Benny Morris ─ The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 

Benny Morris is the person I trust most to explain the past in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He’s fact based, balanced and so is likely disliked by both sides. What a shame. This learned man can teach us so much.

Unusually nuanced and contested thinking in a world that lacks these characteristics

“Transfer”. Just like Native Americans were “transferred” to reservations.

One thing that strikes me about the way Benny Morris talks is his gentleness and, I would say, kind-heartedness. This is in stark contrast to the seething resentment and anger that exudes from N. Finkelstein’s every word.

If second and third generations are refugees, then I guess I am a refugee since my family fled Ukraine after the Russian Revolution.

I admire him so much - he’s a true historian and his dispassionate approach is a gift to academia. The everything-is-political culture of subsequent generations will lose the science of history.

It's a pleasure to listen the professor Morris.

Great lecture. The closing two questions were also fantastic and very incisive.

The guy strictly sticks to the facts he knows. Nothing can rattle him. I read a lot about this issue and he has the best summary I have ever heard or read.

my ancestors were expelled from Sclesia in 1945. we have a right to return?

Benny is incredibly knowledgeable.

Thank you very much Professor Benny Morris.

Nobody ever talks about the Jordanians ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Jordanians destroyed over 35 ancient synagogues and Jewish historical sites, as well as the destruction of the Mount of Olives cemetery.

Great interview, Benny Morris is balanced and those that are unwilling to listen to the facts come with their own agenda.

this talk adjusted much of my knowledge on the subject. it is so important to separate truth from lies.

Deir Yassin is such an interesting event. I have noticed that the pro-Palestine side uses that example over and over as proof of an extermination plan by the Jews. Often the phrase sounds like this: "Deir Yassin and others...". But other than that one example, where Irgun lost its shit and committed war crimes there are no other examples whatsoever. This is in contrast to Arab perpetrated massacres between 1920-1947 which were designed to go after civilians as a form of terror. Not to downplay what happened in that village on that fateful day, but it sure feels like its used as the poster boy to advance a narrative.

One problem. From 1948 until 1964, there were no "Palestinian" refugees. There were only Arab refugees, which the Arabs never stopped reminding the world. The phrase "Arab Refugee Crisis" rang and rang for years and years. I remember this because I came of age during that time. The phrase "Arab Refugee Crisis" was incessant and never ending. No one ever, repeat ever, heard the word "Palestinian". That is, until 1964 when all of a sudden that word replaced the word "Arab." And not just "Palestinian" but indigenous "Palestinian". Go back thirty years, during the British Mandate for Palestine, when all of the Jews were happily calling themselves and their institutions Palestinian, and the Arabs were bitterly complaining before the Peel Commission of 1936 that they despised the word "Palestinian" because it was "alien to the Arabs" and had nothing to do with them, since they considered that name to be associated solely with the hated Jews. This is all public record.

Benny Morris is historian who painfully looks at facts and real events. He does not place blame on anyone, as it is not the historian´s mission to do so, but rather explores the reality of events. Very different from other historian-activists who seek to blame only Israel for all the problems in the Middle East.

The question at the minute 1:28 is great! the man is a hypocrite

Benny morris is an excellent and honest historian. If only there was the possibility for the Palestinian side to have a historian of this caliber, there would be hope. I’ve learned a lot from this lecture but the biggest thing I’ve taken from this lecture is why it is so. Unfortunate as it is, it allows me to understand the position Palestinians are in better, allowing me to stop for my search for public honest self reflection on their side. However, Saris Nussaiba does seem to be the one courageous Palestinian I’ve been searching for and I look forward to reading his book (that I’ve already ordered). Having said that, what impressed me most about Morris was not only his keeping his cool when attacked by the young lady at 108 but how he takes her seriously and responds seriously to her, keeping both, his own dignity, and perhaps even her dignity too, intact.

Benny Morris is a professor extraordinaire

In the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm (prime minister of Syria 1948-1949) he wrote: "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes, when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them."

I've sent this link to my students, this is basic information you have to know before you talk about Israeli- Palestine conflict

There would have been no refugee problem should the Palestinians’ right of return was recognized.

36:21 I am a very cautious Jewish person who prefers to listen to multiple facets of discussion even though I may think initially I will disagree. However, and I will finish this lecture, this feels like a discussion had regarding the dispersion of the indigenous North Americans peoples. I’m making this note for myself.

So grateful for his honest and straightforward research. In an era of so many distortions leading to tragic results, Benny is always a breath of fresh air and nuanced thinking.

I am glad he said he cannot predict the future, being a historian

Doesn't mention that the Israelis bombed the British out of Israel. Under cars, roadside bombs sort if thing.

Why is Benny's microphone so muted. Sack the sound engineer.

2) The Islamic claim to Jerusalem is false - There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632 c.e. at the death of Muhammad... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian-occupied city ‒by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann, writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Excerpts of the article originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994‒ The muslim "claim" to Jerusalem is allegedly based on what is written in the koran, which although does not mention Jerusalem even once, nevertheless talks of the "furthest mosque" (in Sura 17:1): «Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the sacred mosque to the furthest mosque». But is there any foundation to the muslim argument that this "furthest mosque" (al-masujidi al-aqsa) refers to what is today called the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, NO! In the days of Muhammad, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian-occupied city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by caliph Omar only in 638 c.e., six years after Muhammad's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style. The Aqsa mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by caliph Abd el-Malik. The name "Omar mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, about 80 years after Muhammad died, Malik's son, Abd el-Wahd ‒who ruled in 705-715‒ reconstructed the Christian-Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the centre. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aqsa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the koran. Consequently, it is crystal clear that Muhammad could never have had this mosque in mind when he wrote the koran (if he did so), since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Muhammad intended the mosque in Mecca as the "sacred mosque", and the mosque in Medina as the "furthest mosque"

Benny states a crucial facet of his speech when he admits that he had NO access to Arabic records, this lack of context is important.

Love the way you call out Rashid Khalidi as a spokesperson for the PLO dressed up as a professor.

He's very professional at what he does. The main limitation is that he doesn't speak or read Arabic (and even if he did, there is a written resources problem). His main contribution in terms of the Israeli society are:1) acknowledging there were forced expulsions 2) acknowledging that the idea that Palestinians ran away because arab leaders told them to leave is generally a myth. If only most Israelis knew these 2 findings, it would already be an improvement.

If you doing something that lead you to get hated by both side, it means you are doing it well, truth are always and forever be uncomfortable

The historian who bases his work exclusively on IDF records. So impartial...

The Palestine refugee problem is only a problem for countries that let them into a country.

I've recently read the 'revisited' edition of Benny Morris' book from cover to cover and though exhausting and very sad to read, I think he did a great job of documenting the reality of the countless crimes committed by the Hagannah, IZL and LHI on the often poorly educated and relatively powerless bulk of the Palestinian population. Strangely, he's more muted about these crimes in this talk and is in my opinion, disingenuous in claiming that because there is no written record of a deliberate policy of expulsion, one cannot claim that there was one. His book makes quite clear that most (Israeli) military commanders and the soldiers under their command had no qualms about expelling Palestinians wherever they found them and by whatever means, including terrorising civilians by the use of and threat of summary execution, murder, rape and wholesale theft to achieve that end. An official policy? No. The actual policy of the people in control of events? Absolutely.

The question time is so accusatory and full of 1/2 truths. The questioners are so blinded. Benny is not a politician, he’s was involved in the 1948 war. It’s history not misplaced emotions.

I am a Jewish Anti-Zionist, but this talk was very very informative. Thank you for the lecture Professor Morris. I think I learned some stuff

Amazing, thank you

Written history can be doctored too. You said many Muslim Palestinians were illerate therefore their oral accounts are important. Just because you are conditioned to a certain mindset, lifestyle and education style does not negate the importance of other cultures oral history. Remember many religious text we have down to this day initially relied on oral accounts before a written text was physically produced. How were they taylored.

He argues that there are no records from Arab states because they are dictatorships, Palestinians are also disorganized and without records. Oral history is also to be disregarded ( even though the story of the killing of animals was relayed to him from a guys memory and backed by documents) So we are left with records of the Isarili themselves! Perpetrators of crimes do not always leave records.

Morris on a Palestinian state, “The Arabs said no. There’s a problem there. “. The problem is none of those offers by the Jews who stoled their land was even close to fair. Morris’s bias is proved by the fact that he never addresses that. He lies by omission.

It’s unfortunate that late Morris (as opposed to his early work) brings out the Nakba denialists, as is evident from the comments here. Three reasons why forced dispossession of Palestinians was necessarily central to Zionism by the early 20th century: 1) Zionists of various stripes, from Hertzl to Jabotinsky described dispossession as necessary for creating a Jewish majority state, and they did so in writing. This was at the end of the 19th century and early 20th well before the 1930s and the Peel commission. 2) Palestinians were not allowed back into Israel after 1948. If there was no project of ethnic cleansing, it makes little sense why they were never let back in, and the right of return has never been accepted as an even feasible demand by the Israeli government. 3) Palestinian citizens of Israel also had their land confiscated from them under present absentee laws. If there were no ethnocentric logic of expulsion, why would Israeli citizens who were Palestinians also be denied the right to their land? The whole “it was just the chaos of war” story is an alibi for dispossession that makes no sense. The talk is also full of snide negative comments about Palestinians and other Arabs. Morris’s narrative is only compelling if you already want to believe it.

the man at 1:25:00 makes a fantastic point! just like all the arab jews who were erased from history due to palestinian racism against jewish people during jewish immigration back to their homeland. but also, the nazi's do have photo evidence of what they did, written evidence of what they did, etc. we DO use german historical archives to learn what the germans did to the jewish people.

This was very interesting and as relevant now as ever before

About minute 13.15' Is this person morally solid? He does not seem to be. Saying that it was the Arabs who started the war without pointing out that the zionists were foreign invaders is a sneaky and covert way of portraying the Palestinians as the baddies and the zionists as the victims. This person must be taken with a whole jar of salt, not just a pinch.

Excellent overview mostly unbiased. Only criticism I have is not enough weight was given to the harm done by The Colonial Power Britain believing they had the right to give away the lands of another people, using their own arbitrary standards of land ownership and minimizing the attachment of that land for Palestinians. . Not that there wasnt a massive case for the Jews after the Holocaust. However, it left the Palestinians traumatised and forever wanting their lands back.

46:00 so leaving bc of israeli torture & military aatrocity threat ... thats under "voluntary leaving" , right? ok then. _JC

One question I’ve never heard asked much less answered is why Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States, are expected to take in hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees from war torn nations and to provide resettlement and humanitarian aid to them, yet for Arab nations, their fellow Arabs are left languishing in camps 75 years on, with the original refugees mostly having passed on. Why is no one pressing these Arab nations to solve that problem? Is it because Israel is a Jewish state that rules seem to be made especially for them and applied to no one else. The Palestinian Arabs have their own UN agency just for them, and claim that refugee status can be passed on through the father (not the mother - where are the feminists on that one?). International law doesn’t recognize that anywhere else and it should not here. The same is the case with this nonsense about "apartheid" - a convention the U.S. the U.K. and other western nations have rejected, it appears to be applied only against Israel, even though it is not legitimate international law. To be fair, much international law has been corrupted when it comes to Israel as the majority of nations of the world envy and hate the Jewish state - for reasons about which one can only speculate.

The fact the Palestinians have been thrown out of every Arab country they've been in tells us a lot. Black September in Egypt. Try to overthrow the government of Jordan.

When a country is established on the basis of a religion or ethnicity, the manner in which it behaves….its government’s foreign and domestic policies and actions will, per force, rightly or wrongly, reflect upon that entire religion or ethnicity. People are irrational. They don’t distinguish between what a nation’s government does and the citizens of that nation. For whatever reasons, the leaders of both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to find an equitable arrangement. They want justice for themselves but don’t seem to care enough about the rights or needs of the other. They can’t get beyond their tribal identities to see others as equally worthy . There are tremendous pressures to remain intractable on both sides. And the people…the inhabitants are caught in the middle. Like people everywhere, they just want peace, security, a measure of prosperity and a chance to live their lives and raise their families in safety. People become irrational when they are targets of propaganda. Easily fired up. Quick to join mass movements. Quick to fall into an “us and them” mentality. I’m dismayed but not surprised to see a rise in antisemitism after what happened on October 7th. When excited, people discard nuances. Zionism,like colonialism, and imperialism have consequences. Not all Americans supported our deeds in Vietnam. Not all Arabs or Muslims supported the attack on 9/11. But Arab -looking Americans were beaten or killed for it. Not all east Asian Americans are of Chinese descent. But they were blamed for Covid and attacked on the street and their businesses were vandalized and shunned . There are very many Jews who do not support the policies of the current Israeli government. But even they can be targets of pro-Palestinian anger. People are irrational.

You rock Mr Morris. I appreciate your work

Thank you Prof. God please bring peace to Israel.

World history can be shocking. Regardless of the countries involved. The microscope on this Israel Palestine history makes the questioners sound naive. The world is not a utopia. Every country has some dark history where we could all get around and talk about. There’s always some injustice that could be talked about. That’s part of the sin of history. People learn some “facts” then superimpose their own value system to judge actions of people that are no longer alive. How far back in history do we go? How far back do we use history as a justification for present day hand wringing?

1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state 2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. 4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state. 5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. 6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. 7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. 8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. 9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. 10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. 12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. 13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. 14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. 15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. 16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. 17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. 20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE. (Borrowed from a friend) A little more history for those wanting to 'restore Palestine'. In 132 AD the Emperor Hadrian resolved to stamp the Jews and their religion out of existence. He sold all Jewish prisoners into slavery after the revolt of Bar Kikhba, forbade the teaching of the Torah, renamed the province Syria Palaestina, and changed Jerusalem’s name to Aelia Capitolina. He renamed Israel to wipe out the national identity of Israel and the Jews. So if you are looking to 'restore Palestine to the Palestinians', you need to give it back to the Jews.

Do you know why I’m more mad at ben gurion than hitler? Because ben gurion got away with it. He has his name everywhere, he was smart and careful. He was a monster

1970 Black September. I remember it well. The Palestinian "refugees" were taken in on humanitarian basis and shown kindness. What did the Palestinians do in return? They formed street gangs and robbed Jordanians and caused much infighting. Jordanians asked for the Palestinians to be removed but a member of the Kings family asked that they stay and they'll be OK. A few months later one of the larger gangs attempted a coup and planned to assassinate the king. The Palestinians thought that the Jordanians were a soft touch, "not Arab minded enough" and that they were not sharing enough money, so that gave the refugees grounds to rob and plunder. It was a mess.

Also why would the Palestinians of 1947 accept to have their country cut in half when they've enjoyed the entirety of the country since 1000s yrs ago, it is only normal for them not to agree , this was a total no benefit offer. The disagreement of the Nashashibis and the Husseinis were not on power but on how to deal with the British Mandate as the Nashashibis were peaceful and the Husseinis were more believing in fighting for their rights as they saw it

Would be interesting to see him debate Noam Chomsky.

75 years later and the two sides still can't find a solution. We like to fight! How about a two state settlement and sparing the rest of the world that has no dog in this fight to stop hearing about all of the grievances of both sides.

I'm wondering when I'll see an Arab Historian, and hopefully a Palestinian historian with this capacity for self-criticism, adherence to facts, and most of all, not demonizing the enemy.

This is a good lecture and he explains the complex history as well as he can. But I do disagree a bit with his rejection of oral histories. I think it depends on what oral history one is referring to as well as how long after an event the history is recorded. In some cases all we have is oral history. The official government or military records won't always tell us exactly what happened. They will instead tell us the outline of what was proposed. And then afterwards the government has to rely on eyewitness accounts to complete the record, which are a bit like oral history. But some governments will cover up this information. Oral histories are essential to the overall perspective of history. Esp. when things go a different way than what was planned. Or when people are themselves part of a war and are therefore part of history. Their story may certainly be biased but it is their story. And any good historian understands that. So do the courts and judges and juries, which daily render verdicts based on what people say and what they remember.

EVERY ONE IN PALESTINE WAS A PALESTINIAN, EVEN THE JEWS, COMMON KNOWLEDGE.

Google Quran Verse 5:60 and decide for yourself about his honesty and scholarship. That verse was not targetted for Jews but anyone who leaves the path of God and attracts his wrath. His body language was more telling than what he was actually saying throught this session. Everytime he brushes over Zionist aggression (I.e. Rapes) he immediately tries to justify it with Arab aggression or fog of war. Another point to note is the use of the word 'non-combatants' rather than simply saying civilians or women children and elderly. Not sure why he categorizes himself among new historians while his narrative pretty much sounds like the old Zionist one. I find reading Ilan Pappe and watching the documentary Tantura more enlightening in understanding what caused 750000 people flee their homes. He says the expulsion was not the official policy which is refuted by Ilan Pappe using declassified Hagannah materials. Moreover he doesn't mention that without this expulsion Zionists could never have implemented this oxymoronic ethno-democracy because they wouldn't have the majority they needed. Its academic dishonesty to ignore that preventing the right of return was and continues to be the primary reason for this 75 year old conflict.

Searching for Palestinian historian who will be as impartial and with views based on archival research. I couldn't find one yet 😐

Very little Arab record!! How about oral records I am sure refugees can tell their stories!!

I have listened to llan Pappe and this guy. In my humble opinion, this giy has less of an agenda. Both are decent historians and highly enlightening about the facts of history as it relates to the creation of Israel.

Morris mentions 2 Arab families who seemed to be in a position of loose control, one being Husseini the head of which was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He was well acquainted with Hitler having visited Germany before and during the second world war. Does anybody know what happened to these two controlling families after ww2? Did they leave along with the middle and wealthy at the start of the war?

Left unaddressed is the issue of the most powerful non-Jewish lpolitician, Haj Amin al-Husseini being a strong former ally of the Nazis, which must have freaked out a lot of the Jews, given the horrors of Holocaust being very fresh in the Jewish mind.

I’ve learned not to pay much attention to stories that are not supported with facts. Sounds like “hearsay” to me.

1:09:00 was a whole fool and ignorant. The professor handled that well.

Great lecture, especially the Q and A about the differences between written and oral sources for historians. Too much propaganda out there especially in 2024.

Morris's problem, which also emerges from reading his book "Righteous victims", is that being an Israeli he is unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to stop playing the Israeli in his historical interpretations. The problem lies in not taking into account that the Palestinian Arabs considered the arrival of Jewish settlers to be an invasion simply because they came to settle in their land (beyond the reasons themselves). Now, if tomorrow someone comes to knock on our house telling us that it actually belongs to him because his ancestors were there thousands of years ago, I think we will all answer him badly or consider his establishment to be an "invasion", that I know, in the garden. Unfortunately Morris in dealing with such sensitive historiographically issues fails to do what I believe a historian should always do to the end: completely dismantle a historical reading dictated by his being emotionally involved as one of the parties involved.

"Religion poisons everything.". -- Christopher Hitchens

The Palestinian people were manly displaced by deliberate policy prior to the attack on Israel by Arab states. Ilan Pappe documents this in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. It was not the “hammer blows of war” as claimed by Mr. Morris. False history is being peddled here. The false narrative is most extreme in his claim that Palestinians would “transferred”. The future Israelis leadership knew their future country required the expulsion of the indigenous people.🐝🐝

The bottom line is the refugee "problem" (a degrading description of the displaced Palestinians) would never have been a "problem" if the Palestinians' land hadn't been invaded and taken from them permanently.

Vest un gros plaisir écouter le professeur Morris. Il parle un anglais aussi correct que jusqu'à poir moi, que je ne le parle pas, cest facile a comprendre. Merci beaucoup.

Thank you for the coverage

Indeed, the Arabs never proclaimed their own state in 1948...i never thought of this !!!

When the world is and has been paying their parents (the ONLY REFUGEES)to live, surely the children should grow up and make a life for themselves eventually.

interesting how "removal" of Palestinians is substituted "transfer" by the speaker...when it fits his explanation...

"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee... Nazareth is forlorn... Jericho lies a mouldering ruin... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent, mournful expanse... a desolation... We never saw a human being on the whole route... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country... Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes... desolate and unlovely...". - Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad", 1867 -

It is written in the Holy Jewish Torah, the Islamic Koran,and the Xtian Bible that G-d gave that land to the Jewish people. It was also given by the Nations of the world. The Palestinian myth was invented in 1967 and has No history, no capital, no currency, no borders, no military. What exactly is the argument?

GOD gave mankind the earth to look after and HE EXPECTS us to be good stewards ! ! !

Compleat garabage

"when the Palestinian Arabs started shooting at the Palestinian Jews" -- I would bet 10 to 1 that only a small minority of the Palestinian Arab population actually attacked any Jew. Despite all his erudition, Morris' mind still mostly thinks in terms of homogeneous masses of people (races). However, I respect Morris because, while he's clearly a Zionist, the narrative he gives confirms my belief that Israel has not acted fairly and that most of the refugees deserve to have the right to return. So he must be being mostly honest. Finklestein also often quotes Morris to make his case for Palestinians because (according to Finklestein) he is the leading scholar on '48 and considered reputable in general

A people whose land is stolen by expulsion(be it at the end of the gun or the threat of a bomb) is a refugee. Claiming that "they were still in Palestine" is semantics -- admitted by the speaker, however, saying this attempts to marginalize the wrongs of Israel. If I live in Texas and Mexico comes in and takes my home and I have to move to Oklahoma I am a refugee. I no longer live in my home, I no longer have my land, and I no longer have my dignity. To state such things as the speaker does is disingenuous. No person in the position of a Palestinian would say, "it is ok that I am made to leave my home and land because I still live somewhere that just happens to also be called Palestine. NOW, lets also notate that there is no recognized Palestinian statehood and that Israel will not let them be recognized or have any self determination. History can be understood by the reality of today, just as much as the reality of today can be explained by history.

I just watched a documentary on Gaza and it starts off with a little boy saying that he has 10 brothers and sister and his father has three wives. Later on is the presentation, there’s a man he says he has 40 children and three wives and he was thinking about getting a fourth one but they don’t have enough room so we decided it was a bad idea. They say half the population of Gaza is children which’s makes sense. They also show pictures of children throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers. This is a cultural issue as well. If they aren’t going to use birth control they’re gonna have half the population being children and if there’s any kind of a conflict that’s the portion that’s going to get killed. They say there’s not enough food and water in Gaza. Well if you’re having 10 kids or have 40 kids that would make sense. I guess if your power is out for half the day, thinking back to the historical blackout in New York City, where they said, there was more babies conceived that night, than any other time in history, this would make sense. There’s no other western culture that procreate to this extent, other than maybe the Mormons in Salt Lake City. But I also read that having many babies is considered a form of Jihad.

He’s representing the IDF or IOF,ITF views , and saying the “ the large minority Palestinians “ the Arab Jews were less than 10% prior to the invasion by European Jews with the help of the British, European wanted to get rid of the “ Jewish Problem “ so they sent them to Palestine You can tell by the way he talks about the arabs and Palestinians how racist he’s Free Palestine 🇵🇸🇵🇸

the refugee problem was born in 1925, when irgun declared that non-jews must leave palestine. ww2 interrupted the ethnic cleansing process, but it's still visibly in motion.

Always a great sign when you start your talk by talking about "the Arabs" as a monolithic block.

1:07:00 a harbinger of the woke revolution. Most people asked genuine questions, even if they already had their own opionion. This young women JUST wanted her gotcha moment. She wanted to take him down, based on some misquotes, and his actual opinion meant nothing to her. This was 2017. When this level of bad faith was still new and shocking.

53:00 just a personal note for me like a bookmark to use to argue against derogatory positions on Arabs (not saying the professor is doing this)

I find it interesting that respected intellectuals like Benny Morris can dispassionately analyze the history of their own people and draw relatively objective conclusions based on thorough research and a plethora of sources, but then turn around and make stereotypic and completely unfounded comments about other subjects, like claiming that the ultra-Orthodox in Israel don't learn Israeli history. While that may be true of most of the boys' institutions, girls do in fact learn this history, accepting neither the Zionist nor the anti-Zionist narrative. Yes, there is another (non-binary) narrative that no one is talking about.

The last questioner exposes all of bennys travesty

Dont think a two state solution is viable now; he is also not arguing legtimacy of Israel's actions. Just facts -reality.

He sounds frenetic it is hard to trust a frenetic person...

historical context, chronology and nuance are all relevant to this conversation and are always conveniently left out. On both sides. Something that seems to be overlooked in every discussion is that the Arabs refused to accept any kind of Jewish settlement/immigration in that land decades before Israel was ever declared. The original settlers/immigrants from the 1880s - 1920s didnt even have weapons, and had no explicit desire to form an army or militia. These things happened as a response to Arab violence, with the background of the atrocities in Europe motivating Jews to form an actual defense force. It is also true that the ideological ultra-nationalist Zionist types took advantage of the conflict and of Arab resistance to engage in what they had already been planning, which is to conquer as much land as possible. There IS an actual conflict here. The leftists and muslims in the media make it seem incredibly superficial, one-dimensional and unilateral.

1:00:36 So this historian just makes up why the Zionist general doesn’t remember? Very helpful.