ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Post-zionist critique on Israel and the Palestinians part I: The academic debate AUTHORS Pappé, I JOURNAL Journal of Palestine Studies DEPOSITED IN ORE 21 July 2014 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/15240 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians: Part I: The Academic Debate Author(s): Ilan Pappe Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 1997), pp. 29-41 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2537781 . Accessed: 28/03/2014 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and Institute for Palestine Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Palestine Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 144.173.152.98 on Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:32:15 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions POST-ZIONIST CRITIQUE ON ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS PART I: THE ACADEMIC DEBATE ILAN PAPPE Thisthree-part article describes changes in how Israelis-scholars,writers, poets,film makers, and otherson Israel'scultural scene-view themselves and the "Other." Part I presentsthe scholarly debate on Israel'spast and presentthat laid thegroundwork for the transformationof the cultural discoursedescribed in thesecond and thirdparts. The debate,launched by newfindings in theIsraeli archivesand encouragedby an ideology criticalof Zionism,also was influencedby sociopoliticaland economic changesin Israelisociety in thewake of theOctober 1973 war. Te vari- ous aspectsof thepost-Zionist critique-the challenge by the "newhistori- ans" and "criticalsociologists" not onlyof theZionist interpretation but also of the role of Israeli academia in providingthe scholarly underpin- ningsof thisinterpretation-are examined. DURING THE LAST DECADE, Israeliuniversities have become the venue fora lively debateon Israelihistory and sociology.Lately, the debate has been transferredto the public arena througharticles in the mainstreampress and even has been treatedin the broadcastmass media.Moreover, a look at othercultural arenas and mediareveals that the debate has extendedbeyond academia into the arts- films,poetry, and literature.The mostobvious characteristic of thisdebate is the willingnessof a considerablenumber of IsraeliJews to reassess the way the "Arab"is perceivedand treatedin past and presentIsrael. It should be men- tioned,however, that the debate has notattracted anyone beyond the "chattering and writingclasses" of Israelisociety; it is an elitistexercise, albeit with wide implicationsfor the society as a whole. The academicdebate in Israelabout Zionism began in the 1980swith the ap- pearanceof a numberof scholarlyworks presenting images of pastand present Jewishsociety in Palestinethat were stronglyat odds withthe Israelipublic's self-imageand collectivememory. The works challenged the most sacred "truths"of Zionismand questionedtheir validity for the present generation. The authorsof theseworks also criticizedthe role playedby thecountry's academic institutionsin shapingthe Zionist self-image and theZionist interpretation ofthe Palestinereality. Directly and indirectly,they deconstlucted the worksof those ILAN PAPPE, professorof politicalscience at HaifaUniversity and academichead of the Institutefor Peace ResearchGivat Haviva, is theauthor of TheMaking of theArab-Israeli Conflict,194 7-1951, among other works. Journalof PalestineStudies XXVI, no. 2 (Winter1997), pp. 29-41. This content downloaded from 144.173.152.98 on Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:32:15 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 30 JOURNALOF PALESr1NE STUDIES who dominatedIsraeli academic writing on Palestine'shistory and contemporary Jewishsociety. These scholarshave been in thepublic consciousness long enoughto be re- gardedas a culturalphenomenon in Israel.The local presscalls themthe "post- Zionist"scholars, a termnot all ofthese scholars accept.1 Nonetheless, as thisis a handyconcept for describing the essence of what they are doing,we shallapply it broadlyin thisarticle not onlyto all thosewho have revisedor criticizedthe workof themainstream Zionist academic community in Israelbut also to artists, novelists,and othersusing a new culturaldiscourse. The termpost-Zionism is a hybridof anti-Zionistnotions and a postmodernist perceptionof reality. It has become a convenientterm that groups together Zion- istand anti-ZionistJews in Israeliacademia and politics.In thescholarly world, the termsanti-Zionist and Zionist are largelya matterof self-definition:Among thisgroup, the works of thosewho declarethemselves Zionist are generallyas antagonistictoward Zionism as thoseof authorsopenly calling themselves anti- Zionist.It is importantto notethat the "post-Zionist" scholars or "newhistorians" or "new sociologists"are notthe first to challengethe Zionistversion of Israel's past and present.Their precursors, however, were mostlyon theleft, members of thecommunist party or fringegroups such as MAPAM.The ideologicalorien- tationof these last, coupled with the fact that they were not historians or sociolo- gistsby profession(Israel Shahakand BennyBeit-Hallahmi, for example, are professorsof chemistryand psychology,respectively), made it easy to dismiss theirfindings as mereclaims of political activists beyond the pale of thenational consensus.In contrast,the "new historians"and "new sociologists,"as scholars accreditedby officialacademia to researchand teachthe country's past, were the firstto challengethe conventionalthinking from within the system. As forthe "postmodernist"part of theequation, it derivesfrom the tendency among some of the groupto view the presentsituation in Israelas a phase in which most of the Zionisttruths have collapsed but thereis no sign of what would replacethem. Thus, to borrowpostmodernist discourse, they have decon- structedthe realitybut are unable to reconstructit. Some of thesescholars be- come more confidentabout the futurewhen theyenvisage the creationof an Israelirather than a Jewishstate: a statefor all itscitizens. Most, however, confine theirassessment of the future to a longcivil and culturalwar between the various componentspolarizing and composingIsraeli society. Chronologically,the postmodernist critique appeared only after the debate on the 1948 war had erupted-a debatethat was purelypositivist in natureand did notinvolve any serious metahistorical or theoreticaldiscussion. Hence, we begin our surveywith the "new history"of the 1948 war. THE POSITIVIST CHALLENGE: THE "NEW HISTORLANSw MainstreamZionist historiography in Israelcontinues to subscribeto an im- possible combinationof positivistand ideologicalapproaches to history:The facts,based on archivalmaterial, are employedto provethe moral validity of the This content downloaded from 144.173.152.98 on Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:32:15 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions POST-ZIONIST CRMIQUE 31 Zionistclaims. The positivistapproach means thatthose researching the coun- try'spast and presentignore methodological or theoreticalquestions that might affecttheir confidence in thescientific truth of Zionism.Moreover, their research is pureelite analysis-the deeds of theelite are documentedin thearchives and theirversion of eventsis takenas an objectiveand truthfuldescription of fact. This mixtureof ideologicalparadigm, scholarly ethnocentricity, and empirical bookkeepingdid notbegin to be challengeduntil the 1970swith the revisionist historiographyofthe 1948 war, the memory of which still shapes theIsraeli self- imageand nationalmyths. Beforethe appearanceof the new works,the 1948 war and the Mandatory period as a whole were treatedexclusively within the universitydepartments teachingZionist history. For thesedepartments, the events of 1948were thecul- minationof the teleological process of redemption and renaissanceof the Jewish people. The role of the historianwas limitedto reconstructingthis miracle that had begunwith the awakening of the national movement in the1880s and ended withthe 1948 "warof liberation"against the British. It shouldbe notedthat the Israeliterminology of the war is constructedcarefully so as to conferupon Zion- ism the equivalentstatus of a thirdworld liberationmovement-hence a war againstthe Arabscannot be mentionedin thiscontext. Indeed, the two terms used forthe 1948 war do not indicateany directconflict with the Arabs: "inde- pendence"from the British (Azma'ut) and "liberation"from the yoke of the Dias- pora (Shihrur). Thisdoes notmean, of course,that the "Arabs" do notappear in Zionisthisto- riographyof the 1948 war. When the story of the 1948 war or thepreceding years of theMandate is told,researched, or taught,the Arab side is mentionedas yet anotherhardship with