Talk:New Historians

From Academic Kids

Although the new Historians's represent a variety of views, in generalization they present Zionism as a less innocent movement,

Er, less innocent than what? Than other historians say? Which other historians? Than another movements? This article assumes a lot of context... djk

Yes, going back to it, that's probably not clear enough. I'll try to change the wording. --Uri

Thanks, much better. djk

---

Why is this article's neutrality disputed? Or is the statement at the top of the article in reference to the above, and can now be deleted? Tokerboy 22:31 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, I just need a little clarification. When we say "new historians", who precisely are we talking about? Many times I hear of them mentioned as synonomous with the post-Zionist scholars, anti-Zionist scholars, etc. But Zero0000 points out that three people named, so far, in this article, deny being anti-Zionist. (And I know that Benny Morris isn't anywhere near as pro-Palestinian as he used to be.) Would the following Israelis not be considered New Historians? Dan Bar-On (Dept. of Human Behaviour, Ben Gurion Univ.; Bejamin Beit-Hallahmi, Psychology, Univ. of Haifa; Uri Ben Eilezer, sociologist as Univ. of Haifa; Neve Gordon, political science teacher at Ben Gurion Univ.; Baruch Kimmerling, Sociology at Hebrew University. Would these people be better classified as not New Historians? RK 02:13, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nobody agrees who the "new historians" are. About the only agreement is that Morris and Shlaim are included (I think they invented the phrase). I would leave out Ilan Pappe myself (too passionate and too little time in the archives) but most people include him. Some people include Tom Segev; I'd say he's marginal. Kimmerling is a sociologist rather than a historian but would still have a case for inclusion. I find it hard to get excited by the question since historians come in a continuum and not in tidy groups. I find it even harder to get excited about labels like "Zionist", "anti-Zionist", "post-Zionist" and "non-Zionist" (did I miss any?) that have all been applied to these people from time to time. Attaching labels is just a way to avoid the real issue, which is whether the history these people write is good or bad.

I deleted "controversial" since every historian of modern hstory is controversial in some circles (which is semantically the same as controversial without qualification). Calling Morris controversial without calling Karsh controversial is a joke. (You might have seen accolades for Karsh from the likes of Pipes but in the academic journals he was rubbished.) Anyway the article spends lots of time on the controversy and should spend more. What needs adding is a brief account of the major debates, citing both sides (unlike now). They are:

1. Morris and Shlaim vs Teveth
2. Morris vs Khalidi and others
3. Everyone vs Karsh

-- zero 14:03, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Flapan

I'd have included Simha Flapan. Any reason he isn't mentioned? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:38, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Teddy Katz versus Alexandroni Brigade

I'm sure this does belong in the article, but it was sufficiently incoherent that I couldn't copy edit into coherence; let's fix it first and get it back in.

• Teddy Katz versus Alexandroni Brigade
  In 1998, Teddy Katz, a Meretz activist and student of Ilan Pappe, presented a research for M.A. diploma which claimed that the Alexandroni Brigade commited a massacre in the Arab village of Tantura. The veterns of the brigade sued Katz for libel and won in court. The court found that Katz fabricated tesitmonies and twisted quotations. Following the trial, the Haifa University disqualified his work. It was later revealed that the PA has founded Katz lawyer in the trial. (see [6])

Issues:

1. "a research for M.A. diploma". "Research" as a noun in this context makes no sense. Is this "a Masters' thesis"? "a research paper in a course at the M.A. level"? or what?
2. I can mostly fix the spelling issues, but one word I can't guess: "has founded Katz lawyer"? One cannot "found" a person. Perhaps "funded"? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right, of course.

1. Yes, I meant to his Master thesis work.
2. Of cource, I meant "funded". What a shameful typo...

MathKnight 19:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This looks resolved. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see why this issue is present in this article, as Katz does not qualify as a "New Historian". Nevertheless, I replaced it by a more accurate paragraph. Katz's supervisor was Kais Firro, not Ilan Pappe. The errors in his thesis were partly exposed in court, but the court did not explicitly make a ruling on them. As to Katz's membership of Meretz, that belongs out unless the political party memberships of all the people on this page are similarly given. --Zero 02:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References, etc.

I've been trying to clean up references, external links, etc., and get them somewhere close to what is called for by the manual of style. I've made a lot of progress, but there is a lot of missing information:

• The part on "Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim versus Shabtai Teveth" is missing article names, so I have no way to add the appropriate references.
• Similarly "Benny Morris versus Norman Finkelstein and Nur Masalha" mentions "three articles in the Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 21, No. 1, Autumn, 1991, but does not name any of them.
• "Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé versus Efraim Karsh" mentions "a lengthy rebuttal in the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies", but gives no title.
• "Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé versus Efraim Karsh" mentions "an article of Morris [Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1995, pp. 44-62]", but gives no title.
• The Ha'aretz web site gives no date for the Ratner article. Does anyone have a way to get a date for this?
• The external link labeled "A critical Palestinian perspective" appears to be dead.
• Also, the Angela French article seems trivial to me. Is there any good reason we link to it?

Jmabel | Talk 04:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)