Letters to the Editor

Home , Shabtai Teveth

This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania] On: 06 September 2011, At: 15:29 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Survival Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsur20 Letters to the editor Efraim Karsh a , Gordon Wilson b & Eric Arnett c a Professor and Head of the Mediterranean Studies Programme, King's College, London b Research Fellow, WEU Institute for Security Studies, Paris c Project Leader, SIPRI, Solna, Sweden Available online: 03 Mar 2008

To cite this article: Efraim Karsh, Gordon Wilson & Eric Arnett (1997): Letters to the editor, Survival, 39:4, 195-200 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396339708442951

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Letters to the Editor

The 'New' Israeli Historians? available secondary-source accounts' (p. 163) when I actually said precisely the In Fabricating opposite, namely that Shlaim both prefers Israeli History: old, second-hand partisan evidence to The 'New Histo- newly released official documents and rians' (Frank withholds critical primary source material Cass, 1997) I from his readers. Lustick also charges me took issue with of insinuating that the Palestinians 'did the excessive partisanship that has not deserve what they did not get [in plagued the study of Israeli history, and I 1948]' and that they fled largely in pointed out the many errors and distor- response to calls by their leadership (p. tions found in the work of the so-called 165). But I never made any such asser- 'New Historians'. To judge by Lustick's tions; rather, I showed that the collapse of hysterical reaction ('Israeli History: Who the Palestinian community in the 1948 war is Fabricating What?', Survival, Autumn was in no small measure due to its lack of 1997, pp. 156-66), my book has touched a national cohesiveness and to its deser- raw nerve indeed. Had his review been tion by its political elites before the going published in a specialised Middle Eastern got tough. Similarly, contrary to Lustick's journal, I would not have taken the trouble (mis)claim (p. 164), I did not censure to respond. Quite the reverse, coming as it Morris for failing to use Arab source does from a well-known critic of Israel, material (others correctly do so); ipso Lustick's invective provides the ultimate facto I could not have failed to suggest proof that I got my book right; I would how the non-use of these documents have been greatly alarmed had it left affected Morris's work. Instead I demon- Lustick unmoved. However, since Surviv- strated the systematic falsification of al's readership may not be so familiar with archival source material by Morris in an the excessive partisanship of Middle East- attempt to rewrite Israeli history in an ern studies, or for that matter with image of his own devising. Lustick's large axe to grind, I feel obliged Through careful examination of the to set the record straight. documentation used by the 'new histori- Since Lustick fails to refute a single ans', as well as a wealth of sources that factual assertion made in my book but they have either deliberately withheld Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 15:29 06 September 2011 rather engages in wholesale vilification, from their readers or failed to trace, Fabri- coupled with heaps of praise for his fellow cating Israeli History proves that they are 'new historians', I see no point in rebut- neither new nor true historians but parti- ting each of his malevolent distortions, sans seeking to provide academic respect- misrepresentations and misquotations. ability to long-standing misconceptions But consider, for example, that Lustick and prejudices on the Arab-Israeli con- charges me of regularly presenting flict. They are scarcely 'new' since most quotations which say 'the very opposite' of their 'factual discoveries' and interpre- of what I tell my readers they say (p. 163), tations have been articulated long before; yet brings not a single example to prove and they are anything but true historians this patently false claim. He accuses me of because, taking in vain the name of the 'attacking [Avi] Shlaim for going back to archives, they violate all tenets of bona primary sources instead of relying on fide research in their endeavour to invent 196 • Letters to the Editor

an Israeli history in an image of their own would have a population of about one devising. This has ranged from the more million, 40% of which would be non-Jews. 'innocent' act of reading into documents "This fact must be viewed in all its clarity what is not there, to tendentious trunca- and sharpness. With such a [population] tion of documents in a way that distorts composition, there cannot even be com- their original meaning, to 'creative rewrit- plete certainty that the government will be ing' of original texts by putting words in held by a Jewish majority ... There can be people's mouths and/or giving inaccurate no stable and strong Jewish state so long descriptions of the contents of these as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%". documents. The Yishuv's situation and fate, he went Space allows just one glimpse into the on, compelled the adoption of "a new ap- dynamics of this partisanship. In his proach ... [new] habits of mind" to "suit study on the origins of the Palestinian our new future. We must think like a refugee problem, Israeli academic Benny state'" (ibid., p. 28). Morris claimed that the 'transfer solution' Morris leaves the impression here that - the expulsion of the Palestinians to the Ben-Gurion advocated population trans- neighbouring Arab states, had 'a basis in fer to solve the new state's demographic mainstream Jewish thinking, if not actual problems. What he withholds from his planning, from the late 1930s and 1940s' readers is that Ben-Gurion added: 'From (Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian here stems the first and principal conclu- Refugee Problem, Cambridge University sion ... In order to ensure not only the Press, 1987, p. 24). But Morris, who has establishment of the Jewish State but its made the greatest effort among the 'new existence and destiny as well - we must historians' to prove this thesis, not only bring a million-and-a-half Jews to the devotes a mere five pages to one of the country and root.them there. It is only thorniest issues in Israeli-Palestinian when there will be at least two million Jews relations, but he repeatedly distorts the in the country - that the state will be truly evidence on which he claims to rely. established' (David Ben-Gurion, Ba- Thus, for example, on 5 October 1937 ma'araha. Labour Party Publications, David Ben-Gurion wrote to his son: 'We 1959, pp. 258-59). In other words, not the do not wish and do not need to expel expulsion of the Arabs but rather mass Arabs and take their place'. In the original Jewish immigration was Ben-Gurion's so- English-language version of his book, lution. As for the position of the Arabs in Morris misrepresented this sentence as the Jewish state, Ben-Gurion could not be saying: 'We must expel Arabs and take clearer: 'We must think in terms of a state, their places' (Morris, ibid., p. 25). How- in terms of independence, in terms of full ever, in the Hebrew translation of his book responsibility for ourselves - and for oth- and a recent Hebrew article, Morris re- ers. In our state there will be non-Jews as

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 15:29 06 September 2011 verted to Ben-Gurion's correct words well - and all of them will be equal citizens; (Morris, 'A New Look on Central Zionist equal in everything without any excep- Documents', AIpayim, no. 13,1996). Was tion; that is: the state will be their state as this because the Israeli audience can well... The attitude of the Jewish State to check for itself the veracity of the original its Arab citizens will be an important fac- Hebrew letter? tor - though not the only one - in building Similarly, Morris claims to find a hint of good neighbourly relations with the Arab the transfer idea in a later speech by Ben- states. If the Arab citizen will feel at home Gurion summarised thus: 'Ben-Gurion in our state, and if his status will not be in starkly outlined the emergent Jewish the least different from that of the Jew, and State's main problem - its prospective perhaps better than the status of the Arab population of 520,000 Jews and 350,000 in an Arab state, and if the state will help Arabs. Including Jerusalem, the state him in a truthful and dedicated way to Letters to the Editor • 197

reach the economic, social, and cultural - let alone a 'new historian'. What is level of the Jewish community, then Arab puzzling is that I know that Karsh knows distrust will accordingly subside and a this. I am explicitly identified as a political bridge to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance, scientist in the 'notes on contributors' will be built" (ibid., pp. 260,265,266). section of Israel at the Crossroads (Frank This is how Ben-Gurion envisaged Cass, 1993), a volume he co-edited and Jewish—Arab relations in the prospective which originated from papers presented Jewish state and in the wider Middle East. by me and other scholars at an Not 'transfer' of the Arab population from Association for Israel Studies conference the Jewish state but a true partnership which he hosted at King's College among equal citizens; not 'fortress Israel', London in January 1993. a besieged European island in an ocean of But this mistake in my identification, Arab hostility, but a Jewish-Arab Semitic required by Karsh's attempt to include me alliance. One can easily see where Shimon as one of the 'self-styled "new histori- Peres, Ben-Gurion's foremost self-pro- ans'" he ridicules, is not really so puzzling fessed disciple, has drawn his ideas of a when considered against one of the main 'New Middle East'. Why Morris, Lustick, arguments I make in my review. As I and their like-minded 'revisionists' have warned readers, much of the Karsh book chosen to truncate, twist and distort Ben- is based on a brazen misuse of evidence Gurion's real vision of Jewish-Arab rela- and an apparent disregard for the ability tions is for them to say. of readers to penetrate complex formula- That these self-styled 'new historians' tions to determine who is distorting what. have managed to pass this off as history Karsh challenges me to back up my asser- is bad enough. However, taking the moral tion that in his book he made a practice of high ground they audaciously present presenting quotations which say 'the their politically motivated partisanship as very opposite' of what he tells his readers 'the only basis for a true peace in the they say. He accuses me of bringing 'not a Middle East'(Lustick, p. 166). single example to prove this patently false I beg to differ. As I have already claim', even though in my review I list six argued elsewhere ('Rewriting Israel's specific pages in his text where he does History', Middle East Quarterly, June just what I say he does. 1996), the Palestinian claim to national Since Karsh relies heavily on the com- self-determination is as good as any, and plexity of the issues involved in order to needs no buttressing from mobilised elicit the deference of his readers to his historical fabrication. Securing the future conclusions, it is particularly unfortunate means coming to terms with one's past, that space does not allow a detailed exami- however painful that might be - not nation of the instances I cite. One will distorting or denying it. have to do. As I pointed out in my review,

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 15:29 06 September 2011 one of Karsh's strangest arguments is Efraim Karsh that there never was any agreement, tacit Professor and Head of the Mediterranean or explicit, between Transjordan's Emir Studies Programme, King's College, Abdullah and the Zionist leadership London; Editor, Israel Affairs. about how to minimise clashes or foster mutual interests. As an important piece of Ian S. Lustick responds: evidence, he reproduces Golda Meir's ac- Efraim Karsh repeatedly refers to me as a count of a meeting she had with Abdullah 'new historian'. I am not. My field is in November 1947, despite the fact that in political science, and although I often use the very passage he cites, Meir herself historical materials, I am not, have never explicitly acknowledges that there was an before been characterised as, and have agreement: 'The meeting was conducted', never characterised myself as, a historian wrote Meir, 'on the basis that there was an 198 • Letters to the Editor

arrangement and an understanding as to forced to use Shabtai Teveth's work, Ben what both of us wanted and that our inter- Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs (Ox- ests did not collide. For our part we told ford, 1985), for which he is taken to task by him then that we could not promise to help Karsh, is that the actual diaries had been his incursion into the country [i. e. Man- made available to Teveth (a quasi-'offi- datory Palestine], since we would be cial' biographer of Ben-Gurion), but not to obliged to observe the UN Resolution other researchers. Teveth quoted the line which, as we have already reckoned at the regarding the need to 'expel' the Arabs, time, would provide for the establishment which appears in the text of the diaries, of the two states in Palestine. We.could but which had been partially erased (by not therefore - so we said - give active whom is not clear). The Hebrew version of [emphasis added] support to the violation Morris' book appeared after the diaries of this resolution. If he was prepared and were made available to other researchers, willing to confront the world and us with a explaining the change in his formulation. fait accompli - the tradition of friendship Karsh expresses solicitude for readers between us would continue and we would of Survival who 'may not be so familiar certainly find a common language on set- with the excessive partisanship of Middle tling those matters that were of interest to Eastern studies'. I will not deny that such both parties' (Karsh, pp. 93-94). partisanship exists and that scholarship Aside from Meir's explicit reference to and polemics are often difficult to distin- 'an arrangement and an understanding', guish. But not in this case. Karsh may notice the word 'active'. Anyone familiar attack the 'revisionist' historians and in the least with the historical circum- pose, at some points in his book, as a stances, not to say the agreement some defender of established truth against a years later between Ben-Gurion and the few rogue professors, but among Middle British and French to collaborate in an East specialists, including virtually all the invasion of Egypt by pretending that the Israeli scholars Karsh reports himself as European intervention was to protect the admiring, it is Karsh who occupies a Suez Canal from the Israelis, can appreci- lonely and querulous extreme. ate how strongly this passage points to a 'plausibly deniable' agreement between Correction the nascent Jewish state and Transjordan The reference to 'Aneurin Bevin' in Ian S. Lustick's Autumn 1997 review essay should that would allow Abdullah to take control have read 'Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin'. over much of the West Bank in return for a This error was introduced during the editing 'non-aggression' pact between him and process and is entirely the fault of the journal, the Zionists. Yet Karsh tells his readers not the author. that this passage makes it 'clearly evi- dent' that there was no attempt to divide Europe's Role in NATO Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 15:29 06 September 2011 Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah (Karsh, p. 95). To the Editor: Most of Karsh's letter is a repetition of Michael O'Hanlon's article, 'Trans- attacks made against Benny Morris. I will forming NATO: The Role of European not repeat myself in regard to Karsh's Forces' (Survival, Autumn 1997, pp. 5- treatment of Morris' work. I will point out, 15), raises many interesting points and is however, that Karsh's accusation that rightly critical of some aspects of the Morris 'misrepresented' a sentence from European approach to security issues. Ben-Gurion's diary is itself an unfortu- The article was apparently written before nately typical Karsh misrepresentation. the European Union's July 1997 Several issues of the Hebrew journal Amsterdam summit, but the events there Alpayim were devoted to this episode. It did nothing to alter his observation that turns out that the reason Morris was 'With multiple decision-making centres Letters to the Editor • 199

and no immediate prospect of realising a interest over European partners, damages true "European Security and Defence the potential for progress. The situation Identity", NATO Europe will not be able only accentuates the frustration felt by to use its defence budget as efficiently as the British and German companies which the US' (p. 6). However, in calling on perceive the need to push ahead as Europe to spend more on defence he is rapidly as possible. However, were Eur- avoiding reality. With many countries ope to develop more competitive defence under pressure to meet the criteria for industries and tailor its forces in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), manner suggested, I doubt if the US yet unwilling to cut social expenditures, would even then be willing to give up the money for defence will be very limited. NATO command of Southern Europe as Nevertheless, it is not all bad news. It is the author suggests. precisely because Paris was embarrassed Where I do take serious issue with by its contribution to the 1991 Gulf War O'Hanlon is in his theme of Americans effort that it decided to abolish conscript dying in disproportionate numbers 'in a defence forces. Early next century, that future conflict in defence of shared inter- decision will enable France to contribute ests' (p. 6). This is gratuitous and badly larger and more effective fighting forces - thought out. If anything, the situation thereby enhancing European capability. could well be the other way around. It is all Furthermore, the Western European very well to call for military action without Union (WEU) is actively addressing the having any soldiers at risk on the ground problem of strategic airlift, not least by its - as the US did in the early days of the June 1997 agreement with Ukraine. intervention in former Yugoslavia - but O'Hanlon calls for a 'greater sense of this does not tally well with a US attitude burden-sharing and risk-sharing'. Some that is sometimes less robust than it ought Americans also refer to 'responsibility- to be in contributing to the Stabilisation sharing' - a more flattering and more real- Force. Behind this approach lies a US de- istic description, implying political as well termination to avoid casualties at all as military contributions. Even for the US, costs. With their experience in Somalia in the days of unilateral action seem to be mind, the Americans may not have taken past. All the indications are that for any the levels of casualties experienced by the intervention the US will seek the legiti- French and British in the period before macy of a UN Security Council resolution Dayton, because they would have with- and the presence of allies, as it did for the drawn earlier. As the US continues to rely 1991 operation in Haiti, even though the increasingly on advanced technology, US had the capability to undertake that Europeans may well be more vulnerable operation alone. than Americans to casualties. US forces On defence industries, I do not support may be able to participate, but will be re- Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 15:29 06 September 2011 the author's argument for minimising the mote from danger. significance of the trade gap in trans- US commentators should appreciate a atlantic sales, accentuated as it is by the general European concern that, driven by protection of US interests when neces- the fear of taking casualties, the US will sary by classifying projects as 'black'. only use overwhelming force when other However, Europe undoubtedly com- approaches might be more fruitful. In any pounds the problem by failing to resolve case, the US resolve and commitment to quickly the issue of merging companies any enterprise because of this fear might that could counter the US defence giants. well not be all one might want from a su- The news of the French government's perpower ally. tardy decision to disallow Thomson-CSF from being taken over in mid-October 1997 Gordon Wilson by any other company than France's own Research Fellow, WEU Institute for Secu- Alcatel-Alsttiom, favouring national rity Studies, Paris. 200 • Letters to the Editor

South Korea's Defence Industry 'co-development' schemes, makes the resultant systems much more expensive To the Editor: than complete systems bought from established suppliers. Japan's F-2 is likely Susan Willett ('East Asia's Changing De- to cost triple what the comparable F-16C fence Industry', Survival, Autumn 1997, does. This great investment holds little pp. 107-34) concludes that the South Ko- prospect of spin-off for the reasons rean defence industry has 'adapted to Willett identifies and generally results in change' with 'remarkable speed', sug- less combat capability, judged either gesting that it will be among the winners absolutely or on the basis of cost- as the international arms market contracts, effectiveness. It is this argument as much '[challenging] the status of established as concern for the market share of US international powers in the so-called "hi- firms that has led Washington to oppose erarchy of supply'" (p. 128). In reality, vanity projects for its allies' defence however, the outlook is much less rosy. industries, especially if there is a continu- In fact, South Korea's defence indus- ing risk of war. Without cost-effective- try is heading in the wrong direction, ness or cutting-edge technology, there is aping Japan's inefficient Cold War little hope of significant earnings on the approach in a radically different market competitive export market. The real reason with insufficient resources to create an why states embark on South Korea's innovative, self-sustaining technology course is to have their own defence indus- base. As discussed in the Stockholm try - an increasingly anachronistic ideal. International Peace Research Institute As suggested by the sudden rush of (SIPRI) Yearbook 1997, South Korean money into the military-technology base, investment in military research and South Korea is probably over-reaching it- development (R&D) is accelerating when self, a mistake Spain also made to its cost every other major arms producer in the in the early 1990s. South Korea has a world except Japan's is declining. Seoul's shorter history of military R&D and arms investment in military R&D increased by production than Japan did in 1990 when almost a factor of six from 1987-97 to its military R&D budget reached $800m. about $700 million (in constant 1996 The South Korean civilian-technology dollars) and is expected to increase by base is structurally weak and reliant on another factor of 2-5 over the next dec- Japanese components. This relationship ade. In comparison, Tokyo's military R&D could sour if technology were diverted budget increased steadily by just over a into military systems, especially for ex- factor of two from 1986-96 to about $1.3 port. South Korea is also unlikely to re- billion. Among non-nuclear-weapon ceive as much help from US firms in devel- states, only Germany spends more on oping specialised military technology as military technology than Japan and South Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 15:29 06 September 2011 Japan did during the Cold War, particu- Korea, although Seoul's Ministry of larly after the recent imbroglios over the National Defence claims that it is pursuing Japanese F-2 and the Israeli Lavi. At best, an approach common among the Group of South Korea can only hope for a smaller, Seven nations. frailer version of what Japan has achieved South Korea, like Japan, justifies - the ability to build a few very expensive increased investment with the supposed systems with less than state-of-the-art ca- benefits of applying dual-use technology pabilities - while losing its offset counter- developed in civilian industry to military trade. The prospects of its displacing any ends. But dual-use technologies are not a of the major arms suppliers are remote in- magical panacea. As demonstrated in deed. Japan's case, the complementary investment in specialised military technologies, whether indigenous or imported under Eric Arnett Project Leader, SIPRI, Solna, Sweden.