Benny Morris's Lunatic Harangue

William Hartung:

So why did the Times run the Morris piece? He's obviously entitled to his opinion, but as the paper has shown in its recent rejection of John McCain's op-ed on Iraq, there is no inherent right to be published in the New York Times. Did the editors think Morris's view was representative of some sort of consensus of Israeli opinion, as Morris (wrongly) implies? Did they think it was newsworthy that a well-regarded historian could hold such views? Were they seeking to provide that ever elusive quality -- balance? We may never know. Now that it is on the record, the only positive outcome will be if opponents of Morris's views speak out clearly and loudly in favor of a "diplomacy first" approach to the Iranian conundrum.

My guess is that David Shipler (who knows the Middle East well) does believe Morris's views are representative of Israeli public opinion... and perhaps this is wrong. What is more noteworthy is that Morris seems to believe that by publicizing in the US media Israel's growing consensus about confronting Iran he is somehow pressuring US policy-makers into having Washington do Israel's 'dirty work' for it, an assumption which is almost certainly wrong. In fact Morris is merely spotlighting what many will consider a delusional mass hysteria among Israeli elites, and the grating tendency in the Middle East to expect Washington to be the deux ex machina in every crisis. Nobody likes being confronted with ultimatums (least of all an American public that has grown somewhat weary of Middle East interventions) and Morris's piece has "ultimatum" written all over it.