Benny Morris: The pseudo-liberal, the bona-fide fascist

Benny Morris: The pseudo-liberal, the bona-fide fascist


By Khalid Amayreh


Benny Morris, a Zionist historian turned fascist, has been trying so desperately to convince the English-speaking world that Jewish fascism, otherwise known as Zionism, is totally compatible with western liberal traditions.

A few years ago, Morris remarked that Israel should have "finished the job" in 1948 by massacring and expelling all native Palestinians.  Apart from the prevarication, the verbal juggling and linguistic theatrics, his argument was as brash as it was satanic. The liquidation of the Palestinian people’s national existence, which would also involve the effective liquidation of an important part of their physical existence, would have "solved the problem" and "allowed peace to prevail."

It is really hard to imagine a more nefarious mindset. Only Nazis arguing that Adolph Hitler should have finished the job, by ending and burying the "Jewish problem" would outmatch this Zionist’s mental depravity and criminal way of thinking.

In a recent article published by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Morris penned another screed of hateful lies, castigating journalist Christopher Hitchens for "having a soft and blind spot for the Palestinians who can apparently do no or little wrong."

Well, the Palestinians are not angels and they never claimed to be sinless. However this doesn’t alter the fact that they are Zionism’s oppressed victims. Zionist advocates can always make a long tirade of mostly fallacious arguments about the newly-born state of Israel struggling valiantly against impossible odds and bravely fighting and defeating seven Arab states seeking Israel’s destruction.

However, the Zionist triumph in no way meant that Israel had the moral high ground. Indeed, how can the savaging, extirpation and slaughter of the long-established Palestinian community, which  identified  the Nakba, be considered "moral"?

Zionist mythology, which had and still has a decidedly malignant  influence on the western mindset would have us believe that whatever the Germans did to European Jewry in the course of WWII justified whatever the Zionists did and are still doing  to the Palestinian  people,  as if the Palestinians, most of whom didn’t even know the location of Germany on the map.

Such an argument is even more outrageous than arguing that the humiliation of Germany at the hands of other Western powers following WWI justified the holocaust.

After all, there is irrefutable historical  evidence that the newly-created Zionist movement played an important if not  decisive role in convincing the United States to join the war against Germany in the closing months of  that war, which really turned the tide and enabled the allies to defeat Germany which probably was so close to defeating Great Britain.

On the other hand, the mostly pastoral Palestinian community was completely innocent of any transgression against Jews or non-Jews. Yes,  Hajj Amin Husseini visited Germany and sought help from the German leadership in order to save his country from the encroaching  claws of  Zionism. Any other leader in Huseini’s shoes would probably have done the same thing.

Indeed, Zionists are in no position to lecture Palestinians on the evilness of collaboration with the Nazis.   The Zionist leadership itself did collaborate with the Third Reich in many outrageous ways in order to expedite the immigration of European Jewry to Palestine.

In fact, in order to get  as many Jews as possible  to  go to Palestine to steal that country from its rightful owners, Zionism effectively allowed the Nazis to annihilate untold number of Jewish children who would have been allowed to immigrate to the United States and other countries. But God was not Zionism’s Lord and moral calculations were never part of the Zionist mindset.

The second myth Zionists keep invoking is the historical-home mantra, which would have us believe that Morris’s ancestors had lived in  Palestine thousands of years ago. Well, this is a big lie since most Ashkenazi Jews have nearly nothing to do with ancient Israelites.

In fact, it is nearly established that many modern Palestinians have more to do in terms of ethnicity and race with the ancient Israelites than people like Morris, Ariel Sharon, Shamir  and Begin do. Just look at their faces and see the color of their skins.  They don’t look Semites because they are not Semites.

Besides, suppose that these modern Jews had a blood relationship with the ancient Israelites, would that give them the right to steal the land and homes of the Palestinians, many of whom are true descendents of the ancient Israelites?

More to the point, would Morris himself give up his London home if someone claiming to be a descendant of the ancient Celts or Picts, claimed that the land upon which his house is built had belonged to his ancestors more than 2000 years ago?

Hitchens, who himself is not unsympathetic to Zionism, repeated the often-sited metaphor, probably coined by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic.

The metaphor goes like this: A man, the Zionist Jew, to save himself, leaps from a burning building and lands on an innocent bystander (the Palestinian), crushing him. This happens again and again and again as the "the falling man" becomes brutal, arrogant and evil beyond imagination.

Morris claims that the metaphor was fallacious because the bystander was not really innocent because he started stabbing the falling man as he descended to the pavement?  Morris’s argument is cheap, even if  by a commoner, not by a historian who should exercise some honesty.

After all, there had been many other falling men falling on the Palestinian bystander,  e.g.  Armenians,  Bosnians, Kurds and others, who  have lived and are still living peacefully among  Palestinians, and they were never ‘stabbed’ or even rejected by the Palestinian bystander.

Well, indeed, the metaphor was skewed, but in a different way because the falling man came not as a refugee, e.g. seeking shelter and wanting to live in peace with his neighbors. He rather came as a thief, a murderer and ethnic cleanser. He came in order to possess, actually arrogate, a land that belonged not to him. His unspoken words to the bystander were like this: "First I am going to get my act together, and then I will kill you and your children before taking your home away from you." His other words sounded like this:  "If you give me your land and leave, you are a good neighbor, but if you don’t, you are terrorist and anti-Semite." Later on,  the falling man would tell the bystander  that "A thousand non-Jews are not worth a Jew’s finger nail." We all know the rest of the story.

This murderous deception on the part of Zionism prompted Harry Truman, Israel’s de facto creator, to state that:
I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on the top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.  I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side.”
So, one is prompted to ask Morris  how the proverbial bystander should have behaved, knowing that the "falling man" wanted to kill him, dispossess him of his homeland and expel him  to the four corners of the globe.?

In schools all over Israel, Israeli children learn that "if any one comes to kill you, kill him first."

Zionists often strive to prove that Zionism didn’t mean to conquer and displace the Palestinians. However, this argument is as cheap and as mendacious as having a hopelessly promiscuous whore claiming that throughout her life she exemplified a life of chastity and moral purity, or a notoriously vile murderer claiming that he has always observed the virtue of justice and fairness in dealing with others.

In fact, there are hundreds of documented statements by Zionist leaders, proving  beyond  the slightest doubt that Zionism was never merely a "falling man" but rather well-planned invasion, occupation and theft of another people’s homeland.  Moreover, the subsequent events taking place ever since the misbegotten birth of Israel in 1948 should be a clarion testimony not only to the evilness of Zionism but also to its evil intentions.

Were people like Morris to possess some modicum of rectitude, one would probably be justified in harboring some hope that maybe, just maybe, peace can be reached with these lying racist breed. But, alas, mendacity has always constituted a built-in character of Zionism, a character without which the nefarious movement would be something entirely different.