Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Dill]

(01-02-2024, 01:37 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm familiar with Pappe. He does good research, but obviously I don't really agree with all of his analyses and conclusions. Not familiar with Segev, but I have heard about Shlaim's "The Wall".

My feelings sort of track with Morris' "spiritual journey". He did the research (with others, of course) and brought it out into the light. But I think he began to fear the backlash from revealing it was leading to so much anti-Israel sentiment that it could possibly lead to an existential crisis for the country. And I think the equation in his head is the same as in mine: two wrongs are not gonna make a right. The Palestinians are a simple people who have been poorly treated. Not just by Israel, but also by their Arab neighbors and the rest of the world. I truly want for them to have their own country, and I think it is in Israel's best interest for that to happen as well. And, in my fantasy mind, I think they need a high-speed underground rail under Israel connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and the U.S. should pay for it by using the Israeli aid from the Camp David Accord and shift it from arms to this purpose. Honestly, I get more pissed off that my tax dollars are funding the continuing violence and free healthcare for Israelis than I do for tax dollars spent on the illegal alien issue here in the U.S.). But fat chance of something like that happening with Netanyahu in office.

Tom Segev wrote a book about the war of independence, but he is most respected for 1967, an analysis of the motivations and actions of all sides leading to the '67 war. Worth reading, but a different subject from the one at hand. The Iron Wall basically argues that from the beginning Israel had a strategy of becoming militarily dominant in the region and by constantly demonstrating/using overwhelming military power, forcing Arab neighbors to sue for peace. Shlaim thinks this strategy has had short term successes, but long term failure, preventing any real long-term security.  He also illustrates well the weakness of democracies--namely the erratic shifts in foreign policy created by elections. 

Just wanted to address the bolded here, as it puts a finger on the unusual stress on Israeli historians. Many feel, with good reason, that the legitimacy and continued existence of their state as an ethnic state depends on how the rest of the world understands what happened in '48 and '67. The result is a massive clash between nationalist ideology and mythmaking and the historical record, as assessed by professional historians--an international audience. 

It also, I think, foregrounds the research ideals and ethos of history as a form/discipline of modern knowledge, insofar as many Israeli historians have been made to feel thy must choose between country and and historical accuracy. To their credit, many have chosen accuracy over ideology, conforming to the research ideal. The same issue comes up only a little less urgently in the US when we debate the kind of history which should go into school curricula. But no one thinks the very existence of the US could be rocked by revelations of un-democratic treatment of slaves, native Americans and Mexicans.