The New Historians are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have declared as their goal the reexamination of the history of Israel and Zionism.
Leading scholars in this school include Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, and Avi Shlaim. They base their research on Israeli government documents that have become public since the late 1980s. Much of their work has been accepted by the Israeli public; other Israeli historians criticise their conclusions and methodology.
Although the New Historians' publications include a variety of views, they may be generalized to present the Zionist movement as aimed in such a way, that Jewish statehood could only come combined with the displacement of at least some Palestinian Arabs (as opposed to the creation of Israel neither necessitating nor desiring the displacement of Palestinian Arabs). Therefore, according to the New Historians, Israel has its own share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight. In particular they claim that at least a part of the Palestinan refugees were driven away from their homes, rather than fled of their own choice, as had been previously claimed.
The writings of the New Historians have come under repeated criticism, both from historians who support a more traditional Zionist historiography 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new historians, Benny Morris, publically reversed some of his personal political position (see [4]), though he has not withdrawn any of his historical writings.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. (Anita Shapira, "The Past is not a foreign country", The New Republic Online, 11/29/99)
| Table of contents |
|
2 Further reading 3 External links |
On a few occasions there have been heated public debates between the New Historians and their detractors. The most notable:
Major Debates
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. Details to be added
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.
Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, is the editor of Israel Affairs. Starting with a 1996 article in the magazine Middle East Quarterly, 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 provided a list of examples where, he claimed, the new historians "truncated, twisted, and distorted" primary documents. Shlaim's reply defended his analysis of the Zionist-Hashemite negotiations prior to 1948, which Karsh had particularly attacked. Morris declined to immediately reply, 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 an attack on an article of Morris [Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1995, pp. 44-62], charging him with "deep-rooted and pervasive distortions".Further reading
External links
