Books on New Israeli History

Dear Hillel,

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

We should talk about Benny Morris' and Avi Shlaim's books themselves. Both of them are good and important books. Unfortunately, neither Morris nor Shlaim is a superb storyteller. If I had to choose between these books as a gift for a friend, I would pick Shlaim's, for it is better written. If I were making the choice for a library, I would prefer Morris', because although somewhat too encyclopedic for my taste, it is more comprehensive and more responsibly documented than Shlaim's.

To really discuss these books, we need to place them in the context of the current situation. Since you began with an attack on the "new history," we may as well go ahead with that first.

About 15 years ago, Israeli journalists and historians were given access to archives that until then had been closed, including the prime minister's and the Foreign Office's. Following a relatively liberal policy of declassifying official records, the diaries of Israel's two first prime ministers, David Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharet, have become available, as well as some transcripts of the cabinet's meetings, some records of the army's archive, archives of political parties, the Jewish Agency, and more. Only since the 1980s has it been possible to examine, analyze, and write up the young state's recent history. Until then, Israel had no real history. It had official and semi-official mythology, ideology, and a lot of nationalistic indoctrination, of the kind one would expect of a new state in the midst of the process of nation-building.

The new documentary evidence dealt not only with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It also contained evidence on a large number of sensitive issues, including cases of deliberate discrimination against new immigrants from Arab countries. Much of the new material exposed discrepancies between official statements and actual policies. On the whole, it showed that Israel's past was by far less noble and admirable than many Israelis had been led to believe. Hence the initial shock and controversy.

Much of the new material obviously concerned the conflict with the Arabs. No, Israeli soldiers had not always been faithful to the so called "purity of arms" principle, meaning, essentially, that unarmed civilians must not be killed: In more than one battle, Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes, including mass executions, rape, and looting. No, not all Arab refugees "left" in response to their own leaders' call: Some were driven out by the Israeli army. No, not all Israeli military operations came "in response" to Arab provocation: Some were carried out on Israel's initiative, as part of a strategy designed to lead to "a second round" in the war. No, not all Arab countries had always and under all conditions refused to talk to Israel. At times, Israel preferred the status quo to negotiations.

Much of this was sensational mostly because it was revealed for the first time, in official documents, and did not conform to the self-righteous and self-deceiving image the founding fathers of Israel had offered their country. Few of these revelations, however, necessarily undermined the ideological foundations of the country. Nor, incidentally, did most of the so-called "New Historians" follow any common ideology or revolutionary methodology. Many of them regard themselves as good Zionists. Most believe, much in the tradition of classical historical research, that somewhere in the archives, among the documents, they would find out "what really happened." In short, there was indeed very little "new" about "New Historians," as you say, except for the new material they uncovered.

"New Historians" have been described as "leftist," "unpatriotic," "non-Zionist," and "self-hating" (I couldn't believe that you would actually go as far back as good old Isaiah to make that point). "Look what they have done to my myth," some evidently more patriotic Israelis have lamented. In the meantime, however, much of what was new and shocking only a few years ago has found its way into documentaries produced by Israel's national television as well as into textbooks approved by the ministry of education.

I recently read an article you wrote for Commentary in which you mentioned my work. (Do the readers of Slate need to know that although we seem to be living in the same city, you and I have never actually met? Perhaps.) In that article, you stated that the case of the New Historians vs. the State of Israel can be considered closed, because the plaintiffs simply dropped the main charge. In fact, there is no need to take the case much further, because the accused admitted most of the charges.

When I first sat down to read Benny Morris' and Avi Shlaim's books, I expected some provocative piece of "new history." In fact, both Morris and Shlaim give us comprehensive accounts of the Arab-Israeli conflict; much of what they tell us and some of their conclusions would have sounded outrageous a few years ago. Fortunately, they no longer do today. Morris' publishers describe his book on the cover as an "objective" history of the conflict, which it is not, for of course there is no such thing as "objective history." Shlaim tells his readers that it is his aim to offer a "revisionist interpretation" of Israel's policy toward the Arab world.

Shlaim lives in England, and his work is not really part of the Israeli public discourse. He "revises" very little of what other pro-Arab historians have written before. He revises little of what even Israeli historians have been writing in recent years, first and foremost among them Benny Morris, who does live in Israel and takes an active part in the country's public discourse. But Morris' book is not much of a novelty, either, but rather a good summary of what most mainstream historians in Israel accept today.

Both Morris and Shlaim tend to be more critical of the Zionist movement than most other Israelis. I found some intellectual pleasure in Shlaim's often brilliant and sometimes odd attempt to describe the basic policy of Israel as an adaptation of Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" ideology. Again, however, living in England, where Zionism has been criticized more than once, Shlaim's approach is hardly relevant to the situation in Israel. By contrast, Morris should be read in the context of a whole range of deep changes that have occurred in Israel in recent years.

As we celebrated 50 years of independence, we had become much more secure and much more mature than ever before. Well, at least some of us have. The very existence of Israel is no longer in danger, and many Israelis no longer adhere to one national ideology. The society has become much more diverse, and many Israelis adhere to no ideology at all. No longer do most Israelis live for the sake of the past or the future. More Israelis than ever before live today for the sake of life itself, very much in the spirit of the American "now" culture.

More Americanized than ever, many Israelis think of themselves not as merely part of a collective entity but first and foremost as individuals. They are learning to respect individual rights, including the right to question the nation's basic truisms. As the peace process seems to be making progress, in spite of much difficulty, some Israelis are beginning to wonder whether at least some of the concepts that led them through conflict and war may be inadequate in times of peace, and these include some parts of the Zionist mythology.

Israel's new evaluation of its past thus leads into a debate about the future. Very political it is, yes, but then history in Israel has always been part of politics. Let's talk about it some more, but lets also do justice to Morris' and Slaim's books.

Sincerely,
Tom Segev

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

This week, a discussion of Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall (click here to buy it) and Benny Morris' Righteous Victims (click here to buy it). Hillel Halkin is an American-born author and translator who has been living in Israel since 1970. He is the author of, among other works, Grand Things To Write a Poem On (click here to buy it). Tom Segev is an Israeli journalist and historian. He writes a weekly column for Ha'aretz and is the author of 1949: The First Israelis (click here to buy it).

SPONSORED CONTENT