Michael Pollak:
>
> [I asked a friend in Israel about the interview and he replied]
...Yes, the interview being referred here made a big
> splash among the Left in Israel. Just imagine, Chomsky giving an interview
> in the NYT supporting the war in Afghanistan and blaming Third Wolrd
> countries for their own misery. It's part of the general atmosphere and he
> is not alone (David Grossman is another example). Every day you have
> former Leftists giving 'mea culpa' interviews and having to admit that the
> Right was right after all....
Bryan:
The Chomsky analogy is really not that good in this case.
Benny Morris has been considered on the far conservative end and, to some degrees, at odds with many of the other 'New Historians', from almost the beginning of his career. It is true that in "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", he documented evidence which had only then been recently opened up in the Israeli Army Archives, however, the book was criticized by many of the other 'new historiographers' (Pappe, Shlaim, Kimmerling, etc.), as they saw a discrepancy between the evidence Morris presents and the conclusions he draws that "the Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not of design".(p. 286, Birth)
Many of the other historiographers say that by his own evidence, he points to the fact that there was, at least a partially coherent policy to expel portions of the Palestinian population. Even as recently as this year (His chapter in "The War for Palestine" which is edited by Shlaim and Rogan, Cambridge Press, 2001), he "continues to refuse to link 'transfer thinking' to a policy of expulsion, denying that 'any overall expulsory policy decision was taken by the Yishuv's executive bodies...in the course of the 1948 War." (p. 9, War for Palestine). For good refutations of his conclusions read "A Critique of Benny Morris," from the Journal of Palestine Studies 21/1 (1991) 66-97 and from the book "The War for Palestine" read the chapter "The Druse and the Birth of Israel" by Laila Parsons.
Beyond that, Morris has been criticized by some of the other Israeli intellectuals deemed part of the "new historian" movement, for his article in Tikkun, where he tries to say that he invented the 'new historiography' and that others are merely his followers.
True, it was still a slap in the face to many on the left here when he went so far in his interview...afterall, his work has documented many important facts and it is difficult to take his evidence and separate it from the taint of his conclusions (especially the latest ones). However, to say that it is on the level of Chomsky turning coat is way overboard. It is maybe along the lines of the surprise one would feel if Russ Feingold were to have voted in favor of the anti-terror legislation. It would hurt, but not that bad. Now if Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Baruch Kimmerling, or Moshe Tsukerman, etc. were to say what Morris said, that would be problematic to say the least.
And as to David Grossman, well I don't think that many on the real left follow his every move with reverance anyway. He is a left-centrist "both sides have done equally wrong" liberal, but he was on Channel 1 news yesterday discussing about a meeting between several Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals/politicians (him included) at a checkpoint in the West Bank yesterday to continue dialogue between the two peoples, and he outright said that Sharon is doing all he can to sabotage any chance of negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. Not any huge revelations, but definitely not a turncoat of the Morris variety.