Middle East Speaker Stirs Up Controversy

by SAM ABRAMS Two Societies: Benny Morris explained his views concerning differing Israeli and Palestinian community values.

As historian Benny Morris’s talk came to a close Wednesday night, the tension in the room was tangible. Several students had tears in their eyes, and many sat with clenched fists, holding back anger and frustration.

Prior to the talk, Students for a Free Palestine voiced their anger in a letter written to the Review about inviting a speaker they called “manifestly racist.”

Morris — a professor of history in the Middle East studies department of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be’er Sheva, Israel — spoke about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, looking at the possibility of a one- or two-state solution. But his comments about the cultures of the two nations were particularly polarizing.

“The two societies, at base, remain radically different. Israel, as far as I can tell, is essentially a secular, liberal, tolerant, democratic society where there is a respect for human life, women have equal rights and homosexuals are not persecuted,” said Morris. “Arab society in Palestine is deeply conservative, mistreats women, doesn’t especially like homosexuals, has very little respect for human life and popularizes suicide bombings.”

He elaborated, “I don’t just mean those who go out to do the suicide bombings, but their popularity once they blow up a bus or a restaurant in Tel Aviv — there were mass celebrations and it indicates what is in the hearts of the people on the other side of the barricade in terms of their respect for human life.”

Students reacted strongly to such comments. “I was appalled by the shameless employment of racial generalizations,” said College senior Sam Cassanos, a member of SFP.

“I think his talk was overly simplistic; it wasn’t a dialogue,” said College senior Ray Gergen. “I left before the Q and A session, but I was very offended by the fact that he kept refusing to talk about human rights violations.”

Jewish studies professor Zohar Raviv, who 20 years ago served in the Israeli Army for three years, also had a complicated reaction to the speech.

“The talk for me had many different levels of meaning,” he said. “I think that he addressed a very difficult topic to an audience that was very opinionated and also very well-informed. While I understand where he’s coming from, I’m not sure I completely subscribe. I would have addressed it differently.”

Later in the talk, Morris said that the real reason that no two-state solution is going to take place is because “neither side wants it.”

College junior Isabel Roth, a Grinspoon Israel Advocacy intern and former co-chair of Hillel, disliked how “negative” the talk was.

“He wasn’t really acting like this was our generation’s problem, which it is,” she said. “He wasn’t giving us hope to grab onto, which was perhaps the most frustrating part of the talk.”

College junior Joe Brophy, chair of the Oberlin Zionists, clarified that “Benny Morris doesn’t necessarily reflect the viewpoints of all Oberlin Zionists,” and noted, “I am not as pessimistic as he is, but a historian of this conflict could easily tend towards pessimism.”

Several students noted that if the event had been handled differently, whether by having a moderator, a number of viewpoints, or even a different speaker with a more historical and less political stance, it might have provided a better forum for discussion.

“In the past if students felt that the whole intellectual range hadn’t been explored they would have a teach-in or a panel,” said Joyce Babyak, associate dean of Arts and Sciences and associate professor of religion.

Cassanos commented that it might have been better to have a moderator with a background in peace and conflict studies.

College senior Fred Bernard, a member of SFP, pointed out what he felt was a double standard. “What would happen if we brought an Arab speaker and he commented on Jews? People would be outraged and protest,” he said.

“It was one speaker coming to say his piece,” said Roth. “I think that what’s problematic is that he wants to be seen as a reputable historian, but the talk and his current persona is much more political. Anyone who lives in that region has some bias.

“A really important point that came up at the end was that it’s really easy to talk about from here. Saying to keep an open mind is much easier to do when you live in Oberlin, where we never feel scared. We can’t forget how far away we are from the day-to-day.”

Raviv reflected on the tough crowd Morris had to address and the complexities of the topic at hand: “Sometimes I feel that people’s judgments on both sides are very generalized. I think this allows them to create a clear moral sense of who is evil and who is right. But in the human arena there are never such clear dichotomies, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. People on both sides should not be so cavalier when they make judgments.”