View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives The Historiography of Israel’s New Historians; rewriting the history of 1948 By Tor Øyvind Westbye Master Thesis in History Autumn 2012 The Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion – AHKR 1 To Marie 2 Acknowledgments In writing this master thesis, I have received help and guidance from a number of individuals. Most importantly, my supervisor Professor Anders Bjørkelo at the University of Bergen has kindly guided me through the process of developing a master thesis. Also important are the help and guidance offered to me by Professor Knut Vikør, also at the University of Bergen. The feedback from my fellow Middle East students at the master seminar has been equally appreciated, as well as the support given by Anne Katrine Bang who supervised my Bachelor-paper and also helped me getting started as a master student. Thank you all. Special thanks goes to Professor Avi Shlaim at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford, who gave me an invaluable understanding of the New Historiography in an interview in May 2012, and received me as a welcome guest at his office. Without his contribution this master thesis would not be half of what it is. Finally, I would like to thank my wife of six years Marie, for her unrelenting patience and understanding. This would not have been possible without your support and motivation. 3 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1: Historical Background ............................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Israeli Historiography .............................................................................. 15 The Zionist historiography ..................................................................................... 17 Other preceding historiography ............................................................................. 20 The New Historians ............................................................................................... 24 Chapter 3: Historiographical Background. ................................................................ 28 Biographies ........................................................................................................... 29 Historiographical context ....................................................................................... 35 Chapter 4: (Re)writing the History of 1948 ................................................................ 47 Reactions to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 ........................................................... 49 The Palestinian refugee problem .......................................................................... 56 The balance of power............................................................................................ 63 Futile peace attempts ............................................................................................ 69 The Methodology of the New Historians, and ideological debate .......................... 72 Chapter 5: Concessions, controversy and criticism. ................................................. 78 What’s eating Benny Morris? ................................................................................ 78 Ilan Pappé, controversy and exile ......................................................................... 81 Avi Shlaim answers the critics ............................................................................... 86 The Oslo peace-process ....................................................................................... 89 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 92 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 97 Abstract/Sammendrag ............................................................................................ 101 4 Introduction My motivation for embarking on this study of the historiography of Israel’s “New Historians”, was frankly the discovery of the level of misunderstandings, distortions and plain propaganda expressed by the pro-Israel lobby in Norway. During my studies at bachelor level at the University of Bergen, I was reading historical literature that contrasted the views expressed by what I call the “Christian Zionists” on many levels. Their views I knew intimately from an upbringing in a conservative Christian community, and from my teachers in upper secondary boarding school which was owned by the pro-Zionist Norwegian Lutheran Mission. These views were of course religiously inspired: - The creation of the modern state of Israel was the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies in the Bible, and the Jewish victory in the 1948 “War of Independence” was a miracle only possible by divine intervention. The Jews could not be blamed for the Palestinian refugee problem, and the fault for the continuant conflict lay solely on the Arabs. However, at the same boarding school I was also introduced to the plight of the Palestinian people through a newfound friend with a Marxist background. He told me about Palestinian children being tortured in prison after throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers, and enlightened me on the Israeli-Palistini death toll-ratio during the first Palestinian intifada. I started to question the blind support for Israel amongst my teachers and other conservative Christian authorities, and donned a red keffiyeh, a Palestinian headscarf as a symbol of support for the Palestinian case (this was before it became a fashion and lost all political denotation, and us wearing them raised heads at the conservative Christian boarding school). My adolescence rebellion aside, understanding that there was more than one side of the conflict was more than many in my surroundings were able to do. I grew tired of endless discussions (of which there were many) about who was guilty of what in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and decided to study the question in more depth at the University of Bergen. I wrote a paper on the Oslo peace-process as a conclusion of my bachelor degree, and discovered that there were a lot of discrepancies between the official Israeli narrative expressed by the diplomats of the Israeli foreign office, and the historiography of Israeli historians recommended as credible sources by the University. I found this discrepancy intriguing, and understood more of why pro- Zionists in Norway and elsewhere could continue expressing a long since debunked 5 mythology of the birth of Israel. They simply reproduced the propaganda they were being fed by the Israeli foreign relations officials. Why Israeli officials believe that it is in their best interest to present half-truths and sometimes blatant lies to the Western audiences could be a whole other research project. My interest has been to try to understand why the Israeli historians who are known as the New Historians have not been able to change the paradigm of the official Zionist narrative. I believe that my research is significant for the following reasons: One: There is a paucity of scholars outside Israel who work in the field of Israeli historiography, and those who do often fail to steer clear of the political polarization due to the Arab-Israeli conflict:1 “The attribution of responsibility in an ethnic conflict such as that between Israelis and Palestinians, entirely to one of the antagonists is a product of volition and filtered cognition, an assertion by the will more than an exercise of judgment. Operating in unintended symmetry, champions and revilers of Israel have constructed historical narratives that free their constituencies of accountability for their actions. The normalization of Israeli historiography demands removing it from the framework of competitive victimhood.”1 Any contribution from outsiders who manages to avoid the pitfalls of victimization of one of the parties, is potentially an important one. Standing with one foot in both the Christian conservative camp, as well as the left-wing pro-Palestinian camp, I hope I have been able to address this question with the balance required. I know the history of the Holocaust and respect the unique situation of the Jewish people in the aftermath of the Second World War. At the same time I know and respect the history of the Palestinian Nakba, the origin of the Palestinian refugee problem. If my thesis is found unsatisfactionary by advocates from both parties, I might still have found the right balance. Two: The palpable existence of a mythology surrounding the birth of Israel is not a viable status quo for the historical understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict. My 1 Penslar, Derek J. (2007). Israel in History. New York, Routledge. 6 position is that all myths must be debunked and holy cows slaughtered. In this case, this is especially important as the existence of myths might be blocking the road towards a finalized peace treaty between the Israelis and the Palestinian people. There must exist a common perception of what happened in 1947-1948 if the parties shall be able to agree on how to deal with the Palestinian refugee problem. My hope is that this thesis will help to cast a light on the historiography of the conflict, and thus be a small contribution to establishing a commonly accepted perception of the history. This master thesis is divided in five chapters