![[Skip to Page Content]](graphics/skip_sliver.jpg){kind=small}
|
       |
 
 |
What Really Happened Fifty Years Ago?
More then anything else the new scholars challenged the collective memory of most Jews in Israel, particularly the collective memory of 1948, a year that still fuels most of the principal Israeli myths. It had a twofold effect on Israeli historiography: it legitimized the historical narrative of the Palestinians on the one hand, and it somewhat “normalized” the national collective memory of Israelis on the other. In their finding that it was not an Israeli David defeating an Arab Goliath in the 1948 war, the new historians sent a message to Israeli society that Israel is not an invincible state that can necessarily live by its sword and force its will by its army. Historical circumstances unfavorable to Israel can develop at any given moment. The nation should pursue paths that will gain acceptance by its neighbors. Unfortunately, some Israelis, following this logic, support a strong nuclear potential. But this is not the message carried by the new historians. Their conclusion is that Israel must acknowledge its neighbors’ fears and understand that the Arab states and the Palestinians do not see the “Defense” in Israeli Defense Forces, but see only an army used again and again to expand the territory of the Jewish state. Israel has to recognize how the other side perceives it: a state established on the ruins of Palestine as the result of a long process of Jewish colonization beginning in 1882. Some Israeli scholars have begun not only to recognize this as a position of the other side, but as a truthful description of past events. How important is this new outlook in shaping Israel’s future conduct and nature? It is a difficult issue and brings us to a more general question: how much does academia in general affect society as a whole? The debate on Israel’s origins aroused great interest in Israel—but in most cases it generated angry reactions against what was seen as betrayal. Nonetheless, the Israeli discourse now includes references that no longer ignore alternative analyses of what occurred in the past. Some mainstream scholars, as well as authors of new textbooks for schools and producers of television and radio programs, accept at least some of the points made by the new scholars. Although arguing against the new view, they concede that Israel or Zionism is seen as maltreating the Palestinian population in ways that explain current Palestinian and Arab animosity. These explanations of Palestinian grievances no longer rest on the conventional depictions of Arabs as emotional people susceptible to irrational and fanatic behavior. More importantly, the new way of looking at the myths of Israel’s foundation is being expressed beyond academia. Novelists, artists, filmmakers and playwrights have produced works with historical references that convey the messages emanating from the new scholars’ research to wider audiences. Of particular interest are films that portray a different kind of Palestinian, criticize the conduct of Israeli soldiers and show empathy to the aspirations of the other side in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. For example, “Crossfire” was the first Israeli movie to portray the frustration and despair that Palestinians felt in 1947 when they learned that the U.N. General Assembly had passed the partition resolution. In another film, “Cup Final,” about an Israeli soldier taken captive by the P.L.O. in the Lebanon war, there are frequent references by the captors to the link between their actions and Israel’s responsibility for turning Palestinians into refugees. The television documentary “Tekuma,” carried on Israel’s Channel One, is devoted to the history of Israel and presents an account affected to a large extent by the new historians’ work. As the academic debate continues, the industry of these new cultural products grows, and these may in the long run strengthen the political voices already presenting these issues on the margins of the Israeli political map. End Notes 1. Uri Ram, The Changing Agenda of Israeli Sociology; Theory, Ideology and Identity (State University of New York Press, New York, 1995). The whole book is devoted to this phenomenon. A further discussion is in three articles: Ilan Pappe, “Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Part I, 102, Volume 26/2 (Winter 1997), pp. 29-41; Part II, 103, Volume 26/3, (Spring 1997), pp. 37-43; Part III, 104, Volume 26/4 (Summer 1997), pp. 60-69.
Next Page
|
 |
Special Reports:
|
Printer Friendly Version of this Article