7 March 2012 ISRAEL AND PALESTINE: THE INNER-JEWISH DEBATE AND THE NEW HISTORIANS Lester L.

Grabbe University of Hull, England The following essay is a survey of the debate that has arisen in Jewish circles--both Israeli and international--over the question of Israel and Palestine. It particularly focuses on how history has been the centre of support for one side or the other and how the perception of Zionism and Israeli history changed, especially in the late 1980s. One of the catalysts of this change was the New Historians, and much of the subsequent debate has revolved around the New Historians, whether their own publications, the publications of their critics from both the right and the left, and their own increasingly ascerbic interaction as time went on. In the debate on a Palestinian state the question of national identity--Palestinian and Israeli--has been an important factor in motivating each side. Historical perceptions have a strong influence on the concept of national and ethnic and other sorts of identity. On the Jewish side, Zionism has a fundamental set of founding myths based on perceptions of what happened in past history (myth in this context means a symbolic narrative that explains the present; whether the narrative is true according to critical historical study is not relevant). Likewise, the Palestinians have their own foundational myths, but this article will focus on the Jewish side of things. Finally, I should point out that I am not an expert on modern Israeli history. My specialty concerns the history of ancient Israel and of the Jews in what is referred to as the Second Temple period (e.g., Grabbe 2004, 2007, 2008). But within that broad area have been revisionist debates in recent decades of which I have been a part (including the founding and chairing of the European Seminar in Historical Methodology and the editing of nine conference volumes, with another several in the process of editing). Thus, the concept of historical revisionism is no stranger to me, and I find a number of interesting parallels in the debate over modern Israeli history with discussions in my own areas. The Israeli New Historians In the late 1980s several books appeared, questioning some of the founding Zionist myths. One of these authors was Benny Morris, who wrote an article in 1988 referring to himself and some of the others as the New Historians (Morris 1988b). What characterized this group (who all produced books with challenging theses about 1988) is that they were mostly born around or after 1948, obtained their research degrees from outside Israel, and

-2were not part of the Israeli university establishment (Morris and Segev were journalists, Shlaim taught in the UK, with only Pappe in an Israeli university department). Other individuals have subsequently been associated with the group. Those usually included in this designation are the following:1 Benny Morris (1948-): Professor of History in the Middle East Studies Department, BenGurion University of the Negev, Beersheba. When growing up, he spent several years in the USA and writes fluent English. He did his undergraduate studies at the Hebrew University, but his doctorate was earned from Cambridge. He was a paratrooper in the 1967 Six Day War and was wounded in 1969 by an Egyptian shell at the Suez Canal; however, when called up as a reserve officer at the time of the First Intifada in 1988, he refused to serve and spent several months in prison. He worked as a journalist (Jerusalem Post) for many years, but claims that he lost his position in 1991 when his newspaper was taken over by Conrad Black. He applied unsuccessfully for academic posts for a number of years and obtained his present position only because of the intervention of Ezer Weizman (president of Israel, 1993-2000). His 1988 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, put the Arab refuge issue on the agenda for debate. His recent 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (2008) has been widely acclaimed. Avi Shlaim, FBA (1945-): Professor of International Relations at Oxford. He was born in Iraq, before his family moved to Israel. He went to study in England at 16. He did an undergraduate degree at Cambridge and a PhD at Reading. Two books have been widely cited: Collusion across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of Palestine (winner of the 1988 Political Studies Association's W. J. M. Mackenzie Prize); The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (2001). His recent collection of essays, Israel and Palestine (2009), was heavily criticized by Benny Morris. Ilan Pappe (1954-): Professor in the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter; director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies. He did his undergraduate studies at the Hebrew University, and his PhD at Oxford. He taught at the University of Haifa (1984-2007), during which time he also ran as a Communist candidate for the Knesset (he has since resigned from the Communist party). He controversially supported an academic boycott of
________________________ 1

Factual information for most of the following can be found on Wikipedia, though full references are not always available there. Further information is found in their books and in the other publications cited below and in the bibliography.

-3Israeli universities, that caused some of his colleagues to call for his resignation. His book, Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988), made him one of the New Historians, but his recent The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006) has attracted considerable criticisms. Tom Segev (1945-): journalist. He did an undergraduate degree in history and political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; a PhD in history, Boston University. He wrote two noted books that appeared in English in 2000, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate and The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust. However, his more recent book, 1967: Israel, the War and the Year That Transformed the Middle East, Metropolitan Books (2006), has been heavily criticized by Michael Oren and Benny Morris. Simha Flapan (19111987): journalist and politician. Fled Poland for Palestine before World War II. Edited New Outlook magazine, which was dedicated to the promotion of ArabJewish relations. His book, The Birth of Israel: Myths And Realities, published the year he died, enlisted him in the ranks of the New Historians. Baruch Kimmerling (1939-2007): was Professor of Sociology at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, though often included among the New Historians. He did his undergraduate studies and his PhD at the Hebrew University. His obituary stated that he was probably the first Israeli academic to analyse Zionism in settler- immigrant, colonialist terms. He described his homeland as being built on the ruins of another society (Guardian [26 June 2007]). Of his nine books, he is perhaps best known for Zionism and Territory: The Socioterritorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics (1983) and (with Joel S. Migdal) Palestinians: The Making of a People (1993; enlarged edition 2003). The New Historians have been criticized by two lots of critics on opposite ends of the spectrum. There are the pupils of the old Zionist historians (labelled by Morris as the Old-New Historians), which includes the following (cf. ben David 2010): Anita Shapira (1940-): holds the Ruben Merenfeld Chair for the Study of Zionism at Tel Aviv University. She was born in Warsaw but did her undergraduate degree and her PhD at Tel Aviv University. In 2000, she was appointed head of the Chaim Weizmann Institute for the Study of Zionism and Israel, and in 2008 the director of the Israel Democracy Institute. Her main book, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948, has been widely praised. Efraim Karsh: (1953-): Professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, and director of the Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle East Forum.

-4His undergraduate degree was in Arabic and Modern Middle East History, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, and he earned an MA and PhD in International Relations, Tel Aviv University. He seems obsessed with castigating the New Historians, surprisingly Benny Morris in particular. Yoav Gelber (1943-): Professor of History, University of Haifa. He did his BA, MA, and PhD all in world and Jewish history at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He has written extensively on the history of the Israel Defence Forces. His main work in English is Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem (2006). He called for Ilan Pappes removal from the University of Haifa when the latter appealed for an academic boycott of all Israeli universities. He has, however, excepted Benny Morris from his general criticism of the New Historians, and the latter has thanked him for advice and information in more than one of his books. Michael B. Oren (1955): Israeli ambassador to the USA (2009-). Grew up as Michael Scott Bornstein in the USA. He did a BA at Columbia University and received a PhD in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton, 1986. He has been visiting professor at several US universities. Especially known for Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (2002), which used sources in Arabic as well as Hebrew and English. Sela, Avraham (c. 1950-): the A. Ephraim and Shirley Diamond Professor of International Relations, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. BA (1971), MA (1974), PhD (1986) in the Middle East and international relations at the Hebrew University. Officer in the research division of the Israel Defence Force Intelligence Branch (1970-1986). Participated in the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks (late 1970s) and in the Israeli-Lebanese military talks (mid-1980s). Main books are The Decline of the Arab Israeli Conflict: Middle East Politics and the Quest for Regional Order (1998) and (with Shaul Mishal) The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Adjustment (2000). From the other side, on the left, are a number of Jewish critics who have taken the New Historians to task, especially Benny Morris (ben David 2010), not to mention several Palestinian reviewers such as Edward Said and Nur Masalha: Norman Finkelstein (1953-): the son of Holocaust survivors, he has had a chequered academic career. He did his undergraduate degree at Binghamton University and a PhD in Political Science at Princeton University (1988). He taught at a number of institutions (Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University), before being assistant professor at DePaul University (2001-2007). But he was denied tenure, which he

-5blamed on the famous lawyer Alan Dershowitz, with whom he had a highly publicized exchange. He resigned from DePaul, who defended their decision to withhold tenure (though he apparently received a financial settlement from them). In 2008 he was refused entry into Israel and banned for a further ten years. Two of his books are The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (2000); Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (2005). Shlomo Sand (1946-): Professor of History, Tel Aviv University. Born in Austria of Communist parents, though he later left the Communist party. His undergraduate studies were in history at Tel Aviv University, with his PhD from cole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris. His recent book, The Invention of the Jewish People (2009), has been very controversial, not only because of the subject matter but also because his expertise is in modern French history, not ancient Judaism. Debunking Zionist Myths It is generally accepted that there were a number of views about the origin of Israel widespread among the Israeli populace in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. These are often referred to as founding myths, not to label them as necessarily false but to depict their symbolic importance to the concept of Israeli identity and nationhood. The New Historians attacked a number of these as either false or at least in need of qualification or correction. It is probably not surprising that most or all these are well articulated in the best-selling novel, Exodus, by Leon Uris (1958). Some of these founding myths are the following (cf. Rapaport 2005; Shlaim 2007): Palestine was by and large empty, waiting to be settled by a homeless people: a land without a people for a people without a land. Although this quotation was not uttered by any early Zionist, it has been invoked more recently.2 Palestinians had no collective identity apart from the other neighbouring Arabs. Segev (2000a: 102-9) shows that the 1920s already saw two rival nationalist movements, the Zionists and the Palestinians (including both Muslims and Christians).
________________________ 2

The phrase was apparently invented by a Christian Restoration clergyman about 1843 (cf. Muir 2008); however, it had become current in Zionist circles by the end of the 19th century (Shapira 1992: 42).

-6The Jewish David was fighting against the Arab Goliath, and its victory bordered on the miraculous. Although subsequent study shows a complicated situation, by June 1948 the two sides were roughly equal in manpower and the Israelis generally superior in military hardware (cf. Morris 2008: 196-207). Especially important was the disunity of the Arab leadership but also the Jewish sense of having their backs against the wall. The refugee problems was created by the Arab leadership. In his 1988 book (1988a; 2nd edition 2003) Morris showed that there was a variety of factors, including deliberate expulsion by military force or threat, though he argues it was not a unified plan from the start but developed during the fighting (Pappe and Shlaim have argued that there was a consistent plan from the beginning). In his book, 1948 (2008), Morris now believes, based on further archival research, that Israeli commanders, witnessing growing Palestinian flight in late 1948, decided to encourage it, with BenGurions connivance. He still rejects the idea that any overall expulsory policy decision was taken by the Yishuvs [new Jewish state] executive bodies in the course of the 1948 war (Romano 2008). The British tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. Shlaims study (1988) showed that the British agreed to a secret arrangement between the Jews and king Abdullah of Jordan to prevent a Palestinian state. The Arabs had a coordinated plan for the destruction of the nascent Jewish state. In fact, there was a variety of aims among the Arab leadership, with the Jordanian leader wanting only to establish control over territory assigned by the UN partition plan to a Palestinian state. The fight by the Jews was an example of purity of arms. The studies by Morris but also others (e.g., Gelber 2006) showed that a number of massacres were perpetrated by the Jewish troops, and there are documented cases of rape (often followed by murder of the victim). In fact, more atrocities were committed by the Jewish side because they were the stronger militarily. And the Arab regular armies committed no massacres of civilians or prisoners of war. The failure to make peace since 1948 is entirely the fault of the Arabs who refuse to allow Israel to exist. Shlaim (2000) and Pappe have argued that various Arab approaches were made but rejected out of hand by Ben Gurion. Morris and many others do not agree with the overall judgment, and this remains a very controversial point. A term that was coined to designate some of the critics was post-Zionist, on the analogy of post-modernism (Silberstein 1999; cf. Avineri 2007). Many of those who hold this position are, unsurprisingly, academics Like post-modernism it is not easy to define

-7because not all hold the same views, but many hold that the Zionist project ended once the nation of Israel had been established. They reject the Zionist narrative: rather than being a Jewish state, Israel should be a state of all its citizens, including the Israeli Arabs. It is also common to question the founding myths, thus making it customary for critics of the NH to label them post-Zionist. Shlaim and Pappe indeed use that label for themselves; however, Morris denies that he is anything but a Zionist. Some cynically interpret post-Zionist to mean anti-Zionist. Some of the post-Zionists would probably not be unhappy with the designation anti-Zionist (Morris calls both Shlaim and Pappe anti-Zionist [2004b]), but it should strictly not carry that connotation, and many post-Zionists vehemently deny that they are anti-Zionist. The On-going Debate The New Historians and their Critics As noted above, the debate began in the late 1980s, partly because of a developing openness in Israeli society but especially because of the opening of archives relating to 1948 under the 30-year embargo rule, not only in Israel but in the US, Britain, and the UN. In an American journal Morris used the term New Historian to characterize himself and the others (Morris 1988b). As so often, the question of newness was relative: Morris has since admitted that he gave insufficient credit to the work being done by a number of others in related areas of historical studies (2007: 7). And Derek Penslar has pointed out that there was an earlier phase of revisionism in the early 1970s, preceding the New Historians in the late 1980s (1995: 126-31), but he goes on to show the importance of what the New Historians did (1995: 131-40). Several of the writings of the New Historians were widely read in academic and even popular circles, especially Morriss 1988 work on the refugee problem. As Morris has argued (Morris ed. 2008: 6-7) the New Historians did not initiate the debate and made only a small portion of the change of attitudes (long-term historical processes and a traumatic historical reality [in the First Intifada] were infinitely more important), but the New Historiography represented a concern already becoming widespread. In any case, together with other trends they helped to initiate a broad debate and also became a lightning rod for those unhappy with the new questions, with many reviewers, journalists, and academics attacking the New Historians, some accusing them of being unpatriotic and providing ammunition for Israels enemies. As result of the debate, attempts were made to reflect more radical views in school textbooks, including use of the Arabic word for the Israeli victory in 1948 (naqba disaster),

-8already from 1999 (Hirsch 2007: 247-49). There are indications that the writings of the New Historians were a factor in the change. Then, in 2009 not only the Arabic word the Naqba, but also the expression ethnic cleansing, were actually used in textbooks for 11th and 12th graders produced by the Zalman Shazar Centre, but the Minister of Education under the Netanyahu government had the texts withdrawn after some criticisms by history teachers (Kashti 2009). The plan was to make some edits and then consider whether to reintroduce them into the classroom. Campaigner Nurit Peled-Elhanan, professor of language and education at the Hebrew University, has issued a book, Palestine in Israeli School Books (2012), claiming that the Palestinians were uniformly presented in a negative way in school textbooks; she used the term racism to describe the results of her research (Sherwood 2011). Long-term change of attitude was demonstrated by a study conducted in the summer of 2008 by Rafi Nets-Zehngut (Teachers College, Columbia University) and Daniel Bar-Tal (Tel Aviv University) on the Israeli-Jewish collective memory of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict. This found that 47 percent of those interviewed believed that expulsion of Palestinians took place, versus those accepting the Zionist narrative (which claims Palestinians left of their own accord) who were only 41 percent. Further books from the New Historians continued to fuel the debate, which was beneficial to society but not always to the individuals concerned. Morris lost his job with the Jerusalem Post when it was taken over by the conservative Conrad Black in 1991. He tried without success to get an academic post in Israel and also the USA and remained unemployed from 1991-97. However, the Israeli president Ezer Weizman was interested in his work, called him in for a talk, and then intervened on his behalf. Morris was offered an academic post at Ben Gurion University of the Negev where he continues to teach. Anglo-Saxon readers of the debate may be surprised--perhaps even shocked--by the ad hominem comments, sometimes viciously worded. I am told this is not unusual in Israeli scholarly interchange, though it tends to be foreign to American and especially British scholarship which generally frowns on unparliamentary language. Carlin Romano (2008) refers to the belligerence with which Israeli historians tear one anothers work to shreds and wryly comments, The past, historians say, is another country. Israeli history is another galaxy. Critics of the New Historians (henceforth, NH) have been of two sorts. There have been those who seemed to criticize aspects of their work while still accepting some or many of their conclusions (though this was sometimes expressed as, the NH are not saying anything new). Anita Shapira of Tel Aviv University wrote a couple of articles in the early 1990s in which she took the NH to task but seemed not to be all that far removed from Benny Morris.

-9In her widely praised 1992 book she traced the attitude of the early Zionists toward power as being in a defensive mode but, after the Arab riots of 1936, developed into the offensiveaggressive ethos known from the 1948 war. Yet in this study she recognized how the Palestinian Arabs were either ignored or caricatured negatively. Yoav Gelber of Haifa University has also been critical of the NH, though he expressly excluded Morris from his criticisms. Indeed, in his review of Morriss 1948 he was not convinced that the Arab attack on the incipient state of Israel was jihad (as Morris has more recently argued), but he reviewed the book overall with sympathy and respect.3 Gelber noted that a distinction should be drawn between historical revision and an ideological negation of the Israeli narrative and the claims it reprsents (2004: 47), with Morris and Shlaim mainly representing the former but Pappe, Flapan, Kimmerling, and Segev the latter. Interestingly, Morris pointed out that several critics had tacitly accepted some or many of the NH criticisms (Morris 1991: 110; Penslar 1995: 145 n. 40). Pertinent to that, Shapira is referred to as a revisionist by Rebecca Stein (1996). Similarly, Michael Oren has been referred to as a revisionist in his generally acclaimed book on the 1967 war (Oren 2002), although he has made critical remarks about some of the NH, such as Segev (Oren 2007). A criticism of Morris by some Orientalist scholars, such as Avraham Sela, was that Morris did not make use of Arabic sources ((Shlaim 2007: 135). Morriss argument was that the archives of the various Arabic countries were still closed to researchers. He also asked whether using the available Arabic sources referred to by his critics would have changed his picture of the exodus of Palestinians in 1948. Sela conceded that they probably would not have changed the picture, but that to ignore them nevertheless creates or at least gives the impression of an unbalanced account. Curiously, those on the right (like Karsh) or on the left (like Pappe and Shlaim) who have used the Arabic sources have also produced problematic accounts (see next section on Pappe). Romano summarizes the discussion: Rogan and Shlaim, writing in 2001, saw no immediate prospect for declassification of their [the Arab states who attacked Israel] key documents because Arab scholars would find no support for critical revisions of their historiography. While the Israeli historian Anita Shapira has pointed out that Jordan opens its archives to a limited
________________________ 3

See Landes 2009 which quotes extensively from the review. I have not seen the full review itself which was in the journal Azure that was inaccessible to me.

-10extent, materials that would resolve factual disputes . . . are not available. [Romano 2008] Morris himself put succinctly the problem with Arabic sources: There is simply no Arab documentation of the sort historians must rely on. What exists in Arabic or translated from Arabic into Hebrew or English are some Arab political and military memoirs, newspaper clippings, chronicles and histories. Much of this material . . . is slight, unreliable, tendentious, imaginative and occasionally fantastical.4 Less justified seems to be the charge that Morris relied on the biased records of the Israel Defence Force (Pappe 2004; Masalha 1991). First, this seems to me incorrect: from all I can tell he has used a variety of archive sources (British National Record Office, US National Archives, United Nations Archives, as well as the Israel State Archives, the Central Zionist Archives, the Hagana and Israel Defence Forces archives, etc.). Furthermore, any historian knows that most sources have biases or problems but you must use them critically. It is clear that a variety of material was available in the Israeli archives, including transcripts or summaries of Arabic station broadcasts, records of Israeli cabinet meetings (which are customarily transcribed verbatim, unlike British ones), and reports by international observers. Morris himself has discussed the bias of various types of Zionist documents for 1948 (Morris 1994; 1995). But we also have the fact that Morriss recovery of information on atrocities, rapes, and the explusion of Palestinians from their homes came not from oral testimony but from the archives. Morris responds to similar charges of the Palestinian Masalha in the following way: Masalha charges that Birth [of the Palestian Refugee Problem] and 1948 [and After: Israel and the Palestinians] are based . . . predominatly . . . on official Israeli archival and non-archival material . . . [and Morriss] work . . . rests on carefully released partial documentation. . . In writing Birth and 1948, I used the state archives of Israel, Britain, and the U.S., the archives of (Yishuv) political parties, and private papers collections, some memoirs, and some secondary works. Masalha misleads his readers when he speaks of carefully released partial documentation. Israels declassification policy is relatively (relative to Britain, for example) liberal, and the
________________________ 4

Beinin 2004, quoting Morris 1990: 42-43 (Morris 1990 was unavailable to

me).

-11revelations in Birth and 1948 are proof of this. I was able to see a great deal of material, much of it highly sensitive. Unfortunately, much military material and cabinet protocols do remain closed, inevitably hampering the researcher. But I believe I saw enough material, military and civilian, to obtain an accurate picture of what happened even if I did not always get all the detail I could have wished regarding a particular locality on a particular date. [Morris 1991: 109-10] Rather different, at least in tone if not in substance, are another set of critics, such as Efraim Karsh of Kings College London. A rather ill-natured exchange between Karsh and Morris has gone on for 20 years and more. Recently, Morris has catalogued a long list of specific views where Karsh has misrepresented what he actually believes (Morris 2011a; 2011b), but Karsh insists that Morriss support for Israel is all feigned. However, Ian Lustick, (Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania) has noted Instead of applying clear methodological standards and consistent rules of interpretation in a hardnosed manner and without political intent, Karshs treatment of sources and evidence is almost wholly determined by a passionately delivered political argument. The resulting inconsistencies and contradictions are breathtaking. ... While condemning Morriss entire oeuvre, Karsh studiously avoids coming to terms with the massive amount of documentary evidence Morris adduces . . . . These pin-prick and unsustainable attacks on Morris are illustrative of the nature of Karshs book--an exercise in the scoring of debating points, all proclaimed as knock-out blows.5 In his review of Karsh, Joel Beinin comments, Karshs main line of attack is tangential to the bulk of Morriss work. . . . By returning the debate to the arena of intellectual history, Karsh constructs a defense . . . that avoids engaging Morriss archival discoveries (Beinin 1998: 448). In his initial criticism of Morris, Karsh scored a point by drawing attention to a mistaken quotation of the former (Morris 2011c; Lustick 1997). Morris had quoted Ben Gurion as saying in a letter to his son, We must expel Arabs and take their places. This was
________________________ 5

Lustick 1997a: 162-64. For Karshs response, see Karsh 1997, followed by a rely by Lustick (1997b).

-12quoted from the official biography of Ben Gurion by Shabtai Teveth; however, Karsh showed that the original diary entry had a qualifying phrase crossed out that would have made the statement just the opposite of how Morris interpreted it. This was seized on as evidence that Morris had either been careless at best or had mispresented his source. Morris evidently discussed this in a Hebrew journal. The reason he quoted from Teveths secondary work was that the diaries were not available when he wrote the English edition of his book; however, by the time he produced the Hebrew version, they had been opened to other researchers. Morris noted that the crossed out phrase was unusual since Ben Gurion seldom corrected or made changes to his diary and other writings; the phrase could have been crossed out accidentally or even by someone else subsequently. Morris therefore gave the quotation with the crossed out qualification in the Hebrew edition of his book, to read, We do not wish to . . . expel. He has since taken a more agnostic stance toward the original meaning and felt it should not be used one way or the other. The point of the story is that Morris was willing to correct his mistake--if you can call it that--but Karsh continues to repeat his charge long after. The New Historians Fall Out The New Historians were not a tight-knit group; they were not necessarily friends nor worked together (though Shlaim claims that he first became politicized about Israel and Palestine through examining Pappes PhD thesis). As time went on a number of differences between them became apparent. Part of what has evoked criticism of Morris is an interview he gave after the Second Intifada (Shavit 2004) in which he expressed great pessimism about an accommodation with the Palestinians and put forward the view that Ben Gurion had been mistaken in not carrying through the expulsion of Palestinians. He continued to recognize that an injustice had been done to the Palestinians but felt that it was unavoidable if a Jewish state was to be founded. This was labelled a volte-face by many and a major shift to the right. Morris, however, has explained it quite differently (cf. Morris 2011a). He stated that he had always been a Zionist but a believer in the two-state solution. At the time of the Oslo talks, he felt that the deal offered by Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton to Yasser Arafat represented a major set of concessions, concessions that damaged Barak politically, yet Arafat rejected them. Up until that time, Morris had assumed that the Palestinians were negotiating in good faith, but now he took a much more cynical attitude toward Palestinian aims and actions. Yet Morriss own position is that his support of Israel and its security has not changed and that he remained ideologically on the left but was simply being realistic. Some of his fellow NH were outraged at his statements. Kimmerling praised Morriss early work but concentrated on outing Benny Morris as a Jewish chauvinist (2004). Similarly, Shlaim stated, He [Morris] went off his rocker, and expressed racist views. That

-13undermines him as a scholar (Rapaport 2005). Beinin sees a connection between Morriss racism and his near exclusion of Arab testimony; he concludes by the condemnatory statement that Morris has joined the ranks of those who shed no tears (Beinin 2004). There were similar reactions to Morriss 2009 book, One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict, which gave a very pessimistic view of Palestinian intent (though a good deal of space is given over to critiquing the one-state solution that Pappe argues for). Yet several critics expressed some puzzlement after this. They seemed to expect Morris to change his historical views, but this did not happen. His main work that appeared following the interview was his 1948 in 2008. This has been widely praised. Although Segev (2010) found fault with it (partly because Morris was not more judgmental), Shlaim was quite laudatory, noting . . . I must confess, I had low expectations of Morriss new book on the 1948 war. I expected it to be history with a political agenda, to display prejudice against the Arabs and partiality towards the Jews. But I was in for a pleasant surprise. This is Benny Morris at his best: immensely well informed, thorough, careful in the use of evidence, thoughtful and thought-provoking. [Shlaim 2008]. Particularly interesting was a review of Roane Carey (2008) which accused Morris of being a racist but then openly admitted that his study of the 1948 war was fair and objective; she found political bias only in the last chapter of Some Conclusions. Even the journalist the late Avi Isserof who harshly criticized specific examples of the book also went on to characterize it as follows: There is probably not a better book about the war in English. . . . Therefore, it will probably be the definitive work for some time to come, just as Righteous Victims rightly earned an honored place as a balanced and comprehensive treatment of the conflict as a whole (2008a). In his review of the book Romano (2008) refers to Morriss admirable willingness to state facts as he sees them and apportion blame to both sides. Yet Morris had already argued strongly that ones political views should not affect ones historical work. He claims that his books have arisen not out of political motives but simply out of a desire to know what happened. Research turns up information and should be presented without concern for political fallout but letting the chips fall where they may. In this he differs from some of the other NH who are explicitly political in their aims. Here is how he has assessed the situation (Morris 2004b): I believed, and still believe, that there is such a thing as historical truth; that it exists independently of, and can be detached from, the subjectivities of scholars; that it is the

-14historians duty to try to reach it by using as many and as varied sources as he can. When writing history, the historian should ignore contemporary politics and struggle against his political inclinations as he tries to penetrate the murk of the past. Pappe-and, implicitly, my Zionist critics such as Anita Shapira and Shabtai Teveth--have argued that no one is capable of abandoning his educational, ideological, and political baggage, and that I, too, have been motivated, consciously or subconsciously, by my politics and have reflected (according to Pappe) my solid Zionist convictions or (according to the establishment Zionists) my solid anti-Zionist convictions. The dangers of letting politics determine history can be seen in the work of Avi Shlaim. For example, in a thoughtful review of Avi Shlaims Israel and Palestine, Michael Rubner (Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Michigan State University) comments, The essays in this compendium highlight at least two problematic tendencies of Israeli revisionist historiography: placing the lions share of the blame for the persistence of the conflict on Israel, and being intolerant toward scholars who do not share the revisionists interpretations of the evidence and their sense of certitude. The urge to castigate Israel and to underplay the culpability of the Palestinians is most vividly exemplified in Shlaims treatment of the reasons for the breakdown of the Oslo peace process. [Rubner 2012] In a sympathetic aside to Shlaims Collusion across the Jordan (1988), Morris pointed out that only one of the parties to the collusion was pilloried, viz. the Jewish state and its leaders. King Abdullah of Jordan, on the other hand, was treated as a wise and peace-seeking leader, in spite of the fact that Abdullah did a great deal to stifle Palestinian nationalism but little or nothing to make peace with Israel in 1949-51: all this was somehow exempted from the moral fervor that characterized Shlaims treatment of Israel (Morris 2009b). Morris further describes the differences between himself and Shlaim with regard to researching and writing history: Shlaim once said that he believes historians should not merely describe and analyze but also act as judge and jury (or was it judge, jury, and executioner?)--that it is their responsibility to pass moral judgment on the actions (and the thinking?) of their protagonists. He has a powerful confidence in his own moral compass. He once wrote that I had lost mine. I do not believe that historians should moralize in their historiography: it is a sign of hubris, and it is tedious. My belief is that historians should seek truth, not justice, and describe and analyze events, using as wide a range

-15of sources as possible to try and work out why people acted as they did and what were the consequences--and then let the reader judge, using his or her own moral compass, whether the protagonists were right or wrong, wise or unwise. [Morris 2009b] Morris similarly points out why he came to certain conclusion differently from the proPalestinian Norman Finkelstein and the Palestinian Nur Masalha (and, incidentally, his Zionist critic Shabtai Teveth!): Finkelstein/Masalha/Teveth and I have different perceptions of the role of the historian. In tackling 1948, I set out to understand and describe a certain set of circumstances and a chain of events. Finkelstein/Masalha/Teveth are out to find culprits and lay blame, as if history is some sort of morality play or judicial proceeding. Finkelstein takes issue with my temperate conclusions, and charges that I strove for a happy median. While I admit preferring temperance to intemperance, all I can say is that, coming to the subject of the exodus [of Palestinians from their towns and villages] without any preconceptions (or, for that matter, knowledge), I collected evidence, tried to reconstruct what happened and why things happened as they did, and then drew conclusions. If the conclusions are that the exodus occurred in a number of stages and was due to an accumulation of causes, it is because that is how the process occurred, according to my understanding of the evidence; had I found a Jewish master plan for expulsion, or traces of such a plan, and had the evidence in the different areas at different times demonstrated that a policy of expulsion had been decided upon and was being systematically implemented, then that would have been my finding and conclusion. [Morris 1991: 103-4, italics in the original] Even more politically motivated is Ilan Pappe (see below). Apart from political agendas, another reason for differences between the NH is another aspect of historical method. Morris has been meticulous in researching the archives; however, these are generally Israeli, US, or NATO. As already noted, others have criticized him for not using Arab archives, and his response is that the official archives are not available. This brings us to the question of oral tradition. This is a very large subject, too large to treat adequately here (cf. Gorenberg 2007). But both the Zionist historians and NH such as Pappe and Shlaim make extensive use of reports by participants in the various conflicts, and it has led to controversial and (to many historians) unacceptable conclusions. Morriss position is that he avoids using interviews and even memoirs because these are often biased during a time when there is an on-going conflict. This oral testimony can easily be thinly disguised propaganda for one side or the other. It is much harder to contest the information in

-16contemporary documents and official archives where these can be cross checked with other documents and archives. A good example is the Tantura affair (below). Unfortunately, Morriss statement that it is bad to allow political views to influence ones scholarly work is borne out with some of Shlaims and Pappes writings. The result has been a sharp exchange of critical reviews, with Morris being especially harsh on his fellow NH. A review of Tom Segevs 1967 (2007) in the New Republic cannot now be downloaded from the internet at the authors request; one cannot help wondering what was said! Of Shlaim, Morris (2009b) praised the 676 pages of solid and well-written research of his first book (Shlaim 1988), and also his second book (Shlaim 2000) as the best, most comprehensive and generally fair-minded diplomatic history of the conflict between 1948 and 1999 yet published (Morris 2000). But a collection of essays, Israel and Palestine, have been strongly castigated for their one-sidedness, in which the Palestinians are always defended or excused for their actions, while the Israelis are always condemned. As Morris (2009b) puts it, The pieces are mostly an extended exercise in anti-Zionism, nothing more. Mordechai Bar-On (formerly assistant to Moshe Dayan and later a Peace Now activist) has recognized the general critique given by the NH to the Zionist depiction of events (cf. Bar-On 2007; BarOn/Morris/Golani 2002), but he also was a participant in many of the high-level military discussions in the years after 1948. He strongly disagrees with his friend Shlaim about the interpretation of the facts (Rapoport 2005). For example, he agrees that the Israelis rejected Arab peace proposals but that the Arab proposals were unacceptable. Morriss assessment of Ilan Pappe was even more negative. He entitled a review of several of Pappes books, The Liar as Hero, and began with the statement, At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the worlds sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest (Morris 2011a). Morris took an entire page just to give examples of factual errors in Pappes book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006). Many of them seem trivial to a nonspecialist, but Morris went on to give other examples of distortions to support a political agenda which look much more serious and inexcusable, if true. Unfortunately, other reviewers confirm that they are true (see Black 2007; Frantzman 2008; Higton 2008; Israeli 2008). Pappe has followed a curious odyssey. He apparently claimed to have fought against prejudice and persecution for his political beliefs from an early time.6 Yet in spite of his PhD
________________________ 6

These claims were apparently made in Pappe 2010, a work not available to me. I have taken the data from the summary and quotes in Morris 2011a.

-17work (later published as Pappe 1988) and his supposedly radical views, he was able to obtain a post at the University of Haifa in 1984. As Morris pointed out, the academic establishment, which was heavily Zionist at that time, would not have given him the job if he had expressed anything very radical. His first book in fact says nothing about ethnic cleansing. Pappe joined the Communist Party for a time and was a candidate for the Knesset for the Palestinian party Hadash in 1996 and in 1999. Yet he and Zionist colleague Yoav Gelber had a joint interview in 1999, which was quite amicable even though they disagreed over many points (Derfner 1999). There was a surprising lot of agreement over the facts, though their interpretations were quite different. Pappe came under attack from his own colleagues, however, some of whom called for his resignation or dismissal (including Gelber). Pappe claimed that his colleagues became disenchanted with him because of his support for the MA dissertation of Teddy Katz (see next section). But according to Morris (2011a), Pappes colleagues say it was because of his call for an academic boycott of Israeli universities, in particular his own University of Haifa. Although his colleagues called for him to resign, there was no formal action taken (in spite of Pappes claims of a disciplinary hearing), and he left voluntarily. Even Shlaim disagreed with his political support of Katzs MA over the Tantura affair and especially with his call for an academic boycott (Rapoport 2005). Pappe argues for the one-state solution to the Palestinian problem. The Tantura Affair7 The MA dissertation of Teddy Katz was being supervised by Kais Firro, a specialist in the Druze Muslim sect, though Pappe was apparently something of a spiritual guide to the student. Katz focused on events in the Muslim village of Tantura (south of Haifa on the coast) in May 1948. His study was apparently based entirely on interviews with Arabs and a few Israeli veterans: he did not research the archives. He concluded that there had been a massacre of about 250 Arab villagers which had then been covered up by the Israel Defence Forces. None of Katzs examiners were specialists in the 1948 war, but they gave the dissertation high marks.

________________________ 7

A detailed summary of the data is given by Morris 2004a. Gelber (2006: **) covers much the same ground, sometimes giving more detail than Morris, but is perhaps less balanced.

-18The study was written up in an article in the newspaper Maariv, which caused various Israeli veterans to protest that this was not only wrong but slandered their reputations. Their side of the story was given in a further Maariv article, and they sued Katz for liable. In court Katz temporily recanted but then reasserted his original position. Haifa University looked at the dissertation again and found substantial discrepancies between written quotes and what was actually present on the interview tapes (Katz claimed some of these statements were made after the batteries of the tape recorder gave out). The University withdrew the MA that had been awarded, and required that the dissertatioin be revised. When it was resubmitted, the University appointed five examiners, though again none was a specialist in the 1948 war, and two of them had edited a book that could be taken that they had a conflict of interest. Three of the examiners failed it, but the University decided to award a non-research MA, which would prevent his attempting to progress to PhD study. Benny Morris (2004) listened to the taped interviews conducted by Katz, interviewed some of the Israeli veterans (who denied a massacre but sheepishly acknowledged a forced displacement of the villagers) and one of Katzs more solid Arab witnesses (who maintained that as a boy he saw 23 village men and a woman stood up against a wall and shot by Israeli soldiers). Morris came away with a deep sense of unease. However, his search of the archives found no trace of any massacre in British, UN, or Israeli sources. It would be very unusual if no hint of the massacre could be found in any of the available sources, of which there were a number, including several reports by a liaison between a nearby Israeli village and surrounding Arab villages. Israeli intelligence reports monitoring Arab radio broadcasts in which a woman from Tantura reported that Jews had raped women in addition to acts of robber, theft and arson. Morris asks whether it is likely that a slaughter of hundreds of villagers at the time would not have been mentioned by Arab radio broadcasts. About a week after the battle the Israel Defence Force chief of staff asked the brigade commander for a report because of reports of needless acts of sabotage at Tantura. The report affirmed that damage had been caused but explicit orders were issued forbidding a repetition; this sabotage was clarified by interviews with veterans to be the plundering of abandoned Arab livestock by Jewish villagers. Morris is sceptical but could find no further explanation in the sources. Morris asks, So what happened in Tantura? As things stand, there is no way to reach a clear determination. The lack of any mention of a massacre until the 1990s is surely worthy of attention. But, Morris notes, But atrocities--war crimes, in modern parlance--appear to have occurred. Many of the Tantura dead, even if they only numbered 70-75 as Alexandroni [the Israeli brigade] veterans would have it, were unarmed civilians or disarmed

-19militiamen. A number of Alexandroni veterans said as much in undisputed interviews. We have . . . Makovskys diary [an Israeli soldier who was at Tantura but later killed] and Micha Vitkons statements, both to Katz and to Gilat [the lawyer acting for the veterans], that there was execution of prisoners by B Companys commander, Karni, and there had been killing. The Interpretation of Plan D8 Another area where there is fierce debate among the NH is over the Plan D that was developed in the 1948 war. This was a military defence (not offence) strategy, devised in March 1948, to counter the expected invasion by armies from surrounding Arab states (assisted by local Palestinians). It gave local Israeli commanders authority over the Arab inhabitants of the areas conquered by Jewish fighters. In order to consolidate Israeli control over strategic routes, borders, and areas, the local commanders could decide whether to leave or expel the Arab inhabitants of their areas, in consultation with officers and advisers. This was only a one small aspect of the plan, and it was explicitly stated that expulsion would normally take place only when a village resisted. Both Shlaim and Pappe, and even Kimmerling (Hebrew article cited in Gelber 2006: 387 n. 2), have asserted rather dogmatically that it was a plan to expel the native Palestinians and take over their land, and they point to it as clear evidence of an overall Israeli plan for ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, Morris (2008: 116-21) has emphasized the context in which Plan D operated. He argued that because of circumstances Plan D was never formally launched by a decision of the military leadership. There are no references to an implementation of it, and it is seldom mentioned in military reports or paperwork of the time. A number of actions that coincided with elements of Plan D seem to have been undertaken without conscious knowledge of the documents contents. When one looks at the actual text of the document, it becomes clear that it is no master plan, nor did it have the aim of removing all Palestinians systematically from the conquered territories: Nowhere does the document speak of a policy or desire to expel the Arab inhabitants of Palestine or of any of its constituent regions; nowhere is any brigade instructed to clear out the Arabs (Morris 2008: 121). In this interpretation Morris is joined by Gelber (2006: 303-6) and others. Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Sand
________________________ 8

For a summary and references, see Morris (2008: 116-21) and Gelber (2006:

303-6).

-20-

Finkelstein and Sand (pronounced the German way, as Zant) are not part of the NH/Zionist configuration but are part of the left-wing critics of Israel. Thus, ideologically they are in the same camp as Shlaim and Pappe. Finkelstein made his name originally as a critic of those who were promoting Holocaust consciousness with his book, The Holocaust Industry. His parents had been through Auschwitz and survived, though many of his relatives died in the Holocaust. But Finkelstein argued that many Jews were exploiting it in the mid1960s to make out Israel and the Jews as victims and to deflect criticism from Israels human rights abuses. He claims that American Jews made Holocaust a low-key affair until the US became an ally of Israel about the time of the Six Day War (he seems to begin with the premise that Holocaust should noted only in low-key way). In my experience, the Holocaust was more widely known among Americans (through such media as Leon Uriss book Exodus and the follow-up movie) than Finkelstein allows. Finkelstein has seen himself as a major supporter of Palestinian rights. His book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (2005), defends Palestinian rights, but it is primarily a reply to Alan Dershowitz. Both Finkelstein and Dershowitz have launched very personal attacks on each other (cf. Goodman 2003). Finkelstein argues that past treatment of the Jews should not be used as justification for treatment of Palestinians nor for keeping control of the West Bank. However, he did not welcome the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign which began in 2005 (a call by a couple of hundred Palestinian non-governmental organizations for sanctions against Israel in support of the Palestinian cause). Rather, in 2012 he accused it of being a hypocritical, dishonest cult with the real goal of destroying Israel. Finkelstein is in favour of the two-state solution. Sand is one of the few radicals to have an Israeli university post, but this is probably because his specialty is modern French history, and he has written little on Israeli or Zionist history. His recent Invention of the Jewish People has sold very well in Israel as well as the English-speaking world but has also attracted a huge amount of criticism. The reason is that the thesis of his book is that the idea of the Jewish nation and even Jewish identity is a modern invention. He claims that a large number of Jews in the Roman empire arose through conversion; likewise, the bulk of European Jews originated as converts of the Khazar kingdom (ironically, precisely an argument used in some anti-Semitic quarters). He further concludes that the descendents of the ancient Jews of Palestine are the modern Palestinians. The question of ethnic identity is one much discussed at the moment, but this has not generally been to discount that the Jews had an identity as a people (or an ethnos in the Greco-

-21Roman world). Sand admits that he is dealing with an area outside his area of competence, and those of us who specialize in the history of the ancient Jews find seriously weak arguments in his book. The question of the Khazars is outside my area of knowledge, though it has been critiqued as problematic (Shapira 2009). Some specialists have argued that there may have large numbers of converts in the Roman empire, but that is controversial. The problem is that estimating the number of Jews at the time is difficult. Also, many argue that little conversion took place at the time. From the mid-second century CE, Roman law actually forbade conversion because it outlawed circumcision for non-Jews. As Martin Goodman, a historian of Rome and Jews under the Romans, Roman sources refer to the Jews as a natio, a nation (Goodman 2010). Some Conclusions The Israeli-Palestinian confrontation is a fraught situation into which history has been drawn in as a weapon on both sides. The first generation of Israelis had participated in the 1948 war of independence, and various national myths grew up, as one might expect, which were reflected in the writings and memoirs of participants in the events. The work of the NH in debunking a number of these myths is precisely the sort of revisionism exemplified in other areas of historicl research. Penslar (1995) brings in examples from the US and Eastern Europe that show a very similar pattern. Penslar also quotes the political scientist Pierre Birnbaum to show that the pattern in states with a strong public sector and close connections between research institutions and the government (like Israel, France, and Germany) is for historians to support the state in their writings. On the other hand, in states (like the USA) with a decentralized educational structure, there is a more persistent tradition of critical and anti-establishment positions. There were external factors (such as the 1973 Yom Kippur war) and the general maturation of Israeli society that created the context for the debunking work of the NH. The question is whether the rejection of the Zionist myths has not been replaced by Palestinian myths by some of the NH. Here is where my historians nose starts to twitch. Like most working historians, I accept the value of some of postmodernisms insights, but I reject its radical relativism. The case for this position is well summed up in the book, In Defence of History (1997), by the Cambridge professor of modern history Richard Evans. I believe there is such a thing as historical truth independent of the observer and the researcher. I reject the view that ones historical research can be harnessed as a support for political activism. Of course, we all bring history into our rationale for our political views, but politics should be abandoned at the door of the study where historical research is done.

-22Naturally, this represents an ideal, and critical scholarship has long taught us (long before postmodernism) that we are all subjective fallible humans. We can strive for the academic ideal, and some do it better than others, but we all fall short. What looks to one researcher as common sense might look to his or her peers as blatant prejudice. This is why the historical debating arena is so important. We must argue for our views, and they must be open to criticism by our peers. We must given evidence and make clear the data on which conclusions are based. In my view, whatever one thinks of Benny Morriss political views (which many find abhorrent), he seems to be the best historian of those surveyed in this paper. Interestingly, though, the next best is probably Michael Oren who is not a NH, followed perhaps by Yoav Gelber who is also not a NH. On the other hand, while Shlaim and Pappe and others have done some good work in the past, I think they have allowed their writings to be permeated by their political views. Some will no doubt agree with their political views, and there is no reason why they should not lay them out in their publications. But it seems that they have ceased to make the effort to do properly balanced historical research. One may have sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians, but the historical criticisms of the Zionist enterprise are equally valid, mutatis mutandis, for the Palestinian endeavour. As Gershom Gorenberg asks, If a collective, politicized narrative obstructs Israelis view of their past, why is building such a narrative positive for Palestinians? If fragmentary testimony helps us understand how Palestinians experience 1948 and how memory changes over time, might not Israeli testimony have the same value? (Gorenberg 2007). Or, to use the English proverb, Whats sauce for the goose . . .!

Bibliography

Avineri, Shlomo (2007) Post-Zionism Doesnt Exist, Haaretz; www.haaretz.com (accessed 4 March 2012. Bar-On, Mordechai (ed.) (2004) Never-Ending Conflict: A Guide to Israeli Military History (Praeger Series on Jewish and Israeli Studies; Westport, CT: Praeger). Bar-On, Mordechai (2006) Conflicting Narratives or Narratives of a Conflict: Can the Zionist and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War be Bridged? in Robert I. Rotberg (ed.), Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History's Double Helix (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies; Bloomington: University of Indiana) 142-73. Bar-On, Mordechai, Benny Morris, and Motti Golani (2002) Reassessing Israels Road to Sinai/Suez, 1956: A Trialogue, in Laura Zittrain Eisenberg, et al. (eds.) (2002)

-23Traditions and Transitions in Israel Studies: Books on Israel VI (SUNY Series in Israeli Studies; Albany, NY: State University of New York Press) 3-42. Beinin, Joel (1998) Review of Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History, Middle East Journal 52: 448-50. Beinin, Joel (2004) No More Tears: Benny Morris and the Road Back from Liberal Zionism, Middle East Research and Information Project, MER 230 (spring 2004); www.merip.org (accessed 12 February 2012). Beinin, Joel (2005) Forgetfulness for Memory: The Limits of the New Israeli History, Journal of Palestine Studies 34: 6-23. ben David, Mikhayah (2010), The New, New Historiography: Responses to Benny Morris $ (Hashlamah); www.hashlamah.org (accessed and the Charge of Orientalism, !"# 25 May 2011). Black , Ian (2007) Divided Loyalties [review of three books, including Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine], The Guardian (Saturday 17 February 2007). Carey, Roane (2008) The Historian and the Twisted Politics of Expulsion: Dr. Benny and Mr. Morris, CounterPunch; www.counterpunch.org (accessed 25 February 2012). Derfner, Larry (1999) Pappe Debates 1948 with Major Zionist Historian [debate between Yoav Gelber and Ilan Pappe], The Jerusalem Post (15 October 1999); http://israelleft.com (accessed 19 February 2012). Eisenberg, Laura Zittrain, et al. (eds.) (2002) Traditions and Transitions in Israel Studies: Books on Israel VI (SUNY Series in Israeli Studies; Albany, NY: State University of New York Press). Evans, Richard J. (1997) In Defence of History (London: Granta Books). Finkelstein, Norman (1991) Myths, Old and New, Journal of Palestine Studies 21/1: 66-89 Finkelstein, Norman (1992) Rejoinder to Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies 21/2: 61-71. Finkelstein, Norman (1993) Review of Anita Shapira, Land and Power, Arab Studies Quarterly 15/3 (Summer 1993). Frantzman, Seth J. (2008) Review of Ilan Peppe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2008); www.meforum.org (accessed 8 February 2012). Fuchs, Ilan (2012) Old v. New? On Historiography and Israeli History [review of Yoav Gelber, Nation and History], H-Net Reviews in the Humanities and Social Sciences; www.h-net.org (accessed 19 February 2012). Gabriel (2008) 1948 by Benny Morris, Handful of Sand; www.handfulofsand.com/blog/ (accessed 23 February 2012). Gelber, Yoav (2006) Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem (Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press). Goodman, Amy (2003) Interview between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz, Democracy Now! (24 February 2003); www.democracynow.org (accessed 12

-24December 2010). Goodman, Martin (2010) Secta and Natio [review of Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People], The Times Literary Supplement (26 February 2010). Gorenberg, Gershom (2007) Memory Serves: Two Books Look at Oral Testimony and Israel in 1948, Bookforum; www.bookforum.com (accessed 4 March 2012). Grabbe, Lester L. (2004) A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (London/New York: T & T Clark International, 2004) xxi + 471 pp. ISBN 0-567-08998-3. Grabbe, Lester L. (2007) Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (London/New York: T & T Clark International, 2007), pp. xx + 306. ISBN 978-0567-03254-6. Grabbe, Lester (2008) A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period 2: The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE) (Library of Second Temple Studies 68; London/New York: T & T Clark International, 2008), xxi + 434 pp. ISBN-10: 0-567-03396-1; ISBN-13: 978-0-567-03396-3. Higton, Tony (2008) Review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, Prayer for Peace; www.prayerforpeace.org.uk (accessed 7 March 2012). Hirsch, Michael Ben-Josef (2007) From Taboo to the Negotiable: The Israeli New Historians and the Changing Representation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Perspectives on Politics 5: 241-58. Iancu, Carol (2003) From the Science of Judaism to the New Israeli Historians: Landmarks for a History of Jewish Historiography, Studia Hebraica I [University of Bucharest]; http://ebooks.unibuc.ro (accessed 15 February 2012). Israeli, Raphael (2008) Alice in Ethnic Cleansing Land [review of Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine], Jewish Political Studies Review 20/3-4 (Fall 2008); www.jcpa.org (accessed 8 February 2012). Isseroff, Ami (2008a) Book Review: Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log (30 October 2008); www.zionism-israel.com (accessed 25 May 2011). Isseroff, Ami (2008b) Benny Morris: 1948--A Book That Can Make a Difference, Mideast Web for Coexistence (16 November 2008); www.mideastweb.org (accessed 12 February 2012). Karsh, Efraim (1996) Historical Fictions, Middle East Quarterly (September 1996) 55-60; available at www.meforum.org (accessed 9 February 2012). Karsh, Efraim (1997) The New Israeli Historians? [exchange in Letters to the Editor between Karsh and Ian Lustick] Survival 39 (1997) 156-66; available at www.polisci.upenn.edu (accessed 3 March 2012). Karsh, Efraim (1998) Letters [exchange between Karsh and Benny Morris], Journal of Palestine Studies 27/4 (Summer 1998) 199-203.

-25Karsh, Efraim (1999) Benny Morris and the Reign of Error, Middle East Quarterly (March 1999) 15-28; available at www.meforum.org (accessed 9 February 2012). Karsh, Efraim (2002) The Unbearable Lightness of my Critics, Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2002) 63-73; available at www.meforum.org (accessed 9 February 2012). Karsh, Efraim (2003) Revisiting Israels Original Sin: The Strange Case of Benny Morris, Commentary 116: 46-50. Karsh, Efraim (2005) Benny Morriss Reign of Error, Revisited: The Post-Zionist Critique, Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2005) 31-42; available at www.meforum.org (accessed 9 February 2012). Karsh, Efraim (2011a) Israels Human Chameleon Strikes Again, American Thinker (10 July 2011); available at www.meforum.org (accessed 9 February 2012).2 Karsh, Efraim (2011b) A Chameleon, Nevertheless, American Thinker (24 July 2011); available at www.meforum.org (accessed 9 February 2012). Kashti, Or (2009) Israel Pulls Textbook with Chapter on Nakba, Haaretz (19 October 2009); available on www.haaretz.com (accessed 1 March 2012). Kimmerling, Baruch (1995) Academic History Caught in the Cross-Fire: The Case of IsraeliJewish Historiography, History and Memory 7: 41-65. Kimmerling, Baruch (1983) Zionism and Territory: The Socioterritorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies). Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal (1993) Palestinians: The Making of a People (New York: Free Press); issued in an expanded edition with slightly different title: Kimmerling, Baruch, and Joel S. Migdal (2003) The Palestinian People: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Lamm, Amira (2010) Interview with Benny Morris with regard to his book, 1948 [excerpts from the full interview in Yediot Aharonot (14 May 2010), transl. Jonathan Adam Silverman], The Middle East Quarterly (Summer 2010): 63-69; www.meforum.org (accessed 12 February 2012). Landes, Richard (2009) Was 1948 a Jihad? Gelber Reviews Morris, The Augean Stables; www.theaugeanstables.com (accessed 19 February 2012); excerpts from a review, The Jihad That Wasnt [Benny Morris, 1948] by Yoav Gelber that appeared in Azure no.34 (2008). Lustick, Ian S. (1997a) Israeli History: Who Is Fabricating What? [review of Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History], Survival 39 (1997) 156-66; available at www.polisci.upenn.edu (accessed 3 March 2012). Lustick, Ian S. (1997b) The New Israeli Historians? [exchange in Letters to the Editor between Lustick and Efraim Karsh] Survival 39 (1997) 156-66; available at www.polisci.upenn.edu (accessed 3 March 2012). Masalha, Nur (1991) A Critique of Benny Morris, Journal of Palestine Studies 21/1: 90-97.

-26Morris, Benny (1988a) The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1948 (Cambridge University Press); revised version (2003) The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge University Press). Morris, Benny (1988b) The New Historiography: Israel Confronts its Past, Tikkun (November-December 1988) 19-23, 99-102; reprinted in Benny Morris (ed.) (2007) Making Israel (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press) 11-28. Morris, Benny (1990) 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Morris, Benny (1991) Response to Finkelstein and Masalha, Journal of Palestine Studies 21: 98-114. Morris, Benny (1994) How Zionist Leaders Doctored Historical Documents about Plans for Mass Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, Haaretz (4 February 1994); available at http://abbc6.com (accessed 3 March 2012). Morris, Benny (1995) Falsifying the Record: A Fresh Look at Zionist Documentation of 1948, Journal of Palestine Studies 24: 44-62. Morris, Benny (1998a) Refabricating 1948 [review of Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History], Journal of Palestine Studies 27: 81-95. Morris, Benny (1998b) Letters [exchange between Efraim Karsh and Morris], Journal of Palestine Studies 27: 199-203. Morris, Benny (2000) Review of Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall, Journal of Palestine Studies 29: 109-11. Morris, Benny (2001) Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 (New York: Vintage Books). Morris, Benny (2004a) The Tantura Massacre Affair, The Jerusalem Report (4 February 2004) 18-22; www.jrep.com (accessed 23 February 2012). Morris, Benny (2004b) Politics by Other Means, New Republic (22 March 2004); www.tnr.com (accessed 12 February 2012). Morris, Benny (ed.) (2007) Making Israel (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press). Morris, Benny (2008) 1948: A History of the First Arab Israeli War (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Morris, Benny (2009a) One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Morris, Benny (2009b) Derisionist History [review of Avi Shlaim, Israel and Palestine], The New Republic (28 November 2009); www.tnr.com (accessed 13 February 2012). Morris, Benny (2010) Revisionism on the West Bank [review of Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed], National Interest 108 (July/August 2010): 73-81. Morris, Benny (2011a) The Liar as Hero, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East no. 7814 (21 March 2011); spme.net (accessed 9 February 2012). Morris, Benny (2011b) My Response to Efraim Karsh, American Thinker (17 July 2011); www.americanthinker.com (accessed 9 February 2012).

-27Morris, Benny (2011c) Response to Efraim Karsh, American Thinker (31 July 2011); www.americanthinker.com (accessed 9 February 2012). Muir, Diana (2008) A Land without a People for a People without a Land, Middle Eastern Quarterly 15/2 (Spring 2008): 55-62. Nets-Zehngut, Rafi, and Daniel Bar-Tal (2008) The Israeli-Jewish Collective Memory of the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian Conflict (Data) (published 6 April 2009); available on the Teachers College, Columbia University, website: www.tc.edu (accessed 1 March 2012). Oren, Michael B. (2002) Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Oxford University Press). Oren, Michael B. (2007) Who Started It? [review of Tom Segev, 1967], Washington Post (10 June 2007); available at www.washingtonpost.com (accessed 13 February 2012). Ottman, E. T. (2008) A Question of Historiography: the New Historians of Israel, Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies 7: 55-67. Pappe, Ilan (1988) Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-51 (New York/Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmillan). Pappe, Ilan (2004) Response to Benny Morris Politics by Other Means in the New Republic, The Electronic Intifada (30 March 2004); http://electronicintifada.net (accessed 9 February 2012). Pappe, Ilan (2010) Out of the Frame: The Struggle for Academic Freedom in Israel (London: Pluto Press). Peled-Elhanan, Nurit (2012) Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education (Library of Modern Middle East Studies; London: L.B. Tauris). Penslar, Derek Jonathan (1995) Innovation and Revisionism in Israeli Historiography, History and Memory 7/1 (Spring-Summer 1995) 125-46. Pollak, Steve (2008) Review of Benny Morris, 1948, Jewish Literary Review (16 June 2008); www.jewishliteraryreview.com (accessed 12 February 2012). Rabin, Yitzhak (1996) The Rabin Memoirs (Expanded Edition with new photographs, speeches, and an Afterword by Yoram Peri; transl. Dov Goldstein; Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press). Rabinovich, Abraham (2008) Jihad, 1948, The Jerusalem Post (7 May 2008); www.jpost.com (accessed 22 February 2012). Rabinovich, Itamar (2011) Palestine Portrayed [review of Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed], Jewish Review of Books; www.jewishreviewofbooks.com (accessed 19 February 2012). Ram, Uri (2008) Arab-Israeli Conflict [review of Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine], Middle East Journal 62: 150-52. Rapaport, Miron (2005) Avi Shlaim: No Peaceful Solution, Haaretz (13 November 2005); available from www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org (accessed 1 March 2012).

-28Romano, Carlin (2008) Israel at 60, Chronicle of Higher Education , vol. 54, issue 36 (16 May 2008): B6-B7. Rotberg, Robert I. (ed.) (2006) Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History's Double Helix (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies; Bloomington: University of Indiana). Rubner, Michael (2012) Review of Avi Shlaim, Israel and Palestine, Middle East Policy Council; http://mepc.org (accessed 22 February 2012). Sand, Shlomo (2009) The Invention of the Jewish People (transl. Yael Lotan; London/New York: Verso). Segev, Tom (2000a) One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate (transl. Haim Watzman; London: Abacus). Segev, Tom (2000b) The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (2nd ed.; transl. Haim Watzman; New York: Owl Books). Segev, Tom (2007) 1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East (transl. Jessica Cohen; New York/London: Abacus). Segev, Tom (2010) 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War by Benny Morris--A War of Necessity [transl. Dena Shunra], Tikun Olam (19 July 2010); www.richardsilverstein.com (accessed 9 February 2012). Sela, Avraham (1992) Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War: Myth, Historiography and Reality, Middle Eastern Studies 28/ 4 (October 1992) 623-88. Shapira, Anita (1992) Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Studies in Jewish History; transl. William Templer; Oxford University Press). Shapira, Anita (1995) Politics and Collective Memory: The Debate over the New Historians in Israel, History and Memory 7: 9-40. Shapira, Anita (1999) The Past Is Not a Foreign Country: The Failure of Israels New Historians to Explain War and Peace, New Republic (29 November 1999) 26-36. Shapira, Anita (2009) The Jewish-People Deniers [review of Shlomo Sand, Hebrew edition of The Invention of the Jewish People], Journal of Israeli History 28: 63-72. Shavit, Ari (2004) Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris, HaAretz Friday Magazine (9 January 2004); available at www.logosjournal.com (accessed 12 February 2012). Sherwood, Harriet (2011) Academic Claims Israeli School Textbooks Contain Bias, Observer (7 August 2011); available on www.guaridan.c.uk (accessed 1 March 2012). Shlaim, Avi (1988) Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of Palestine (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Shlaim, Avi (2000) The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (London: Allen Lane) Shlaim, Avi (2007) The Debate about 1948, in Benny Morris (ed.) (2007) Making Israel (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press) 124-46. Shlaim, Avi (2008) No Sentiments in War [review of Benny Morris, 1948], The Guardian

-29(31 May 2008); www.guardian.co.uk (accessed 12 February 2012). Shlaim, Avi (2009a) Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations (London/New York: Verso). Shlaim, Avi (2009b) Israels New History and the Palestinians, Open Democracy (4 November 2009); www.opendemocracy.net (accessed 13 February 2012). Silberstein, Laurence J. (1999) The Postzionism Debates: Knowledge and Power in Israeli Culture (New York/London: Routledge). Smith, Charles D. (2002) Review of Yoav Gelber, 1948, Middle East Studies 34: 756-57. Smith, Charles D. (2008) Arab-Israeli Conflict [review of Benny Morris, 1948], Middle East Journal 62: 708-10. Stein, Rebecca Luna (1996) The Limits of Revisionist Imagination, Demographic, Environmental, and Security Issues Project no. 198, vol. 26/1 (Jan/March 1996); http://desip.igc.org (accessed 11 February 2012). Zerubavel, Yael (1995) Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition