The Revisionists and New Historians

            Benny Morris is guilty of the same bias he accused the 'establishment' of in Tikkun in 1988.  He claimed that the new historians were more impartial and fair because they matured after the defining years of the 1947-1949 war whereas the old historians who lived through the war "were unable to separate their lives from this historical event, unable to regard impartially and objectively the facts and processes that they later wrote about."^[21]  The new historians had the opportunity to mature during the 1982 Lebanon War and their analysis is better because the country grew more skeptical of their government.  However, Morris' initial and pivotal turning point came as a result of the Lebanon War - much as the starting point for old historians came as a result of Israel's war for independence. 

            It was fashionable to blame Israel first in the 1980s and Morris found hope in the Oslo process of the 1990s.  Yet, after the collapse of the Syrian-Israeli talks, the Oslo process, and the Palestinian launching of the new war of attrition (often mislabeled, intifada), his "restrained optimism had given way to grave doubts - and within a year had crumbled into a cosmic pessimism."^[22]  The peace process affected his focus on history and Benny Morris proved to be even more a product of the political developments of the time than his predecessors were. 

            The revisionists often cite the reasons that the orthodox narrative is pro-Israeli propaganda.  Yet most trusted, Israeli 'establishment' historians, are not guilty of the charges leveled at them by the new historians.  For example, the revisionists charge the orthodox with consistently presenting the 1947-1949 war as a war between David (Israel) and Goliath (Arabs) - the vastly outnumbered Jews miraculously defeated the massive Arab onslaught.  Yet, an examination of two leading, establishment historians - the Kimche brothers - demonstrates something different.

            Jon Kimche was a journalist and his brother, David, served in the Mossad and later as the director-general of Israel's Foreign Ministry.  In 1960, they released their history of the war in English, Both Sides of the Hill, using their privileged access to the Israeli archives.  They used many of the same materials the new historians would draw upon once they were declassified in the 1980s.  In 1973, the book was translated into Hebrew and published by Israel's Ministry of Defense, with the preface written by Ben Gurion.  It is hard to be more 'establishment' or 'orthodox' than this work.  Yet they clearly write: "When the fighting ended in June [1948] there were 50,000 active combatants - Arabs and Jews - in Palestine.  When it resumed in July there were almost 100,000, but the emphasis had now changed.  The Israeli armies had risen from just over 20,000 to 60,000 men.  The Arab armies also increased, but not at the same rate; they now had about 40,000 men in Palestine."^[23] 

            The Kimche brothers do not mention the numbers merely in passing.  Earlier in the book, they use half a page to detail the number of Israeli and Arab troops, their country of origin, and where they were stationed on May 15 - the day the Arab armies invaded.  They count 19,000 Israelis and 23,000 Arabs and then clearly write:  "The invading regular Arab armies were roughly equal in number to the Haganah effectives of the Israelis, and this balance of forces also applied to most of the fronts.  Most of the tales of the overwhelming superiority of one side and the heroic inferiority of the other, to which both Arabs and Israelis have lent currency, are not substantiated by the actual numbers which were engaged."^[24]  If the Kimche brothers are the 'establishment' and this work was published by the Ministry of Defense, is this really a presentation of the charges made - that the Jews were "the few" fighting against "the many?"

            The fact is that the old historians offered a realistic version of history.  They may be guilty of concentrating more on Israeli behavior and needs at the time, but they provided far more context than did the new historians.  When early Israeli historians were writing history, there was not a question about whether the Arab states accepted Israel's right to exist - it was manifest in every public declaration.  Revisionist history followed popular political trends far more than the 'establishment' did.  The new historians provided more detail, less context, and a narrow focus which in the end, distorted reality and history.

            It would appear that the major difference between Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim is their life journey after founding the cause of revisionist history.  Shlaim immigrated to Israel from Iraq when he was young but moved and remained in England after serving in the Israeli military during the 1967 war.  Morris was born around the same time in Israel but remained in Israel.  While the revisionists received wide acclaim outside of Israel, within the country the new history was seen as sacrilegious propaganda.  As a result, Morris could not secure a university post in Israel after he published The Birth.  In 1996, he announced his intention to leave for the United States.  Israel's president at the time, Ezer Weizman invited Morris to his office and asked him if he supported Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.  When Morris assured him that he did, Weizman arranged a post for him at Ben Gurion University in Israel, where he remains to this day.^[25] 

            Shlaim faced no equivalent challenge in England.  In Britain, like the United States, the academic community greeted the revisionists with open arms - as though they were waiting for someone to come along and articulate the conclusions they so desperately wanted to believe.  The revisionists filled this void.

            More important than the employment history of the two is the fact that Morris lived in Israel for his entire life while Shlaim lived in England after 1967.  It may be easier to comment from afar, but when buses and cafes explode in front of one's face, one may form a different opinion based on an unavoidable context.  Oslo's failure led those in Israel's far-left to run further to the left; at the same time, everyone else shifted to the right.  Most revisionist historians shifted left.  Morris ran the opposite direction.  The political events shaped the presentation of history. 

Morris faced an internal struggle that his fellow revisionists did not face.  While he set out with the same ax to grind and the same selective focus as his fellow new historians, he had to absorb the context of living in Israel.  He managed to drastically change his political position while speaking with the media but avoided politicizing his books.  He re-released Righteous Victims in 2001 and carried the history through the breakout of the new 'intifada.'  However, he didn't rewrite history, change everything from 1881-2001, and focus only on Palestinian rejectionism. 

            Benny Morris is the case of an historian truly torn between his desire to present newly available archival research (which exists only in Israel and the West), and an Israeli Jew who still lives in Israel.  He is a Zionist and not proud of the past.  This is the polar opposite of Shlaim and most of the new historians.  They not only loathe Zionism but also will present a limited and selective narrative in order to further the conclusions they had reached long ago.

            In the end, the new historians or revisionists did not offer anything new except fresh archival material from the West.  Their presentation is less honest than the old historians or 'establishment.'  The addition of new archival evidence on one side does not make a historical account more accurate - it makes it more detailed.  More selective details equals less historical context.  The revisionist presentation is mostly propaganda because they feel righteous in including certain facts, dumping others, and abandoning historical context.