To Morris’s credit, it must be said, that he was very little involved in these debates, even if he enjoyed being at the center of the storm. Morris in general loved to leave his moral and ideological attitude toward the events he described ambiguous, and this was a correct position from his positivistic historian’s point of view, in which role he claims objectivity, even if a careful reading of almost all of Morris’ writings reveals a very simplistic and one-dimensional view on the Jewish-Arab conflict. Despite all his “discoveries” about moral wrongs perpetrated by the Israelis, on the bottom line, he always tended to adopt the official Israeli interpretation of the events
This critique of Morris offers insight into the importance of perspective, which is why I chose to highlight this text. The critique of his "neutrality" and his credibility is able to effectively discredit his argument. The author also furthers this point by mentioning how the readers could have interpreted his texts by saying it was "anchored in a deep moral indignation." This text is able to highlight the importance of understanding a multi-perspective view of all issues. Even within a critique, the perspective matters because it provides insight into what can be credited and changes how the text is understood.