Difference between revisions 359827080 and 359827108 on enwiki

++$deletedThe '''New Historians''' ({{lang-he|ההיסטוריונים החדשים}}, ''HaHistorionim HaHadashim'') are a loosely-defined group of [[Israel]]i historians who have challenged traditional assumptions about Israeli history, including its role in the [[1948 Palestinian exodus|Palestinian Exodus in 1948]] and Arab willingness to discuss peace. The term was coined in 1988 by one of the leading New Historians, [[Benny Morris]].<ref>Bronner, Ethan. [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/books/the-new-new-historians.html The New New Historians], ''The New York Times'', November 9, 2003.</ref>

Much of the [[primary source]] material used by the group comes from declassified Israeli government papers, in part because Arab institutions' archives are not available. Morris, [[Ilan Pappé]], [[Avi Shlaim]], [[Tom Segev]], [[Hillel Cohen]] and (retrospectively) [[Simha Flapan]] are counted among them. Many of their conclusions have been incorporated into the political ideology of [[post-Zionism|post-Zionists]]. The political views of the group vary, as do the periods of Israeli history in which they specialize.

==Main arguments==
Avi Shlaim described the New Historian's differences from the "official history" in the following terms, however it should be noted that Israel has no official history and that the new historians do not represent a unified body of thought. In addition Israeli understanding of national history has changed over the years, partially incorporating the ideas of the new historians. According to Shlaim:

<!-- This is quoted verbatim, please do not reword.-->
<blockquote>

*'' The official version said that [[United Kingdom|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 [[Palestinian refugee|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''.<ref name="rapaport">{{cite web|title=No Peaceful Solution|author=Miron Rapaport|publisher=Ha'aretz Friday Supplement|format=PDF|date=11.08.2005|url=http://www.editriceilponte.org/_files/HaaretzInterviewEnglish.pdf|accessdate=2009-06-22}} ([[PDF]])</ref>
</blockquote>
Pape suggests that the Zionist leaders ''aimed'' to displace most Palestinian Arabs, Morris see the displacement ''happening'' in the heat of war.

According to the New Historians, Israel and Arab countries each have their share of responsibility for the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]] and the Palestinian plight.<ref name="rapaport" />

== Criticism ==
{{Nakba}}
The writings of the New Historians have come under repeated criticism, both from traditional Israeli historians who accuse them of fabricating Zionist misdeeds and from Arab or pro-Arab writers who accuse them of whitewashing the truth about Zionist misbehavior. They are accused of ignoring four critical questions: Who started the war? What were their intentions? Who was forced to mount a defense? What were Israel's casualties?<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/dp/071468063X/ Amazon]</ref>

Early in 2002, the most famous of the new historians, Benny Morris, publicly reversed some of his personal political positions,<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,653594,00.html Morris, 2002]</ref> though he has not withdrawn any of his historical writings. <!-- Indeed, Benny Morris himself admitted to not using much of the newly available archival material for the writing of his book — "[W]hen writing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947–1949 in the mid-1980s, I had no access to the materials in the IDFA [IDF Archive] or the Haganah Archive and precious little to first-hand military materials deposited elsewhere."{{ns}} -->

[[Anita Shapira]] offers the following criticism:
{{quote|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&mdash;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.
<ref>[http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm Shapira, 1999]</ref>}}

Israeli historian [[Yoav Gelber]] criticized New Historians in an interview, saying that aside from Benny Morris, they did not contribute to the research of the [[1948 Arab–Israeli War]] in any way. He did however note that they contributed to the public discourse about the war.<ref name="war60years">{{cite book|title=A War – Sixty Years After|editor=Shiran, Osnat|isbn=978-965-05-1457-0|publisher=[[Ministry of Defense (Israel)|Ministry of Defense]] Publishing|year=2008|page=42}} {{he icon}}</ref>

===Post Zionism===
{{see also|Post-Zionism}}
Some commentators have argued that the historiography of the New Historians has both drawn inspiration from, and lent impetus to, a movement known as post-Zionism. Generally the term "post-Zionist" is self-identified by Jewish Israelis who are critical of the Zionist enterprise and are seen by Zionists as undermining the Israeli national ethos.<ref>Shlomo Sharan (Editor) (2003) Israel and the Post-Zionists: A Nation at Risk Sussex Academic Press ISBN 1903900522 p. 10 (Yoav Gelber, "Redefining the Israeli Ethos")</ref> Post-Zionists differ from Zionists on many important details, such as the status of the [[law of return]] and other sensitive issues. Post-Zionists view the Palestinian dispossession as central to the creation of the state of Israel. 

Zionists and old Historians argue that Post-Zionism is a total denial of the Zionist project and endangers the very legitimacy and existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish [[nation state]], by viewing Zionism as a colonial phenomenon and not as a national movement. Shlomo Avineri in "Post-Zionism doesn't exist" printed in Ha'aretz has said that "post-Zionists are simply anti-Zionists of the old sort."<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/878936.html Ha’aretz] Shlomo Avineri "Post-Zionism doesn't exist" Ha'aretz Sunday 08 July 2007</ref>

===Benny Morris's critique of the Old Historians===
*The "Old Historians" lived through 1948 as highly committed adult participants in the epic, glorious rebirth of the Jewish commonwealth. They were unable to separate their lives from this historical event, unable to regard impartially and objectively the facts and processes that they later wrote about.<ref name = "making Israel">[[Benny Morris]],''Making Israel'', University of Michigan Press, 2007, pp.14–15.</ref>
*The “Old Historians” have written largely on the basis of interviews and memoirs and at best made use of select batches of documents, many of them censored.<ref name = "making Israel"/>
*Benny Morris has been critical of the old Historians, describing them, by and large, as not really historians, who did not produce real history: "In reality there were chroniclers and often apologetic",<ref>Benny Morris 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. ISBN 0-19-827929-9. p.6</ref> and refers to those who produced it as "less candid", "deceitful" and "misleading".<ref>Benny Morris 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994. ISBN 0-19-827929-9. p. 2</ref>

== 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]]<br /> <!--Someone needs to write about this! -->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]]<br />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]]<br /> Efraim Karsh of King's College, London, is a founding editor of ''[[Israel Affairs]]''. Starting with an article in the magazine ''[[Middle East Quarterly]]''<ref>[http://www.meforum.org/article/302 Karsh, 1996]</ref>, 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<ref>[http://www.meforum.org/article/92 Shlaim, 1996]</ref> defended his analysis of the Zionist-Hashemite negotiations prior to 1948. Morris declined immediate reply,<ref>[http://www.meforum.org/article/90 Morris, 1996]</ref> 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<ref>[http://www.meforum.org/article/466 Karsh, 1999]</ref> on an article of Morris,<ref>''Journal of Palestine Studies'', Spring 1995, pp. 44–62</ref> charging him with "deep-rooted and pervasive distortions".

* [[al-Tantura|Teddy Katz]] versus [[Alexandroni Brigade]]<br /> In 1998, Teddy Katz wrote a master's thesis at [[University of Haifa|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. 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.

==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}

==See also==

*[[Historiography]]
*[[Historical revisionism]]
*[[History wars]] (comparable Australian phenomenon)

==References==
*Efraim Karsh, [http://www.meforum.org/article/302 Rewriting Israel's History], ''Middle East Quarterly'', June 1996, Volume 3, Number 2.
*Efraim Karsh, [http://www.meforum.org/article/466 Benny Morris and the Reign of Error], ''Middle East Quarterly'', March 1999, Volume 6, Number 1.
*Efraim Karsh, "Resurrecting the Myth: Benny Morris, the Zionist Movement, and the 'Transfer' Idea", ''Israel Affairs'', Vol. 11, No. 3 (July 2005), pp.&nbsp;469–490.

*Benny Morris, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,653594,00.html Peace? No chance], ''[[The Guardian]]'', February 21, 2002.
*Benny Morris, [http://www.meforum.org/article/90 Undeserving of a Reply] ''Middle East Quarterly'', September 1996, Volume 3, Number 3.
*David Ratner, [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=203871&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y PA paid legal defense fees of 1948 Tantura affair historian], ''[[Haaretz]]'' online, article undated, retrieved February 25, 2005.
*Anita Shapira, [http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm The Past is not a Foreign Country], ''The New Republic'', 11/29/99.
*Avi Shlaim, [http://www.meforum.org/article/92 A Totalitarian Concept of History], ''Middle East Quarterly'', September 1996, Volume 3, Number 3.

==Further reading==
* ''The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians,'' co-edited by David N. Myers and David B. Ruderman ISBN 0-300-07216-3.
* ''Fabricating Israeli history: The 'New Historians','' Efraim Karsh, ISBN 0-7146-8063-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 1-85043-819-6.
* ''The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,'' Ilan Pappé, Oneworld, Oxford: 2006 ISBN 1851684670
* [[Benny Morris]], ''1948'', Yale University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780300126969
* The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, co-edited by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim

==External links==
*Avi Shlaim, [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20War%20of%20the%20Israeli%20Historians.html The War of the Israeli Historians]
*Angela French, [http://www.studentorg.umd.edu/Mitzpeh/may2002/art11.html Reexamining Israel's History], ''Mitzpeh'', May 2002.
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20040418031550/http://www.birzeit.edu/crdps/newhis.html A critical Palestinian perspective]
*Jerome Slater, [http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2001&bmonth=summer&a=01free&format=view What Went Wrong? The Collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process], ''Political Science Quarterly'', Volume 116, Number 2, Summer 2001.
*Daniel Polisar, [http://azure.org.il/download/magazine/1546az9_editorial.pdf Editorial: "Making History"], ''[[Azure (magazine)|Azure]]'', Azure Spring 5760 / 2000; editorial is dated February 1, 2000.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Historians, New}}
[[Category:New Historians|*]]
[[Category:Arab–Israeli conflict]]
[[Category:Zionism]]

[[ar:مؤرخون جدد]]
[[de:Neue israelische Historiker]]
[[eo:Novaj historiistoj]]
[[fr:Nouveaux historiens israéliens]]
[[it:Nuova storiografia israeliana]]
[[he:ההיסטוריונים החדשים]]
[[nl:Nieuwe Historici]]
[[no:Nye historikere]]
[[pt:Novos Historiadores]]
[[ru:Новые историки (Израиль)]]