انت وضعت لقاء صحفي مع موريس

انا سألتك سؤال، هل تحققت مما يقوله ام لا؟

السبب فيما اقول ان هذا الرجل معروف في الاوساط العلمية بانه كذاب ... لماذا نصدق انه كذاب؟

انظر مثلاً ماذا تقول ويكيبديا عنه:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris#...Morris.27s_work

ArrayEfraim Karsh, professor of Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, has repeatedly stated that Morris uses his sources selectively and introduces ellipses that falsify the information. Other historians who read the same documents thus come to different conclusions[/quote]

لاحظ الناقد من هو؟ الناقد هو بروفيسور في King's College London التي تعد من اوائل الكليات في بريطانيا والعالم !

ولابد هنا ان نطع على مصدر كاتب المقال حتى نرى هل مصدر ويكبديا علمي او لا؟

هذا هو المصدر

http://www.meforum.org/article/711

وهذه معلومات عنه

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Quarterly

يجب التحقق من كل شيء والا صدقنا خبر موريس بوكاي والعالم شايل بريجه بيده

وايضاً نقرأ اراء عدة متخصصين في كتابات موريس لكي نعلم كيف يزيف هذا الرجل ويغير الامور ويحورها، على سبيل المثال كجزء من تزييف موريس، نجد انه يقول ان بن غوريون قال:

We need to expel the Arabs and take their place".

يجب ان نطرد العرب ونستولي على مكانهم

بينما الاقتباس الاصلي بالعبرية يقول:

"ein anu rotsim ve-ein anu tsrihim legaresh aravim ve-lakahat mekomam".

وترجمته:

"We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place".


يعني موريس حذف او اهمل ve-ein حتى تبدو الجملة بعكس معناها !!!! يا له من كذاب.

واستمر معي في قراءة ويكيبديا، وانظر بنفسك:




In an article entitled "Benny Morris and the Reign of Error," [6] Karsh wrote that "Morris engages in five types of distortion: he misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents.....Morris tells of statements never made, decisions never taken, events that never happened.....at times Morris does not even take the trouble to provide evidence..... He expects his readers to take on trust his assertions that fundamental contradictions exist between published accounts and the underlying documents.....he systematically falsifies evidence. Indeed, there is scarcely a document that he does not twist. This casts serious doubt on the validity of his entire work."

In a four-line answer to Karsh's criticisms, Morris wrote that "Efraim Karsh's article (...) is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (his piece contains more than fifty footnotes but is based almost entirely on references to and quotations from secondary works, many of them of dubious value) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply."[7]

Referring to Karsh's footnotes, Anita Shapira, Dean of Tel-Aviv University, argues that "thirty of his references actually refer to writings by Shlaim and Morris, and fifteen others cite primary sources, and the rest refer to studies by major historians..." [8]

Later Morris gave more details,[9] saying that Karsh "belabor[s] minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence" and argued that "In Fabricating, Karsh, while claiming to have 'demolished' the whole oeuvre, in fact deal[t] with only four pages of Birth. These pages tried to show that the Zionist leadership during 1937-38 supported a 'transfer solution' to the prospective Jewish state's 'Arab problem.'"

Shapira criticized Morris's answer to Karsh, writing that "[w]hoever dares to oppose or to criticize the pronouncements of these self-styled iconoclasts is savagely maligned." [10]


[edit] Norman Finkelstein
From the other side Morris has been criticised by Norman Finkelstein[11][12] and Nur Masalha[13]. They argue that Morris’s conclusions have a pro-Israeli bias, in that:

Morris did not fully acknowledge that his work rests largely on selectively released Israeli documentation, while the most sensitive documents remain closed to researchers.
Morris treated the evidence in the Israeli documents in an uncritical way, and did not take into account that they are, at times, apologetics.
Morris minimized the number of expulsions: Finkelstein asserts that in the table in which Morris summarizes causes of abandonment, village by village, many cases of "military assault on settlement (M)" should have been "expulsions (E)".
Morris’s conclusions were skewed with respect to the evidence he himself presents, and when the conclusions are harsh for the Israelis he tended to give them a less incriminating spin.
Both Finkelstein and Masalha prefer the central conclusion that there was a transfer policy.

In a reply to Finkelstein and Masalha, [14] Morris answers he "saw enough material, military and civilian, to obtain an accurate picture of what happened," that Finkelstein and Masalha draw their conclusions with a pro-Palestinian bias, and that with regard to the distinction between military assault and expulsion they should accept that he uses a "more narrow and severe" definition of expulsions. Morris holds to his central conclusion that there was no transfer policy.


[edit] Michael Palumbo
Palumbo criticises Morris' choice to rely exclusively on official Israeli sources, disregarding unofficial Israeli sources, many of which point to a policy of expulsion.[15] He says Morris disregards U.N., American, and British archives which are more neutral than inside Israeli government sources, as well as oral testimonies of Palestinians and Israelis, which can be reliable if their substance can be independently verified. Palumbo says:

Morris' regard for documentation is indeed commendable, were it not for his tendency to choose sources which support his views, while avoiding those document collections which contain information inconsistent with his principal arguments. His decision not to use the testimony of Israeli veterans is unfortunate, since some of them have spoken candidly about Israeli atrocities and expulsion of civilians at Deir Yassin, Lydda-Ramle and Jaffa.

Morris' work relies exclusively on newly-released official Israeli documents; not all top-secret files were made available to him.


[edit] Ilan Pappé
Benny Morris wrote a scathing review of Ilan Pappé's book A History of Modern Palestine, which appeared in The New Republic. Morris charged that Pappé's book was "truly appalling," subjugated history to political ideology, and "contained errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography." In his reply, published on the website The Electronic Intifada, Pappé charged that Morris is biased in his use of mainly Israeli sources, and is contemptuous of Arabic sources which he cannot read. Pappé accused Morris of having held "racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular" since the late 1980s. He also attributed Morris's perceived rightward drift since the late 1980s to political opportunism.[16][17]