Ben White, David Irving, An Israeli and Oxbridge Types

zjharaya

It is the blanket racist statements I most object to – about any group.
There are too many very offensive assumptions made about ‘them’ – the particular ‘them’ varies of course.

These racist assumptions are not new – they have always been at the root of many of the conflicts throughout history. Once they become common currency they are more difficult to challenge.

It is very difficult to justify war, mass killing or persecution of a group without first attributing the vilest of motives to them or attributing a foul group psyche or or mass behavioural characteristics to those we seek to demonise.

Difficult to murder or persecute those we see as very much like ourselves.
Killing ‘other’ is more justifiable than killing ‘ourselves’. History – and common sense – tell us that this kind of hatred does rebound – by killing other we do in fact kill self.

Leni

Leni

Exiled

GA’s Rodef thread – now infamous – upset many Jews who do not see Judaism supporting these offensive views. GA is an odd one. He seems to walk in tandem with those who produced the ‘King’s Torah’ recently . The majority of Israelis seemed to reject this too – based on reports and comments I have read.

Leni

zkharya,

Yeah, it looks like Morris has said some possibly racist things (I know many will contest my ‘possibly’).

They would, but that isn’t really the issue.

But (I don’t think) that’s not why Ben White wants him banned. He wants him banned because he is one of the best narrators of the Zionist, Palestinian, Israeli Jewish side of things, precisely that which White habitually omits.

I think he was, as much as anything because he had built his reputation on challenging the conventional wisdom.

Whether that’s still true I would question. If the message is just the same stereotyping that’s available everywhere else, then he ceases to be of much interest.

One of the problems that any cause faces is that those who are devoted enough to put in the time for the cause, are often those with the most extreme views. Any quick look at the Zionism on display here, or the anti-Zionism on display on CIF, should make it pretty clear that neither are exactly representative of mainstream opinion – they are largely the opinions of the activists or zealots.

For whatever reason, Benny Morris has become more of an activist than a historian. He clearly sees himself as someone with a message to give. The Guardian gave Morris two platforms recently – an interview and a blog – which he used to promote his racial theories, and to promote ethnic cleansing as a solution to the conflict.

We could argue about his opinions, but they are not Benny Morris the historian, they are Benny Morris the political animal – there is a difference.

White makes equivalently sweeping generalizations about Israeli Jews, Israeli Jewish society, culture and nationalism.

I’d go along with that, though I’m not sure that he has ever been as open as Morris about the racial nature of his position.

‘I’d go along with that, though I’m not sure that he has ever been as open as Morris about the racial nature of his position.’

Also, he’s not directly involved in the procedings, not under physical or any threat, really, directly or indirectly.

‘The Guardian gave Morris two platforms recently – an interview and a blog – which he used to promote his racial theories, and to promote ethnic cleansing as a solution to the conflict.’

Well, there are a lot of Muslims who would do bad things to Israeli Jews, given half the chance, by no means all or even mostly, Palestinian or even Arab.

That is just a pretty much objective fact.

As to ethnic cleansing, it was and arguably still is threatened against Palestinian and Israeli Jews, by some Palestinian and other Muslims, in some quarters. Palestinian Jews did it, yes, in a war of survival.

It’s not inconceivable.

Zkharya,

I beg to differ.

Could you explain why? All my recent encounters with Morris’s writings have been openly political, with history used for little more than a support for his ideas for the future.

Well, he discriiminates chiefly by omission, misrepresentation and distortion.

I won’t claim to be up to date on Ben White – I’ve pretty much avoided his threads for some time. I would agree that he starts with a viewpoint, and then gathers the evidence to fit.

And the paradeigm he chiefly uses, the Israeli Jewish crucifixion of Palestinian Muslims and Christian is pretty telling in itself.

I haven’t seen that – you have a link?

Also, he’s not directly involved in the procedings, not under physical or any threat, really, directly or indirectly.

I’m not sure that this invalidates anything in itself – closeness brings as many problems as distance sometimes.

‘Could you explain why?’

Because I still think he engages in historical research and writing e.g. 1948, and his political views are influenced by his researches.

Also, he is working head of an academic history department.

HairShirt

You yourself provide counter comment, that is all, and often it seems to me, for the sheer cussedness of needing to be oppositional.

I can assure you that I don’t oppose anything that I don’t disagree with.

It’s the nature of the forum – 95% of the posters have a very different view to mine. I don’t have a problem with that.

Would you prefer 100% agreement?

Zkharya,

Because I still think he engages in historical research and writing e.g. 1948, and his political views are influenced by his researches.

Also, he is working head of an academic history department.

Maybe I worded it badly. I’m not claiming that Morris is no longer a historian (though like many ‘conflict’ historians on both sides, I question his objectivity), I’m suggesting that many of his public pronouncements are essentially political in nature.

I don’t doubt that the history influences the politics (and strongly suspect that the politics influence the history), but the two are separate.

Morris suffers for being Israeli. He says straightforwardly what he thinks without the conventional western wrapping of diplomatic speech to make it acceptable. If he thinks that a certain group is less moral he says that they are less moral than others, he doesn’t look for a pretty way to say it.

That’s what is being objected to: honesty. They can’t imagine why he doesn’t pretend just like everyone else.

Calling benny Morris a racist is a politcally motivated way of trying to dicredit one of the best Israeli historians and manipulate his positons to attack israel.

In brief, what Morris has said is that had Israel, in 1948, or 1967, forced the removal of all Arabs from the WB into Jordan (and possibly from Gaza into Northern Sinai) the amount of blood shed since then would be far less than what has happened as a result of Israel’s “Land for Peace” policy, which he, like many others supported till it became clear that what Arafat and his successors want is all of Israel’s land for no peace.

He has never suggested that the Arabs in the WB and Gaza should have been transferred to Jordan or Egypt because they are Arabs, or Moslems, or Christians or brown skinned, or blue-eyed, or red-haired, or any other reason than that they are implacably opposed to the existence of Israel and have turned and will continue to turn their small, non-viable territories into launching platforms for attacks on Israel.

That is a political and strategic view, not a racist one. I have yet to see any of those attacking Morris’ positions claiming that, say, Nasser or Assad were racists for wanting to eliminate Israel. Their opposition is always dressed up as political opposition to Zionism, even when anyone with a modicum of understanding of Arabic can hear them calling for death for the “Yahudi” – Jews.

The cynical avoidance by the Ben Whites et al of the real intent of this deep thinker is nothing more than the typical attempt to twist what could be a real discussion – e.g., that the future of the WB lies with Jordan, or the WBers with Jordan – into a political ploy attempting to place another marker on the ground in the long march to the delegitimization of Israel as a Jewish State.

exiled, I can now say, and more importantly prove, that you yourself are being just as economical with the actualite about Geoffrey Alderman allegedly calling for the murder of Palestinians, as you say he is about his account of what CiF wrote to him.

You are a liar, exiled, in the vile way in which lies are told on CiF about what goes on in Israel and about Jews. Why do I say this? Well, go back to link from where you probably got this scurrilous rubbish, (but omitted to post it here because you knew that you would be found out for the weasel you are, funnily enough, neither did Leni) at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/12/judaism-gaza-israel-halachah

In it you will see the following:

“…The Halachah is crystal clear. It is entirely legitimate to kill a rodef – that is to say, one who endangers the life of another – and this is true, incidentally, even if the rodef has not yet actually taken another life. So the Judaism that I practise permits what is generally referred to as “pre-emptive” military action.

“In this particular case, the ruling power, Hamas, has advertised (in its charter) that its mission is to kill Jewish people. Therefore every member and supporter of Hamas may be considered a rodef…”

Now, I know you are a literal thinker and this handicaps you when you try to deal with hypotheses or think hypothetically, but the example above was a hypothesis! Alderman did not say that every Palestinian should be killed! Hamas, however, never tires of telling the faithful how they should kill every Israeli Jew.

And as for your reference to Geoffrey Alderman inciting murder “a couple of weeks ago”, I guess you didn’t see fit to provide proof of that either (you know, links, that sort of thing) because that is also a, (how shall I put it?) deliberate distortion of the truth.

Was it a hypothesis, exiled? Is that why you took it literally?

Modernity, of course I know it but thanks all the same.

I have just read HairShirt’s reply to him (and by extension to Leni, who seemed earlier up the thread to be sucking up to him) and he/she seems to hit the nail firmly on the head.

exiled is being typically CiF about Geoffrey Alderman who, in the “rodef” thread, was quoting halachic law about whether pre-emptive strikes are legitimite. As HairShirt said, Geoffrey Alderman was hypothesising and I seem to remember that exiled admitted here once that he (exiled) is a very literal thinker. Literal thinkers don’t “do” hypothesising very well.

I am glad that HairShirt raised the issue of exiled’s belief that Geoffrey Alderman incited murder of Palestinians again “a few weeks ago”, though. Interestingly enough for such a one with such an eye for detail, exiled didn’t seem too fussed about providing any proof of that either.

Exiled is very much CiF’s creature.

Modernity

AS among the upper classes has manifested itself in many ways over the centuries. Jews are first recorded here at the time of the Norman conquest – as educated administrators of the ruling classes. Just over 200 years later they were expelled. The expulsion certainly came from the king – no more upper class than that!. How the commonality of folk felt about this is unrecorded/

Echoes of AS continue in literature even during the times when there were no Jews in England – Marlowe, Shakespeare etc. Shakespeares portrayal of Shylock is open to many interpretations – I read it as an eloquent plea for justice for all before the law. Cannot deny however that others respond negatively to Shylock.

Is there a difference between the ‘upper class’ and writers? Some early 20th literature has AS tones – as does some from US. Do intellectuals – as a class – want to be allied with the UC? There were – and still are – many who do not.

The question here is – is racism (in this case AS) a top down phenomenum or does it arise spontaneously at street level> How, in any society, are steroetypes maintained and disseminated. Some have used the term ‘antitype’ to describe long standing stereotypes.

Racism is often spread through a society by an appeal to the emotions. When it suits the ruling classes/intellectuals to whip up hatred of a group they do not first present an intellectual view of discrimination. That comes later.

Twentieth century AS was ‘backed up’ by the spurious ‘science’ of eugenics. This sought to prove that emotional fears, race based hatred had a legitimate and almost natural base. The so called science soiught to explain as rational an irrational. emotionally based rejection of agroup of innocent people. There are other forces at work today.

The British UC has a history of keeping out the intruder. Pride in their geneology is part of their protectionist approach to their inherited privilege. Many have always been very scathing of the lower orders – showing no sympathy with their plight.

Academic AS – not all academics come from the UC. There is a confusion – oft here discussed but never resolved – between AS and criticism of some Israeli polticians and their policies. I dislike Leiberman – not because he is Jewish but because I think he advocates policies which I find antipathetic to my political views. It’s not even true to say I dislike Leiberman as a man – I don’t know him – I dislike and mistrust his politics.

Academic disection of politics and their outcome is on the increase, as is psychological examination of societies. Obviously there is disagreement in both areas.

Sorry this rambling on – I’m thinking as I go. It seems – to me – that any attempt at a broad, all embracing definition of UC/academic attitudes in Britain are as spurious as racist assessment og an ethnic or religious group. Not to say that academic AS does not exist at all.

Leni

modernityblog

Maybe you should do a post on “Why is it so hard to get common sense and reason into debates at CIF”

Seconded – although the same question applies to this website.

Modernity

Never really thought about this before as I don’t think about people in terms of their ethnicity.

How many Jewish youngsters go to Oxbridge each year> How many Jewish men or women are part of the academic/writers scene in uk?

Leni

Modernity

Agreed that Oxbridge has cachet. Many Cif ATLers are Oxbridge educated ! (Something of an interesting aside)

There have been many an analysis of racism – its roots, level of society which fosters etc. No one model fits all.

Here in UK many discriminatory practices are tied in with class, the battle to defend unfair privilege etc. Teaching at Oxford started within 40-50 years of the conquest- quite when it became a university i don’t know. It created an educated elite. When it was fashionable for the UC to be untutored Church members and other educated men were in demand. There were certainly Jews in this group prior to the original expulsion.

Many of these ‘intellectuals’ had another kind of power to that of the aristocracy – many achieved high office. Interesting thought . Academics have always been part of movements which challenged establishment thinking. So – a degree of fear perhaps? What is the dominant sociopolitical thinking in Academe today?

Interesting as these speculations are I think we both agree that practical manifestations of racism – threatening liberty or even lives of people – must be opposed. Discrimination is not an academic exercise.

UC superiority was certainly fed during the Empire – so many to feel superior to! It spread of course ,very quickly reaching the masses who perhaps felt power for the first time ever.

Racism tends to change – depending upon the pereived enemy – or subject people – at the time. AS has persisted – AS in UK as opposed to political opposition to some Israeli policies, serves what purpose? At some level and in some circles there has to be a very personal motive.

In conclusion racism is vile – AS must be the most persistent type of racism and over the centuries the form which has been most entangles with politics. The answer?

There must be Oxbridge Jewish students who counter AS.

Nice to talk to you.

Leni

I don’t think Ben White is an ‘Oxbridge type’. Remember Benny Morris’ former PhD department is inviting him to talk tomorrow/today.

White comes from an evangelical Anglican Christian background, his father’s being a clergyman, which I think more explanatory. Very English, slightly provincial perhaps, less contact with Jews than in the cosmopolis, very much within the True Israel, with most Jews firmly outside. A more natural affinity with Palestinian Christians, and, by extension, Muslims than Jews, especially Israeli Jews, who are very different from the domestic English type, which exotic enough.

White probably got a more direct contact with Palestinian Christians than Israeli or other Jews from an early age.

I think this is more a kind of Anglican Christian tribalism.

Ben White,the boy from Brazil, suffers from an inferiority complex he has this persistent sense of inadequacy with anything that has to do with Israel or Israeli’s,that makes him lash out at Israel with excessive aggression.

Being a pasty white weak wet noodle,and being part of the Guardian cabal’s fanatical mindset.he tries to compensate,by writing extremely negative articles about Israel.

Someone up-thread was uncertain about the origin of Ben White’s political peculiarities. Here’s some biographical data in his own words:(Feb.2005)

As a supporter of the Palestinians ever since I went up to Cambridge in 2002 – I am now president of the university’s Palestine Society

http://www.newstatesman.com/200502140013

‘The blowtorch needs to be put to to Ben White,it was done to Seth Freedman,and it worked.Now it is Ben White the boy from Brazil’s turn.Turn up the heat.’

An odd and extremely violent figure of speech, favelas, saying rather more about you than us.

zkharya

Re ‘The blowtorch needs to be put to to Ben White,

“An odd and extremely violent figure of speech, favelas, saying rather more about you than us.”

Good one.