The "New Jewish Historians": Propaganda or Awakening? Does the Victim Need the Executioner's Testimony?

We may be wrong, in any argument, if we rely on a text by an Israeli writer, for reality is sufficient as a damning testimony to respond to him. Moreover, there is no one in their “state” who calls for peace or stopping the war. They all call for genocide.. and there is nothing left except the extreme right, the rabbinic and the biblical racist, there is no left, no matter how sad. As for those who object, they are dozens that can be counted on the fingers and have no influence, and we must not fall into the traps of some of them who claim to be leftists, because the danger in the discourse of the Israeli left is that it shows genocide as if it is an emergency, and not inherent in its structure. Everything in the occupying state is composed of its right and its most extreme right, and their entity is based on the idea of the goyim and superiority, and the "left" works to vent us, polish the image of the murderous Israel, and beautify their narrative after ridding it of exaggerations, and in it there is partial recognition, that does not condemn the occupying state.. Haaretz newspaper, for example, is not a reliable source and will not be, but rather it is an essential part of Israeli propaganda. It is the image of the "enlightened" occupation with its left and right, that benefits from our blood in killing, and in polishing the image of the murderer. Even when talking about the victims of genocide, they are mentioned here as an emergency disaster, not as an act of a pure decision by a settler state founded on our uprooting. I tend to think that the writer "Gideon Levy", for example, is not one of these, like "Shlomo Sand", "M. Rabkin" and "Alan Pappe", who went beyond the phenomenon of the "new historians", and established a mature and profound human critical position, which is considered a plea against Zionism and its fabricated fascist discourse! But they are individuals, and they have no voice or influence. And through their tongues we condemn their group.

Far from being mentally cold towards what the new historians in Israel have detonated, we are creating this calm dialogue about a phenomenon that raises controversy among us Palestinians, and among Arab political thinkers and intellectuals, not to mention concerned Israeli circles.

And because we live here in Palestine, we and a number of those interested in this matter, within national masses that are engaged in daily engagement with the Israelis on various levels, the dialogue or debate about the phenomenon of the new historians must be far from tension, rashness, dazzle, applause, quick condemnation, blind ignorant rejection, sick satisfaction, or stupid silence, especially after the former Prime Minister of the occupation (Barak) acknowledged the suffering of the Palestinian people, and his Minister of Culture expressed his shame over the (Kafr Qasim) massacre, which constituted the beginning of the occupation state’s attention to the dark chapters of their past, as they say, which is consistent with some of what some historians in Israel raised years ago, and considered, despite its importance, a small and timid step... not enough?

1. They didn't believe our crying.

First and foremost, it must be noted that if the new historians had not appeared in Israel, and if they had not written what they wrote, we would also have known the information they provided, and we would have read what they indicated through the vast amount of official documents that are more than sixty years old in the archives of official British and Israeli institutions, and the laws of the two parties mentioned allowed for their publication. Thus, these historians relied on those documents first, meaning that they did not ask a single Palestinian how he was expelled from his land, and not a single Israeli historian believed the vast amount of “Palestinian crying” for nearly eight decades. That is, the world did not believe our story, but this world believed their lies, and now it believes their fragmented story as well. First of all, these historians would not have appeared in Israel if it were not for this society that is always in crisis, congested with beliefs, theories, and ideologies that no longer meet the changes in reality, and the average Israeli discovered before anyone else the crisis of Zionism itself, and thus the crisis of the entire society.

Above all else, the new historians did not add anything new to our historical narrative. On the contrary, they subtracted from it, and presented it to us, to the world, and to themselves as fragments, parts, and scraps, often with no connection between them. In other words, what did Benny Morris and Tom Segev offer more than Dr. Walid Khalidi or Elias Sanbar? And why should we celebrate this celebration just because an Israeli researcher admitted, whether timidly or courageously, the massacres and atrocities committed by his group against us?

We have to benefit from them.

Calmly, objectively, and responsibly, we say: What the new historians are doing is good and useful, in that they confirm part of our narrative, dismantle the official Zionist narrative, and, in some way, shake the national, historical, and even religious illusions on which Israel builds itself - even if they do not destroy the Zionist ideological foundation itself.

Since these people are writing for themselves and not for us, and since they are re-evaluating, reviewing and holding their “experience” accountable, and not out of love for “our eyes” or to restore our rights or to withdraw from our lands, homes, beaches, “our bread and salt,” our role now – politicians, intellectuals, governmental and non-governmental bodies – is to benefit from this change, and from this shift in positions, and to exploit it well in the daily confrontation on various levels. This question is posed to the Palestinians, and serious, conscious and responsible mechanisms can be thought of to benefit from this “post-Zionist” trend, and we leave this question to the relevant parties to answer. That is, to include the results of the research of the new historians that concern us in any upcoming negotiations for the final status, especially with regard to the refugees, in addition to disseminating these results to international cultural and scientific organizations and relevant forums.

They are an expression of crisis.

The new Israeli historian - in fact - did not do or offer me anything new. He did not write to me to discuss with me, nor did he write to me to relieve my pain, nor did he ask me, for he did not believe me in the first place. He - in practice - criticizes his society, and destroys its lies and illusions in order to correct its conditions, purify it, strengthen it, and heal it. He does this based on the fact that Israeli society allows all ideas and ideologies to appear and express themselves freely - within laws and conditions that Arabs and Palestinians cannot express themselves through, and here lies the racism.

The emergence of the new historian is an expression of a crisis and not an expression of an awakening of conscience. The new historian is not a party or a popular political movement. He comes from an academic elite, meaning that he has no significant popular influence at all. None of them will ever reach the popularity of “Yeshayahu Leibowitz” (the Prophet of Wrath), as the Israelis themselves called him (Leibowitz is a Jewish professor specializing in physics and philosophy, and has many publications. One of his most important ideas is that he denounced Israel’s occupation of Arab lands and considered it a betrayal of the Zionist project and a filthiness of the Israeli moral system. He considered the occupation of another people to be a demographic disruption and the beginning of the end of the pure Jewish state. He also considered that the official Zionist establishment is turning into a servant of a larger imperialist project. One of his funny opinions is that he believes that current Jews are original Jews because they only maintain the sanctity of the Sabbath).

Heshbon Nefesh

Israelis are accustomed to what they call in Hebrew “Heshbon Nefesh,” meaning “self-reflection,” as a defense mechanism they have acquired since the first curses of God. Is this new historian doing this process publicly, after everyone felt that Zionism is strong enough to criticize itself in order to renew youth, activity, and push forward?

Isn't it my right to hold myself accountable too, feeling at the same time that free expression and independent thought are the best ways to know the fault, and also believing that self-criticism is beneficial to the individual, society and the state, and that a dynamic society is the society that can create individuals capable of far-reaching, comprehensive and free vision!

Peace forces to preserve the "state"

Before we talk about the phenomenon of the new historians, we must point out a popular phenomenon that preceded it, namely the “peace movements” with their various names, contents and orientations. Unlike the phenomenon of the new historians, they were popular and had a negligible influence on political decision-makers – to some extent. They carried out certain activities on certain occasions. Now, without any exaggeration, bravado or illusions, we know that these peace movements did not go beyond the Zionist thought one iota! They all started from one single concept, which is to preserve “society and state” with the least possible losses, and there is no way to do that except by “imposing peace with the Arabs who believe in the Jewish existence and the Zionist project.”

The work of these peace movements was characterized by duality, contradiction and vacillation, which caused them to lose many of their supporters and influence, not forgetting that the reason for the emergence of such movements is the adventures, crises and crazy policies carried out by the ruling establishment in Israel, which have led, are leading and will always lead to tarnishing Israel's image. The peace movements, regardless of their differences - out of fear for this reputation - do what they believe is best for Israel.

As for the question of how we Palestinians deal with such movements, it is also left to the relevant parties to develop plans and mechanisms for correct and conscious dealing, far from exaggeration, intimidation, celebration or ignorance. Perhaps we will return to this topic, if necessary. However, I call on my fellow intellectuals who constitute a wall against normalization, to explore the depths of this matter, on the basis of rejecting the opposite and normalizing it or dealing with it in any way.

The phenomenon is still raw

The new historians are almost unanimous in that they were born in the 1940s, that is, they did not witness the massacres and atrocities committed against us with their own eyes, and most of them studied abroad and acquired different research mechanisms characterized by high criticism, and they started from leftist or modern Marxist references, and some of them did not go beyond the Zionist approach, while others went beyond that with great caution, and they saw that Zionism had ended its project, and Israel must transform into a state for all its citizens, which necessitates changing many of the laws specific to Jews only (there are about two million Palestinians inside Israel, who are one-fifth of the population of the aforementioned state, and they are third- or fourth-class citizens, especially after the “Jewish State” law of 2018).

The phenomenon itself, the phenomenon of the new historians, is a raw and tender phenomenon, still in its early stages and cannot be judged in a final and specific manner. Its main field is in leftist academic circles, and it does not have an impact on the broad, diverse and varied public, especially the right-wing circles that have a noticeable influence on the Israeli street. Moreover, this phenomenon interacts within Israeli society itself and is not directed externally, within mechanisms and dynamics that Israeli society is accustomed to due to the nature of its composition and philosophy. Therefore, the representatives of this phenomenon are not subject to ostracism, persecution or pursuit, but rather are considered natural main threads within the Israeli fabric and an integral part of it. This was before the war on Gaza and its extermination, as these historians identified with the discourse of their fascist government, and turned on their heels, justifying and applauding the slaughter, demolition and displacement. I believe that this phenomenon will turn into Nazi trumpets, and some may escape this epidemic and go out to the space of Pappe or Sand. Perhaps!

There are shortcomings and darknesses in our story.

Most importantly, our treatment of the new Israeli historians is a belittling of our own narrative! Perhaps it is worth saying here that our own narrative of the Nakba also has many dark corners, and its basic fabric has not been mentioned until now, and we have not established it!

Perhaps it is worth saying that we need new historians, not them. The Holocaust in the Gaza Strip, the atrocities in Jerusalem and the West Bank, the displacement, massacres, expulsion, flight, the sale of lands, the failure of most leaders and the complicity of officials, have mostly been ignored so far. We do not need new Israeli historians to confirm the annihilation, displacement and expulsion we are being subjected to, and the falsity of the official Zionist narrative. We know it and it is imprinted with fire, machetes and cleavers on our skin and land, and we do not need to read it in the previous ways. But we certainly need someone to write about us, about the defeat that usually conceals under its wing a huge amount of mistakes, sins and betrayals. This is what we really need. Therefore, our celebration of an Israeli researcher who writes about part of our suffering is as if we do not believe our suffering unless it comes from our enemy, as if we need the testimony of the executioner to believe that we are a victim?