Israel's “New Historians” Laying Foundations for New Realities

By Leon T. Hadar

Israeli politicians and intellectuals are in the midst of a major emotional debate—and it is not about the future of the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights. The heated arguments between academics, journalists and politicians are over the writings of a group of Israeli scholars known collectively as the "New Historians."

Among them are such writers and historians as Benny Morris, who has written extensively on the Palestinian refugee problem; Avi Shlaim, who has studied the secret relationship between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; Ilan Pappe, who has done research on Zionist foreign policy during the British mandate period; Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, who recently co-authored a book on the Palestinian national movement; and Israeli columnist and author Tom Segev, who has focused on the impact of the Holocaust on Israeli policies and diplomacy.

There is no common ideological or academic thread linking these and other writers usually associated with the so-called "New Historians." Some, like Morris and Kimmerling, are affiliated with major academic institutions in Israel. Segev writes for prestigious Israeli publications. Most have served as officers in the Israeli military and support the current Labor Party-led government. Clearly, they do not belong to the "lunatic fringe" of Israeli political or intellectual life. If they can be placed, it would be somewhere left of center on the Israeli ideological map. Most consider themselves Zionists or "neo-Zionists."

However, Morris, Kimmerling, Shlaim, Pappe or Segev are far from being in agreement on major scholarly or political issues. Morris, for example, belongs to the more traditional school of history, with its emphasis on collecting facts and figures and using them to support his positions, including the partial responsibility of Israel for creating the Palestinian refugee problems. (Morris also blames the Palestinian leadership of that time for encouraging the Palestinian population to flee the country.) Pappe, on the other hand, uses more controversial historical methods, such as "deconstructing" past events based on more subjective criteria, including the ideological bias of the historian.

Nor do they all necessarily agree on the interpretation of many historical developments. Morris and Segev, for example, are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Zionist leadership on many subjects; Pappe is more critical. Interestingly enough, some of those who are identified as members of the "New Historians" clique reject that categorizing.

So why is everyone talking and arguing about the "New Historians"? Indeed, during my most recent visit to Israel, I attended a conference on the topic that was held at Tel Aviv University. The auditorium where the conference took place was packed with hundreds of students, booing and cheering participants in the discussion. I've rarely attended a scholarly debate that produced so much emotion.

Israeli society is entering the "post-Zionist" era in its development.

The reason for all this excitement, I believe, is that the emergence of the "New Historians" reflects the difficult process now taking place in Israel of the de-mystification of Zionism. As Israeli society moves toward peace with the Palestinians, and changing its relationship with world Jewry, it is entering what can be described as the "post-Zionist" era in its development. Israelis are beginning to question many of the foundations of their political existence, in the same way the growing maturity of American society in the 20th century encouraged many Americans to take a new look at such controversial issues as the treatment of Native Americans and African Americans in the United States.

The opposition to the "New Historians," therefore, is not so much scholarly as political. Ironically, the "New Historians" are using official documents being released now by governmental and public institituions in Israel in order to question, and sometimes demolish, the official propaganda and myths that were perpetuated by the Zionist leadership and by court historians for decades in order to justify such policies as the non-recognition of Palestinian nationalism. They are helping Israel to look in the mirror. It is not surprising that many Israelis do not like what they see.

In some cases, the "New Historians" have provided Israeli readers with anecdotal evidence that helped to de-romanticize many of the Zionist leaders and to question the accuracy of official Israeli history. Segev, for example, has pointed to evidence that suggests official discrimination in the 1950s by the Ashkenazi (European Jewish) Zionist leadership against the new Jewish immigrants from the Arab countries. He also stunned many Israelis by arguing—again based on documents from that era—that the Zionist leadership in Palestine had given a higher priority to the interest of the Zionist project in the Middle East than to saving the Jews who were being exterminated in Europe during World War II.

"Missed Opportunities"

Morris has documented Israeli government policies aimed at forcing thousands of Palestinians to flee the country in 1947 and 1948. Shlaim and other "New Historians" studied "missed opportunities" for peace in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. He suggested, for example, that Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, rejected overtures for peace from several Arab leaders and was instrumental in creating the conditions for the escalation of tensions that led to the outbreak of Egyptian-Israeli military encounters, and eventually to the 1956 Suez War.

So what's the big deal? As Segev explained in a recent column in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the fact that the "New Historians" have been able to get their message across suggests that Israeli society is beoming more open to new ideas, more "normal," and is willing to question the conventional wisdom, especially on the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations. If more Israelis conclude that their government did wrong to the Palestinians in the past, perhaps they will be more willing to correct that. And that is an important beginning, argues Segev.

If the "Old Historians" played a leading role in helping to maintain the old status quo and in mustering support for the old policies, the emergence of the "New Historians" as a legitimate voice in Israeli society could help create the ideological foundation for new ideas and new policies, suggests Segev. The opposition to the "New Historians," he opines, stems from concern that that is exactly what is happening.

Leon T. Hadar covers Washington and international affairs for American and foreign media.