Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians: Part I: The Academic Debate

Author(s): Ilan Pappe

Reviewed work(s):
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: 14/12/2011 09:52
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 support@jstor.org.

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

POST-ZIONIST CRITIQUE ON ISRAEL

AND THE PALESTINIANS
PART I: THE ACADEMIC DEBATE
ILAN PAPPE

writers,
Thisthree-part
articledescribeschangesin howIsraelis-scholars,
poets,filmmakers,and otherson Israel'sculturalscene-viewthemselves
" Part I presentsthescholarlydebateon Israel'spast and
and the "Other.
of thecultural
for thetransformation
presentthatlaid thegroundwork
discoursedescribedin thesecondand thirdparts. Thedebate,launched
by newfindingsin theIsraeli archivesand encouragedby an ideology
criticalof Zionism,also was influencedby sociopoliticaland economic
changesin Israelisocietyin thewake oftheOctober1973 war. Te varicritique-thechallengeby the "newhistorious aspectsof thepost-Zionist
but
not onlyof theZionistinterpretation
ans" and "criticalsociologists"
also of theroleofIsraeli academia in providingthescholarlyunderpinexamined.
ningsof thisinterpretation-are
have become thevenue fora lively
DURING THE LAST DECADE, Israeliuniversities
debateon Israelihistory
to
and sociology.Lately,
thedebatehas been transferred
the public arena througharticlesin the mainstream
press and even has been
treatedin the broadcastmass media.Moreover,a look at otherculturalarenas
and mediarevealsthatthedebatehas extendedbeyondacademiaintotheartsofthisdebateis the
The mostobviouscharacteristic
films,poetry,and literature.
willingnessof a considerablenumberof IsraeliJewsto reassessthe way the
"Arab"is perceivedand treatedin past and presentIsrael.It should be menanyonebeyondthe"chattering
tioned,however,thatthedebatehas notattracted
and writingclasses" of Israelisociety;it is an elitistexercise,albeitwithwide
forthesocietyas a whole.
implications
The academicdebatein IsraelaboutZionismbegan in the1980swiththeapimagesofpastand present
pearanceofa numberofscholarlyworkspresenting
at odds withthe Israelipublic's
Jewishsocietyin Palestinethatwere strongly
self-imageand collectivememory.The works challengedthe most sacred
"truths"
of Zionismand questionedtheirvalidity
forthepresentgeneration.
The
theroleplayedbythecountry's
authorsoftheseworksalso criticized
academic
in shapingtheZionistself-image
ofthe
institutions
and theZionistinterpretation
Palestinereality.Directlyand indirectly,
theydeconstluctedtheworksof those

ILAN PAPPE, professor

of politicalscience at HaifaUniversity
and academichead of the
Institute
forPeace ResearchGivatHaviva,is theauthorof TheMakingoftheArab-Israeli

Conflict,194 7-1951, among other works.

JournalofPalestineStudiesXXVI, no. 2 (Winter1997),pp. 29-41.

30

JOURNAL
OF PALESr1NE STUDIES

and contemporary
on Palestine'shistory
who dominatedIsraeliacademicwriting
Jewishsociety.
These scholarshave been in thepublicconsciousnesslong enoughto be regardedas a culturalphenomenonin Israel.The local presscalls themthe"postas thisis a
Zionist"scholars,a termnotall ofthesescholarsaccept.1Nonetheless,
theessenceofwhattheyare doing,we shallapply
handyconceptfordescribing
it broadlyin thisarticlenot onlyto all thosewho have revisedor criticizedthe
in Israelbutalso to artists,
Zionistacademiccommunity
workofthemainstream
novelists,and othersusinga new culturaldiscourse.
notionsand a postmodernist
is a hybridofanti-Zionist
The termpost-Zionism
Ziontermthatgroupstogether
Ithas becomea convenient
perceptionofreality.
istand anti-Zionist
Jewsin Israeliacademiaand politics.In thescholarlyworld,
Among
the termsanti-Zionistand Zionist are largelya matterof self-definition:

thisgroup,theworksof thosewho declarethemselvesZionistare generallyas

towardZionismas thoseofauthorsopenlycallingthemselvesantiantagonistic
scholarsor "newhistorians"
to notethatthe"post-Zionist"
Zionist.Itis important
or "newsociologists"are notthefirst
to challengetheZionistversionof Israel's
however,were mostlyon theleft,members
past and present.Theirprecursors,
ofthecommunist
groupssuch as MAPAM.The ideologicalorienpartyor fringe
or sociolotationoftheselast,coupledwiththefactthattheywerenothistorians
forexample,are
gistsby profession(Israel Shahakand BennyBeit-Hallahmi,
and psychology,
made it easy to dismiss
respectively),
professorsof chemistry
theirfindings
as mereclaimsofpoliticalactivists
beyondthepale ofthenational
as scholars
the "newhistorians"
and "new sociologists,"
consensus.In contrast,
academiato researchand teachthecountry's
past,werethe
accreditedbyofficial
fromwithinthesystem.
to challengetheconventional
thinking
first
As forthe"postmodernist"
partof theequation,itderivesfromthetendency
amongsome of thegroupto view thepresentsituationin Israelas a phase in
whichmostof the Zionisttruthshave collapsed but thereis no sign of what
discourse,theyhave deconwouldreplacethem.Thus,to borrowpostmodernist
it.Some of thesescholarsbestructedtherealitybutare unable to reconstruct
come more confidentabout the futurewhen theyenvisagethe creationof an
Israeliratherthana Jewishstate:a stateforall itscitizens.Most,however,confine
warbetweenthevarious
to a longciviland cultural
theirassessmentofthefuture
componentspolarizingand composingIsraelisociety.
thepostmodernist
critiqueappearedonlyafterthedebateon
Chronologically,
in natureand did
the1948war had erupted-a debatethatwas purelypositivist
discussion.Hence,we begin
or theoretical
notinvolveanyseriousmetahistorical
of the1948war.
our surveywiththe "newhistory"
THE POSITIVIST CHALLENGE: THE "NEW HISTORLANSw

in Israelcontinuesto subscribeto an imMainstream

Zionisthistoriography
The
possible combinationof positivistand ideologicalapproachesto history:
ofthe
are employedto provethemoralvalidity
facts,based on archivalmaterial,

POST-ZIONIST CRMIQUE

31

the counZionistclaims.The positivist

approachmeans thatthoseresearching
try'spastand presentignoremethodological
or theoretical
questionsthatmight
affect
theirconfidencein thescientific
truth
ofZionism.Moreover,theirresearch
is pureeliteanalysis-thedeeds oftheeliteare documentedin thearchivesand
theirversionof eventsis takenas an objectiveand truthful
descriptionof fact.
This mixtureof ideologicalparadigm,scholarlyethnocentricity,
and empirical
bookkeepingdid notbeginto be challengeduntilthe1970swiththerevisionist
historiography
ofthe1948war,thememoryofwhichstillshapestheIsraeliselfimageand nationalmyths.
Beforethe appearanceof thenew works,the 1948 war and the Mandatory
period as a whole were treatedexclusivelywithinthe university
departments
teachingZionisthistory.
Forthesedepartments,
theeventsof 1948were theculmination
oftheteleologicalprocessofredemption
and renaissanceoftheJewish
people. The role of thehistorian
was limitedto reconstructing
thismiraclethat
had begunwiththeawakeningofthenationalmovement
inthe1880sand ended
withthe 1948 "warof liberation"
againsttheBritish.
It shouldbe notedthatthe
Israeliterminology
ofthewaris constructed
carefully
so as to conferupon Zionism the equivalentstatusof a thirdworldliberationmovement-hencea war
againstthe Arabscannotbe mentionedin thiscontext.Indeed,the two terms
used forthe 1948 war do notindicateanydirectconflict
withtheArabs:"indefromtheyokeoftheDiaspendence"fromtheBritish
(Azma'ut) and "liberation"
pora (Shihrur).
Thisdoes notmean,ofcourse,thatthe"Arabs"do notappearin Zionisthistoriography
ofthe1948war.Whenthestoryofthe1948warortheprecedingyears
of theMandateis told,researched,or taught,
theArabside is mentionedas yet
the
anotherhardshipwithwhichtheJewshad to cope. The messagethroughout
storyis clear:The Jewsin Palestinewon againstall odds. The imbalancethey
describebetweenthefewJewsand themanyArabswas neverso clearas in 1948
ofmanyHolocaust
when,accordingto theirversion,thecommunity,
consisting
survivors
who could barelyfight,
was facedwitha hostileBritishgovernment
and a unitedArab world preparingfora war of annihilation.
The victoryas
presentedin thetraditional
historiography
was miraculousand was won thanks
to the ingenuity
of David Ben-Gurionand the heroismof the soldierson the
ground.The historians
were leftwiththetaskof recreating
thisheroismon the
battlefieldwhile analyzingthe tacticaldecisions taken at that and other
junctures.2

The taskof describing

and analyzingtheArabside ofthestorywas entrusted
to theIsraeliorientalist
On thewholetheorientalist
scholarswere
establishment.
moreneutralin theirresearchthantheircolleaguesin the"Jewish
departments,"
butmostofthemseemednotto be interested
in thePalestinians
or the1948war.
Eventhemostprominent
amongthem,YehoshuaPorath,who providedthefirst
neverwrote about 1948; while he
balanced Israeliview of the Palestinians,
in hisnext
and sympathy
minedthearchivesuntiltheyear1939,he lostinterest
who did writeaboutthe 1948war
academicworks.3The fewIsraeliorientalists
avoideddealingwiththenakba as a humanor nationaltragedyand showed no

32

JOURNAL
OF PALESTE

STUDIES

understanding
of itssignificance
forthePalestinianside.4Instead,theyfocused
in theArabworldoutsidePalestine
on the politicaland military
maneuvering
of orientalists
beforeand afterthewar.Similarly,
whenmorerecentgenerations
dealtwiththePLO,theydid not(withthenotableexceptionofMosheShemesh)
take1948as a starting
of 1948were erasedfromtheacapoint.The Palestinians
demicscene in Israel.5
The absenceofthePalestinian
tragedyfromtheIsraelihistorical
accountwas
indicative
ofa moregeneralIsraeliorientalist
viewof
view.The historiographical
thePalestinians
up to the1980swas monolithic
and based on stereotyping.
The
local populationin thelateOttomanperiodwas mentionedonlyin passingas a
marginalcomponentin thegeographicalpanoramaof thepromisedand empty
landwaitingto be redeemed.From1948until1967,thePalestinians
mostlywere
ignoredas an academicsubjectmatter:
hereand theretheywere mentionedas
refugees.Since 1967,theyhave been depictedas terrorists
and a threat,
though
notan existential
one. Buteven in thisportrayal,
thePalestinians
have notbeen
grantedan independentrole,beingshowninsteadas pawns withinan all-Arab
conspiracyto annihilate
theJewishstate.Therewas a reasonforthis:Recognition
ofan independent(even ifsmalland weak) nationalgroupfighting
foritsrights
would contradict
the Zionistself-image
of underdogor theZionistmythof the
"fewwho had miraculously
beatenthemany."The heroicZioniststoryof 1948
also would be in gravedangerifanotherZionistclaim-thatthePalestinians
fled
and did not fight-wereto be integrated
intoit.If the Palestiniansranwithout
fighting,
thenwhatwas so heroicabout1948?Andevenifthestorytoldis notof
Palestinianheroism,itstillwould be one ofPalestinian
tragedy.
The bestway to
deal withthispredicament,
academically,
was simplynotto deal withthePalestinianside of thestoryand,ifpossible,notto deal with1948 at all.
The first
notablechangein thissituation
occurredwllensome Israeliacademics became willingto treat1948 as a subjectmatter,
analyzingbothsides of the
storyand notshrinking
fromviewingcritically
thebehaviorof all concernedin
theconflict.
The resultwas a historiographical
pictureverydifferent
fromtheone
thatcontinuesto be conveyedin theeducationaland culturalsystemsin Israel.
The new pictureadoptsmajorchaptersin thePalestinian
historiographical
narrative,butalso adds elementsof itsown.
The new portrayal
was made possiblebytheopeningofthearchivesdealing
withthe1948warfollowingthethirty-year
in Israel,Britruleofdeclassification
ain, and the UnitedStates.But thescholarswho delved intothe archivesalso
were guidedby a post-Zionist
ideologyand perception.In Israel,theresearch
tookplace in thedecade followingthe1978declassification-in
otherwords,it
tookplace duringtheLebanonwar and theintifada.
Indeed,thenonconsensual
war in Lebanonand thePalestinianuprisingcreateda clear-cutdistinction
between Israel's peace-orientated
camp and the insularexpansionist"national"
camp (as theLikudhas defineditspoliticalbloc). Thus,thescholarswho went
throughthe newlydeclassifiedmaterialdid so aftertheirconfidencein their
country'sconductalreadyhad been shaken.

Posr-ZIoNLSTCRITIQUE

33

diaMoreover,the intifadaopened a new chapterin the Israeli-Palestinian

as thismaysound,thisdialogue
logue,conductedmainlybyscholars.Surprising
acquaintedmostof the Israelischolarswritingabout theircountry'spast who
versionoftheir
were notconnectedto radicalpoliticalgroupswiththehistorical
forthefirsttime.For manyof them,thisenPalestinianacademiccounterparts
counterbroughtthe firstrecognitionof the scholarly
sa~ doas
hadbeenregarded
as sheerprop- Frmn
merit
ofwhathitherto
aganda. Unpleasantand at timesshockingchaptersin
N
were exposed. Above all,br.
the Israelihistoricalnarrative
f
Israelischolarsbecame aware ofthebasic contradiction r
f
betweenZionistnationalambitionsand theirimplemena w
4d
tationat theexpenseofthelocal populationin Palestine. ,
ofa clearnationalsense ofidenFinally,thearticulation
who playeda crucial
tityamongtheIsraeliPalestinians,
helped to
role in reminding
the public of the existenceof a counternarrative,
In
cases, the
academia
as
well.
some
of
Israeli
agenda
shape the "post-Zionist"
of theotherside of thestory,to thepointeven of adoptingitas the
recognition
trueside of thestory,was theresultof a certainideologicalstance;in othersit
approachto hismultinarrative
was theconsequencesofadoptinga postmodern
in
tory,and stillothersitwas both.
aftera termcoinedby
The challengers
becameknownas the"newhistorians"
in
Butthisterm,borrowedfromthe"new history"
one of them,BennyMorris.6
in Europewas an interdisciplinary
Europe,was misleading.The "new history"
in a widersocialand noneliteperspeceffort
to place diplomaticand elitehistory
in contrast,
dealtonlywitheliteanalysisofpolitive.The Israeli"newhistorians,"
tics and, like their mainstreampredecessors, adhered to a positivist
For thisreason,theymoreaptlyshouldbe describedas revisionmethodology.
on the
schoolintheAmericanhistoriography
ists,in themanneroftherevisionist
cold war.
underminethe Zionist
Taken together,the works of the "new historians"
on
in Palestinewas in dangerof annihilation
claimthattheJewishcommunity
Arabworldunableto
theeve ofthe1948war.The worksdescribea fragmented
Palestiniangroups in theirbattlefor postsupportthe inferiorparamilitary
MandatoryPalestine.They show how, when the ArabLeague eventuallysent
on 14 May1948,theywerenotmorenumerousthanthe
forcesto thebattlefield
in theiropinferior
Israelitroopsand also were poorlytrainedand considerably
factor
thatan important
erationalcapabilitieson theground.7Theydemonstrate
the
was thetacitunderstanding
explainingtheJewishsuccess on thebattlefield
in
return
for
their
the
Hashimites,
whereby
JewishAgencyhad withTransjordan
promisenotto entertheJewishstate,were allowedto takeovertheWestBank
withouta singleshotbeingfired.8
Jewishsuccess on the diplomaticfrontwas
attributed
to a rarecooperationbetweenthetwowarringsuperpowersin 1947,
theZionistcause againstthePalestinwitheach foritsown reasonssupporting
ian. Generallyspeaking,theZionistssucceededin persuadinglargesegmentsof
worldpublicopinionto linktheZionistcause withtheHolocaust.Againstsucha

34

JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

diplomats-andtherewerenotmanyin thosedaysclaim,even able Palestinian

hardlycould win the diplomaticgame. Britain,forits part,joined the general
global trend,and in February1948even decidedto supporta Jewish-Hashimite
Palestinebetweenthemselves
at theexto dividepost-Mandatory
understanding
pense of thePalestinians.9
exodus of
also challengestheIsraelimythofthevoluntary
The "newhistory"
to argue,on thebasis of
Palestinians
fromPalestine.BennyMorriswas thefirst
the newlydeclassifieddocuments,thatmanyof the Palestinianshad been exclaim,first
pelled-althoughhe did notacceptthePalestinianhistoriographical
made by WalidKhalidiin 1961,thattheexpulsionwas partof a masterplan.10
ofopinionshowsthatthereis stilla gap betweenthePalestinian
Thisdifference
and the"newhistory.""1
nationalnarrative
versionthatis absentfromthePalestinian
One chapterin the "new history"
on thepartofmostof
is theclaimthattherewas a genuinewillingness
narrative
theArabgovernments
and whatwas leftofthePalestinianleadershipto negotiover Palestineafterthewar based on Arabacceptanceof the
ate a settlement
of the refugees.Israel is
and the repatriation
1947 partitionrecommendation
country
unwillas an intransigent
and belligerent
shownbythe"newhistorians"
ingto compromiseor evengivepeace a chance(theysingleouttheforeignminforpeace
as theonlyone willingto exhausttheopportunity
ister,MosheSharret,
opened afterthewar).12
whattheybelieve
The "newhistorians"
manner,
thusdrew,in a purepositivist
towardthe
was the truenatureof the Israelibehavior,or rathermisbehavior,
in 1948.Theydrewa picturemostIsraeliswere
Arabworldand thePalestinians
not aware of,a picturethatprovokedangryreactionsfrompublicfiguresand
Israelipolicybefore1967neverbeforewas depictedas agpresscommentators.
gressive,to say nothingof being at timesbrutaland inhumanand quite often
dealtwiththeIsraeli
none ofthe"newhistorians"
Although
morallyunjustifiable.
academiain theirworks,once thedebatebecamepublictheyopenlyblamedthe
mainstream
academiaforconcealingfromthepublictheseunpleasantchapters
in thestoryof 1948.
FUNDAMENTAL

CRITIQUE

OF ZIONISM:

THE NEW SOCIOLOGISTS

The researchcarriedout duringthe1980son 1948paved theway fora more

of Zionismand itsrolein theIsraeliacademia.Moreaccufundamental
criticism
thenew research-orthepressand mediacoverageof it-made itpossirately,
ble for trendsthat in fact had begun earlier to registeron the public
consciousness.Indeed,a new readinessto look intotheessence ofZionismhad
cracksin Israel'swall of
been triggered
by the 1973war,whichcaused thefirst
in therelativecalmthat
Moreimportantly,
moralsmugnessand self-satisfaction.
fabric
and multiethnic
followedthatwar,tensionsbetweenIsrael'smulticultural
fathers
on theother
on theone handand the"melting
pot"ideal ofthefounding
and antagoundercurrents
ofdissatisfaction
came to thefore.Social and cultural
nismin Israelisocietyeruptedin theearly1970sintoa social protestagainstthe

PosT-Z7oNisr
CRmQUE

35

evils inflicted
by the stateon the deprivedJewishcommunities,
mostlyNorth
Africanin origin.Young and vociferousactiviststriedto emulatethe dissent
voiced by African
Americansand establishedin theearly1970stheirown Black
Panthermovement.
The movementrepresented
a social demandfora new and
fairerdistribution
of the economicresourcesof the countryand a sharein the
definition
ofitsculturalidentity.
The protesters
failedto movetheIsraeliLeftbut
attracted
theattention
oftheRight,
whichskillfully
manipulated
theirprotestinto
a mass movementthatbroughtMenachemBeginto power in 1977.The Israeli
Leftlostitsnaturalconstituency,
butsome ofitsadherentsin academiabegan to
delve intothemovement'scauses.
The Sephardicprotestmovementwas an internalsocial affair,
and as such it
engaged the interestof sociologists.These last not only soughtto reconstruct
Israel'searlyhistory,
butalso wereintrigued
bythetheoretical
and methodological implications
of thedevelopmentof a social protestmovementin Israel.The
Sephardicsocial protestmovementcoincidedwitha growingsense of national
confidenceamongthePalestinians
in Israel,and theircase fortified
thecases of
otherswho feltexcludedfromtheZionisthistorical
narrative
and whose chronicles had been distorted
in schools and university
curricula.
Fromthelate 1970sonward,academics,withthehelp of historical
or sociologicalresearch,represented
the causes of all thedeprivedgroupsas scientificallyvalid.Theywereless successfulas politicalagentsofchangein Israel:Their
as theyhad in theirresearch,theplightof Palestinians,
attemptto tie together,
SephardicJews,and women(as a minority
group)so as to createa jointpolitical
frontprovedto be a totalfailure.It remained,nonetheless,
a popularvisionfor
themorehopefulmembersof theacademicprotestmovement.
These developmentsmaturedafterthe 1982 Lebanonwar.The public debate about thatwar
seemed to encouragenovelists,filmmakers,playwrights,
musicians,poets,artists,and journalists
a non-Zionist
jointlyto construct
interpretation
of the past
and presentreality.
The sociologists'challenge,inspiredby global and theoretical
developments
in the humanities,
was morerelativist
and postmodernist
in nature.It reflected
thedisenchantment
characteristic
of manyWesternacademicswiththefallacies
and illusionscreatedby "enlightenment,"
and otherWesterncon"modernity,"
thetriumph
ofscienceand logicover"uncivilized"
ceptssignifying
notionsfrom
the non-Western
world.The challengershere adopted
o
the moreskepticalapproachto truthand data,particu*
truth
and
data
within
a
national
context
tm.
.e.
larly
represented
...
.. ... to
.
by the eliteand the courtacademiciansservingit.13Isl
n ha'.
raeli academia is an integralpartof Western
academia
and it thusis not surprising
thatIsraelihistoriansand
sociologistsadopted the same interdisciplinary,
skeptical,and subjectiveview
towardtheirown history.
It allowed them,as academics,to represent
thePalesside ofthestory,
muchas Americanscholtinian,theSephardic,and thefeminist
ars wishedto representthemulticultural
realityof theirown society.

36

OF PALESTINE STUDIES
JOURNAL

so to speak,were not criticalof theirpredecessors'

The "new sociologists,"
theypresented.Theyalso felttheneed to
worksolelyon thebasis of the"facts"
reassessthebasic paradigmsthesescholarsemployed.Theypointedto a contrato nationbuilding
Israelischolars'contribution
dictionbetweenthemainstream
mandateto promotepluralizedand criticalresearch.The
and the university's
Some were
"new sociologists"were a morediversegroupthanthe historians.
Probablyforthesake of convenmorerelativist,
some were moreanti-Zionist.
ience,thesociologistUriRamlabeled them"post-Zionists."14
assumptionthatcollecCommonto all thesechallengeswas theunderlying
was constructed
tivememoryofficially
throughtheeducationalsystemand the
beganto be voicedin theearly1970satHaifaUniversity,
media.Thisassumption
sociologistswere accused of employingmethodolowhereIsrael'smainstream
gies thatsuitedthe Zionistideologicalclaimson the land and theJewishpeople.15The trendcontinuedin theearly1980s,withmoreestablishedsociologists,
such as BaruchKimmerling
and YonathanShapiro,exposing,via domination
and co-optationtheories,thedictatorial
and arbitrary
natureof theJewishpolitperiod.16These workschalical systemthatdeveloped duringthe Mandatory
lenged the mythadopted by Israelihistoriansof Zionismthattheirleaders'
actionshad been motivated
socialistand liberalideologies-as stillis
byaltruistic
claimedby theleadinghistorians
of Zionismin Israeltoday.17
The mostsignificant
contribution
to thenew way of thinking,
however,was
theapplicationof a colonialistperspective
to thehistorical
studyof Zionism.In
than
this,Israel'snew sociologistscame even closerto thePalestiniannarrative
thenew historians
perspectiveallowed themto look at Zihad. The theoretical
onismas a colonialistmovement
without
beingaccusedofadoptingunvarnished
thePalestinian
discourse.18
GershonShafir
reconstructed
earlyZionism-despite
suchparticularisms
as theabsenceofa propermothercountry,
themarginalrole
and themovement's
nationaland loss considerations,
playedbycapitalist
profit
istdiscourseand motivation-asa typicalcolonialistmovementin a colonialist
era.19Othersfollowedsuit,employingtheoriesand methodologieshitherto
iga morebluntideological
and substantiated
noredby theirpeersthatsubstituted
claim.
THE NEW WAVE OF CRITICISM

Followingtheseworks,thenextwave ofscholarsoptedto deal notonlywith

and theoreticalquestions.
historyand sociologybut also withmetahistorical
but
historiography,
Therefore,
theywrotenotonlyaboutthepastand theofficial
also aboutmainstream
academia'sreactionsto the"newhistory."
Theywereimpressedby the harshnessof thereactions,and indeed,the reactionshad been
harsh.Two of themostprominent
Israelischolarscondemnedthechallengeas
Atthatstage,one
theend ofacademicdiscoursein Israelaltogether.20
signifying
can note a growing tendencyamong the "post-Zionist"scholars toward
and multicuturalist
interpretations
historiography
postmodernist
(i.e., relativist)
in Israel.The veryrecentcorpusfocuses-as indeeddoes the
ofthesocialreality

POST-ZIONIST

CRMQUE

37

a Zionisthistoriography
publicdebate-on therole ofacademiain constructing
and sociology.This new wave of scholars,who can be categorizedas deconin methodology,
aimsat exposingtherole playedby theacademic
structionist
in the nation-building
process at the expense of freedomof
establishment
texts,
Forexample,thesescholars,focusingon official
thoughtand self-criticism.
and nationalemblems,
the contentof museums,ceremonies,school curricula,
Ashkenazigroupand its
to thewayin whichthedominant
have drawnattention
narrativehas excised othersfromthe nationalmemory.2'Here, some of the
The worksexscholarsemployedEdwardSaid'scritiqueofWesternOrientalism.
discoursesused in
and historiographical
posed thesociological,anthropological,
research on "Arabs'-whetherIsraeli Palestinians,Egyptians,or Sephardic
and oriental
Jewsas one subjectmatJews.22The verygroupingofPalestinians
to
ter,as has been done by ShlomoSwirskiand SammySmooha,is contrary
Zionismand Zionistacademiaeverstood for.23
everything
thescholarly
Othersexposed theroleplayedbyIsraeliacademiain providing
basis forthisact of repressionand forservingas thescholarlytribunalthatunaxis of inclusionand exclusion.24
conditionally
had acceptedthegovernmental
Of particular
importanceis the workof UriRam,who has examinedhow the
analyzed Israeli society in the past. Ram
Israeli sociological establishment
elaborated
theoriesto fitnotionssuch as the
showed how Zionistsociologists
of theexiles"and the"melting
pot."These theories,whichcontra"ingathering
multiethnic
and multicultural
society,were
dictedtherealityofa heterogeneous
EasternEuropeanculturethat
used to crushanyoppositionto thedomineering
suchas theone broughtbyJews
directions,
mightcome fromcompetingcultural
from
Arab
countries.25
immigrating
The injectionof moraland ethicalquestionsintoscholarlyresearchon Zionof theHolocaustand its
ism and Israelopened theway fora new examination
naimpacton Israelisociety.Thisresearchso farhas been of a morepositivist
an
as
well
ideoture,sendingscholarsback to thearchives,butithas involved
logical stance thathas touchedthe most sensitivenervesof Jewishsociety.
is beingpaid to thewaythelocalJewishleadershipbehaved
Particular
attention
duringthetimeoftheHolocaust.In Tom Segev'sTheSeventhMillion,forexamin
ple, we finda local leadership,on theveryeve of theHolocaust,interested
and
were
to
or
who
physically
savingonlyJewswho were willing immigrate
In IditZartal's
to thesuccessofthecommunity.
capable ofcontributing
mentally
ofthe
FromCatastrophetoPower,we discovertheloftyand dismissiveattitude
thatwas to leave deep
and theirplight,an attitude
sabrastowardthesurvivors
scarsin thesouls of thosewho survivedtheHolocaustand got to Palestine.26
No less sensitivea subjectto be dealtwithrecentlyis Israelas a militaristic
in the
society.Althoughthereis no directcorrespondencebetweenmilitarism
nasense and theIsraelicase,27themilitaristic
conventional
Europeanhistorical
conon
the
its
actual
of
Israeli
has
influence
ture
country's
society two aspects:
duct, and the way securityconsiderationsare exploited for the sake of
discriminatory
policies.

38

JOURNAL OF PALESTNE

STUDIES

thescholarsmainlyare interested
in explainingthepresConcerningthefirst,
In orderto do so,
ent militaristic
characterof Israelas a productof itshistory.
such as BennyMorris,who had
historians
theyhad to relyheavilyon positivist
minedthemilitary
archivesofboth1948and the1950sto recordaccuratelyand
painstakingly
theaggressionand offensesof theIsraelDefenseForces.The "retaliation"policyof the 1950s(Israeliswere broughtup on the myththatIsrael
is describedby Morrisas a brutaland agneverinitiates
or provokeshostilities)
Whatone mightcall the"new political
gressiveformof Israeliexpansionism.28
meanwhile,providedanalysesin whichIsrael,farfrombeingmerely
scientists,"
Instabilactedupon in theregionalcontext,
was verymuchan actorand initiator.
notsolelyto "ArabradicalintheMiddleEastnowwereattributed
ityand conflict
butto Israeliactionsas well.29
ism"or "Arabintransigence,"
The otherside of the same coin has led bold youngscholarsto slaughter
above all." Here we meetthe new political
Israel'smostsacredcow: "security
who rejectgovernment
thatsecurity
and nationaldefense
scientists
explanations
considerations
wereresponsibleforNorthAfrican
Jewsbeingpushedto thegeoofan apartheid
graphicaland socialmarginsofthesociety,orfortheimposition
regimeon the Palestinianswho had remainedin Israel.30The policywas exAs mentioned
before,mostofthesescholarsdrew
posed as racistand nationalist.
Israelis.EdtowardSephardicJewsand Palestinian
parallelsbetweentheattitude
ward Said's Orientalisminfluencedmanyof themto treatIsraelisocietyas a
whole as an "Orientalist"
one.31
butalso
Anotherdevelopmentis a growinginterest
notonlyin thehistorical
inIsrael.Critical
in thepresentstatusofPalestinians
workson thesesubjectshave
been written
before;whatis new is boththeexpansionofthecriticalassessment
relationsin thestateand thegrowingnumberofPalestinianacaofArab-Jewish
demicsin Israelwillingto addresstheseissues.In the past,giventhe general
in
itmusthaveseemedsaferto thefewPalestinians
towardPalestinians,
attitude
subjectsas recentPalestinianhisacademia not to approachsuch problematic
thatthenumberofPalestinians
teachingin Israeliuniversitory.(Itis noteworthy
staff
membersoutofninehundred).32
tiesis stillverysmall,no morethantwenty
The recentwave has been even less acceptableto themainstream
academia
ofthe"newhistorians."
ofthe
thanthepositivist
Indeed,thefindings
revisionism
latter,particularly
(and in a way exclusively)of BennyMorris,eventuallyeven
he
The neutralterminology
were acceptedby a growingnumberof historians.
used (such as the 1948 war,expulsion,and so on) has been absorbedintothe
to Israel'soriginalsin was
publicdiscourseon 1948.His moregeneralreference
and
less acceptable.33
theexposureofIsraeliacademiato pluralism
Nonetheless,
an academicdebateon theessence of Zionism,
multiculturalism
is legitimizing
carrying
permissibledebate beyondthefocuson thesingle(albeitcrucialand
in thecountry's
formative
history)chapterof 1948.
the
to discusstheessenceofZionism-eitherby revisiting
Still,everyattempt
analyzingthesocietytoday-has been
earlyyearsof themovementor critically
denouncedas a typicalintellectual
exerciseon thepartofself-hating
Jewsin the

Pos'r-ZIoNISTrCRMIQUE

39

serviceof the enemy.This positionhas been expressedwithparticular

vehemence in thepublicdebatein Israelon post-Zionism
in recentyears.34
It is noteworthy
thatthe oppositionhas not come fromthe Rightin Israel,
whichhas a verylimitedrepresentation
in theIsraeliacademia,butfromtheZionistLeft.AlthoughthisLeftaccepts criticism
of post-1967Israel,the period
1882-67is offlimits.Criticsof post-Zionism
could be heardin thepast voicing
strongoppositionto thecontinuedIsraelioccupationof theterritories
seized in
the1967war.Thisprotest,
however,farfrombeinganti-Zionist,
was based on a
to consensualZionistpositions;itwas thiscommitment
strongcommitment
that
keptthe ZionistLeftfromacceptingthe fundamental
Palestinianpositionson
centralquestionssuchas thefateofthe1948refugeesor thefuture
ofJerusalem
as long as thePLO remainedfaithful
to itsstrategic
concepts.Thispositionwas
institutionalized
whenthePeace Now movement
came intobeingin 1978,first
as
a lobby forpeace withEgyptand thenmakingan impressiveeffortagainst
Israel'sLebanonwar duringtheSabraand Shatilamassacrein 1982.The movementremainedactivethroughout
theintifada,
became idle and muteduringthe
Rabinyears,buthas been givennew lifeundertheNetanyahuregime.
It should be stressedthatthe movement'sreactionto the Lebanonwar and
laterto theintifadadid not deviatefromtheZionistperceptionof reality.
More
Peace Now's criticism
was and remainsdirectedonlyagainstpostspecifically,
1967 Israelipolicy;itsmainconcernhas been thispolicy'seffecton Israelimorale and morality.
Manyacademicsgravitated
towardthe movement,but their
did not cause any changein the mainstream
affiliation
scholarlyworkson the
past and presentsituationin Israeland Palestine.Still,itwas, as we shallsee, a
filmmakersand playwrights,
beginningfromwhichothers,in particular
would
continueand develop theirown post-Zionist
view of lifein Israel.It was only
when anti-Zionist
positions,such as theones held foryearsby theCommunist
partyin Israel,wereadoptedbyacademicsthatfundamental
changesoccurredin
thewayIsraelisperceivedthe"Arabs"or the"Palestinians,"
or indeedthewhole
Zionistproject.
The presentation
ofthePalestinian
and Israeliin thelocal Israelimediaserves
as an excellentexampleofthePeace Now predicament.
As we shallshow in the
second partofthisarticle,thepress,paradoxically,
conservestheold prejudices
whileat thesame timeservingas the
and imagesof Israeland thePalestinians
and views criticalof Zionistinterpretations
channelthroughwhichthefindings
are conveyedto the public.It was throughthe press thatthe public became
awareofthegrowingcritiqueofZionismamongthedifferent
groupscomprising
in Israel.Mostofthesegroupshave remained
theculture-producing
community
withinthelimitedcritiqueof Zionismtypified
by Peace Now, buttheycontribto
of
and
uted thedecline theZionistmyth truth
no less thantheirmoreradical
and anti-Zionist
colleaguesinsideand outsidethelocal academia.

40

OF
JOURNAL

PALESTNE STUDIES

NOTES
1. The IsraelisociologistUriRamprovidedthemostextensiveexplanationof
thisconceptin his TheChangingAgenda
ofIsraeliSociology:Theory,
Ideologyand
Identity(New York:StateUniversity
of
New YorkPress,1995).
2. A detailed description
was providedin Ilan Pappe, "TheNew History
of
the 1948War,"Theoryand Criticism,
3
(1993), pp. 95-114 [in Hebrew].
3. YehoshuaPorath,TheEmergence
of thePalestinian-Arab
NationalMovement,1918-1929 (London:FrankCass,
1974) and ThePalestinianArab National
Movement,1929-1939 (London:Frank
Cass, 1977).
4. See forinstanceYoseph Nevo,"The
Palestinians
and theJewishState,
1947-48"in We WereLikeDreamers,Y.
Wallach,ed. (Tel Aviv:Masada,1985) [in
Hebrew]and recently
ItamarRabinovich's,TheRoad Not Taken.Early
Arab Negotiations(New Yorkand Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,1991),
whichignoresthePalestinian
side of the
storyaltogether.
5. MosheShemesh,7he Palestinian
Entity,1959-1974: Arab Politicsand the
PLO (London:FrankCass, 1988).
6. Fourmajorworkswerefirst
mentionedin thiswave: SimhaFlapan,7he

Birth of Israel (New York: Pantheon,

1984); Benny Morris,The Birth of the
Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949

(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press,

1988); Ilan Pappe, Britain and theArabIsraeli Conflict,1948-1951 (New York:

Macmillan,1988);and AviShlaim,Collu-

sion Across theJordan. King Abdullah,

The Zionist Movement, and the Partition

ofPalestine(Oxford:Clarendon,1988).
To theseone can add UriBar-Joseph,
The

Best of Enemies. Israel and Transjordan

in the War of 1948 (London: Frank Cass,

1987);MichaelJ.Cohen,Palestineand

the Great Powers, 1945-1948 (Princeton:

Princeton
University
Press,1982);and

Tom Segev, 1949. The FirstIsraelis (New

York:FreePress,1992).

7. Ilan Pappe, The Making of the

Arab-Israeli Conflict,1947-1951 (New

York:I. B. Tauris,1992),pp. 102-35.

8. Almostall thenew historians
mentionedin endnote6 have dealtwiththis
tacitunderstanding,
referred
to by'Avi
Shlaimas a "collusion."

9. See Ilan Pappe, Britain.

10. See Walid Khalidi, "Plan Dalet:
MasterPlan forthe Conquest of Palestine,"in Middle East Forum, November
1961, reproduced with a new commentaryinJPS 18, no. 1 (Autumn 1988), pp.
4-70.
11. See Morris,Refugees. For a discussion on the differencebetween the two
narrativesand my own position thataccepts thattherewas a masterplan, see
Pappe, The Making, 203-43.
12. These claims are made by Morris
and Pappe in particular.
13. Uri Ram representsthis approach;
see Uri Ram, ed., Israeli Society. Critical
Perspectives (Tel Aviv: Brerot,1993), introduction [in Hebrew].
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 18-25.
16. A notable example is Sami
Smooha, Israel: Pluralism and Conflict
(Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress,
1978) and Yonathan Shapira, "The Historical Origins of Israeli Democracy" in
Israeli Democracy Under Stress,Ehud
Sprinzak and LarryDiamond, eds. (Boulder: Lynne Rienner,1993).
17. This approach is particularlyevident in Anita Shapira, Visions in Conflict,
(Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1988) [in Hebrew].
18. See Uri Ram, "The Colonization
Perspective in Israeli Sociology," inJournal of Historical Sociology 6, no. 3 (September 1993), pp. 327-50 and Gershon
Shafir,Land, Labor and the Origins of
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,
1882-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1989).
19. Baruch Kimmerling,Zionism and
Territory.The Socio-TerritorialDimensions of Zionist Politics (Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1983), and
Shafir,Land.
20. Moshe Lissak in an interviewin
Davar, 18 March 1994; and Yaakov Katz
in an interviewin Ha Aretz, 18 November

1994.

21. On museums see Tamar Katriel,

"RemakingPlace: CulturalProduction in
an Israeli Pioneer SettlementMuseum,"
Historyand Memory 5, no. 2 (Fall-Winter
1993), pp. 104-35; and Ariela Azoulay,
"WithOpen Doors: Museums and History
and the Israeli Public Space," 7heory and

POST-ZIONIST

CRITIQUE

4 (1993), pp. 79-96 [in

Criticism,

Hebrew].
22. On Israeli Orientalism,see Azmi
Beshara, "On the Question of the PalestinianMinorityin Israel," Theoryand

Criticism,
3 (1993),pp. 7-21; Gil Eyal,

"Between East and West: The Discourse

on the Arab Village in Israel," Theoryand

Criticism,
3 (1993),pp. 39-56;and Dan

Rabinowitz, "OrientalNostalgia: The

Transformationof the Palestinians into
'Israeli Arabs,"' 7heory and Criticism,4

(1993),pp. 141-52.

23. Smooha already had viewed these

positions in the late 1970s (see Smooha,
Israel), as did Sara Kazir and Shlomo
Swirskiin "Ashkenazim and Sephardim:
The Making of Dependence," in
Mahbarot le-Mehkarve-Bikoret1 (1978),

pp. 21-59 [in Hebrew].

24. Many of the "new sociologists"

have contributedin this vein to Ram,
Israeli Sociology.
25. See Ram, Changing Agenda.
26. Tom Segev, 7he Seventh Million
(New York: Hill and Wang, 1989); and
Idit Zartal,From Catastrophe to Power
(Tel Aviv: Keter, 1996) [In Hebrew it is
called 7heJews' Gold].
27. See Uri Ben-Eliezer, 7he Emergence of Israeli Militarism.,1936-1956
(Tel Aviv: Chrikover,1995)
28. Benny Morris,Israel's Border
Wars: Arab Infiltration,Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez
War (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993).

41

29. These include Ben-Eliezer,Emergence; ShulamitCarmi and Henry Rosenfeld, "The Emergence of Nationalistic
Militarismin Israel,"InternationalJournal of Politics, Culture and Society 3, no.

1 (1989),pp. 5-49;AvishaiErlich,"Israel:

Conflict,War and Social Change, in The

Sociology of War and Peace, Colin
Creightonand MartinShaw, eds. (London:

1987),pp. 121-43;and Baruch

Macmillan,
Kimmerling,"Patternsof Militarismin
Israel,"Archieve European Sociologie 34

(1993),pp. 196-223.

30. Yagil Levy, "A MilitaristicPolicy,

InterethnicRelationshipand Domestic Expansion of the State:Israel 1948-1956,"

8 (1996),pp.
7heoryand Criticism,
203-24 [in Hebrew].

31. Ella Shohat, Israeli Cinema. East/

Westand the Politics of Representation
(Texas: Universityof Texas Press, 1989).
32. Among them Azmi Bishara, Aziz
Faisal, Asad Ghanim, Majid al-Haj, Nadim
Rawhana, Khail Rinnawi,Ahmad Saadi,
and others in an ever-growing
community.
33. See for instance "A Symposium on
Post-Zionism,"Ha'Aretz, 15 October

1995.

34. At one point a public debate was

attended by over 700 people at Tel Aviv
Universityin July1994. See the condemnation by Shlomo Aharonson in "The
New Historiansand the Challenge of the
Holocaust," Ha'Aretz, 24 June 1994.