I plan a book published in which I indicate as the Zionists have expelled about 60 percent of the Palestinian population directly and after the foundation of Israel in 1948 and have destroyed their society.

Did one already not know this?

One did not know or did not want to admit it in Israel as the Zionists have behaved during these years towards the Palestinians. Up to my book there was about these events, actually, only varnishing historiography, partly pure propaganda. It was that 700'000 Palestinians have left the land on behest of their leaders virtually voluntarily. The fact that the Zionists carried out only gentle pressure on the Palestinians and the Arabs rejected all offers of a peaceful coexistence. One could read this version of the history in every Israeli school book. My book destroyed this national myth.

How did the Israeli establishment react to your book?

Only one gave it no attention because it had appeared at first only on English. Three years later, in 1991, it appeared in Hebrew. Then the attacks on me began.

They were called revisionist.

Yes, one suspended to me all possible. I see myself as a historian, the history does not understand as an extenuation of own past. I called myself and a few colleagues who thought similarly, as a «New Historian».

What exactly happened by the foundation of Israel?

Israel accepted the division suggestion of UN to split Palestine between Arabs and Jews. The Israelis should have received 55 percent of the land, the Palestinians the rest. They refused the proposal. In April, 1948 the neighbouring Arabian lands prepared for an attack against Israel. The Palestinians living in Israel attacked Jewish colonists, the Jews reacted with attacks against Palestinian villages. The Arabian militia collapsed and the population fled.

Can you still speak more detailed for this time?

The majority of the Arabs was expelled by force. The Zionists attacked villages, sprinkled houses, it came to massacres, at least one dozen Arabian women was violated by Jewish militia. There was a total of about two dozen shootings, the Jews killed possibly nine hundred Arab. Many Palestinians fled because of fear of this terror in Lebanon, to Jordan, Syria and Egypt. All together the Zionists took against 400 villages and a dozen cities by force. To find out all these matters, was painful for many Israelis. In the end, the national hero David Ben-Gurion has announced his life long that Israel has expelled no Arab.

Were you shocked when you found these documents?

I was surprised. However, I am not also of the opinion that Jews are better than other people. Unfortunately, civil wars are always especially cruel. Every historian knows, during such wars crimes are committed practically always.

These expulsion and act of terrorism were a part of the Israeli politics, you write in your book.

This is formulated to simplistic. It is true that already before 1948 was thought to deport all Arabs from the land. The Jews feared that they could be pursued in Palestine furthermore. Then, nevertheless, the safe harbour of Palestine turned out illusion. David Ben-Gurion said: There is for Jews only safety if one brings all Arabs from the country. However, this never was the official politics, the idea was more in the backs of the head of the Zionist leadership. Either one expels the Arabs, or one compensates them financially if they go voluntarily.

Can one speak of a systematic expulsion of the Arabs?

No. There remained after the foundation war another 150'000 of them in the land. But it was clear that David Ben-Gurion wanted to have rather less than more Arabs in Israel. He was persuaded that this is the best solution for both sides.

Some critics accuse leadership at that time of Israel of an ethnic purge.

This expression seems to me too hard. At that time one spoke of the «transfer» of the Arabian population. Already in 1895 taken down Theodor Herzl, the founders of the Zionist movement, in his diary, one must get rid of the Arabs probably from the area of a future state. Then in 1937 David Ben-Gurion in the Zionist Congress also spoke in Zurich of the «transfer» of all Arabs from the land. And Chaim Weizmann wanted to resettle in 1941 a million Arabs from Palestine in Iraq and bring for it two millions Jewish immigrants to Palestine.

Which role play at that time did the infamous Palmach militia?

The Palmach was an élite unity of the Haganah, a paramilitary underground of the Zionists. Really has committed the Palmach crimes in Palestinians. In a village here nearby some dozen inhabitants were shot possibly on the May 13th, 1948. In May, 1948 the members of the Palmach also executed about fifty Arabian prisoners. All together Arabs and 300 Israelis died during this war possibly nine hundred.

They also came along because of other research results enemies in Israel. They disproved the David-against-Goliath-Mythos of the foundation war after which the weak Jews defeated an overpowering Arabian opponent.

The armies of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan were the Israelis numerical consider, this is certain. A total of 1.3 million Arabs fought it against 650'000 Jews. In addition, the Arabs had the better weapons in the first weeks after the attack on Israel. However, this quickly changed. An immediately distinct weapon embargo of the United Nations against the war-leading parties affected against the Arabs more negatively. Much more importantly, nevertheless, was the bad condition of the Arabian armies. The soldiers and officers were not trained well, were disciplined less and not were so competent strategically. The Israelis against it were better trained, more self-controlled, and in their rows experienced British officers fought.

All these publications made you in Israel the controversial left-winger.

Yes, and I went in demonstrations of the peace movement «Peace Now». In addition, I was very critical compared with the political and military establishment of Israel.

They called themselves the first Intifada of 1987 legitimate.

I have sympathised in this point with the Palestinians. I could understand their frustration. It was the uprising of an unarmed population in the Westbank and in the Gaza Strip against the military occupying power. Stones throw and the work lay down was their only possibility to defend itself.

You still deserted.

I refused to march in to Nablus as an occupying soldier. I was thrown for 21 days in the prison. Then two days were remitted to me because of good behaviour.

Were you, actually, an officer of the army?

I was always a corporal, how Hitler.

Ariel Sharon said once, your version of the Israeli history does not belong in the school books.

Many were really angry at me. At the «Jerusalem Post» where I worked at that time I was dismissed. This has crusify me. Then I got during six years at no university a job.

However, later you became a professor in Beersheba.

An English newspaper brought an interview with me under the title «Benny Morris leaves the country». The president Ezer Weizman at that time has read this and appointed me in his office. He asked me whether I generally believe in the existence right of Israel, and I said Yes. After it he reached to the phone and called up a little bit. When I was again at home, I had a job as a professor.

They have argued in your books partially like the Palestinians.

I have written history after my best conscience along the facts from the documents. If it has hurt many Israelis, this made no difference to me. I am obliged only of the truth. The Palestinians as well as the Israelis are very historical-conscious. But I find instead of having constantly our past in the head, we should concentrate more upon the future.

These are unusual words for a left Israeli historian.

If I do not find. But if you want, we can talk quietly further about the history and look what has happened between 1948 and today. Israel had to fight 4-spot for his survival when it was attacked by Arabian armies. Then there came the negotiations of Oslo, during the early nineties years. Stuck on by the optimism of the treaties of Oslo, I believed that it came for a 2-state solution. I believed that also Arafat meant it with it seriously. Indeed, it was in my eyes always a dubious character, a man to whom one better gives no trust. But at that time he said publicly, he starts to believe in the dictation of the history and consequently he is ready to accept a 2-state solution. This has tuned me confidently. I thought, okay, the Arabs have refused the first offer in 1948 for a Palestinian state. Then they have attacked Israel and have lost the war. Then they have attacked Israel three other times and have lost every time. I thought, both sides have committed cruelty. But now Israeli and Palestinian realists seemed to have become and to aim at a 2-state solution.

Camp David in 2000 led with you to a swing of opinion.

So near in own state like there the Palestinians were not since 1948 any more. When Yasser Arafat declined, it became clear to me that I had wrong estimated the Palestinian liberation movement. The fact that she does not believe at all in two states, but really still dreams of expelling the Jews from Palestine.

Were many Israelis as disappointed at that time as you?

Yes, the peace movement has always believed in a 2-state solution, and then Yasser Arafat has declined. We were horrified everything, also Amos Oz was disappointed very much. To Camp David the left-winger have lost the elections typically also very high.

With this disillusionment you are typical for real left, moderate Israeli. However, did the offer of Camp David not come copiously late? The Israelis spoke only after area profits of 50 percent of a 2-state solution, while the Palestinians had lost since 1948 about half of their areas.

Properly, the Israelis could have got much earlier with such a proposal, the governments of Rabin and Peres would have had indeed the possibility for it. Unfortunately, they have not done it.

Whats going wrong in Camp David?

After long internal There and Here the Prime Minister Ehud Barak at that time accepted a 2-state suggestion. 91 percent of the Westbank and the whole Gaza Strip should be returned to the Palestinians. In addition they should control East Jerusalem practically. As a countermove the Palestinians should have renounced their demand for a return of all refugees in the Israeli state area. But not on a return of the refugees in the Westbank. In addition, Israel and the USA would have awarded massive financial assistance returning refugees. How you know, Arafat declined.

The offer was simply too bad to him. Nevertheless, they must understand that he wanted to get out the maximum.

I try to see history rational. Israel has pursued power politics, now acted this Arafat, I can understand this. But then, in December, 2000, president Clinton with a still better proposal came for Arafat. He offered him 95 percent of the West bank, the whole Gaza Strip, the assignment of all Jewish settlements and even more sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Plus a partial sovereignty over the Temple Mount, with the so important Al Aqsa Mosque for the Arabs. And what did do Arafat? He said «no» again. This was the determining point for me. To me it became clear that Arafat has no interest in a 2-state solution in reality. The fact that his typically hedged in language with formulations was strategical like «under circumstances» et cetera. Arafat simply did not want to deviate from the charter of PLO whose explained purpose was always to destroy Israel. In this regard he was logical.

This deal was forced upon Arafat practically. He has said not «no», but has asked for more time to the reflexion, say the critics of your version of the incidents of Camp David.

Okay, in Camp David nothing was written down, one will not be able to check the precise text. Only Clinton, Barak and Arafat know it at the end. And then there was still the ugly scene when Barak Arafat has bumped by a door. But it is a fact that Arafat has departed without agreeing. He has awarded this second historical chance for own state after 1948. In my opinion he knew that there will never again be such an offer. However, he did not want it.

One has offered no coherent state, but a kind of patch carpet to the Palestinians.

Correct it is, the Westbank and the Gaza Strip are not connected with each other. But Clinton and Dennis Ross offered Arafat 95 percent of the Westbank, namely coherently.

You want to say that Arafat wanted to decline? Why should he have intended this?

In Israel 5.5 million Jews live. At the same time the country of about 100 million Arabs is surrounded. Nevertheless, there it is logical that not a few think, in the longer term the Jews would get the short end of the stick. If it is for demographic reasons or because one will be militarily stronger just sometimes.

One cannot generalise this. Only maniacs would best expel all Jews.

Of course every Arab does not think in such a way. But the second Intifada after the failed negotiations of Camp David in 2000 tuned me extremely pessimistically. Instead of throwing stones, now suicide assassins attacked straight civilians. They sprinkled coaches, discos and restaurants in the air. This was another dimension than with the first Intifada with which I myself was still thrown in the prison. Possibly to want to meet many civilians, is simply an insidious kind of the warfare. Indeed, Israel is militarily consider, but thus unprincipled it has never behaved. In the time of the second Intifada the rhetoric of the Palestinian leaders also changed, by the way, it became a lot of fanatical one. It was only about the destruction possibly of many Jews. And Arafat's PLO guidance celebrated the assassins as heroes. Do you not understand my disillusionment?

Arabian states had tried already before 4-times to destroy Israel. Why were you sobered now suddenly so?

Before I thought, okay, there are two nations and fight for the same piece of land. This is dreadful like all wars, but as a historian I could understand, why the Arabs attacked us. Nevertheless, Camp David would have been a possibility for the peace. The Palestinians knocked out them.

In Camp David it was offered to them only 21 percent of the original area of Palestine, the Israelis, nevertheless, 79 percent. Israel has increased its area after the won war of 1967 massively, has never again returned the conquered Westbank and the Golan Heights.

Thus the history has proceeded. If one started wanting to turn back the wheel of the history, the whole world would be with each other during the war. The Arabs have refused in 1948 the offer of a Palestinian state. During the wars begun by them they have lost every time and must give up land. Camp David was the second, fair offer of the Israelis, and again the other side has met a wrong decision. Unfortunately, the Palestinians and the other Arabs never miss the opportunity to miss a good opportunity - as the famous Israeli Foreign Secretary Abba Eban said.

How mine you this?

I had never thought real that the leaders of the Palestinians are nothing but lambs. But I hoped if Israel gives them a really good chance, to them a good offer makes that they would accept it then of course. However, with the time I understood that most from them thought in petto differently.

They believe, the group of leaders around Arafat did not say the truth?

I do not say it with pleasure, but I have looked long for an explanation of their politics of the refusal of offers. And sometime I understood that there are several significant differences between the Palestinian ones and the Israeli side.

For example?

I do not believe any more that the Palestinian leadership is still interested actually in a peace with Israel, and doubts whether it was it one day.

They believe, it has with all attempts to never make peace, their dream of Great-Palestine really given up?

Yes, this I act. And, in addition, I believe that it is still a God's will for many average Palestinians that this is, actually, an Arabian Islamic country. In the charter of their elective leadership, the Hamas, this stands explicit. Also moderate leaders of the Fatah have this to tell the truth. Faisal Husseini, a confidant Arafat, called the treaties of Oslo openly Trojan horse. He made clear that for him the borders of Palestine would always reach from Jordan up to the Mediterranean Sea. Also with not few average Palestinians there is in my opinion still a consent: One may not give up the opposition, then the Israelis will disappear sometime.

If one makes clear the crude power of the Israeli army to himself, it does not look in such a way as if the Israelis hated the Palestinians less than vice versa.

My impression is that there has been long time, by extremists sometimes seen, relatively little hatred for the Palestinians. When the Palestinians began, nevertheless, with systematic terror against Israeli civilians, this changed.

The Hamas-hardliners want to destroy Israel certainly. However, does this also see the majority of the Palestinians in the Westbank thus? President Abbas expressed himself publicly for a 2-state solution.

Of course Mahmoud Abbas propagates publicly a 2-state solution. So long he sticks, however, to the law of all refugees on return, there will never be this 2-state solution. And this knows Abbas certainly. Therefore, he plays this double play. Abbas is intelligent enough to know that the return of the refugees would signify the end of the Jew's state.

Why?

If one permitted to all Palestinian refugees the return - and I speak here of from 4.5 to 5 million people-, then would be Israel immediately an Arabian and no Jewish country more. Israel would be an Arabian country with a Jewish population minority.

Can you not understand the hatred of the Palestinians on Israel?

Of course I am able to do this. It is natural that they hate Israel. At that time the Israelis have expropriated them, have taken away from them the country which they hold for theirs. And the Israelis have killed many of them. Nevertheless, I believe that this hatred deals not only with how Israel behaves.

You speak of Muslim anti-Semitism?

I believe that to us many also hate, because we are Jews. The Jewish tribes were the enemies of Mohammed because they did not accept him as prophets. In the Koran the Jews are described as sons of monkeys and pigs. Meanwhile I believe that this Muslim anti-Semitism is still in the Palestinian and Arabian society. According to the Hamas guidance the Jews are even responsibly for the first and the second world war.

The Palestinians are extremely poor nation. And, above all, Israel is to blame for it.

Also throw once a critical look at the Arabian societies. Of course some prosper. But not on account of their talents. Saudiarabien is rich not because of its brilliant industries or scientific top performances, but because of its oil. Islamic culture is innovation-hostile. Tradition is important. However, with this mind posture one cannot raise its prosperity. Think only of the role of the woman. A society which does not use 50 percent of their brainpower must remain poor. So most Islamic countries are very poor without oil.

Nevertheless, there are also many enlightened and compared with their own society critical Palestinians.

There is that, but their influence is very low. Sari Nusseibeh, for example, the rector of the Palestinian Jerusalem Al Quds university, is such a man. Only he is isolated to a great extent. He was already beaten up for his views. No miracle, emigrate more and more of these liberal Palestinian forces in the west.

The French philosopher and historian Ernest Renan wrote, a nation is a group of people which connects, above all, two things: their wrong view of own history and their hatred on their neighbours. Many Israelis have revised the wrong view not least also thanks to you. How is this in the Arabian countries?

There is practically no new historiography. If a historian writes something which contradicts the official history, he risks his life. Of course there is historian like the Palestinian-American professor Columbia University Rashid Khalidi. But even Khalidi must pay attention, in the end, he would like to be able to visit once a year his relatives in the west bank. Indeed, Israel is no perfect society. Nevertheless, in comparison to most Arabian countries the Israelis have a gradual liberalisation behind themselves.

Why is Israel criticised then by so many enlightened, educated, intelligent Europeans much more often than the Arabian states?

This has many reasons. The Europeans and the waistcoats have in general a very positive world view. For them violent warlike actions date back in own country long. In Europe one thinks faster once that all people in the world are so peaceful as the Swiss. But I believe, this is a mistake. I have understood sometime: There is not only Swiss. Arabs, for example, are no Swiss. I appeal to the second problem of the Europeans, actually, reluctantly, but anti-Semitism is in Europe one more subject.

Israel criticism is misunderstood now and again as an anti-Semitism.

Israel must be criticised like every other country. Still it is a fact that the anti-Semitism grows in Europe. Count the synagogues and cemeteries which smears last year in Europe either, were stained or were lighted. These become more and more. An amount of Europeans hold us still for greedy for money and believe that we are those which cause always only problems.

Yes, there is still anti-Semitism in Europe. But, nevertheless, it is right, without state Israel there would be in the Middle East less problems.

This opinion is for me still no anti-Semitism, but a rational argument against the zionism. Without Jews in the Middle East there would be there really{actually} less problems. However, do you find really{actually}, the Jews would have no law to be there? Why do you think thus? Because the Palestinians lived there supposedly first? Because the Palestinians lived there before the Jewish state foundation in 1948? Excuse me, however, many Europeans form an opinion exactly without knowing the history. If it goes after who lived first there, then all Europeans would have to be for the state Israel.

Why?

1200 before Christ lived Jews in the area of modern Palestine, at that time one still said Galilee, Samaria and Judäa. For 1300 years the Jews ruled over this country. Then there got the Romans, the Jews had to flee, and the Romans called the land Palestine. But the question who was there first will never be able to solve this conflict. I hold it also for an irrelevant question.

Nevertheless, was it not naive to found a small Jewish state in the midst of hostilely minded surroundings?

To this practical argument a moral one faces. The Jews have a law on own country, as well as any other nation. But it is clear to me, this law is still denied by an amount of nation, also in Europe. By the way, the Europeans still have another problem. Many have edged out feelings of guilt because of the Holocaust towards the Jews. With these emotions one easier lives if one sees the Jews not only as a victim, but just also as a culprit. An additional mortgage is the European colonial history.

What does this chapter deal then with the present incidents?

European colonialists killed in Asia, Africa and South America millions people. And now one sees Israel as this colonial ruler who goes forward brutally against the Palestinians. While one criticises Israel, one is proved that one has moved the morally correct apprenticeships. Maybe it also lies with the oil, the European countries dependent on oil are anxious very much to provoke the Arabs not needlessly. Thus is just real policy.

During a famous interview with the Israeli newspaper «Haaretz» you spoke about the culture of the Palestinians and the Arabs generally. They still seem to believe in the thesis of the Clash of Civilizations which Samuel P. Huntington put up during the nineties years.

The value system of the Jewish-Christian and the Arabian-Muslim culture is partially very different. Creativity and openness are no decisive values in the Islamic cultural space. Sometimes I have the emotion, I do not understand this culture which wakes up in youthful interest in suicide attempts. The joy dances on the street performs if in Tel Aviv a bomb tears up Israeli civilians. Sometimes I believe still, in Arabian countries a life is not so much value.

The Israeli army bombs Gaza with fighter aircraft and accepts with thus the death of many civilians. How much value is then the Israelis a life?

Every victim during a war is dreadful. I do not want to defend the Israeli army which has locked up me. But it is true which tries army to avoid victim under the civil population as far as possible. If the army wanted to kill civilians, now there would be not a few Hundred dead people, but ten thousands. The warfare of the Hamas is basically different. Hamas fighters hide straight among civilians, weapons are stored in dwelling houses and explosive traps are laid in schools.

May one not await from a western, enlightened democracy like Israel that it also behaves during the war more morally than the islamists of the Hamas?

Of course. Indeed, I would wish that critics of Israel measure all conflicts in the same moral scales. In Europe one forgets regularly that possibly with the air raids of European armed forces in Kosovo or in Afghanistan likewise thousands of civilians have died. These double standards are contraproductive. It strengthens only one: to be alone the emotion of the Israelis.

Fact is, with every dead Muslim civilian the hatred becomes the Arab on Israel bigger.

The Arabs are not so united as one always says. With a Muslim rebellion in the Syrian city of Hama in 1982 the Syrian state in three weeks has killed possibly from 20'000 to 30'000 people. What in Iran during the revolution Muslims did to other Muslims, I do not want to speak of it at all.

During the last fifty years many ten thousand people have died during the Middle East conflict. How can one finish this bloodshed?

Even if I do not say this with pleasure, I do not believe any more in a solution.

What do you hold from the 2-state solution discussed over and over again?

This would be the optimum, fair solution for both nations. But I believe, as said, to Camp David no more at the fact that it it will one day give.

In your opinion would never accept Hamas the state Israel. Can one be really foolproof there? Israel critics say that the Hamas the country maybe accepted if it withdrew on the borders from before 1967. At that time Israel was still possibly half as big.

Israel would not accept the Hamas, even if it withdrew on five percent of its state area. As I already said, this would be against their ideology.

The Hamas does not think so uniformly. There are members who would absolutely negotiate with Israel.

There is that certainly. But they have in the Hamas not the legends. And if one considers who stands behind the Hamas, namely mighty Iran, cannot introduce I to me that these moderate Hamas people will one day assert themselves.

But, nevertheless, it is Israel which refuses to talk with the Hamas. The country refuses any negotiations categorically. Even Barack Obama mentioned the possibility that one must consider conversations with the Hamas.

In contrast to Israeli government I am not against conversations. I doubt only that they bring something. The best what could happen would maybe be any kind of cease-fire if Israel has left the Westbank completely. Then we maybe have a few years of peace. And then will attack the Hamas once more.

Nevertheless, Israel is as headstrong. What would be if it removes all settlements in the occupied areas and accepts a Palestinian state which offers to Israel as well as Palestine a minimum in safety. And as a countermove the Palestinians give up their demands for the return of the refugees.

I am no representative of the Israeli government, but I suppose, such a solution would be quite satisfactory to Israel.

And who could move the Palestinians in addition?

Only the Arabian world. Indeed, only under great pressure of the west. But the west will also hesitate furthermore because it is not in his interest to annoy Arabian governments, not least because of the oil.

Fact is that in the Gaza Strip too much blood has flowed.

The bloodshed is awful. But I believe, every country would as react as Israel. It would try to give safety to his citizens.

The current military action aggravates the situation.

It has a deterrent effect. It will weaken the military abilities of the Hamas so much that it cannot attack Israel for some years any more. One sounds dreadful, but it is the only possibility of Israel to buy peace.

In view of all this misery: What do you say to those which still doubt whether the foundation of the Jewish state was a necessity?

I say: The Jews were suppressed during 2000 years, pursued and killed. The Holocaust was the climax of a 2000-year-old suppression history. For centuries there were over and over again pogroms, namely everywhere in Europe. Even England, the Jew towards the most liberal country, has expelled them 1290. Sometime in the history every country of Europe had not only a few Jewshater, but a dominating anti-Semitism. The Jews are nation like any other also and also have the law on own state like any other.

And what do you say to those which are not persuaded yet?

Everybody has the law on an opinion. Even if it is so unfair.