Benny Morris Justifies Israel's Coming Attack on Iran
On Friday July 18 the New York Times published an op-ed by the Israeli historian Benny Morris. It is entitled "Using Bombs to Stave Off War." Morris chose this American venue to announce that Israel would "almost surely" attack Iran some time in the next few months. And he indicated that America would be well advised to support the attack.
The reputation of Benny Morris is founded on unquestioned scholarly achievement and a far more dubious political stance. As one of Israel's "new historians," he recovered the record of harassment, murder, and expulsion of the Palestinians in the war of independence -- a finding that largely discredits the Israeli myth that the inhabitants fled from their own timidity, or because they were told to flee by Arab governments.
But speaking as an Israeli citizen, more recently, Morris has declared his view that the mistake of Ben-Gurion and the leadership of 1948 was that they did not carry the expulsion of the Palestinians all the way. Morris sees Israel in 2008 as a state under perpetual siege and the focus of a clash of civilizations; he sees Palestinians -- and to a degree, all Arabs; and Iranians, too -- as a species of animals not yet inducted into full humanity. Thus in a well-known interview
with Ari Shavit, published in Haaretz on January 5, 2004, Morris described the Israeli problem with the Palestinians:
"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
In the years since Benny Morris spoke those words, the construction of the Israeli wall in the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza by land, sea, and air have created the cage he believed was necessary.
Now, writing from Israel for the American newspaper of record, Morris offers his advice concerning the proper treatment of Iran and Iranians. Since Iran is five years from being able to make a nuclear bomb (Morris says one-to-four years), Israel is compelled to bomb Iran "in the next four to seven months."
One may notice that the Israeli attack goes on a much faster schedule than the Iranian pace of research and discovery. Why the haste for destruction? Could it have something to do with the American presidential election of 2008 (which comes at Morris's four-month lower limit), or something to do with the inauguration of a new president in 2009 (thirty days before his upper limit of seven months)? Morris does not say. He writes, he says, because people need to realize that the success of Israel's coming "conventional assault" on Iran will be good for Israel, for the United States, and even for Iran. If, on the other hand, this conventional assault fails, Israel will some day launch a nuclear attack; and that will be less good.
The choice, Morris concludes, lies with the rest of the world, and especially with the United States. If Iran does not submit rapidly to the next round of international pressure, the world had better support Israel and hope for the success of its first aerial assault against Iran.
Morris confesses, or implies, one reservation. It would better if the United States could launch the attack. But, being realistic, he remarks the lack of enthusiasm among Americans "for wars in the Islamic lands."
"Which leaves," says Morris, "only Israel."
There is an irritant driving this article, a motive more deeply lodged than Morris is willing to avow. For he suspects Israel alone cannot do the job well enough. So having first dismissed the U.S. and the American public as faint-hearted and unequipped for "wars in Islamic lands," and having then come half way to ask again, Morris at last accuses the United States. If we do not soon intervene, and attack Iran as he counsels, the result will be further nuclear progress by Iran. This will be terminated eventually with a nuclear attack by Israel against Iran.
A nuclear attack on a nation of seventy million people (a great many of them innocent of the desire to wipe Israel off the map) is morally indefensible. How can Morris defend it? He can because he knows -- not believes but metaphysically knows -- that the moment that Iran comes into possession of its first weapon, the leaders of Iran will commit national suicide in order to obtain the pleasure of destroying Israel.
Morris alludes to his ulterior knowledge in two sentences so full of blandness, abstract jargon, and bureaucratic euphemism that their meaning is not initially clear; but if one reads with care, one sees that the message is never in doubt:
"Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificing mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and the White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build."
Iran will use a nuclear bomb, Morris is sure, as soon as it has one, even knowing that to do so means the destruction of Iran. The Mullahs will do it because that is the kind of people they are.
Here then is the way around the charge that Israel, in attacking Iran some time before March 2009, will be committing a crime. By Morris's logic the attack by Israel will be an act of self-defense. Indeed, it will be preemptive -- hardly more than common sense -- given the knowledge that Benny Morris possesses of the "fundamentalist, self-sacrificing" nature of the leaders of Iran. No evidence for his intuition is ever offered -- evidence from (say) the history of Iranian foreign policy over the past fifty years, or 200; evidence founded on actions rather than words. What if Iran's words since 1979 have been wilder than its deeds? What if Israel's actions since 2002 have been wilder than its words (wilder, even, than Benny Morris's words of 2004)? These findings could not possibly touch the argument. Morris writes as a man in possession of a racial and religious knowledge that is superior to evidence.
Of course, he hopes that Israel will not be forced to go all the way (though he has deplored Ben-Gurion's failure to go all the way with expulsion of the Palestinians). He imagines most Iranians would prefer not to see "Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland." Morris has thus given the readers of the New York Times a vision of a hellish future, but then atoned for the extravagance by suggesting that, if things fall out so, it will be the fault of Iran and the United States. Israel will have done the best it could with a monstrous and implacable enemy and a reluctant ally.
All circumstances taken together, this New York Times op-ed by Benny Morris is at once the most overt and the most peculiar intervention we Americans have witnessed thus far, by an Israeli attempting to influence U.S. policy in the Middle East. The article is weakly founded on partial facts and conjectural truths. It passes without transition from mock-prudential calculations to a tyrannical threat to destroy a civilization for the good of the world. Yet, though unpersuasive, it acquires significance when published between a recent visit to the U.S. by the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and the current visit by the defense minister Ehud Barak. Morris's article is meant to be read in the context of such recent assurances as Olmert's, for example, that President Bush "understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and
intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."
But let us return for a last look at Benny Morris.
No person into whose mind had entered the idea that an Iranian may be a human being--and that there are millions of innocent Iranians -- could have generated with such casual facility the image of Iran as a "nuclear wasteland." Yet this was the image of Iran that the Israeli Benny Morris decided to conjure up for American readers in the New York Times.
In the Haaretz interview of January 5, 2004, the following exchange occurred between the interviewer Ari Shavit and Benny Morris:
"Would you describe yourself as an apocalyptic person?"
"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible. Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."
This apocalyptic danger Morris may conceive himself to have put off a few more years by writing an editorial on behalf of Israel's coming attack. But whether the attack on Iran comes sooner or later, whether it is executed by Israel or the U.S. or both, and whether carried out with conventional or nuclear weapons, Morris has no doubt of one thing. It will have served the "apocalyptic" vision of the "whole Zionist project," and it will coincide with the highest values of
humanity properly defined.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
McCain is winning — only in Israel
"Those results stand in stark contrast to public surveys conducted in most other nations. A spring Pew Global Attitudes Project poll of 23 foreign nations — not including Israel — on six continents found respondents in all but two countries had more confidence in Obama than McCain to do the right thing in world affairs, often by wide margins. (In the two outlying countries, Jordan and Pakistan, few people expressed confidence in either candidate.) "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080718/pl_politico/11870
America has lost it's moral ground by allowing our own country to start and maintain a preemptive war against an innocent country. Israel is seemingly looking for political and popular opinion support to do the same thing. They won't get it. We are repulsed by our own government's behavior and by the Israeli proposed behavior. If the nations of the world start killing off anybody and everybody who have done nothing, but may someday do something, then there will be no place on earth where people can live in peace. Israel is our ally, but that shouldn't mean that we will support them when they try to act like bullies. Our own intelligence says that Iran stopped it's efforts at nuclear arms three years ago. Unless there is extremely strong evidence otherwise, we, and Israel, should butt out.
Don't be so sure about popular opinion. There is huge acceptance of Israel's protection. If Israel has to strike the nuke facilities in Iran, I am most certain that the world won't like it, but the US, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq will think it is fine.
IRAQ? Are you joking? Where do you think al-Maliki spent his years in exile? Where do you think al-Sadr lives?
When the Iranian President went to Baghdad, did he have to conceal his itinierary?
Please use your brain.
The problem of security has dominated Israel from the very beginning. For Israel, their will always be someone after Iran, before Iraq, Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, their natural inhabitants and the overall distrust of the Arab world.
Hitler took over Europe in the name of security, lest we forget.
In name? In lie. Do you believe Hitler acted out of "security" or are you being faceitious?
So Benny Morris wants his children to live in a world where Israel
does a 1st-strike nuclear attack on another country.
Now, that's responsible parenting for you!
Mr Morris sounds like a lovely person.
Not.
The question is why is the NY times publishing such lunacy? I know they're pro-Israel but this is ridiculous.
Hey, folks, you're missing something.
Pakistan ALREADY has nuclear capability. The first strike is much more likely to come from Pakistan than Iran. And, if Pakistan does nuke Israel, you can be assured that this country will strike a nuclear 'death blow' to Pakistan. After all, that's where bin Laden is hiding out.
"The first strike is much more likely to come from Pakistan than Iran."
No, not true.
At least not unless an extreme Islamist regime seizes power
Many here seem not to understand the degree of vitriolic hatred directed at Jews and Israel being consistently spewed by all of the Islamic Republic of Iran's media outlets 24/7
Gosh, what fun...delivering a death blow to Pakistan, which has a population of what, around 170 million? Dr. Strangelove would be very proud that this discussion is going on. To first strike, or not to first strike, that is the question, whether tis nobler in the minds of men to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or simply detonate a 10 megaton airburst over Islamabad and in the blink of an eye vaporize a million human beings?
First came torture as acceptable dinner conversation...and now nuclear first strike! This country has gone through the looking glass VERY darkly...and if we don't pull back, the blowback from the survivors of our war crimes will, in the future, be a vision of hell itself. And in that, mostly innocent will die, as usual, and the blood soaked ball will roll on.
This martial attitude of violence solving anything and everything must stop. Insane people do the same thing over and over, expecting different results, and that is the way it is with violence and war. It has never changed anything. There has never been, and there never will be, a war to end all wars. The way to end war is to stop making war, and find another way to the dearly beloved profits that frame the "American Dream" (aka the American Nightmare to the rest of the world). Every war so far, has led to another war, and only insane people will think otherwise, since the results have ALWAYS been the same. Time to get off the Crazy Train...and start finding common ground with those we demonize as threatening civilization itself, while we are the ones who are threatening civilization with nihilist visions of a future world populated only by Christians. Of course, if the world is such, they won't be Christians, because they will have killed billions of human beings. Real Christians do not murder human beings.
"A nuclear attack on a nation of seventy million people (a great many of them innocent of the desire to wipe Israel off the map) is morally indefensible" True. I would think obvious and not even worthy of serious debate but not in the insane climate we have in this country today. The real irony though is that even Iran's "madmen" leaders never said "wipe Israel off the map". They've said that they consider Israel's occupation of land taken from the Palestinians to be illegitimate, a statement which just about the entire civilized world agrees with. As Virginia Tilly, a professor of political science has pointed out, Ahmadinejad's words have been consistently mis-translated and distorted by the US press, as they fulfill their propaganda duty to mold him into the latest madman villain:
http://counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
Well ask those leaders what they consider the "occupied land".
The answer might surprise you.
The hawks do whatever they want. Why even bother to publish articles?
So a Jewish person would accept the idea of killing or causing horrible deaths of maybe a million people with a nuke strike upon Iran. That is so against Jewish faith, history and humaninty in general that to me this person should be considered a terrorist and not allowed to ever leave Israel.
Israeli polls show indicate they are very much in favor of obliterating Iran.
"Is the Jewish faith against the killing of non Jewish innocents?"
Shame on you ...
That famous Jewish commandment has no faith attached to it
"Thou shall not kill"
has no faith attached to it.
And the Jewish faith and the Jewish mindset does not sanction killing unless its in self defense.
Jews have been at the forefront of supporting and helping victims everywhere on this planet - even in Palestine and I'd really wish many of you before uttering the sort of stupidity I'm reading, would remember that.
All the NGO's so many of you hold out as proof of how evil Israel is evil are full of Jewish members and supported by Jewish money like B'Tselem
In South Africa a Jew Joe Slovo was the head of the ANC military wing and fought for decades against a real apartheid government and here you people are debating whether we sanction cold blooded killing ?
No, in fact we do everything we possibly can to go out of our way not to kill innocent people unlike our enemies Hezbollah or Hamas who embed themselves in civilian neighborhoods and fire rockets from schools and mosques and hospitals inviting our response hoping it would kill scores of innocent people so they can have a PR victory.
Well, if you read your Bible you would see plenty of innocent people being slaughtered in the name of Israel. Is the Jewish faith against the killing of non Jewish innocents? I am no rabbi, but don't think we should assume that learned Jews can't find some religious justification for these actions. Israel was not founded by pacifist, and some radical Rabbi's are not against advocating or excusing terrorist like violence to fulfill the objectives of the Jewish state.
What concerns me most is the dehumanization and obvious racist overtones from Benny Morris. The man is blinded by bigotry, he cannot see the potential of people that are not like himself. A man convinced he is apart of a superior race is no longer rational. People are people, this universal principal that all men are created equal is the foundation of human progress. We seek to unify, and respect one another.
I read the Benny Morris article and thought it was a war mongering piece of Ultra Zonist propaganda. Not for one moment did I think anyone in their right mind would agree with its conclusions. It is such a foolish and emotional slant on a major problem and it concludes with an absolutely disasterous answer to the question of what to do. The answer he espouses is worse by far than the original problem and I think he knows it but is unwilling to admit so. I truly hope no one of any consequence takes it seriously.
"I read the Benny Morris article and thought it was a war mongering piece of Ultra Zonist propaganda."
Hah!! Who would ever have thought of all people to be referred to as an "ultra Zionist" would be the darling of the anti Zionist far Left, Benny Morris.
Just goes to show you how little people understand about this issue.
Benny Morris like all Jews recognizes what Ahmadinejad and the Mullah's will do to Israel as soon as they can.
The suicide of their entire country - national martydom, will be a wonderful honor the regime believes.
The destruction of all Iran will be worth the great honor to destroy Israel.
Tell me Archie1955, have you ever seen any of the TV that the Islamic Republic of Iran broadcasts to its people on a regular basis and has been doing so for decades now?
Have you ever seen rank Jew hatred - the sort that describes Jews as sub humans and/or animals? The sort with "intellectual debate" about Jews using the blood of non Jewish babies as if it's serious debate?
Check out www.memri.org and watch a bit of Iranian TV with translation.
A regime that promotes this sort of idea to its population, easily makes the leap to mass murder.
Benny Morris, one of the few Jews remaining that the far Left trusts, is trying to tell you all how it is.
Listen closely.
MEMRI is a Zionist organization.
Morris is a supporter of ethnic cleansing--past, present, and future--of Arabs. He's no hero, and he's no leftist. He is an ultra-Zionist who wants to "cleanse" all of Greater Israel of all Arabs.
Bennie forgets that you can't get oil from a nuclear wasteland.
Benny Morris is the same man who has repeatedly criticized Ben Gurion for not having killed all the Palestinians in 1948.
His article is a very definition of hate speech. "Professor" Morris should be brought to court for inciting genocide.
If Israel commits an act of terror against Iran, the Iranians have every right to counter-attack and commit acts of terror against Israel. Remember the ten thousand Iranians with body bags clearing a path for Iranian tanks in their war with Iraq. It will also be interesting to see how Russia responds, as those in power in the West are trying to envelop Russia and Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev know it.
Fantastic article Mr. Bromwich, I urge you to publish your analysis of Benny Morris's ridiculous, dangerous, and outrageous article to the New York Times.
And Mr. Bromwich, you didn't have to go as far back as 2004 for some classic Morris hate filled spewfest, he recently said some disgusting comments on Democracy Now.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/16/as_israelis_celebrate_independence_and_palestinians
"classic Morris hate filled spewfest, "
Wow ... and to think just a few years ago Morris was being held out by these same people as being the be all and end all when it comes to the Israel Arab issue because then he AGREED with them.
But now that Morris changed his position, a no no for the far left, its a "hate filled spewfest" ....
Hilarious
Whatever goes against Israel is good enough for them.
Not Obamas position luckily.
Once again I see the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" and wish that I understood Farsi. The phrase is used as a weapon over and over again. An over and over again the Iranians insist that it trnslates to the disapperance of the Likudnik right regime in Israel.
I will never understand why a huge country like the US is being led around by the nose by "poor little Israel. "
"I will never understand why a huge country like the US is being led around by the nose by "poor little Israel. "
Instead of wondering why not do a little examining instead. Watch Iranian TV and see what the people there are seeing and hearing. Check out some of their newspapers and magazines. If you'd like to undestand what the Israelis see in Israel why not look at what is being shown instead of just "wondering"
Its all there if anyone cares to see it for themselves.
Following are excerpts from "The Secret of Armageddon," an Iranian television series. In it, Iranian scholars, historians, researchers, academicians, and scholars criticize Christian Zionists, affirm the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, promote various conspiracy theories, discuss the Jews' "genocidal plan for the genocide of humanity," claim that Iranian Jewish and Baha'i communities are plotting to take over Iran, and more.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP197508
If they use nukes they will be an abomination. They will be reviled for all time down the corridors of history.
"If they use nukes they will be an abomination. They will be reviled for all time down the corridors of history."
But the choice may be is they don't use nukes they may BECOME history and that is why its so important for the world community to understand where this will all end unless Iran is stopped.
"May" is the operative word here, you really think that some unquantifiable risk to you means you can preemptively use nuclear weapons on another country? Even if this weren't an untenable position on its' face, it would be irrational. What do you think the world is going to do to you after you murder millions, congratulate you?
If Mr. Morris advocates and justifies a preemptive attack on Iran they and those who support those views should be branded as international criminals and terrorists.
Those in this country who feel it is their obligation to contribute either with voice or money are equally guilty of fermenting an international crisis based upon genocide.
We as Americans should resist joining or supporting those outrageous views.
The goal is PEACE not war!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
