Israel at 60
“Yes, the impulse to side with the Palestinians, the demand for justice for them, the criticism and denunciation of Israel for its treatment of them in the Occupied Territories - all that is consonant with the basic stuff of the left. All that is not only ‘justified’ but necessary for any decent socialist.
“The conclusion from it? The only conclusion consonant with the authentic left is to seek justice for both sides; to propose mutual recognition of both peoples’ rights. The only possible programme for doing that now is two states - an independent Palestine side-by-side with Israel.
“The objective anti-semitism of the ‘absolute anti-Zionist’ left is defined by its rejection of accomodation, its opposition to two states, and its self-identification with the chauvinist Arab or Islamic proposal to destroy Israel and, at the very least, deprive the Israeli Jewish nation of self-determination.” (Sean Matgamna: ”‘Left’ anti-semitism is no myth“).
As the 60th anniversary of the proclaimation of the state of Israel approaches, the professional Israel-haters, “anti-Zionist” fanatics, and conspiracy theorists are lining up to denounce the state as uniquely illegitimate (on a par, they claim with apartheid South Africa, if not Nazi Germany!), and Zionism as an especially racist ideology (unlike other forms of nationalism, which contain no racist or preferential elements, of course).
I was going to entitle this piece “Congratulations Israel”, as a sort of “up yours” to the anti-Israel fanatics and ignoramouses that inhabit the left, liberal-left, right and loony-far-right, and who are all too often indistinguishable from each other in their “anti Zionism”… whilst I accept that not all anti Zionists are anti semites, it is undoubtably the case that, these days, all anti semites are anti Zionists.
But I decided not to use that provocative masthead for one reason, and one reason only: the Palestinians. The Sean Matgamna quote at the top of this piece sums up my feelings: the Palestinians are the main victims of the present impasse in the Middle East and our first instinct must be solidarity with them. But, as Matgamna eloquently argues, solidarity with the Palestinians does not require us to endorse Arab / Islamist anti-semitism: unfortunately, much of the so-called “left” does exactly that. Not just the likes of the SWP, Socialist Resistance and ‘Respect’: who cares about those ignorant clowns? No, important sections of the “mainstream” labour movement left, including both wings of ‘Unite’, the leadership of Unison and the Campaign Group of Labour MP’s, habitually go along with the idea that Zionism is a form of racism and that Israel is uniquely evil - even when they formally support “two states”. Sean’s polemic was written in response to a piece in the Graun (6 March 2006) by a “mainstream” commentator and former advisor to Robin Cook, David Clark. And I know from my own first-hand experience, that trivial anti-Jewish racism (in the form of jokes and asides) is considered acceptable on the mainstream labour movement left, in a way that no other form of racism would be.
Johnathan Freedland has some sensible things to say about all this in today’s Graun.
The Israeli so-called “new historians”, plus the poisonous Lenni Brenner, and the academic / professional ‘victim’, Ilan Pappe, have given a great deal of intellectual succour to the “absolute anti-Zionists” over the years.
Here’s a pretty effective demolition of at least one of the “new historians” (albeit one who’s since transformed into a rather right wing Zionist). And more detail from the same writer, here.
Finally, to deal with Ilan Pappe, an Israeli academic whose Walter Mittyish misrepresentations of his own situation and role in Israel are so outrageous as to be either outright lies, or the products of a deranged mind. Similarly his misrepresentations of Israeli and Middle Eastern history. For instance, this strange man wrote in the Morning Star of April 25 2008:
“The zionist community in Palestine was powerful enough to carry out the ethnic cleansing and to fend off the later limited military attempt by some Arab governments to try to stop the operations in May 1948.”
I will return to Pappe’s allegation (not entirely untrue) of “ethnic cleansing” later; but for now, I want to concentrate on his description of a “limited military attempt by some Arab governments”…
What this charlatan is referring to is the attempt, immediately Israel was declared, by the regular armies of Syria, Transjordan, Iraq and Egypt, to wipe out the new state. The generally pro-Palestinian historian Peter Mansfield acknowledges in his authoritative book “A History of the Middle East” (Penguin, 1992),
“If Zionist resistance (to the Arab attack -JD) had collapsed there is little doubt that even King Abdullah (the most conciliatory of the Arab leaders in 1948 -JD) would have been obliged to continue until the state of Israel had been strangled at birth.”
So, yes: the foundation of Israel was, indeed, al-Nakba for the Palestinians. And there were massacres like the killing of 250 inhabitants of the village of Deir Yasin by Irgunists on 10 May 1948. But the main cause of the Nakba was the rejection by the Arab ruling classes of the UN’s partition proposals, and then those same rulers’ military attack on Israel. None of this excuses Israel’s subsequent treatment of the Palestinians: but it does expose the one-sided misrepresentation of Middle Eastern history that is all to common on the so-called “left”. And it also explains why recognition of Israel’s right to exist within pre-1967 borders is an essential prerequisite for a just peace and a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel.
resistor said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:17 am
Denham relies on the arguments of Efraim Karsh whose bio at Benador Associates states,
http://www.benadorassociates.com/karsh.php
‘Before embarking on an academic career, Professor Karsh was an intelligence officer in the Israeli Defence Forces where he attained the rank of a Major.’ Clearly just the kind of guy to appeal to Jimbo.
And Benador associates?
‘Eleana Benador is the founder of Benador Associates, a public relations firm that helped publicize the work of neoconservatives and other hardline figures who advocated for U.S. intervention in the Middle East during the George W. Bush presidency. A Peruvian-born Swiss-American, Benador (who recently has spelled her first name “Eliana”
has claimed credit for herself and her firm for the rise of neoconservatism after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ‘
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1030.html
Another Benador ‘expert’ is Norman Lamont, who some of us remember supporting General Pinochet.
http://www.benadorassociates.com/lamont.php
How typical of Denham to fall for the neo-cons Likudniks and the ultra-right.
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:32 am
The provenence of commentators is, of course, of some relevance. But it’s not a decisive factor in deciding whether someone’s statements are true or false: what’s false, untrue or misleading in what Karsh says, “Resistor”? Just let us know: we’ll publicise it. Just as we’ll publicise the fact that you are a professional anti-semite.
joelsk44039 said,
May 8, 2008 at 1:30 am
“…the Palestinians are the main victims of the present impasse in the Middle East and our first instinct must be solidarity with them.”
The Palestinians are not only the victims, but the cause of the present impasse. They are self-victimizing on a grand scale.
resistor said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:58 am
‘The provenence of commentators is, of course, of some relevance’
You bet it is - and if you swallow the lies of the neo-cons and the fascists, more fool you. Karsh is merely continuing the role he played in Israeli Intelligence - the fact you take him more seriously than the Israeli Left says everything about you and your true politics.
As for your slavish parotting ot the thoughts of AWL’s dear leader for life, Sean Matgamna (who is, and has always been always been, right about everything) - how pathetic. Can’t you exist without a personality cult?
Finally, how predictable that you’d resort to childish name-calling and gratuitous use of the term ‘anti-semite’ - what else did you think I’d expect from an anti-Arab racist like you?
LittleRedEngine said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Now then Adeel, calm down. If Uncle Ken’s no longer able to throw you a few biscuits, then dear kindly old Uncle Kim will be surely make up the shortfall.
johng said,
May 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I think the saddest sight is not Jim Denham lining up with Israeli chauvinists of the most reactionary kind and delivering personalised invective and insults towards Illan Pappe, a historian who deserves the solidarity of every socialist whatever they think about his line of argument, or indeed the fact that Jim seems to think there is something left wing about producing Efraim Karsh’s propagandistic attacks on the entire school of progressive historians who in the late 1980’s criticised a number of prevailing nationalist myths from a variety of positions, it is that this kind of thing does seem to flow quite naturally out of the AWL’s position on the question. Where is the AWL’s serious engagement with the revisionist historians whose work actually became to inform the curriculem in Israeli schools before the retrenchment of chauvinism (and which every line that Karsh writes is an hysterical attack on. He specialises in attempting to detect ‘mistakes’, widely publicises them, and then when the replies come in, either that this was indeed a mistake, or on the other hand that he was quite simply wrong, he simply repeats the allegation or invents something else)? If the position really is that you want an independent left wing position why do you find it so easy to simply reproduce arguments coming from the right in Israel? Outside the AWL, how can anyone on this site condone this kind of thing?
modernity said,
May 8, 2008 at 1:27 pm
this is rather good:
“The establishment of Israel and its early days are such a secret. Everybody, from enthusiastic Israeli supporters to her most unflinching opponents, agree on the basic narrative: a Western society, an outpost of capitalism and classical Western ideology, established in the Middle East through American support. Some see it as the redemption of persecuted, stateless people, others see it as an act of Western imperialism.
The only small problem is that it wasn’t necessarily so… The driving force of Zionism in the decades leading to 1948 were Socialist parties. Not Socialist like in “New Labour”, not even like in “Old Labour” but hard-core Socialists: nationalisation of means of production and of land, national ownership, the lot. Upon the establishment of Israel, the main party, Mapai (Israeli Workers Party), was an unashamedly socialist and sympathetic to the Soviet project. The second-largest, Mapam (United Workers Party), was explicitly Marxist‐Leninist. The kibbutz movement, trade unions and trade-union owned industrial enterprises were at the heart of the entire project. Indeed, a major problem Arab rulers had with the Zionist interlopers was this “contagion” of European Left-wing values. “
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/05/08/the-family-secret/#comments
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Would ‘resistor’ and/or John G, please tell me what’s factually incorrect about what Karsh has written in the two articles I’ve linked to? As I said before, let us know what he’s got wrong, and we’ll publish it. Otherwise you’re just bleating because he exposes you people and the professional liar and “victim” Pappe as the ignoranouses and /or liars and / or anti-semites that you are.
Btw, ‘resistor’, being called a “racist” by you doesn’t really bother me that much. But it’s a funny kind of “anti-Arab racist” who advocates two states and makes it clear that our first duty in the Middle East today is solidarity with the Palestinians. But, as I’ve said before, these ultra-anti-Zionist/anti-semites are almost always a bit nuts.
tim said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Bearing in mind JohnG has expressed support for armed groups “whether or not” they support a genocide of the Jews in Israel, arguing with him about facts seems superfluous.
resistor said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Strange story re Karsh
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/19/trustees
‘Book on Islam Surprises Trustees
Trustees all over the country have been receiving a book critical of Islam, with no cover note, leading some to worry about why they were receiving the packages.
The address on the packages referred to their trustee status.
The book is Islamic Imperialism: A History, published by Yale University Press. The author is Efraim Karsh, a professor at the University of London who is highly regarded in neoconservative circles, but who has been harshly criticized by many in Middle Eastern studies. According to the Yale press, the book argues that the attacks on 9/11 reflect Islamic imperialism, and “Islam’s war for world mastery.”
The books were sent by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank that says it was founded “to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy issues.”
M. Edward Whelan III, president of the center, confirmed Wednesday that his group had sent the books, and said that he did not know how many trustees were receiving them. The AGB alert said that 50,000 books had been shipped. Whelan said that trustees were not the only recipients and that some of the books had been sent to journalists and lawmakers, among others.’
Wow 50,000 books at $20 + postage - well over a million dollars!
resistor said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm
The people who like Denham are pushing Karsh’s books
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ethics_and_Public_Policy_Center
Created in 1976, EPPC was the first neocon institute to break ground in the frontal attack on the secular humanists. For nearly three decades, EPPC has functioned as the cutting edge of the neoconservative-driven culture war against progressive theology and secularism, and the associated effort to ensure right-wing control of the Republican Party. It explicitly sought to unify the Christian right with the neoconservative religious right, which was mostly made up of agnostics back then. A central part of its political project was to “clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy.” Directed by Elliott Abrams from 1996-2001, EPPC counts among its board members well connected figures in the neocon matrix including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Neuhaus, and Mary Ann Glendon.
modernityblog said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:55 pm
the key point when dealing with historians and their interpretations is to actually look at what they say, critically, see how it fits into the historical debate and whether or not it is evidentially accurate
this approach, of course, assumes that people are really interested in the events, the evidence and the varied interpretations that have arisen
and let’s be honest Jew haters ain’t, so they won’t be able to discuss thes issues with any clarity
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:05 pm
…and I ask, for the third time, “resistor”: what does Karsh say that is wrong, misleading or historically innacurate? You have rather noticeably failed to address this rather elementary point. The rest of your bleating is bullshit. Because you’re a little ol’ nutty Jew-hater and not really interested in FACTS, eh?
Johnny Rook said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“what does Karsh say that is wrong, misleading or historically innacurate?”
She’s a neo-con, a member of the extreme right and highly racist, and you’re here trying to say that doesn’t cloud her opinions about everything else?
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:27 pm
…and what (s)? he gets wrong, in the two articles I’ve linked to, is..?
Maybe you, Johnny, can give me an answer where John G and ‘resistor’ have failed?
Johnny Rook said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I don’t know, maybe the ‘clash of civilisations’ racist nonsense should set the alarm bells ringing in at least one of your inebriated brain cells?
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:51 pm
…and the answer to my question is..?
sackcloth and ashes said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:59 pm
‘the Palestinians are the main victims of the present impasse in the Middle East and our first instinct must be solidarity with them.’
Yes, but bearing in mind that (1) the Palestinian people have been afflicted with utterly inadequate leadership, ranging from that corrupt autocratic goat Arafat to the theocrats in Hamas, and (2) the Palestinians have been exploited by their brother Arabs since 1948. Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis et al - they’ve used them as proxies, inspired internal feuds within their ranks, silenced those who have sought a genuine peace, and slaughtered them when appropriate. And none of the ‘anti-imperialists’ have said a word about this.
‘the key point when dealing with historians and their interpretations is to actually look at what they say, critically, see how it fits into the historical debate and whether or not it is evidentially accurate’.
A valid point from Modernity, although lost on that racist bastard ‘resistor’.
Oh, and by the way John Game, I’m counting 5 years plus, and no doctorate. Are you finding all that research is too much for you?
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Modernity has drawn my attention to this filth from Hamas:
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/hamas-out-duke-david-irving/
No doubt, ‘resistor’ approves. And John ‘G’ will “contextualise” it, to explain that it’s not really anti-semitism, but merely “having a bit of fun” with the “idea” of anti-semitism. Or something along those lines. Scum always rises to the surface.
modernityblog said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Johnny Rook wrote:
She’s a neo-con, a member of the extreme right and highly racist, and you’re here trying to say that doesn’t cloud her opinions about everything else
Karsh is not a women, he’s a Professor at King’s College as a basic search of the web would reveal http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/depts/med/who/karsh/index
he is a highly qualified academic and whilst I disagree with a lot of his work, it strikes me as strange that those who would attack him can’t even be bothered to get his gender right, look him up at the Web or at the very least read some of what he’s written and be able to criticise the evidence?
Jim Denham said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Groundhog day:
http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/congratulations-israel/
Jules said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Congratulations Israel!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7S1H3c6ZI
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=a_I3WAiDFGE
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw_Px5cJIyI
resistor said,
May 9, 2008 at 8:28 am
Karsh’s nonsense is best answered by none other than Shlomo Ben-Ami - who used to be Israeli’s Foreign Minister.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben
As for Denham’s crocodile tears for the Palestinians - perhaps he’d care to explain why he opposes them exercising their right as refugees to return to their homes.
As for moddy, it’s a funny kind of socialism that drives people from their homes, throw them out of work and denies them trade union membership (and thus access to healthcare) on the basis of their race. Read the history of the racist Histadrut - Denham knows all about it.
runia said,
May 9, 2008 at 9:26 am
We are where we are.
Exercising ‘the right of return’ now would involve evicting countless Israelis from their homes in the here and now. How would that be progressive? How would it bring a solution to the dispute between the two peoples?
Do you also demand the right to return for the thousands of Jewish refugees from Iraq, for example? You don’t, and one of the reasons no one does is that they were integrated in to Israel whereas the Palestinian refugees were kept out of neighbouring arab states and manipulated as pawns useful for propaganda by the arab states against Israel.
Demanding the right of return is a way of saying smash Israel dressed up in reasonable democratic language.
There can either be a full exercise of ‘the right to return’ or there can be a democratic settlement, not both.
Geoff Collier said,
May 9, 2008 at 9:41 am
“it is undoubtably the case that, these days, all anti semites are anti Zionists”
Assuming you accept that the BNP are anti-semitic, is it not the case that they now want to appear pro-zionist? Or is that just a pretence?
resistor said,
May 9, 2008 at 12:36 pm
‘Exercising ‘the right of return’ now would involve evicting countless Israelis from their homes in the here and now.’
I thought there was plenty of room - as Israel is still encouraging immigration.
‘Do you also demand the right to return for the thousands of Jewish refugees from Iraq, for example?’
I don’t have to demand anything for anybody. They have that right under international law - just like the Palestinians. Although the Palestinians also have Security Council resoultions in their favour.
I see your definition of democracy isn’t compatible with universal human rights. Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of the word.
anti-karsh said,
May 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm
It seems amazing that a socialist would invoke one of the most reactionary figures in Israeli historiography, and an opponent of the progressive Israeli historians - the so-called New Historians - who have worked in close collaboration with the left in that country since the ’80s. Imagine, as a comparison, an Israeli socialist who blogged against Stuart Hall’s studies of institutionalised racism in Britain and British national chauvinism by quoting Niall Ferguson. Then again, Jim has previously tried to cite Martin Amis - a figure even Harry’s Place has now disowned as a total wingnut - as an authority on Islam.
It’s also ironic to see Jim ignoring some of the advice he dishes out so regularly to others on the British left about not ‘apologising’ for terrorism. What would Jim say if resistor said that the responsibility for Al Qaeda massacres in Iraq lay principally with US imperialism, rather than with the terrorists who blow themselves up in marketplaces or open fire on civilians? I doubt he’d be impressed, yet he seems to be trying to diminish Zionist repsonsibility for the massacres of Palestinian civilians during the foundation of the stste of Israel when he writes that:
‘So, yes: the foundation of Israel was, indeed, al-Nakba for the Palestinians. And there were massacres like the killing of 250 inhabitants of the village of Deir Yasin by Irgunists on 10 May 1948. But the main cause of the Nakba was the rejection by the Arab ruling classes of the UN’s partition proposals, and then those same rulers’ military attack on Israel.’
So the Arab ruling classes are in Jim’s estimation most responsible for the massacre of Palestinians by Zionist militia! Come on Jim - the primary blame for the massacres committed by the Irgun and similar groups lies with the people who pulled the triggers and the people who gave them their orders.
Jim is notorious for lashing out at all sorts of people on the left for allegedly being soft on Saddam. He doesn’t seem to realise that his new friend Karsh is a far more enthusiastic defender of Saddam than Seamus Milne or George Galloway. Karsh’s book on the Iran-Iraq War explicitly defends Saddam’s decision to invade Iran, by arguing that the regime in Tehran was, on account of its antipathy to America and Israel, a boil that needed to be lanced. Karsh’s book was criticised for presenting Saddam as an essentially progressive ruler, and for trivialising the gassing of the Kurds and other crimes.
Jim might argue that Karsh can still be right about certain facts, even if he has a cynical and extremely right-wing view of the world. This is undoubtedly true. Even the most extreme and demented people can be right about some things. The BNP, for instance, is right that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But anybody on the left who cited the BNP in an argument against the war would be condemned, because the BNP’s motivations and methods are completely rotten. They are a completely corrupt source. The same is true for shills of US foreign policy like Karsh. Anyone on the left who invokes such a figure is inviting ridicule.
Then again, judging by his defence of Martin Amis and his support for continuing the US occupation of Iraq, Jim seems to enjoy inviting ridicule…
modernityblog said,
May 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Geoff Collier wrote:
is it not the case that they now want to appear pro-zionist? Or is that just a pretence?
many people at SU blog have covered this, it is obviously a ploy by the BNP leadership and a desire to distance themselves from the past
Geoff, I would have hoped that someone as politically sophisticated as yourself would see past that?
Jim Denham said,
May 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm
anti-karsh, despite lambasting me (something s/he’s quite free to do), makes an absolutely crucial point in his/her penultimate paragraph:
“Even the most extreme and demented people can be right about some things.” A pretty elementary point, but one which seems to be beyond the comprehension of “resistor” and John G.
Btw: Karsh may be right of centre, but I from what I’ve read (I don’t know him), I wouldn’t describe him as “demented” or make any serious comparison with the BNP.
And I simply fail to understand why serious leftists, interested in facts and historical truth, should feel any automatic allegiance (let alone “solidarity” ) with the “new historians”, or with a charlatan and liar like John G’s hero Pappe.
resistor said,
May 10, 2008 at 12:40 am
‘Karsh may be right of centre’ To the far right of centre I think you’ll find. He is a neo-con propagandist whose books are subsidised and promoted by the Religious Right in the USA. Denham has dug himself a very large hole for himself. Note how he ignores the evidence of Shlomo Ben-Ami that contradicts Karsh’s fairy-tale version of the birth of Israel and the destruction of Palestine. Keep digging Jim.
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:18 am
I do despair sometimes, at the state of the debate on historical topics
I shall try (as Jim has ably done above) to explain some of the issues:
1. firstly forget all of your political indoctrination, inclination and bias
2. examine the evidence of any historical event from the best possible scholars in that field, and recognised experts, not the bloke down the pub who happens to know a few things about Russia 1905
3. try to summarise the views of quality historians and authorities around the particular events, do it dispassionately and with relevance to the contemporary evidence of the period
4. don’t use hindsight to fit the evidence to a pattern, let the evidence lead to a conclusion and not the other way around
5. having summarised the historians’ opinions, look at the particular historical debate on various events in detail, try to understand what is the issue, what is the point of contention? And why?
6. next if you disagree with a particular professional historian, don’t do it because you dislike the colour of his/her hair or ethnicity or political associations, do it because of the evidence
7. remember that it’s perfectly possible to be a famous historian and have Left of centre views but come to some pretty strange conclusions, which are not borne out by the evidence (A. J. P. Taylor is an example)
8. try to read the key books and journals related to the historical debate, not just those that you agree with
9. If you’re going to refer to a particular passage in a book or statement on the Web, highlight the area concerned within quote marks, provide a page number or web link, and then state clearly what is the point of contention and why, don’t assume that merely pasting in the link is evidence itself, it’s not, it has to be accompanied by an argument and why the evidence is relevant.
10. finally, use logic, cogent analysis and evidence based reason*** when probing historical events, it is often a vast area, there can be conflicting sources, interpretations and incongruities, all is not what it seems and views change over time, look at the context of sources.
*** imagine that you are on a jury, do you find the defendant automatically guilty (or innocent), irrespective of the evidence? or do you sift through things and try to work out what might have happened, based on the available evidence, which’s the approach to take with history too.
resistor said,
May 10, 2008 at 9:05 am
Reading this, I had to laugh, What does Moddy put first in his 10 step programme for discovering historical truth?
‘firstly forget all of your political indoctrination, inclination and bias’
Sorry, but I was too scared of doing myself a mischief to read the rest. I know you people write this stuff, but do you even read it once before you post? Look up irony in the dictionary, and you’ll find it will help stop you making such fools of yourselves.
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 10:46 am
one thing is very clear from the above discussion, that it is primarily initiated by prejudice, I should have included that in my list but it seemed a bit obvious
So why do I say prejudice?
well, there seems to be fervent desire to discuss Israel at 60 but a complete lack of knowledge of the topic and instead of presenting arguments, summarised or not, a lot of the contributions, and in particular “resistor’s” appear to be nothing more than an excuse for a rant against Jews
I have found that anti-Jewish racists are not particularly interested in history, other than rubbish about USS liberty, kosher foods, the Federal Reserve, etc - type of contribution you find on any anti-Jewish racist web site, but I had hoped (naively) that others might want to look at the topic slightly dispassionately, with an eye to working out what are the historical issues? and how they might be solved? etc
obviously not.
johng said,
May 10, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Well Jim (and the AWL?) seem to want to dismiss the work of the “new historians” in Israel unread on the basis that he’s read an op-ed by a right winger who has no record of research on the area written about by the new historians. The specific allegations he makes have been answered time and time again by both Benny Morris (in both his left and right wing incarnations), Illan Pappe and a number of others. Why on earth on a socialist website, other socialists should be expected to reproduce articles they’ve reproduced hundreds of times before to refute these unpleasent right wing lies and smears. Jim also continues to recycle disgraceful and completely ungrounded allegations against Illan Pappe purely because he does not like his historiography something he knows about only on the basis of what right wing Israeli nationalists have written. This is really quite extraordinary and completely outside of the norm for socialists and left wingers. Why does Jim (and the AWL?) loathe and despise any Israeli who challenges nationalist accounts of Israels past, and why does Jim Denham engage in smearing and lying about left wingers without reading anything they write? It is just beyond extraordinary. No Palestinian could possibly read this kind of drivel without a deep sense of betrayel and horror. And that should also go for any decent socialist.
voltaires_priest said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Hardly any unevidenced statements of opinion in that comment there, Johnners…
voltaires_priest said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Then again, Jim has previously tried to cite Martin Amis - a figure even Harry’s Place has now disowned as a total wingnut - as an authority on Islam.
When did he do that then?
johng said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm
The trouble is voltaire that i see no reason on a socialist website to spend my time hunting over the evidence for well known replies from all of the new historians to the various slurs and hysterical invective they’ve been subjected to for daring to challenge nationalist mythology. especially as jim (or the AWL?) have not bothered to read a single piece of serious left wing historiography to come out of Israel over the last two decades preferring instead right wing op-eds of a kind completely familiar to any left winger anywhere in the world. the real question is how a group of socialists could have become a mouthpiece for chauvinism in this way (the personal attacks on Illan Pappe are peculiarly shocking to me personally. People who write like this about left wingers under attack by right wingers, with no knowledge whatsoever of their work…what can you say as a socialist? terrible).
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I am not sure where are Howard Jacobson fits into the list of (SWP/ Faux Leninist) “approved” authors or historians, but he makes a few good point here:
“In support of his assertion that Palestinians were forcibly and by deliberate pre-arrangement evicted in 1948, Johann adduces the conclusions of the historian Ilan Pappé – something of a believer in campaigns and conspiracies himself, a man whose work has been questioned at every turn, not least by historians on whose findings he has drawn. Johann can if he so desires make Pappé his historian of choice. But there are problems of context and attribution with his history, in this case an immoderate rhetoric of blame, a refusal to consider the circumstances in which peoples are moved, not simply as a matter of temporary expediency but in response, in the heat of battle, to a similar ambition on the other side. When you are threatened with rather more than eviction yourself, you do not always act with probity.
Pappé is as a red rag to a bull to pro-Israeli intellectuals, as Johann must know. Cite his version of history alone and it is disingenuous to be surprised when those who with fair reason read events differently turn angry. This has been a long war, fought brutally on both sides. No, the Palestinian case must not be silenced. But nor must the Israeli. And it won’t do to cry foul when you’re censured for silencing the one in the act, however humanely, of publicising the other. “
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 3:04 pm
ops forgot to add the link, http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1877
johng said,
May 10, 2008 at 3:35 pm
You can find the original replies to Karsh here if you scroll down. For my money Avi Shlaim’s response is the best. I’m a bit bewildered by quotes from Howard Jacobson. Is he an authority on historiography?
http://www.meforum.org/meq/issues/199609
Shachtman said,
May 10, 2008 at 3:37 pm
JohnG - Please tell us what is incorrect in Karsh’s article ?
Shachtman said,
May 10, 2008 at 3:41 pm
JohnG. Karsh’s article is from this month , yet you link to a journal from 1996 ?
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 3:50 pm
JohnG wrote:
I’m a bit bewildered by quotes from Howard Jacobson. Is he an authority on historiography?
it is really appalling,
you haven’t read any of his works, you clearly don’t know the criticism of his work and are incapable of engaging in a halfway intellectually honest debate on the historiography
I say halfway, because it is perfectly clear that if someone’s organisation (the SWP) is capable of promoting racists such as Atzmon and Tamimi**, then they’re not really very serious about these issues
I’d say that Howard Jacobson’s view in this matter is as valid, if not more so, than yours, JohnG
**for Dr.Tamimi’s views see http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1663.htm and http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1663.htm
it is in English, so there can be no doubt of his words
johng said,
May 10, 2008 at 4:14 pm
er, i have read his work. i have also read the ‘criticism’ (which essentially consists in saying the same thing over and over again). Howard Jacobson is not any kind of authority on the subject and therefore its very unclear why you posted quotes from him. Have you read Benny Morris’s work on the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem? Have you read Illan Pappes work on the diplomatic backdrop to the partition? Have you read Avi Shlaim’s work on collusion across the jorden? I would suggest that if you have not, and have relied entirely on polemical critiques published by right wingers who have no academic expertise in the period of history actually being discussed, your strong views reflect ideological predelictions and pre-conceptions rather then anything else. In the case of modernity whose views I’m familiar with and who makes no claims to be a revolutionary socialist this is perfectly understandable. In the case of Jim Denham or the AWL its simply incomprehensible.
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 4:30 pm
JohnG wrote:
i have read his work. i have also read the ‘criticism’
IF that were the case, then surely you would be able to summarise some of the points??
but you won’t, because turning the pages of a book is not the same as reading and understanding the historical debate, it is beyond your semiliterate interventions
you wrote:
Howard Jacobson is not any kind of authority on the subject and therefore its very unclear why you posted quotes from him.
neither are you any authority
it is only unclear to you why I posted the quote, and if I had a thousand lifetime’s I couldn’t explain it, you wouldn’t understand, your level of comprehension precludes it
But if you do have this vast panoply of reading and knowledge, then please demonstrate it
If you can then summarise some of the criticisms of Pappe, and do it honestly, I appreciate that’s a tall order for you, JohnG, but try.
johng said,
May 10, 2008 at 5:32 pm
No, no Modernity. Unless you have actually read Pappe (or indeed ANY of the new historians) all these wierd allegations of my own supposed ineptness on the subject are simply laughable. Karsh is simply not competant in that area of histography and his criticisms are almost entirely ideological (ie he simply thinks its wrong to raise any questions about this historical period, I would again commend you to Avi Shlaim and his critique of Karsh’s totalitarian method of polemic). In almost every case his criticisms revolve around nothing more then implausible allegations of ‘dishonesty’ (which in turn revolve around his strange theories about what he thinks these historians are up to rather then anything more substantive) or the attempt to identify a ‘mistake’ (there are no historians who do not make them). In other words this is simply spirited right wing establishment polemic.
Your rather strange belief that there is something inexpressible about Howard Jacobson’s qualifications on this matter (he writes usually right of centre witty cultural reportage for a popular broadsheet) would genuinely be more worthwhile if you were at all familiar with the subject matter being discussed. Its not hard. There are about three or four key books involved, all of which made a large impact on the Israeli liberal left when published and which positively enraged the Israeli right who were against the Oslo process. This Israeli right has since been triumphant which is the main reason why these books come under such savage attack both by the Israeli right, Jim Denham and (apparently) the AWL. You might like to read them and judge for yourself.
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 5:52 pm
JohnG wrote:
No, no Modernity. Unless you have actually read Pappe (or indeed ANY of the new historians) all these wierd allegations of my own supposed ineptness on the subject are simply laughable.
exactly, I bought up a very simple point to you, to summarise some of the issues and you can’t even do that
you can’t summarise the issues because you don’t understand them, you’ve probably scanned a few journals and despite your professional qualifications, you are not a historian and demonstratively so
thus in this particular debate your views are as valid or not as Howard Jacobson’s
you commend certain books to me?
well, surprise surprise I tend to read a fair amount about the Middle East, not that you’d remember but I am a book lover, working class autodidactic and whilst my librarything entry is only partial, it has a fair range of books, http://www.librarything.com/catalog/ModernityBlog
and yes I have read Shalim, not that you’ll remember discussing it? and yes I have criticisms of Karsh (I have read him too), but as you are incapable of rendering an honest debate on this issue I see no benefit in discussing my differences
this is a point that you won’t understand, I take history seriously, whereas you are just an intellectual plaything for political dimwits like German and Rees, who constantly fails to engage with the points raised by your interlocutor’s (see Shachtman’s comment of May 10, 2008 at 3:41 pm)
johng said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Modernity, the issues raised by the ‘new historians’ revolve around both the charecter of Israel’s war of independence and Israeli foreign policy subsequently. They are summerised in the material I’ve already sent. I wonder how you would ‘demonstrate’ that I am not a historian on the basis of anything I’ve said, and why you have to proceed entirely by the method of ad homenim attacks. I’ll never forget the attempt to label me a nazi sympathiser on the basis of my rejecting the allegation that the grand Mufti was a central actor in the nazi holocaust, and your reference to my sending you scholarly articles in reputable academic journals on the subject (incidently generally regarded by historians as superior to popular publications as references) just reminds me of your grotesque inability to seperate your ideological prejudices from rational argument. The central issue here is not however your own peculiar views about anyone who disagrees with you about anything, but why it is that a supposed socialist, and, as far as one can work out, the organisation of which he is a member, see’s fit to churn out right wing smears and propaganda about a generation of historians whose attempts to demythologise right wing nationalist myth about the Israel-Palestine conflict were once central to left wing culture even in Israel before the establishment hit back in the shift to the right that followed the failure of the peace process (you might recall documentries on the nakba shown on Israeli TV partly inspired by this literature, and on the other hand considerable controversy about school curricula). Its a genuine puzzle and it would be nice to know if the AWL, which claims to be so interested in Israeli left wing culture has at any point seriously reviewed this literature, either at the time or subsequently. If not why not?
Especially considering their claims to know more about the subject then anyone on the British left (sadly one suspects, untrue).
modernityblog said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:58 pm
JohnG wrote:
I’ll never forget the attempt to label me a nazi sympathiser on the basis of my rejecting the allegation that the grand Mufti was a central actor in the nazi holocaust
again you misrepresent my views, I have never labelled you as a Nazi sympathiser
I have labelled you has a sociopath, poor historian, semiliterate, apologist for Nasrallah’s racism but never a Nazi sympathiser, and if you go back and read the threads of Harry’s place you’ll see that (not that you will)
you talk of “ad hominem” attacks.”, yet if you could read the above thread again, you’ll notice how I deliberately restrained myself, whilst it was you laid straight into Jim and the AWL
I wouldn’t mind all of that but you don’t address people’s points:
your failure to acknowledge the nasty racism in Atzmon and Tamimi is just one example of the SWP’s and your own intellectual capitulation to racism, when it suits you
so don’t go lecturing other people, it sounds very hollow coming from an upper-middle-class wafflers such as yourself
you wrote:
The central issue here is not however your own peculiar views
Again you’d like to dictate the agenda, but no.
The issue is the profound ignorance expressed above concerning historical topics and how to render them accurately, that’s the issue.
And there is an obvious reason why that occurs because the vast majority of the critics above haven’t read any specific quality books around the topic and seem solely reliant on a few dodgy web sites or SWP pamphlets.
That’s why you can’t render the wider debate, that’s why you can’t summarise the issues, because you don’t know them, your reading of wiki is not a substitute for scholarly investigation, not that you know that.
Shachtman said,
May 10, 2008 at 9:09 pm
JohnG. Can you kindly give examples of what is incorrect with what Karsh wrote in his article last month. Examples please backed up by facts.
sackcloth and ashes said,
May 10, 2008 at 10:19 pm
‘JohnG. Can you kindly give examples of what is incorrect with what Karsh wrote in his article last month. Examples please backed up by facts’.
Chance will be a fine thing. The lazy little bastard is using his status as a permanent PhD student to be like Richard Seymour. He uses it to indulge in his petty ‘activism’, without actually pursuing his academic studies. Do you think he’ s ever going to actually read anything on the subject matters he pontificates about? The hell he will - he’ll just bone up on the ‘Socialist Worker’, and whatever Dr Callinicos (the only swuppie who ever got his doctorate) will have to say.
If I was supervising him, I’d have sacked that hoop a long time ago.
voltaires_priest said,
May 10, 2008 at 11:40 pm
That’s a bit harsh. He’s articulating a view (in my eyes an incorrect one) which is still current on much of the left, including in academic circles. By all means debate what he says, but simple character attacks rather make the SWP’s critics look like the mirror image of that which they dislike. No?
johng said,
May 11, 2008 at 11:58 am
Once again Modernity, who has read neither Morris’s ‘Origins of the Palestinian Refugee Question’ or a single book by Illan Pappe, nor Shlaim’s work on ‘collusion across the jordon’ (although he claims to have read Shlaim’s ‘the iron wall’
without a shred of evidence accuses me of relying on websites and socialist worker, and being a ’sociopath’. The real question Voltaire is whether or not socialists should not be rather better informed. Why is Denham relying on right wing establishment polemic (written by someone who is not even an accredited historian of the period in question) when he could quite easily go to the source and judge for himself? One feature of actually reading these books is that it becomes very clear that the criticisms made are largely irrelevent to the more substantive theses being propounded in them: viz the actual charecter of the Israeli war of Independence (the fact that the military balence of forces on the field were in Israel’s favour, both in terms of numbers of troops on the ground and in terms of equipment, that the Arab armies had no very serious ability or indeed intention of ‘driving the Jews into the sea’, the heaviest fighting and casualties being in regions were boundary disputes were the key issue, the forces involved actually deliberately sabotaging other fronts, and that diplomatically the dice were loaded from the start. The facts about allegations made a few months ago relating to alleged dishonesty about sources (allegations which have been repeatedly made and which tend to either really be about disagreements of interpretation or on the other hand simply reflecting basic ignorence about archival sources) cannot of course be verified by anyone who does not have access to those archives. The fact that the level of discussion remains at the level of hurling accusations of ‘dishonesty’ at scholars rather then more serious argument about historical interpretation means that they are hard to take seriously. Presumably if the allegations were true the books would be withdrawn along with tenure. There is no suggestion from anyone that this is about to happen or even contemplated. The unfortunate tendency in these debates for those involved to quickly demand that anyone who challenges the orthodox views of Israeli nationalism be subject to campaigns of personal villification are a clear indication that Benny Morris was right about this individual. Its not even worth responding to. The thought of intellectual life being governed by the hysterical campaigns of personal slander and hatred preferred by the likes of sackclothandashes and modernity should give anyone pause for thought. Why does Jim Denham see this as a model for conversation on the left? It has all the political content of a Rush Limburgh rant. Shocking and unpleasent to find this sort of thing on a website claiming to be socialist.
johng said,
May 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Its also worth noting that, aside from political and ideological changes associated with the aftermath of Israel’s disasterous intervention in Lebanon in the early 1980s, as well as later developments associated with the peace process, one thing that differentiated the ‘new historians’ from an earlier generation of Israeli historians was access to IDF and other archives previously unavailable which were opened up in the late 1980s. Jim’s quotation from Mansfield’s book, hardly a specialist book on the war of independence/nakba was originally produced long before these books actually came out. It is therefore rather perverse for him to refer to the very arguments that the new historians saught to challenge with new material by simply referring to the older work. Its more then perverse actually. Its surreal. Why doesn’t Jim order the books in question from his local library?
modernityblog said,
May 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm
[sigh]
JohnG wrote:
“without a shred of evidence accuses me of relying on websites and socialist worker, and being a ’sociopath’. ”
the evidence, was your inability to summarise elements of the historical debate
it’s a handy tip to remember, if someone shouting off about their knowledge of Trotskyism or computers (or another subject), just asked them a simple question on the topic and watch their reaction something like “what was the problem with the Transitional Programme and why” or “what’s the difference between XP and Linux, and why?”
a lot of information can be culled from the web but it isn’t sufficient to answer the complex questions, thus it is with the detailed historical debates, JohnG, your reluctance to summarise the issues indicated a lack of knowledge, but of course, giving your character defects I didn’t expect you to admit it
you wrote:
The fact that the level of discussion remains at the level of hurling accusations of ‘dishonesty’ at scholars rather then more serious argument about historical interpretation means that they are hard to take seriously.
is that really the case?
if you had a ounce of humility, or the ability to use the page up key (righthand side of the keyboard) you would see that your compatriots were attacking a historian from the outset, not on the basis of his academic work but his connections
and then surprise, surprise, you steam in and do the same with your comment of May 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm
so your very first remark on the thread is to attack people, but then you whine about it when the tables are reversed, your illiterate hypocrisy is breathtaking
modernityblog said,
May 11, 2008 at 2:18 pm
but let’s ignore JohnG, his contributions are unworthy as an academic as they have neither subtlety, fact nor evidential reasoning as an ally
JohnG did, however, bring up an old misconception when he wrote:
“the fact that the military balence of forces on the field were in Israel’s favour, both in terms of numbers of troops on the ground and in terms of equipment…”
which is, of course, wrong
Israel did not, always have the military balance of forces in the field, and it changed over time
as for equipment, again they didn’t have anywhere near what they required when the war of independence started
as any student of history should know the final outcome does not tell you how things changed over time, what were the problems and what were the issues
working from memory, initially Israel could field some 30,000 this grew towards the end of the conflict to over 60,000 and varied in quality, remembering that some were ex-soldiers in the British Army, others were starving refugees from Europe and still more were kept in concentration camps by the British in Cyprus, so the quality varied, certainly the determination to avoid them being slaughtered was there, but the equipment was poor, initially
frantic efforts were made by Israelis to acquire any armaments and some two to three weeks after the start of conflict guns and material arrived from Czechoslovakia, they were not there when the War of Independence started.
as for the state of the Arab armies, they were varied but professionals, and in particular the Arab Legion was comparatively well equipped, British trained, and often lead by British commanders (in another guise)
the situation in the War of Independence was very fluid, slowly by their own hard work did the Israelis gain the upper hand, however, that does not mean, one that it was a foregone conclusion or two, it was inevitable
Eventually, the Israelis gained the upper hand, but that does not mean that it was like that when the War of Independence started
not only did the state of events change in relationship to time but within themselves and using the later state of things to project back, as JohnG does, is a common error
professional historians have long argued against the benefit of hindsight, because often does not portray the unfolding of events accurately and leads to erroneous conclusions
but let’s concentrate on the historical issues and ignore JohnG, along with his uninformed comrades, they prefer slanging matches because that’s what they are good at, and it saves them from displaying their chronic ignorance on historical themes
johng said,
May 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm
And modernity again fails to read what I said. I was making the case that the ‘new historians’ were associated with. Which you’d asked about (although why you were asking about it I don’t know as you claim to know everything anyway). I’m well aware of arguments about changes in the balence of forces, arguments discussed in great detail by the very historians you are happy to disparage as liars and monsters without reading a single line they have written. The fact remains that they are associated with the critique of an older orthodoxy which saw the victory of Israeli forces as a miracle as opposed to an accurate reflection of the balence of forces at the time. This is what they argue. Your incredible totalitarianism and abusive behaviour towards anyone who disagrees with you in any case rules you out as a serious discussant. And just to remind Modernity: It was Jim who began by attacking an academic (in the most foul personalised terms imaginable) on the basis of zero evidence aside from the writings of someone who IS an academic but whose academic output on the subject in question is Zero. And who also happens to be a right wing nationalist. It is perfectly legitimate for socialists to ask questions about why a fellow socialist would read nothing but right wing ideological polemic on a subject when there is a plethora of actual left wing historiography available. But Modernity, it has to be said, you are one of the most dishonest and unpleasent people I’ve ever come across in the world of blogdom. And thats saying rather a lot. Well done.
modernityblog said,
May 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm
This is a very quick, incomplete and short summary of some of Morris’s criticisms of Pappe’s work as a historian
Firstly, Morris describes the new historians, “But the thrust of the “New Historiography” was that the century-old conflict was not a straightforward clash between good and evil, that it could not be properly understood in black-and-white terms. Both sides, it was implied if not argued explicitly, had strong claims, and both sides had just grievances.”
Next, Morris acknowledges a degree of similarity between the two as they “In the case of Pappe and myself, there was always methodological discord. We both knew that official Zionist historiography was deeply flawed and needed to be reassessed and rewritten on the basis of the evidence that had become available; but we approached history, and the writing of history, from antithetical standpoints.”
And the differences, ” Pappe regarded history through the prism of contemporary politics and consciously wrote history with an eye to serving political ends. “
Which is contrasted with “My own view was that while historians, as citizens, had political views and aims, their scholarly task was to try to arrive at the truth about a historical event or process,”
Morris is not particularly disparaging of Pappe’s first two book, but he sees an increasing politicisation in Pappe’s attitude.
Morris is very critical of Pappe’s postmodernist perspective, ” Pappe is a proud postmodernist. He believes that there is no such thing as historical truth, only a collection of narratives as numerous as the participants in any given event or process; and each narrative, each perspective, is as valid and legitimate, as true, as the next. “
Morris is unsympathetic of Pappe’s reliance on oral testimony arguing that ” My own view is that the historian must base his work on primary written sources, that is, on contemporaneous documents, and must be exceedingly wary of oral history”
Morris list many of Pappe’s very basic errors (his comments are within the parentheses):
“For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable. Why grope for the truth? Narrativity is all.
So no reader should be surprised to discover that, according to Pappe, the Stern Gang and the Palmach existed “before the revolt” of 1936 (they were established in 1940-1941);
that the Palmach “between 1946 and 1948″ fought against the British (in 1947-1948 it did not);
that Ben-Gurion in 1929 was chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive (he was chairman from 1935
to 1948);
that the Arab Higher Committee was established “by 1934″ (it was set up in 1936); that the Arab Legion did not withdraw from Palestine, along with the British, in May, 1948 (most of its units did);
that the United Nations’ partition proposal of November 29, 1947 had “an equal number of
supporters and detractors” (the vote was thirty-three for, thirteen against, and ten abstentions);
that the “Jewish forces [were] better equipped” than the invading Arab armies in May, 1948 (they were not, by any stretch of the imagination);
that the first truce was “signed” on June 10, 1948 (it was never “signed,” and it began on June 11); that in August, 1948 “the successful Israeli campaigns continued, leading to their complete control of Palestine, apart from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” (the Second Truce prevailed during August and September, and warfare was resumed only in mid-October);
that the Grand Mufti fled Palestine in 1938 (he left in October, 1937);
that the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was “built … in 1920″ (it was founded in 1925 and
constructed during the following decades);
that Tel Aviv was “founded … on a Saturday morning in July 1907″ (it was in
1909);
etc [I have reformatted the above for ease of reading]
also, Morris argues “The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappe’s historical methodology and his political proclivities. He seems to admit as much when he writes early on that
{Pappe states} my [pro-Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the ‘truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer;
who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers; and sides with the workers not the bosses. He feels for women in distress, and has little admiration for men in command…. Mine is a subjective approach….”
Morris highlights the dubious to sting of facts:
Pappe’s account: ” In April 1920, a Nabi Musa rally [a Muslim celebration commemorating the prophet Moses] clashed with the most aggressive of the Zionist organizations, Beitar, whose members marched provocatively in the streets of Arab Jerusalem at the time of the feast, and a day of violence ended with deaths on both sides…. A [British] commission of inquiry, the Palin Commission, concluded the obvious: that there was growing dissatisfaction among the Palestinian elite with the British pro-Zionist … policy.” [my emphasis]
Morris states: “There was no “provocative” Jewish march through Arab Jerusalem; there was no march at all. What occurred was an unprovoked assault on Jewish passersby and shops by a politically and religiously inflamed Muslim mob.
The subsequent British investigation, embodied in the Palin Report, found that a Muslim Arab religious procession, incited by, among others, Haj Amin al Husseini and Arif al-Arif (a Palestinian journalist), had attacked Jews along Jaffa Road in Jewish (West) Jerusalem and then inside the Old City.
Beitar, the youth movement of the right-wing Revisionist Movement, was founded in 1923, so clearly it could not have had a hand in the events of 1920. (Even a postmodernist can see that!) The Palin Report, acknowledging the pogrom for what it was, stated that “all the evidence goes to show that these [Arab] attacks were of a cowardly and treacherous description, mostly against old men, women and children–frequently in the back” (though, to round out the picture, Palin did attribute the rising tide of Arab anger to Britain’s pro-Zionist policy).” [again my emphasis]
again Morris finds more factual discrepancies: “Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. Pappe writes that the Arab Higher Committee had tried to “negotiate a principled settlement with the Jewish Agency” (it did not); that in “October 1936″ the AHC “declared a general strike” (it was declared in May, 1936 and ended in October); “
Morris argues that “Where Pappe’s ideological bent is not responsible for outright inventions and errors, it leads instead to narrative lopsidedness.”
Etc
The factual inaccuracies found by Morris are very fairly basic, a bit like a British historian or specialist arguing that WW2 started in 1937 (not 1939), etc. Or that the General Strike happened in 1923 (not 1926).
So Benny Morris doesn’t have much respect for Pappe’s treatment of basic facts and a historian’s key resource: dates.
Ref:
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/04-03-22benny-morris-The%20New%20Republic-1.pdf
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/04-03-22benny-morris-The%20New%20Republic-2.pdf
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/04-03-22benny-morris-The%20New%20Republic-3.pdf
I can’t comment on Pappe’s work because I haven’t read it but those are a shorten version of Morris’s views, make of it what you will.
resistor said,
May 11, 2008 at 3:15 pm
It wasn’t long ago that the Zionists pretended that the Palestinians had all fled because of radio broadcasts from the Arab nations calling for them to make room for their soldiers. A complete fiction.
Karsh is playing the same game, blaming the victims for the crime.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims
for when Christopher Hitchens was on the side of the oppressed.
voltaires_priest said,
May 11, 2008 at 6:09 pm
As it happens John I think debate (including with people who hold ideas that you don’t like) is not “disgusting on a website that claims to be socialist” but actually crucial when thrashing out issues. If you want everyone to agree with you then I’m sure we can both reel off the blogs which you could visit if you so chose, run by SWP members. Presumably the reason why you’re disputing this with Jim however, is that you think it’s a dispute worth having. So less smoke, mirrors and crocodile tears, and more substance if you please
johng said,
May 11, 2008 at 7:23 pm
More substance? I think I’ve given plenty of substance and recieved nothing but a tirade of vindictive and vicious abuse. If this is your idea of how to conduct debate amongst socialists I can only say its a bit wierd. I’m reminded every day how appalling it must be to be a Palestinian and be confronted with these thug like arguments. Why don’t you engage me in an argument Voltaire? Or do you just prefer right wing abuse of socialists?
modernityblog said,
May 11, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Volty,
you are ever the optimist aren’t you?
there is a very good reason why SWPers, like JohnG, can’t argue about substance because
1) they have only a vague grasp of the issues
2) their comprehension skills are poor which precludes a detailed understanding
3) they’re not terribly interested in the views of others
4) they conspicuously avoid engaging with the issues raised by other people (see 3)
etc
there is a very valid debate to be had on these issues, but the prerequisite is a degree of knowledge or a willingness to honestly engage with the available source materials, but clearly as shown above they are not capable, when you prove that they are demonstratively wrong, they won’t admit it and will just carry on, I suspect that they barely read what other people write, but who knows? who cares?
whatever the reasons they are not particularly informed, witty or worthy of debate, as they add little or nothing to the sum of human knowledge
Shachtman said,
May 11, 2008 at 8:42 pm
JohnG
Why don’t you say what Karsh gets wrong ? If you would be so kind as to back up your criticisms of Karsh with sourced facts that would be jolly decent of you.
Shachtman said,
May 11, 2008 at 8:46 pm
JohnG - did you watch Boris during the mayoral election ? Whenever he was in a tight spot and couldn’t answer a question , he reminded me of you.
Don’t forget to cry “adhominem” John.
jim said,
May 11, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Does JohnG only oppose Jewish self determination, or are ther other groups?
Shachtman said,
May 11, 2008 at 10:34 pm
“Does JohnG only oppose Jewish self determination, or are ther other groups?”
Jim , you’re wrong if you’re implying John G and the SWP are only anti-zionist. They’re also anti-Bundist.
modernityblog said,
May 11, 2008 at 11:09 pm
hang on
are you implying that JohnG and the SWP think that the Bundists were running-dogs of Yankee imperialismo?
Shachtman said,
May 11, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Modernity - no , just that the SWP are hostile to all forms of Jewish identity - maybe that’s why they are so keen to give Atzmon a platform.
modernityblog said,
May 11, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I see, Shachtman, so that might be why they are happy to host and promote a little racist like Tamimi?
but hey, are the SWP against any other forms of ethnic identity? say like the Irish? or the Tibetans? no?
so the SWP are only against the expression of Jewish identity, no one else?
there is a name for that….
Zebidee said,
May 12, 2008 at 12:06 am
“what’s the difference between XP and Linux, and why?”
Idiot
free us from idiot analyses said said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:25 am
John G should be executed.
free us from idiot analyses said said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:25 am
The posh fucking scum
free us from idiot analyses said said,
May 12, 2008 at 1:27 am
Oh — and Resistor as well.
Might as well kill two antisemites with one bullet. Cleaner as well - let their blood run.
voltaires_priest said,
May 12, 2008 at 6:07 am
Actually John, you’ll note that I’ve neither participated much in this debate, nor indeed “abused” anyone at all, whether in a “right wing” way or otherwise. The question of Israel’s status as a nation has been debated endlessly amongst left-wingers for longer than the 60 years of that nation’s actual existence, and it seems to me that the state of play in that debate hasn’t really moved on that much. It’s like an old dance to which all participants already know the rules.
My comment was directed at the way in which you were beginning to sound like something of a left-wing mirror image of a McCarthyite, accusing people who expressed stances with which you happen to disagree of being anti-socialist or right-wing. Just because someone quotes a source that isn’t left-wing, doesn’t mean that they or their point of view are beyond the pale. I would have thought that was obvious to you given how much time members of your party spend cheerleading for the likes of Hezbullah.
Actually it strikes me that you’ve been asked on several occasions to substantiate what exactly this Karsh guy (with whom I’ll freely admit I’m not familiar) has said in the context of Jim’s post, that is factually incorrect. The vast majority of what has been said is around that subject. As to the “I speak your death threat” machine reeling off predictable lines immediately above, I’m sure you won’t need a sign post to guess the face behind the cunning disguise…
resistor said,
May 12, 2008 at 11:08 am
This link
http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv
takes you to a debate between Pappe and Karsh.
In the course of the debate, Karsh repeats the lie that Arafat turned down a great deal from Ehud Barak at camp David. But what did the historian, Shlomo Ben Ami - who was the Israeli foreign minister at the time say, about it? ‘Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.’
Evience that Karsh is not to be trusted.
ps As for Will from Drink Soaked Trots for War, now posting as ‘free us from idiot analyses’. You and your comrade Jim Denham seem to have a form of political Tourettes syndrome where you smear everyone who disagrees with you as an anti-semite. Isuggest you get professional help before you do something stupid.
modernityblog said,
May 12, 2008 at 11:16 am
It is notable that none of Pappe’s fans took up the issue of his poor rendering of basic Israeli history as shown above in the Morris review?
no real surprise there, as it seems their “interest” in the Middle East is mostly related to Israeli bashing and ranting about it rather than making an effort to understand the complex situation there and the potential solutions
resistor said,
May 12, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Let Pappe respond
Response to Benny Morris’ “Politics by other means” in the New Republic
Ilan Pappe, The Electronic Intifada, 30 March 2004
The cover of Ilan Pappe’s new book. Purchase it here on Amazon.com.
In a 17 March 2004 article, “Politics by Other Means”, Benny Morris offered a “review” of Ilan Pappe’s new book, “A History of Modern Palestine; one land, two peoples” (Cambridge University Press, 2003), which tells the history of Palestine from the point of view of its workers, peasants, children, women and all the subaltern groups that make the society and not its political elite. Morris’ “review” consisted of a series of ad hominem attacks and outright factual distortions. Ilan Pappe sent the following reply to the New Republic, who refused to publish it.
Benny Morris tells his readers in the New Republic that he and I walked a stretch of road together as ‘revisionist historians’. This is how an article begins with a factual mistake; an article which is meant to show that my works are a fabrication. This is a falsification of history as I could not be a partner to a person who had already in 1988 held views I found morally unacceptable. I was privy to the views he only aired later on, already in our first meeting back in the late 1980s. I was fully aware — as he seemed to trust me — of his abominable racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. Unlike others, I did not feel that his good qualities as a chronologist which came out in his most famous book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Cambridge 1987) — he was never a proper historian — and especially his invaluable contribution in aggregating data for us on the 1948 ethnic cleansing — made up for his bigotry and narrow—mindedness.
In fact, there was, and still is a direct line between the kind of chronology he provided in the 1980s — which had very little analysis and therefore hid well his justification for ethnic cleansing — and his recent overconfidence that he can provide such analyses in his latest works instead of his conventional collection of facts. Such an attempt was made in his Righteous Victims which came out in 1999: a book in which analysis was replaced by his right wing ideologies. It was much easier to accept him as a data collector — without much ideology — than his new presumptuous posture of a historian who shares with us his views. Now that we know all we want to know about his views, and much more I suspect, we can only long for the old Morris.
The debate between us is on one level between historians who believe they are purely objective reconstructers of the past, like Morris, and those who claim that they are subjective human beings striving to tell their own version of the past, like myself. When we write histories, we built arches over a long period of time and we construct out of the material in front of us a narrative. We believe and hope that this narrative is a loyal reconstruction of what happened — although as was discovered by historiographers Morris had never bothered to read — we can not ride a train back in time to check it.
Narratives of this kind, when written by historians involved deeply in the subject matter they write about, such as in the case of Israeli historians who write about the Palestine conflict, is motivated also — and this is not a fault but a blessing — by a deep involvement and a wish to make a point. This point is called ideology or politics. Zionist historians wanted to prove that Zionism was valid, moral and right and Palestinian historians wished to show that they were victimized and wronged. Morris wanted also to make a point recently — that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Jews was justified in the past and would be acceptable in the future. Lately he shared with us some other views that explain his listing of what he calls the ‘factual’ mistakes in my book — that of viewing all the Arabs and all the Muslims as barbarians and primitive people. This also applies to their documents, sources and histories. Anyone who argues with him about these ideas is ‘factually’ wrong.
I had a different point to make: I condemned the uprooting of the Palestinians and the violence inflicted on them, as well as the de—Arabization of Jews who came from Arab countries to Israel, the imposition of military rule on Palestinians in Israel before 1967 and the de—facto Apartheid policies put in place after 1967. I also cry out against the callous Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I do it not only as human being, but also as Jew, who feels appalled that such crimes can be committed by Jews after the holocaust. I studied history to find out why it happened and gave answers through analyzing Zionist ideology, the historical colonialist context in which Zionism emerged and so on.
When something is burning in your bones you might mistake names and dates as did Morris in his review in the New Republic when he smeared my friend Avi Shlaim who fell from grace in Morris’ eyes because of his Zionism. Morris accuses Shlaim for identifying with a British diplomat of the 1940s whom he calls James Troutbeck and whom he sees as an anti—Semite. There was never such a person. Morris probably means John Troutbeck who was not an anti—Semite as Morris writes, quite the contrary.
Does this misspelling of the name, or that of almost all the Arab and Palestinian names he mentions in his first book disable us from understanding the points he makes or miss the zeal with which he drives them home? Or does his manipulation of the Ben-Gurion diary’s text, as has been exposed unfortunately by a rival of both of us, Ephraim Karsh (who rejects the ‘new history’ but none the less exposed a serious gap between Morris’ text and the original diary of Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel) of all people, undermine our respect for his work? Not in my books at least. I am worried about moral issues not the natural human follies of professional historians.
But Morris wants to persuade us that this is not the nature of the historiographical debate. His view as stated in the New Republic article is: ‘that while historians, as citizens, had political views and aims, their scholarly task was to arrive at the truth about the historical event or process, to illuminate the past as objectively and accurately’. The ‘noble dream’, an American historian called it in the beginning of the last century. But this in Morris’ case is not a noble dream — as he is not a dreamer like myself — this is pure cynicism. An Israeli historian who justifies ethnic cleansing, writes about it in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (and even recently republished an updated version of this book) can not claim to be a ‘neutral’ historian.
Why did he twice write the book on that episode in history? Just by sheer accident? Morris tells us in the preface to the updated book on the 1948 war that new material prompted him to revise the book. But in fact this is not what distinguishes his two books. The first was written at a time when it was bon ton to be a ‘peacenik’ and his version of history was that the ethnic cleansing in Palestine (the massive expulsion of about 750,000 Palestinians in 194
was not the result of a master plan. It happened through a war and therefore there was no Israeli accountability or direct responsibility — a narrative that fitted the peace camp at the time. But with such views after Netanyahu’s victory in the 1996 elections it was difficult to get professorship in an Israeli university. This is when the shift began.
And it was even easier to get tenure and professorship he gladly found out if he would air the set of views, he believed in any way. So when the second Intifada broke out, our charlatan finds out that the bon ton in Israel has shifted to the right. In his new book the ethnic cleansing becomes a master plan that is criticized by Morris for not being efficient enough as too many Palestinians were left in their houses (almost 10 percent of those living within the Jewish State). Nonetheless, the ethnic cleansing is now represented as a wise foresight of the Israeli leadership at time that should be repeated once more. This is not based on new evidence, but on an ideological twist.
Thus the strong conviction Morris expresses in the following way that ‘my own view is that the historian must base his work on the primary sources, that is, on contemporaneous documents’ is not the basis for his historical conviction. His primary sources come almost exclusively from the IDF archives. With the help of these documents he reconstructs 1948 (he used some English sources in a lame and insignificant biography he wrote on Glubb, I believe, but this is an exception not the rule).
Israeli officers lied in the past and lie in the present — but they are the basis for the true history for Morris. In fact, when his ideology changed he guessed they told only part of the truth about the ethnic cleansing and therefore he was willing to be a post-modernist and read into, and outside, the texts. But his picture of the 1948 war will never be complete. There are plenty of Arab and Palestinian documents, but Morris who cannot read Arabic, will not be able to use them.
Morris feels that his strongest card against me is my ’sloppiness’ which is structural and therefore he lists an endless number of mistakes. He finds them all in my recent book, A History of Modern Palestine; one land, two peoples (Cambridge University Press, 2003). This book tells the history of Palestine from the point of view of its workers, peasants, children, women and all the subaltern groups that make the society and not its political elite. It is also a book that wishes to see Jews and Palestinians living one day in one state.
There are, according to Morris, to begin with: the grand mistakes. Here they are. The first, that the Palestinians were the main victims of the conflict (in the last two hundred years). I think even the majority of the readers of The New Republic are familiar with that fact. But for someone who regards the Arabs as barbarians and almost semi-human it is clear that their suffering is not equal to that of the civilized Zionists.
Secondly, there was no Palestinian feminism or women’s participation in the national struggle; nor were they organized. Morris does not only lack Arabic, he does not as a rule read or quote any work of Palestinian women — or for that matter other women’s work or Palestinian male historians. ‘There are no good Palestinian historians’ he told a crowded hall sitting next to me and Edward Said in 1998. My knowledge and reading, and indeed working with feminist historians, is a ‘factual’ mistake. Take the question of women casualties — he uses only Israeli sources to show that he is right and I am wrong.
Yes, I use Palestinian sources for the Intifada: they seem to me to be more reliable, I admit. In his ignorance, and as he has not been in the occupied territories for years, which I visit regularly, he claims that, ever since 1988, that Islamic fundamentalism restricted women’s participation in the confrontation with the occupying forces. Ten minutes from where he lives he could had witnessed the first demonstration of the present Intifada. Only women — many of them veiled — participated in it (in the unfulfilled hope that the Israeli army would not shoot them). But even East Jerusalem, its history and, yes, even its documents are not ‘legitimate’ bricks in the house of history he builds.
Thirdly, he claims I invent a history of children; presumably they are not a subject matter in his reading as they do not appear in the political archives. Do the readers of the New Republic really need reminding of the great works done on children’s history here, in Europe and the Middle East? But, Morris never read one work on Ottoman history therefore he claims no one can write the history of children in Palestine. The IDF archives, his shrine of truth, has not written about them, unless they were victims of massacres.
His fourth point is that I have not mentioned Bar—Kochva — a Jewish hero who fought against the Romans, or the bible. This allegation comes from someone who says in the beginning of this article that he is on the left. Yes we know that in the name of Bar-Kochva and other Jews who had roamed Palestine two thousands years ago, Palestinians were expelled from their homes. But I thought, as Morris says in the beginning of the article, he came to deconstruct Zionist historiography not to propagate it.
Then there are the smaller mistakes. In some cases he just openly lies. For instance I write in the book in page 108: ‘The Palmach, the Stern Group and Menachem Begin’s Irgun would emerge at the end of the mandate’. Morris writes in order to inflate the list of ‘fabrications’: ‘according to Pappe, the Stern Gang and the Palmach existed before the Revolt’ (without giving a page number of course).
Why does he lie openly? I hope this is out of commitment to his new cause and not malice. On page 293 I write that Ben Gurion became the chairman of the Jewish Agency in 1935. Morris writes: according to Pappe, Ben-Gurion in 1929 was the chairmen of the Jewish Agency’. And so on and so forth, every fact, apart from two or three, is being brought before the readers as a sheer lie. But of course he needs this list so as to show that in what counts — minute details — there is no end to my mistakes. Well, it seems to recap on E. H. Carr’s dictum that to praise the historian for his facts is like praising the architect for the timber of the wood. Morris’ timber is not of best quality, and his architecture is monstrous.
Morris attributes my mistakes for being almost a Palestinian. The moment you are a Palestinian you can only be a bad historian. He detests, as he admits, my siding with the Palestinian narrative of disputed events, such as the debate over the question of who provoked the 1920 and the 1929 riots. Morris relies on the British reports when they endorsed the Zionist claims and disregards the British reports when they endorse the Palestinian claims. I probably do the opposite in many cases, I admit it; he does not. He is an ‘objective’ historian.
Similarly amazing is the way Morris treats things he does not know. Take for example the following sentence: ‘Brazen inaccuracy similarly marks Pappe’s treatment of the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. Pappe writes that the Arab Higher Committee had tried to ‘negotiate a principled settlement with the Jewish Agency (it did not)’. Why did it not — Morris says so. Well the historian Yizhar Herzog mined the beloved archives of Morris — the Zionist Archives — and has given us a detailed picture of these negotiations.[1] In his haste Morris even contradicts himself when he disagrees with the figure I gave for the number of refugees living outside Palestine in the end of the 1948 war, which is based, among other things on his own work. In other cases, he echoes Israeli propaganda when he claims no damage was inflicted on Lebanon in the 1982 war.
My books has in it mistakes of the dates, names and numbers as does his books. We should all try and minimize them to note, I agree. Very few of us succeed and one can only hope to become perfect in the next work — which has not as yet been written (the Well Kept Secret among historians who served as readers for other historians). They should not however be pointed out as part of an ideology or a basis for ad hominem attack. Worse, a reviewer is not allowed to lie openly about them as Morris does.
Finally, Morris decided to involve my two boys, whom he knows well, in his narrative. They, he explains to the readers, would be the first ones to leave Palestine or to be killed there, if my political vision would become a reality. My boys know Morris: they have met him. They also have met all my Palestinian friends. I leave to the readers to decide with whom among my visitors and friends they would wish to share the land of Palestine. They have several advantages: they are learning Arabic, they do not distinguish between my friends according to nationality or religion and I hope they will never grow to be mature supporters of massacres, ethnic cleansing and bloodshed.
Unlike Morris, they do not tell my Palestinian students that if there were to be too many of them — as a result of the right of return or birth — it is the end of civilization (as the Nazis had told the Jews). They are lucky to be growing up in an atmosphere where maybe they got Adolf Hitler’s birthdate wrong by a year, but they will do all they can to prevent the Nazi venom from slipping through the veins of its own and ultimate victims who came and colonized Palestine, uprooted its population and occupied and brutalized many of them. Morris will probably feel unwelcome in such as society of equality between people and races and yet would write its history and claim to be ‘objective’ about it all.
Footnotes
1. See his article ‘Negotiations between the Jewish Agency and the Palestinians’ in Ilan Pappe (ed.), Jewish-Arab Relationship in Mandatory Palestine; A New Approach to the Historical Research, Givat Haviva 1992, pp. 11-42.
modernity said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:57 am
more on this story
“…
Pappe justifies the subjective approach in history: “When we write histories, we built arches over a long period of time and we construct out of the material in front of us a narrative. We believe and hope that this narrative is a loyal reconstruction of what happened - although as was discovered by historiographers Morris had never bothered to read - we can not ride a train back in time to check it.” {my emphasis}
If Morris pointed out inaccuracies and mistakes in Pappe’s book, then Pappe counterclaims that Morris erred in the spelling of nearly all of the names of Arabs and Palestinians mentioned in his first book, but nevertheless this does not “disable us from understanding the points he makes or miss the zeal with which he drives them home.” He admits that his book contains errors in dates, names and numbers, but argues that the same holds true for Morris’ books. “We should all try and minimize them to note, I agree … They should not however be pointed out as part of an ideology or a basis for ad hominem attack. Worse, a reviewer is not allowed to lie openly about them as Morris does.” Finally, Pappe protests about Morris involving Pappe’s two sons in “his narrative.” Morris: “But he put them in the dedication. Otherwise I wouldn’t have touched it.”
In general, Morris preferred not to relate to Pappe’s rebuttal. He only said that he did not intend to launch a personal attack, but to draw attention to the historical method employed in his book. “He gives his political opinions absolute freedom to control facts. There is no such thing as `facts.’ There is no `truth.’ It is okay to write anything that can be written.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=422776
PS; the previous remarks from Pappe should have been given a reference of http://hnn.us/articles/4482.html
johng said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:54 am
simply unbelievable voltaire.
Ian said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:34 pm
which bits are incorrect JohnG?
You’ve benn wriggling for nearly a week now.
modernity said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Hunting around the Web there does not seem to be many accessible scholarly reviews of Pappe’s work (there is a few pointers to the academic databases MUSE/JSTOR, etc but they are not accessible to the general public), still this article seems to discuss the various issues in an intelligent fashion:
“…
From the left, the younger new historian Ilan Pappé, author most recently of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), engaged him in vituperative exchanges. Reviewing Pappé’s A History of Modern Palestine (2004) for The New Republic, Morris recalled that they’d once walked together “in uneasy companionship.” He then charged that Pappé’s “appalling book” included “errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography.” The reason was that Pappé “consciously wrote history with an eye to serving political ends,” intent on “blackening the Zionists and whitening the Palestinians.”
The contretemps illustrates the treacherous landscape in which both men work. Pappé, to be sure, has publicly established his politics in spectacular fashion. He declared support for Hamas’s resistance to Israeli occupation, backed the attempted boycott of Israeli academe by European universities, and faced a campaign to get him dismissed from the University of Haifa before he left Israel last year for the University of Exeter.
Plainly seeking to distinguish himself from Pappé, Morris wrote in The New Republic that regardless of politics, scholars bear an obligation “to try to arrive at the truth about a historical event or process.” Pappé retorted that Morris was the biased party. He denied earlier friendliness toward Morris and accused him of holding “abominable racist views.” Morris’s comment that the second intifada had “sent the new historians spinning toward opposite corners of the political universe” seemed an understatement.
…
”
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i36/36b00601.htm
voltairespriest said,
May 14, 2008 at 6:52 am
What is “simply unbelievable” John? You seem to have gone mute on the main subject of discussion.
johng said,
May 14, 2008 at 3:16 pm
mute? your collusion with anti-arab bigotry voltaire and your attempt to dress up the shocking and sickening abuse above as some kind of ‘discussion’. shame on you.
modernityblog said,
May 14, 2008 at 4:32 pm
so no points of substance? Volty, I hate to say “I told you so” but comment #56 echos around
but back to the subject matter
I would thank everyone for their contributions, it set me thinking a bit.
I shall try to pick up a copy of Pappe’s a history of Modern Palestine, given the number of supposed errors I assume that it will be a bin end shortly?
resistor said,
May 14, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Why do you pretend to be on the left when all your allies are on the right?
Show me who your friends are, and I’ll show you who you are.
Jim Denham said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm
resistor: you are clearly an incorrigable anti-semite and ultra-anti-zionist, who cannot even defend your own positions. Neither can John ‘G’, though I wouldn’t call him an outright anti-semite (though he’s soft on anti-semitism, and thinks it’s something “to be played with” in a light-minded manner). You people need to wake up, smell the coffee and get to grips with your anti-Jewish racism. Although in the case of ‘resistor’, I suspect he’s too far gone in his personal hatred of Jews to be redeemed.
modernityblog said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:22 pm
it is rather hard to discuss Pappe’s shoddy treatment of basic history or see if Morris criticism is valid without a copy of Pappe’s book in front of us, but here’s the next best thing:
“A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples By Ilan Pappe”
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XLw4ojx4NBUC&dq=%22history+of+modern+palestine%22&pg=PP1&ots=3FTFr8aPud&sig=IHGeCO7sUdQEmRq1po6gEv7JVfs&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26q%3D%2522history%2Bof%2Bmodern%2Bpalestine%2522%26btnG%3DSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR15,M1
only a small selection of the book is available, due to copyright restrictions, etc
but even with that limited access it is possible to find very basic errors in Pappe’s account:
“1919 … Beitar movements founded” Page xv (see above link)
whereas most people interested in the field, and certainly professional historians should know that Beitar was founded in Riga in 1923
For example, it is a bit like a specialist historian of Trotskyism writing that the 4th International was founded in 1934 (not as is the case, 1938), an elementary error and moreso when it comes from a professional academic
voltaires_priest said,
May 15, 2008 at 7:10 am
Do tell me about my “collusion with anti-Arab bigotry” John, and try to do so before you’ve spent some time in the most famous student bar in the west - it tends to mean you’re less hysterical.
Incidentally, it seems to me that you’ve been asked a straight question on several occasions, which you’ve refused to answer. You’ve gone on to make veiled accusations of racism at those who disagree with you. Who’s “abusing” whom?
modernityblog said,
May 15, 2008 at 8:40 pm
as the historical debate has subsided let’s turn to other matters and talking of racism, perhaps a SWPer or two might like to intervene in this thread and take John Wight to task for his racism comments?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2295