New Historians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The New Historians are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have published new and controversial views of matters concerning Israel, particularily events concerning it's birth in 1948. Much of their material comes from recently declassified Israeli government papers. They are sometimes referred to as Post-Zionists or revisionists.
Leading scholars in this school include Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, and Tom Segev. Many of their conclusions have been attacked by other scholars and Israeli historians, who criticise their conclusions and methodology and find fault with their research.
Contents |
[edit] Main Arguments
The main arguments of the new historians were summarized by Avi Shlaim as follows:
- The official version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the "new historians" claimed that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state
- The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the "new historians" said that the refugees were chased out or expelled
- The official version said that the balance of power was in favor of the Arabs; the "new historians" said that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms
- The official version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the "new historians" said that the Arabs were divided
- The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the "new historians" said that Israel is primarily to blame for the dead end. [1]
The New Historians' publications present the Zionist movement as aimed in such a way that Jewish statehood could only be possible through the displacement of at least some Palestinian Arabs. This is in line with the prevailing Palestinian view - the traditional Israeli view is that the displacement was neither necessary for Israel's establishment nor desired by those establishing it. In particular, the New Historians claim that a majority of the Palestinian refugees were driven away from their homes during the 1948 war, rather than fleeing of their own free choice, as traditional Israeli histories had claimed. Nevertheless, not all of the New Historians see this process as the result of a pre-determined policy of expulsion.
New Historian Ilan Pappé claims[2], in sharp contrast to the recollections and myths of both sides, that the military events of 1948 were not decisive. The victory of the Zionist organization and the fate of the Palestinians was determined by politicians on both sides—in the discussions and decisions of the United Nations in 1947–8 and in the Arab League—long before a shot had been fired. Pappé argues that Israel's failure to take advantage of the genuine opportunity for peace with the Arabs at the UN-sponsored Lausanne Conference in 1949 resulted in the prolonged and tragic conflict between Israel and the Arab states still very much alive today.
According to the New Historians, Israel and Arab countries have therefore each their own share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight, though larger the responsibility for the present impasse lies with Israel. [3]
[edit] Criticism
The writings of the New Historians have come under repeated criticism, both from traditional historians and from Arab or pro-Arab writers who accuse them of whitewashing the truth about Zionist misbehavior.
Early in 2002, the most famous of the new historians, Benny Morris, publicly reversed some of his personal political positions [4], though he has not withdrawn any of his historical writings.
Anita Shapira offers the following criticism:
One of the more serious charges raised against the "new historians" concerned their sparse use of Arab sources. In a preemptive move, [Avi] Shlaim states at the outset of his new book that his focus is on Israeli politics and the Israeli role in relations with the Arab world—and thus he has no need of Arab documents. [Benny] Morris claims that he is able to extrapolate the Arab positions from the Israeli documentation. Both authors make only meager use of original Arab sources, and most such references cited are in English translation... To write the history of relations between Israel and the Arab world almost exclusively on the basis of Israeli documentation results in obvious distortions. Every Israeli contingency plan, every flicker of a far-fetched idea expressed by David Ben-Gurion and other Israeli planners, finds its way into history as conclusive evidence for the Zionist state's plans for expansion. What we know about Nasser's schemes regarding Israel, by contrast, derives solely from secondary and tertiary sources. [5]
Nevertheless, Shapira's judgement of Morris' work is that "In most instances, the result is quite balanced.".
[edit] Major Debates
On a few occasions there have been heated public debates between the New Historians and their detractors. The most notable:
- Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim versus Shabtai Teveth
Teveth is best known as a biographer of David Ben-Gurion. Teveth: Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26 (1990) 214-249; Morris: 1948 and After; Teveth: Commentary; Morris and Shlaim: Tikkun.
- Benny Morris versus Norman Finkelstein and Nur Masalha
This took place in three articles in the Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 21, No. 1, Autumn, 1991. While acknowledging that Morris had brought to light a vast quantity of previously unknown archival material, Finkelstein and Masalha accused Morris of presenting the evidence with a pro-Zionist spin. Finkelstein wrote "Morris has substituted a new myth, one of the "happy medium" for the old. ... [T]he evidence that Morris adduces does not support his temperate conclusions. ...[S]pecifically, Morris's central thesis that the Arab refugee problem was "born of war, not by design" is belied by his own evidence which shows that Palestine's Arabs were expelled systematically and with premeditation." Masalha accused Morris of treating the issue as "a debate amongst Zionists which has little to do with the Palestinians themselves", and of ignoring the long history that the idea of "transfer" (removal of the Palestinians) had among Zionist leaders. In his response, Morris accused Finkelstein and Masalha of "outworn preconceptions and prejudices" and reiterated his support for a multifaceted explanation for the Arab flight.
- Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé versus Efraim Karsh
Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, is a founding editor of Israel Affairs. Starting with an article in the magazine Middle East Quarterly [6], Karsh alleged that the new historians "systematically distort the archival evidence to invent an Israeli history in an image of their own making". Karsh also provides a list of examples where, he claims, the new historians "truncated, twisted, and distorted" primary documents. Shlaim's reply [7] defended his analysis of the Zionist-Hashemite negotiations prior to 1948, which Karsh had particularly attacked. Morris declined immediate reply [8], accusing Karsh of a "mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies", but published a lengthy rebuttal in the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies. Morris replied to many of Karsh's detailed accusations, but also returned Karsh's personal invective, going so far as to compare Karsh's work to that of Holocaust-deniers. Karsh also published a review [9] on an article of Morris [10], charging him with "deep-rooted and pervasive distortions".
- Teddy Katz versus Alexandroni Brigade
In 1998, Teddy Katz wrote a master's thesis at Haifa University claiming that the Alexandroni Brigade committed a massacre in the Arab village of Tantura during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The veterans of the brigade sued Katz for libel. During the court hearing Katz conceded by issuing a statement retracting his own work. He then tried to retract his retraction, but the court disallowed it and ruled against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court but it declined to intervene. A friend, Feisal Husseini, who was a former minister of The Palestinian Authority paid $8000 towards Katz's increasing legal expenses. Meanwhile a committee at Haifa University claimed to have found serious problems with the thesis, including "quotations" that were contradicted by Katz's records of interview. The university suspended his degree and asked him to resubmit his thesis. The new thesis was given a "second-class" pass. The Tantura debate remains heated, largely due to the efforts of historian Ilan Pappé who supports the allegations of a massacre.
[edit] Notes
- ^ Miron Rapaport (11.08.2005). No Peaceful Solution. Ha'aretz friday Supplement.
- ^ Ilan Pappé, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951, I.B. Tauris 2004, Conclusions.
- ^ Miron Rapaport (11.08.2005). No Peaceful Solution. Ha'aretz friday Supplement.
- ^ Morris, 2002
- ^ Shapira, 1999
- ^ Karsh, 1996
- ^ Shlaim, 1996
- ^ Morris, 1996
- ^ Karsh, 1999
- ^ Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1995, pp. 44-62
[edit] References
- Efraim Karsh, Rewriting Israel's History, Middle East Quarterly, June 1996, Volume 3, Number 2.
- Efraim Karsh, Benny Morris and the Reign of Error, Middle East Quarterly, March 1999, Volume 6, Number 1.
- Benny Morris, Peace? No chance, The Guardian, February 21, 2002.
- Benny Morris, Undeserving of a Reply Middle East Quarterly, September 1996, Volume 3, Number 3.
- David Ratner, PA paid legal defense fees of 1948 Tantura affair historian, Haaretz online, article undated, retrieved February 25, 2005.
- Anita Shapira, The Past is not a Foreign Country, The New Republic, 11/29/99.
- Avi Shlaim, A Totalitarian Concept of History, Middle East Quarterly, September 1996, Volume 3, Number 3.
[edit] Further reading
- The Jewish Past Revisted: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians Co-Edited by David N. Myers David B. Ruderman ISBN 0-300-07216-3.
- Fabricating Israeli history: The 'New Historians' , Efraim Karsh, ISBN 0-714-68063-X.
- Refabricating 1948, Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27, Issue 2 (Winter 1998), 81-95. (Morris' rebuttal to Karsh.)
- The making of the Arab-Israeli conflict, 1947-1951, Ilan Pappé (1994), ISBN 1-850-43819-6.
[edit] External links
- Angela French, Reexamining Israel's History, Mitzpeh, May 2002.
- A critical Palestinian perspective
- Jerome Slater, What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 116, Number 2, Summer 2001.
- Daniel Polisar, Editorial: "Making History", Azure, Azure Spring 5760 / 2000; editorial is dated February 1, 2000.
- Francisco Gil-White, On the supposed 'about face' of Some anti-Israeli historians, Historical and Investigative Research
