before them, and never mind whether religious activities went on there or not. The archeological cold fact evidence, the Torah with which far outdates the Koran with its continuous mention of Jerusalem and how important it is to Jews, does not push Hitchens to ask the difficult question from the Palestinians. By Palestinian account, there was very little Jewish history in the area and they claim it was very short. Religion aside Hitchens, you must surely accept that this is the historic homeland of the Jews and if so, where is the justice in favor of the Jews.
get a life, Benny. enough of the old rant. give the Palestinians a secure state & then move forward to liberalize the rest of the area. ps I am a fan of your books!
Not coined by Goldberg. It appears in an interview given by Isaac Deutscher from 1967, right after the Six-Day War. Many have used it since, but rarely with the proper attribution. .
The metaphor was authored by Jewish historian Isaac Deutscher. It reflected the reality that Jews needed the apparatus of a state to defend themselves, yet, falling on the Palestinians, rather than aiding their recovery, continued to trample on them. Morris is disingenuous when he claims otherwise. The legitimate rights of the Palestinians have been compromised at best, and too often ignored by the Israelis. Indeed, during Deutscher's time, Israelis even ignored the existence of a Palestinian people. Some continue this folly to this day, Enough! Stop the settlements.
There's no country or people in the world that hasn't been wronged against or committed wrongs against others, whether its own inhabitants, its minorities or elsewhere around the globe. But its what we do with this past history and rectify the injustices upon a people, and certainly the Palestinians and the Israelis have suffered much too long in this Middle East dispute. As long as the Palestinians are sitting in refugee camps and have been outcast from living a dignified life, there's going to be endearing arguments and supportive sentiments as Christopher Hitchens makes in his analysis. British intellectuals tend to be like that, honest and worthy to hear!
"Arab conquest in the 7th century, by blood and fire" Come off it, Benny, you know you're using exagerated, emotive language. The 'conquest' left Arab rulers in charge but it took another hundred years or so for most of the Jewish population to convert to Islam. They were not forced to do so. Surely they must still be Jews, Muslim Jews? Many of today's Palestinians are their decendants. Ben Gurion thought so. In any case, religion does not give sovereignty rights, so what right has a Brooklynite or a Russian to settle anywhere in occupied palestine?
The vast majority (80%) of Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, not American or European. Jews are absolutely one of the indigenous people of the Middle East and Palestine.
Israel exists primarily as a safe heaven to Jews and not as a religious claim. By claiming original rigths the narrative makes no sense. Just imagine if every people in the world would now claim original rights... But, yes. you can justify Israel as place formed out despair and persecution and relief, more or less how other nations were instituted. Morris seems to be so articulated and intelligent and he resorts to so weak arguments... I cannot understand, really.
Prof Morris did not explain what right did the man have to land on the particular spot. Does the professor believe it was God's will?
A man, to save himself, leaps from a burning building and lands on a pavement. And you are asking "what right did the man have to land on the particular spot"? He was fighting for his life, and therefore was motivated enough not to give a damn about "right to land on the particular spot". No amount of preaching will ever convince a mentally healthy individual to stay and burn in a building because he "doesn't have a right to land on the particular spot".
You know very well: 1) that we, in their place, would have harmed much more whoever dared do what he had done to the Palestinians. 2) All our compromise offers are always unacceptable enough in order to gain time and transform the status quo into a permanent one. See the last talks (2010). 3) "somewhat wronged". Come on! You for sure are aware that it is an understatement! 4) We ourselves have pushed the Palestinians into the arms of fundamentalism, not to talk about the fact that we are becoming fundamentalists too. 4) Whatever you say and think, the Palestinians are indeed natives struggling against a unconscientious colonialist power. Fact. 5) 200 years of the continuous Palestinian majority presence in the region are by far more significant than 2000 years of maybe intermittent, but for sure almost complete absence of the Jews. Simple common sense.
I hear Gaza City has great condo rentals now.
The zionist plan for a Jewish state started well before any open anti-semitism in Europe. It was a deliberate and lucid plan to get a Jewish majority on a land inhabited mostly by Jews 2000 years before. If the man was really leaping why didn't he move to Uganda when that was offered to him?
What makes you think it would have been different? Were there not also people then living in British controlled Uganda? Instead of an Arab-Israeli conflict, we'd be dealing with an African-Israeli conflict, without the benefit of a historic connection to the land.
No country recognises Israeli control of the West Bank. If you did a world referendum tomorrow on whether Israel should get out of the West Bank immediately, you'd get a huge resounding YES.
What has that to do with truth and rights?
Israeli control over West Bank is a FACT. And in your opinion no country recognizes a FACT that West Bank is under Israeli control? Talk about being delusional to the extreme... As for the polls, why don't you first run a poll on whether China should immediately get out of Tibet (or Russia out of Chechnya), and then try to implement "a huge resounding YES" on that one.
The Palestinian claim to live in Palestine comes from the fact that Palestinians, by definition, all lived there. The Jewish claim to live in Israel comes (according to the argument here) from the fact that other Jews have lived there. Is Morris really not able to see the distinction between having the right to live in a place because it's your home land, and having the right to live in a place because it's the home land of some other people who share the same ethnic identification as you?
You ignore the massive Arab immigration into British controlled Palestine from the 1920s to the 1940s - at a time when JEWISH immigration was restricted. And no, they didn't call themselves Palestinians then.
Even in West Bank settlements a third generation of people were born on this land. They claim the right to live there because they (and their parents) were born there. Every piece of land on this planet has been occupied and reoccupied multiple times. Arabs occupied this land in the 7th century. Claiming Arabs have to live now because "they" have occupied it in the 7th century is every bit as stupid as claiming that West Bank Jews have to live now because "they" have occupied it in 1967.
so that means they were all born in Palestine? NOPE!!! It seems that Jews are born there... but not pals... They are born in Jordan Syria and Lebbanon... So really who has the righ to live there because its thier home land and who wants to live there because thier grandparents grew up there?
I am really surprised by the low level of historical knowledge demonstrated in this article, by an otherwise, very good historian : M. Morris. Politics aside, I wonder how does this historian claims that there was a "Jewish Conquest" of Palestine in 1200 BC? Since when the Old Testament is considered a serious historic reference? Probably the historian has never heard about the Assyrian Chronicles that clearly state the presence of Arabs in Palestine since 800 B.C not since "Arab residence in Palestine since 636 C.E." that the writer talks about. Were Arafat and Habash Clerics? Why does he continues with his lies (because we might suppose that ancient history isn't his best domain, but modern history)? The difference M. Morris between the Arab Conquest (and for that matter, the Turkish, Crusader, Roman....) of Palestine and the Zionist conquest is the massive expulsion of population (i.e. Palestinians) that it induced, contrary to all other conquest where the elite was replaced. Is it too much to ask a historian to present facts, and not to skew them to fit his anti-Islam, anti-Arab views?
And yes, Husseini was a cleric and led the resistance to the Jews from the 1920s on, even from Berlin where he was a collaborator with the Nazis.
Benny Morris is a well known scholar and he knows the truth, but still uses propeganda lines in refuting Hitchens argument. The Palestinians are well mixed, but are made mostly from the decendants of the Historical Canaanites and Israelites and Jews. Shlomo Sands has an excellent review of this History in his book " The creation of the Jewish people". Ellan Pappe had a more objective telling of the events that took place in 1948. Benny Morris objectivity as a scholar is being questioned after his shifted nationalistic and racist declarations he made during the past 8 years.
The left takes from Morris only what it fits its interests of delegitimizing Israel. However, as a matter of fact it is the European left which is increasingly being deligitimized by the power of facts. Europe is turning to the right.
Let Mr Hitchens do his home work in history of the Palestin, sins biblikal times, including Judea and Samaria.
should there be a palestinian state and,if so,where would you locate it?or perhaps your willingness to share the pavement has expired? "history" is most interesting.problem solution is the issue.any insights?
The good professor ought to know that the analogy of a person jumping from a burning building and hitting a passer-by below is not Jeffrey Goldberg's but Issac Deutscher's. The great Marxist (and Jewish) historian made his comments in an interview with New Left Review (from memory with Tariq Ali and Robin Blackburn) on 23 June 1967, just a little earlier than Jeffrey Goldberg.
christopher hitchens most certainly did not support the first gulf war, let along support it "famously".
Does YOUR change of perspective in any way change the validity of the history that you've written on the subject?
Morris should know how disingenuous Hitchens is. Both underwent ideological conversions for reasons known only to them. There was no 'Jewish' conquest of Coele-Syria in 1200-BCE and there were no 'Jews' at the time anyway. The mere fact that Jews and non-Jews lived for many centuries in that part of the world makes it all so clear that Jews and Palestinians belong to that land , not the other way around. Neither have a right to its sole possession. The sooner both sides acknowledge that truth, the better the prospects for peace will be.
You know very well that advocating a one-state solution is the easiest way, over time, to have the Jewish population of Israel melt into the hundreds of millions of surrounding Arabs and Muslims. 2000 years of statelessness has not been a good experience for the Jewish people and Israel is not about to commit suicide in order to create yet another Arab state.
They are NOT Arab, and you damn well know it!
who live in settlements and take over native land?