The New Historians are a loosely-defined group of Israeli historians who have published histories of expulsions of Palestinians by Israel in 1948, expropriations of Palestinian property, and/or campaigns of ethnic cleansing by Israel in and around 1948. Much of their primary source material comes from declassified Israeli government papers. The movement includes such scholars as Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev and (retrospectively) Simha Flapan. Many of their conclusions have been in incorporated into the political ideology of post-Zionists. But while some of the New Historians hold dovish political views, still others hold or held conservative views, themselves supporting expulsions.
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 views of both sides, that the military events of 1948 were not decisive. He claims that the establishment of Israel 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 continuing and tragic conflict between Israel and the Arab states.
According to the New Historians, Israel and Arab countries each have their own share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight, though the larger responsibility for the present impasse lies with Israel. [3]
Criticism
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? [4]
Early in 2002, the most famous of the new historians, Benny Morris, publicly reversed some of his personal political positions [5], though he has not withdrawn any of his historical writings.
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.
[6]
New Historians 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.
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.[7]
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[8], 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 [9] defended his analysis of the Zionist-Hashemite negotiations prior to 1948. Morris declined immediate reply [10], 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 [11] on an article of Morris [12], 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. 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.
Efraim Karsh, "Resurrecting the Myth: Benny Morris, the Zionist Movement, and the 'Transfer' Idea", Israel Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 3 (July 2005), pp. 469-490.