In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Significance of Israeli Historical Revisionism Jerome Slater n the past decade or so, there has been a remarkable burst of historical scholarship—most, though not all, the work of Israeli academicians and journalists—on the origins and dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The sources of this new scholarship are recently declassified Israeli, American , British, Palestinian, and United Nations archives, as well as the private diaries and public memoirs of a number of leading Israeli political leaders, especially Moshe Sharett, David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Yitzhak Rabin. Collectively , these works have come to be known as "historical revisionism," because they have compelled a sweeping reassessment of some of the most critical axioms and widely accepted beliefs about the conflict.1 The importance of this revisionism is far more than historical. It has direct relevance for the contemporary conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As Steven Heydemann observes, the "increasingly transparent myths" of standard Israeli historical memory have played "a powerful role in shaping perceptions not only about who was responsible for the Palestinian problem in 1948, or for the continuing absence of peace, but also about what must yet be done ay 179 The Significance of Israeli Historical Revisionism Jerome Slater ~ / n the past decade or so, there has been a remarkable ~ burst of historical scholarship-most, though not all, the work of Israeli academicians and journalists-on the origins and dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The sources of this new scholarship are recently declassified Israeli, American , British, Palestinian, and United Nations archives, as well as the private diaries and public memoirs of a number of leading Israeli political leaders, especially Moshe Sharett, David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Yitzhak Rabin. Collectively , these works have come to be known as "historical revisionism," because they have compelled a sweeping reassessment of some of the most critical axioms and widely accepted beliefs about the conflict. 1 The importance of this revisionism is far more than historical. It has direct relevance for the contemporary conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As Steven Heydemann observes, the "increasingly transparent myths" of standard Israeli historical memory have played "a powerful role in shaping perceptions not only about who was responsible for the Palestinian problem in 1948, or for the continuing absence of peace, but also about what must yet be done 179 Jerome Slater 180 to resolve these issues, foremost among them the problem of Palestinians under Israeli rule."2 Violence and Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict One of the central Israeli myths that has been decisively refuted by the new historical scholarship is that the Jews were innocent, largely non-violent victims of fanatical Palestinian violence and terrorism. No part of this standard view can survive objective examination: (1) Given the insistence of the Zionists on creating a Jewish state in Palestine, inhabited primarily by Arabs for thirteen hundred consecutive years, Palestinian resistance to Jewish immigration and political objectives was not necessarily "fanatical," or even unreasonable ; (2) when the Palestinians turned to violence, it was usually because they had exhausted political means of protecting their rights, particularly to self-determination and majority rule; (3) the Jews were not merely innocent victims, but were often fanatical, violent, and terrorist themselves. In the pre-state period, the Irgun and Stern Gang frequently employed terrorism against both the British and against Arab civilians. In the late 1930s, the Irgun began the pattern of planting bombs in Arab marketplaces, firing on Arab buses, and other terrorist actions that were later employed by Palestinian terrorists against the Jews. While Jewish terrorism was officially criticized and disavowed by Ben-Gurion and other mainstream Jewish political leaders, there is substantial evidence that they often tacitly acquiesced in or even collaborated with the terrorism, including some of the worst civilian massacres (e.g. at Deir Yassin in 1948). At the least, they did not eschew the fruits of terrorism , particularly the driving out of the Arabs in the aftermath of the 1948 war.3 Until the recent historical scholarship, it was widely accepted that during the 1948 War of Independence, the Palestinian refugees fled Israel more or less voluntarily, in part because of Arab urgings that they do so, in part simply to escape the unavoidable consequences of war. However, 180 Jerome Slater to resolve tllese issues, foremost among them the problem of Palestinians under Israeli rule."2 Violence and Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict One of the central Israeli myths that has been decisively refuted...

Share