Talk:New Historians

"less innocent"

Although the new Historians's represent a variety of views, in generalization they present Zionism as a less innocent movement,

Er, less innocent than what? Than other historians say? Which other historians? Than another movements? This article assumes a lot of context... djk

Yes, going back to it, that's probably not clear enough. I'll try to change the wording. --Uri

Thanks, much better. djk

---

Why is this article's neutrality disputed? Or is the statement at the top of the article in reference to the above, and can now be deleted? Tokerboy 22:31 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, I just need a little clarification. When we say "new historians", who precisely are we talking about? Many times I hear of them mentioned as synonomous with the post-Zionist scholars, anti-Zionist scholars, etc. But Zero0000 points out that three people named, so far, in this article, deny being anti-Zionist. (And I know that Benny Morris isn't anywhere near as pro-Palestinian as he used to be.) Would the following Israelis not be considered New Historians? Dan Bar-On (Dept. of Human Behaviour, Ben Gurion Univ.; Bejamin Beit-Hallahmi, Psychology, Univ. of Haifa; Uri Ben Eilezer, sociologist as Univ. of Haifa; Neve Gordon, political science teacher at Ben Gurion Univ.; Baruch Kimmerling, Sociology at Hebrew University. Would these people be better classified as not New Historians? RK 02:13, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nobody agrees who the "new historians" are. About the only agreement is that Morris and Shlaim are included (I think they invented the phrase). I would leave out Ilan Pappe myself (too passionate and too little time in the archives) but most people include him. Some people include Tom Segev; I'd say he's marginal. Kimmerling is a sociologist rather than a historian but would still have a case for inclusion. I find it hard to get excited by the question since historians come in a continuum and not in tidy groups. I find it even harder to get excited about labels like "Zionist", "anti-Zionist", "post-Zionist" and "non-Zionist" (did I miss any?) that have all been applied to these people from time to time. Attaching labels is just a way to avoid the real issue, which is whether the history these people write is good or bad.

I deleted "controversial" since every historian of modern hstory is controversial in some circles (which is semantically the same as controversial without qualification). Calling Morris controversial without calling Karsh controversial is a joke. (You might have seen accolades for Karsh from the likes of Pipes, but in the academic journals he was rubbished.) Anyway the article spends lots of time on the controversy and should spend more. What needs adding is a brief account of the major debates, citing both sides (unlike now). They are:

1. Morris and Shlaim vs Teveth
2. Morris vs Khalidi and others
3. Everyone vs Karsh

-- zero 14:03, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Flapan

I'd have included Simha Flapan. Any reason he isn't mentioned? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Years later, now. Shlaim includes Flapan [1], so I've included him. Also, Rapoport seems to credit Tevet (Teveth) with inventing the term "New Historians" in his initial response to Shlaim & Morris in Ha'aretz -- if true, that ought to be in this article. Andyvphil (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious, in 'The Debate about 1948,' Shlaim states that 'Flapan wrote his book with an explicit political rather than academic aim in mind “to expose the myths that he claimed served as the basis of Israeli propaganda and Israeli policy,' suggesting they do not hold the same viewpoints?

I'm just curious, not suggesting you're wrong, but it seems that they refute each other. Lakey3 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Writing with a different motive doesn't imply a difference of opinion regarding the facts. Making allowance for Flapan's much lower access to archives, their writing is quite compatible. Zero^talk 11:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Teddy Katz versus Alexandroni Brigade

I'm sure this does belong in the article, but it was sufficiently incoherent that I couldn't copy edit into coherence; let's fix it first and get it back in.

• Teddy Katz versus Alexandroni Brigade
  In 1998, Teddy Katz, a Meretz activist and student of Ilan Pappe, presented a research for M.A. diploma which claimed that the Alexandroni Brigade commited a massacre in the Arab village of Tantura. The veterns of the brigade sued Katz for libel and won in court. The court found that Katz fabricated tesitmonies and twisted quotations. Following the trial, the Haifa University disqualified his work. It was later revealed that the PA has founded Katz lawyer in the trial. (see [6])

Issues:

1. "a research for M.A. diploma". "Research" as a noun in this context makes no sense. Is this "a Masters' thesis"? "a research paper in a course at the M.A. level"? or what?
2. I can mostly fix the spelling issues, but one word I can't guess: "has founded Katz lawyer"? One cannot "found" a person. Perhaps "funded"? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right, of course.

1. Yes, I meant to his Master thesis work.
2. Of cource, I meant "funded". What a shameful typo...

MathKnight 19:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This looks resolved. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see why this issue is present in this article, as Katz does not qualify as a "New Historian". Nevertheless, I replaced it by a more accurate paragraph. Katz's supervisor was Kais Firro, not Ilan Pappe. The errors in his thesis were partly exposed in court, but the court did not explicitly make a ruling on them. As to Katz's membership of Meretz, that belongs out unless the political party memberships of all the people on this page are similarly given. --Zero 02:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References, etc.

I've been trying to clean up references, external links, etc., and get them somewhere close to what is called for by the manual of style. I've made a lot of progress, but there is a lot of missing information:

• The part on "Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim versus Shabtai Teveth" is missing article names, so I have no way to add the appropriate references.
• Similarly "Benny Morris versus Norman Finkelstein and Nur Masalha" mentions "three articles in the Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 21, No. 1, Autumn, 1991, but does not name any of them.
• "Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé versus Efraim Karsh" mentions "a lengthy rebuttal in the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies", but gives no title.
• "Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé versus Efraim Karsh" mentions "an article of Morris [Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1995, pp. 44-62]", but gives no title.
• The Ha'aretz web site gives no date for the Ratner article. Does anyone have a way to get a date for this?
• The external link labeled "A critical Palestinian perspective" appears to be dead.
• Also, the Angela French article seems trivial to me. Is there any good reason we link to it?

Jmabel | Talk 04:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé

Why do the views of Ilan Pappé get a paragraph here? This is not a general article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he is not usually counted as one of the New Historians. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[copied from my user talk page]

In fact I had written to Jmabel before reading this page... sorry for this Alithien 20:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel. I agree with your corrections but have some comments :

Note I had not removed that sentence : 'According to the New Historians, Israel therefore has its own share of responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight' but pushed it below in the article because I had added Pappé arguments explaining why it was his analysis and added they also push arab countries in the list of responsibles.

This is now two times in the article... I suggest we remove the first one it appears.

More Newehistorians clearly claim that they don't think Jewish leaders planned or organized the exodus of Palestinians. I have clear quote from Pappé stating this. Do you have quotes from others that would not think so ?

Alithien 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[end copied material]

Yes, I think you are correct, sorry. And I probably should have immediately recognized the name Pappé, but didn't. The way this was written did not make it clear that he is counted as one of the New Historians, I will reword to make that clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As written just above I had written on your talk page before reading this. sorry for this.

I discovered that Pappé is not much read or taken in reference in wiki. In Europe he is more known and quoted. I don't know why...

What about the fact that new historians clearly claim (Morris and Pappé at least) that Jewish leaders didn't plan or organize the exodus (but did nothing to stop it). I think that was not clear at all in the article and is still not. With what you have written it can be thought that they don't have that in mind. I have a reference about this and this is currently written in the article Palestinian exodus

Thank you. :-) Alithien 20:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem in trying to describe the opinions of this group of people at once because their opinions are not all the same. Also, they can change. Pappé for example has become more hardened over time. In his recent "History of Modern Palestine" he repeatedly uses the phrase "ethnic cleansing". On page 131 he writes: "These atrocities were not randomly committed; they were part of a master plan to rid the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible". --Zero 12:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ok. thanks a lot. I was not aware of that. In that case, the article should be modified very much and not in the sense in which I modified this. Pappé really completely changed his mind. I still have 2 questions for you :

• Is this correct Morris kept his mind so that we could separate in the article Pappé and Morris mind ?
• Do you know how Pappé justifies such a completely change of mind ?

Alithien 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

fleeing of their own choice?

"fleeing of their own choice" is an oxymoron. One "flees" out of DANGER not "choice". Sentence needs correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.24.152.36 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

It beggars belief that anyone should still be claiming that the Palestinians were anything other than ethnically cleansed. Nobody reading this would abandon their homes in the fashion described, other than in severe fear of their lives - why would the Palestinians have done so? And so what if they had, they'd still have an absolute legal and moral right to return there! PalestineRemembered 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Standards

This article is sloppy, both grammatically and factually. It appears that much of it has been written by those for whom English is not a first language. It needs to be raised to a higher standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.179.246.216 (talk • contribs) 20 August 2006.

Hatchet-job edit

This anonymous uncommented edit strikes me as little more than a hatchet job. I have restored a paragraph that was removed without comment (the one that begins Benny Morris versus Norman Finkelstein and Nur Masalha). I'm inclined to revert every bit of this, but figured I would allow at least 72 hours for comment before acting unilaterally. - Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have actively solicited comment from several people who have edited this article in the past, and also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. - Jmabel | Talk 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you were right to restore that paragraph and undoing even more of that edit would have been appropriate. I'm doing that now. I'm also removing a later addition:

Indeed, Benny Morris himself admitted to not using much of the newly available archival material for the writing of his book - "[W]hen writing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949 in the mid-1980s, I had no access to the materials in the IDFA [IDF Archive] or the Haganah Archive and precious little to first-hand military materials deposited elsewhere."

This was presented as if Morris admits to having been wrong, but in fact he claims that the newly available material strengthens his case and shows the Zionist side in worse light than he previously thought. --Zero^talk 11:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates

This article gives no dates on when the New Historians' publication history began. I think it was some time between 1982 and '85, but I didn't first encounter their work until maybe '88, so I could be wrong. Does someone have something solid on this? - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rapoport [2] points to '88 for multiple publications and (apparently) Tevet(h)'s invention of term. Says Shlaim was influenced to take an interest in Israeli history by Pappe's Dr.thesis ('84?) -- dunno if he had any journal pubs before his '88 book. And I haven't looked at Morris yet. Reading this page for the first time a year+ after your question... but it went unanswered? Andyvphil (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Stray comment found in body of article

The following comment was found in the main body of the article on 11/12/2007 in response to the Anita Shapira quote. I have moved it to the discussion page, although it is NOT my comment:

"This criticism is no longer relavant, for example Tedi Kaz's research of Tantura massacre (1948)is based mainly on arabs testimony!"

~~

Main Arguments

The main arguments section is misleading and inaccurate. It claims to quote Avi Shlaim but in fact is quoting an article posted on the internet which may or may not be a valid rendition of a HaAretz article. the New Historians do not represent a solid block of work supporting each other as is presented here. They each deal with different aspects of Israeli history and the details of their writing are not so clear cut.

For example "the New Historians say the Arabs were expelled or chased out" - Neither Shalim or Segev descuss this. Moriss says that some of the Palestinians were expelled or chased out but not all. I haven't read Pappe or Flapan so I won't comment on them.

"the new historians say that ISrael had the advantage in terms of manpower and arms" - Neither Shlaim or Segev discuss this. Moriss says that over time Israel developped an advantage but this was not the case at the start of fighting.

"Israel is primarily to blame for the dead end" - Segev does not discuss this. Shlaim says that there were instances where Israel was to blame but does not necessarily blame Israel for everything. Morris flatly contradicts Shlaim in his latest book.

As for the British: no one says that they DID NOT try to prevent the creation of a Jewish state though it would appear they did try to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.

In addition the article is misrepresenting "traditional Israeli historians" since it is not giving names or references that are verifiable, while it is claiming to represent what "they" say.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the main arguments section could use improvement. That reference on Shlaim does seem strange. Why couldn't we actually reference the article where he wrote this list.

As for "traditional historians" or "official history" you're right, names would improve the article, but I also think what is meant is the state-sanctioned history that is taught in public schools (or had been taught in public schools in the 70s or 80s). I'm not Israeli so I don't know precisely what is going on in public school now. But I did read this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/23/world/fg-history23 which points to the fact that there is discussion in the school system over what children will be taught.

Additionally, Shlaim writes about this "school" history: On pp.79-89 of The War for Palestine Ed. by Eugene :L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim, Shlaim writes:

Little Israel is portrayed as fighting with its back to the wall against a huge, well-armed and overbearing Arab adversary. Israel's victory in this war is treated as verging on miraculous, and as resulting from the determination and heroism of the Jewish fighters rather than disunity and disaray on the Arab side. This heroic version of the War of Independence has proved so enduring and resistant to revision precisely because it corresponds to the collective memory of the generation of 1948. It is also the version of history that Israeli children are taught in school.

--Farbotron (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again this a broad quote and hardly relects what is actually happening at present. I suggest providing a short summary of what each historian says, rather than broad generalizations about the whole group.

In 2007 Arab schools in Israel were authorized to teach the Palestinian version of the 1948 events:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/africa/mideast.4-100444.php

If we mention this, then we will need to mention the contents of Palestinian school books which is a poisonous issue.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello I am new to the Wikipedia stuff, but I was wondering if any one noticed the new book by Benny Morris. There was an article about him in the Haaretz newspaper. Here is a link for you to see: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1123350.html I am not so good in edit the wiki so I said I will mention it here.
--Stam1 (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

-- The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians said that Israel is primarily to blame for the dead end.
Benny Morris is perhaps the best known New Historian (with academic credentials and an academic career), but in his latest book, One State, Two States (Yale Univ. Press), he claims that most the opposition to a peace settlement and recognition of a two-state situation has come from the Arab side. Poldy Bloom (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

what is the official version??

a government narrative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.40.212 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"First, there is no such a thing as an official Israeli history of the war. Second, many Israeli officials and historians draw attention to instances of expulsion as part and parcel of an eighteen-month war that was fought within cities and villages and in areas controlling the roads to Jewish cities and settlements under siege." Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The "official version" list

Hello, I made a significant change to section of the article called "Main Arguments". The reason I did so was that the original pdf file given as a reference is no longer accessible online. The footnote reads: Miron Rapaport (11.08.2005). "No Peaceful Solution" (PDF). Ha'aretz Friday Supplement. [3]. Retrieved 2009-06-22. "

In looking for the article elsewhere, I was able to come up only with this article in which a *very similar* list is given with the following footnote [15] This list is based, with this author's additions and clarifications, on two accounts: Benny Morris, 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 9; Miron Rapaport, interview with Avi Shlaim, "No Peaceful Solution," Haaretz, 11 August 2005,www.editriceilponte.org/_files/HaaretzInterviewEnglish.pdf.

Since we do not have the original article by Shlaim, I think it not unreasonable to use this very similar list by Becker, which incorporates the thinking of both Shlaim and Morris. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it back. I was able to find the quoted article apparently reprinted in From Occupied Palestine and the editor was correct in saying that it was verbatim from this article. Rapaport says "In an article by Shlaim a few years ago, he summarized what seemed to him the five main arguments of the new historians:" Since we don't have the original article, we can't very well quote Avi Shlaim. Only Meron Rapoport. The article from Avi Beker essentially includes these same points, also draws on the same Haaretz article, as well as incorporating Morris, thus would be a broader umbrella. But I'm guessing that Think-Israel and From Occupied Palestine are neither good references for "main arguments" as it stands. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is fallacious. If the article, as it stood, was a verbatim quote from Shlaim, and you found a copy of the article, why change it? Especially when the version you changed it to is full of POV comments by Beker? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Rapoport article did not use quotation marks, so we do not know that it was a verbatim quote at all. It is what Rapoport says Shlaim says, (and printed in a highly biased site to boot) so I am confident it should not be attributed to Shlaim as written. Beker may be critical of the New Historians, but Beker's views are notable and shared by many. The way it is written now it is wrongly attributed and poorly sourced. The Beker dissertation is quite similar to Rapoport's. Perhaps you can edit out what you find particularly offensive? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The interview with Shlaim appeared in Haaretz and the link to "From Occupied Palestine" is merely a "convenience link". If you'd prefer, I can omit the link altogether and readers can go to their libraries and look for back-issues of Haaretz.

The text from Beker is full of his POV, which makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

For this sentence: Much of the primary source material used by the group comes from Israeli government papers declassified forty years after the founding of Israel. {citation needed|date=December 2010} Despite the fact that the Israeli papers were declassified forty years ago, we don't know how much of it the NHs used. How much is "much" anyway? I believe this is WP:OR. It has been a number of months, at least 5, and no one has provided a source for this. Who says so? If not sourced shortly, I plan to remove it in the next week or so. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is true and it is easy to give sources. In order to avoid using the NHs themselves as sources we can have Anita Shapira. (Shapira even goes further and says that many of the previous history writers had privileged access to the archives but chose to censor "sensitive issues".) Ian Lustick is also a source. Personally I think that the concept "new historian" is past its use-by date, since now every serious historian mines the same archives. However, historically it is a true fact that the emergence of the "new historians" corresponded with and was enabled by the archive declassifications. Zero^talk 09:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is said in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice, implying that since the NH's had access to new material their narrative is somehow more correct than the so-called "Old Historians." This is of course nonsense, since historigraphy is interpretation of material not the material itself. It also implies that Wikipedia has surveyed the material from NHs to see how much of their [primary] material comes from the recent declassified material, and how much from "old" sources, which of course we didn't do. So I will still be looking for that reference in the next week or so. Perhaps you can find where Shapira says this and I will happily leave it in as long as we can attribute it to someone.Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you don't have this article on your watchlist, Snakeswithfeet, but I added a source within minutes of your initial post. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not see your citation when I wrote the above. I beg your pardon. On the other hand, and not to be difficult, I wonder if you could point me to the sentence in your reference that actually supports the sentence: "Much of the primary source material used by the group comes from Israeli government papers declassified thirty years after the founding of Israel.[2]" I only see where it says they "consulted the documents," but nothing about how much or how little the NH actually used. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question, since the sentence doesn't say that the NHs used any particular amount of the archival material. The "much" refers how much of the material used is archival material. This is a bit hard to deny, since nearly every sentence of the books of Morris et al carries an archival citation. Zero^talk 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I query this text:

Morris says he did not use much of the newly available archival material when he wrote his book: "When writing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947–1949 in the mid-1980s, I had no access to the materials in the IDFA [IDF Archive] or the Haganah Archive and precious little to first-hand military materials deposited elsewhere." (Rogan&Shlaim, p37)

Morris says very clearly that the IDF and Haganah material was not available at that time, so how was it "newly available archival material"? Then he says he used those archives as soon as they became available and that they "tend to confirm and reinforce" his early work. Overall our text does not give a correct impression. Zero^talk 12:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero, the Rogan & Shlaim article can be accessed here if you have an Amazon acc't : [4] That is essentially what he (Morris). Specifically he says

“ When writing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949 in the mid-1980s, I had no access to the materials in the IDFA or Haganah Archives and precious little to first-hand military materials deposited elswhere, None the less, the new materials I have seen over the past few years tend to confirm and reinforce the major lines of description and analysis, and the conclusions in the The Birth and in a subsequent volume, 1948 and After published in 1990. ”

He then goes on to describe his conclusions, ie that "The main conclusions were that the refugeedom of the 700,000 Palestinians was essentially a product of the war....etc". It might be relevant to readers that he did not have access to the archives when he wrote his oft-quoted book, (they might want to read Birth Revisited instead) but certainly the part about "confirming and reinforcing his conclusions" should be part of our article, and there should be something about what those conclusions were. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have the book on paper. I don't see your answer to my objection. Something can't be both unavailable and available. Also it is not true that he didn't have access to "the archives", he only didn't have access to certain archives. His first book (which I also have on paper) has thousands of citations to declassified archives. Zero^talk 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Morris specifically denies he had access to the later archives for his first Birth (as you pointed out) He had access to primary source material at the time, just not the new stuff, ie the 80's declassified stuff. That is why we can't say: Much of the primary source material used by the group comes from Israeli government papers declassified forty years after the founding of Israel. Maybe "much of the primary source material comes from Israeli government archives", since there is no equivalent Arab material out, but not specifically the material from the mid '80's. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Morris didn't have access to the IDF&Haganah archives at the time of his first book because they had not been declassified yet. I think you don't get my point. Your text makes it sound like there were declassified archives available to Morris that he didn't use, because "newly available" sounds like "newly available at the time Morris wrote his first book". This problem can be fixed by rewording, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. Zero^talk 00:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First let me say, I am quite sure I am not responsible for that line in the article. At least I hope not! I see your point. It could be fixed by adding "In an article written __ years after the publication of his book, ________, he wrote,...." or something to that effect.

My other point is that we have no idea how much or how little use the "New Historians" actually made of the newly archival material. Morris said his first book didn't make use of it at all (for the obvious reason it was not available), though when it did come out, that it supported his conclusions. So the new primary source material did not "change everything". We do not have any sources that tell us how much of this "new" primary material the NHs actually relied on ("used"). So how can we say: Much of the primary source material used by the group comes from Israeli government papers declassified forty years after the founding of Israel ? Even if it were true, we would need a source that specifically says so, since we don't know how much primary material they used, and of the primary material they did use, how much of it was the stuff declassified later? I am just trying to be accurate in a area riddled with bias. As it is written now, it implies that the New Historians are better historians because they had more facts, but that is just somebody's opinion. If we are going to put in that opinion(properly sourced, of course), I would want equal time for Karsh and others' view that access to facts in no way guarantees a more honest or intelligent conclusion. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Sorry to attribute that sentence to you. I don't think it is true that "Morris said his first book didn't make use of it at all" except if "it" means the IDFA and Haganah archives. He did cite extensively to the Palmach Archives, the Central Zionist Archives, the archives of Mapai and Mapam, and some others. On Monday I'll look in his first book to see if he spells this out in terms of what was declassified when. Zero^talk 08:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is what Morris writes in the Introduction of his first book on the refugees: "The recent declassification and opening of most Israeli state and private political papers from 1947 to 1949 and the concurrent opening of state papers in Britain (which governed Palestine until May 1948) and in the United States (which from the summer of 1948 became increasingly involved in the refugee problem) has made possible the writing of a history of what happened on the basis of a large body of primary, contemporary source material." In his bibliography, he cites Ben-Gurion Archives, Central Zionist Archives (includes Jewish Agency, JNF, Yosef Weitz etc), Hashomer Hatzair Archives (includes Mapam), Histadrut Archive, Israel State Archives (includes Agriculture Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Justice Ministry, Minority Affairs and Prime Minister's Office), Jabotinsky Institute, Kibbutz Meuhad Archives (includes Palmach), Labour Party Archives, and several others. Zero^talk 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok so what we have him saying above: "When writing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949 in the mid-1980s, I had no access to the materials in the IDFA or Haganah Archives and precious little to first-hand military materials deposited elsewhere." We have to take him at his word. Page 5 of Revisited, he says: "But thankfully, the liberalisation of Israeli archival practices had led during the past decade and a half to the release of an enormous amount of archival material that was closed when I wrote the first version of this study. More specifically, the ISA has declassified almost all the Israeli Cabinet protocols for 1948-1949 and the IDF Archive (IDFA) and the Haganah Archive (HA) which were both completely closed to anyone not employed by the Defence Ministry, have opened their doors and declassified hundreds of thousands of documents, a true boon for historians." I am still not sure I understand your concern. He did have primary materials in the first book, but not Haganah, IDF, Cabinet protocols etc. Right? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. So let's say it. The sentence "...did not use much of the newly available archival material when he wrote his book" won't do, because "did not use much" is ambiguous in English, "newly available" is meaningless without a time-frame, and "his book" is undefined. Here's my attempt: "When he wrote his first book on the Palestinian Refugee Problem [cite book1] Morris had access to many declassified archives in Israel, the UK, and the USA, but not to the main military archives.[cite] He employed the IDF and Hagana archives for his second book on the issue [cite book2], though parts of them remained classified.[cite]" I don't think quoting Morris is useful as a summary seems enough. Zero^talk 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My concern is Morris' claim in both books (Page 1-2 Birth,Pages 3-4, Revisited) that there were no Arab state papers available when he wrote either book. Robert Satloff writes in a review of another of Morris's books "Perhaps these errors derive from the fact that Morris seems not to have made attempts to investigate Arab sources; indeed, his acknowledgments do not include a single Arab or Arab institution. If no relevant sources existed, that would be understandable, but they do. In his preface, Morris states that 'No Arab state has opened its state papers to researchers, Arab or non-Arab' -- this is not true. In a small, antiquated building across the street from what is now the Philadelphia Hotel off the third circle in Amman, the Jordanian national archives contains hundreds of government files from the period in question, piled floor to ceiling. At least two years prior to Morris' completion of this book, I read through papers on such relevant topics as 'Military File, 1952-57'(all originally labelled secret); 'Directives of the Ministry of Interior, 1954-55'; and 'Qibya, 1953,' complete with the handwritten testimony of participants and witnesses. Though there were no xerox facilities, the staff was courteous throughout." [5] Karsh attributes this to Morris' "insufficient mastery of the Arabic language" [Fabrication , p 5). Either way, if Morris had access to the Arab papers in his Birth and didn't use them, all his work would suffer from an (unnecessary) one-sidedness, a serious flaw in what is supposed to be a definitive on in the field! Snakeswithfeet (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to find that review, thanks. Satloff is of course rather like a mirror of Pappe: a highly educated activist. His words would be more convincing if he had mentioned any example of something that would have appeared different if the Arabic files had been used. Karsh claims some examples, rather unconvincingly in my opinion. Zero^talk 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel-centered article

I won't change myself the title of the article but I'm shocked that it is limited to the Israeli new historians: the concept exists in other countries as well, e.g. in Turkey (Halil Berktay, Erdogan Aydin, Masis Kürkçügil, Ayhan Aktar, Cemil Koçak), Belgium (Anne Morelli) etc. The common characteristics is the "deviation" from official State-approved history, this is not peculiar to Israel, the more scientific term is Historical revisionism (nothing in common with negationism). --Pylambert (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic of this page is the Israeli new historians (or at least new historians of the israel/palestine region). The problem you identify is about the title of the page rather than the content. Changing the title to better reflect the content might be a good idea. Zero^talk 10:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Let's wait till I add an article New historians (Turkey), then there will be an homonymy page New historians (why is there a capital letter for historians ?), and this article will probably become New historians (Israel-Palestine). --Pylambert (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the title ought to be more specific. Deipnosophista (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch

Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch is a female academic. Can you please correct the reference to her gender from He to She? Also, her correct last name is Ben-Josef Hirsch (and not Hirsch as appears in the text). Can you please correct this too? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.114.124 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

3.2 does not meet Wikipedia standards

3 poorly phrased bulletpoints under "Criticisms" subheading "Benny Morris". They neither fit as "criticisms" nor conform to Wikipedia article standards. Can this be rewritten or removed PhearOTD 23:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole article is pretty messy, but I agree this is the worst—no other historian gets their own bullet list. I’ll remove the text and dump it below in case anyone can be bothered working it into the body of the article.

Benny Morris

• The "Old Historians" lived through 1948 as highly committed adult participants in the epic, glorious rebirth of the Jewish commonwealth. They were unable to separate their lives from this historical event, unable to regard impartially and objectively the facts and processes that they later wrote about.
• The "Old Historians" have written largely on the basis of interviews and memoirs and at best made use of select batches of documents, many of them censored.
• Benny Morris has been critical of the old Historians, describing them, by and large, as not really historians, who did not produce real history: "In reality there were chroniclers and often apologetic", and refers to those who produced it as "less candid", "deceitful" and "misleading".

⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 05:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

−

While influential in Western academia, the 'new history' narrative and post-Zionism have remained marginalized in Israel

+

This sentence seems to be outdated and is contradicted by the following passage in the body of the article:

"...the work of the New Historians is now the mainstream in academia, and that their influence was not confined to intellectual circles. " Zlmark (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not an uncontroversial edit request. Please see WP:EDITXY for more info. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)