RAFI NETS-ZEHNGUT, PH.D, LLB TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY, ISRAEL
THE DIFFICULT PATH OF A REVISIONIST HISTORIAN: BENNY MORRIS AND THE 1948 PALESTINIAN EXODUS
ABSTRACT
This article describes the path taken by Israeli revisionist historian, Benny Morris, from the early 1980s to 2004, in his research on the major historical event of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Methodologically, the article uses mostly primary sources such as interviews with Morris, journalists, scholars, 1948 War veterans, and members of state institutions, as well as printed materials such as newspaper articles, textbooks and NGO publications -- in addition to secondary sources in the form of relevant studies. The article describes, inter alia, the obstacles Morris encountered in acquiring funds for his research and in getting it published, the attitude toward his findings among Israeli-Jews, Palestinians, and the international community, controversies he took part in, as well as his impact on the Israeli attitudes toward the exodus and the approach of Palestinian scholars towards their history.
INTRODUCTION
Being a revisionist1 historian - one who challenges mainstream history - can be significantly rewarding; one can succeed in portraying the past more accurately and changing mainstream history and collective memory. Being such a historian, however, can also be significantly difficult; one can encounter many obstacles on the revisionist path. Specifically, researching intra- and interstate conflicts often touches upon topics of great importance to the involved parties. Therefore, challenging mainstream history of such conflicts can be especially hard. This article describes the path of the Israeli2 central revisionist historian Benny Morris, who researched mainly the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict ("the conflict"). The article addresses Morris's path with regard to his main topic of research, which was also the central historical event of the conflict - the exodus of the Palestinians3 during the 1948 War. Specifically, it focuses on the main aspect of Morris's exodus research - its causes.4 Morris, as one of the leading Israeli historians of the conflict, contributed significantly to the research on the exodus.5 His first and most important book, published in 1988, is "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" ("Birth").6 It provoked one of the most widespread historical debates Israel has ever known, if not the most widespread -- and as we will see, this book had a significant impact on Israel.7 This article covers the entire two relevant decades of Morris's research on the exodus, from its beginning in the early 1980s, to 2004 (which largely represents, as will be shown, the end of Morris's research on the exodus and of its successful impact on Israel). Although hundreds of studies in various languages address in part Morris and/or his research, none focuses on his entire path and describe it in as much depth and width as this article does.
Methodologically, the article uses as primary sources: interviews with Morris and with relevant journalists, scholars, 1948 War veterans, peace activists, and members of state institutions; as well as printed materials such as newspaper articles, textbooks and NGO publications (obtained from various archives). It also uses secondary sources in the form of studies - some (not yet published) by the author of this article - each addressing, inter alia, a small segment of Morris's path. The article integrates these primary and secondary sources for the first time. Before proceeding to describe Morris's path, a description of the context surrounding that path is necessary: the conflict, the exodus, and their representation in Israel.
THE ISRAELI MEMORY OF THE CONFLICT AND OF THE EXODUS
The conflict has lasted for about a century, causing severe damage to the involved parties. It has become, mainly since the 1948 War, the primary issue relative to the existence, ideology, and identity of the Israelis. Beginning with the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, its institutions disseminated only the inclusive Zionist narrative of the conflict among the Israelis. Generally, this inclusive narrative portrayed the Arabs/Palestinians and the Jews/Israelis as narratives of conflicts typically do. It was selective, biased and distorted, presenting a simplistic description of events in a black-and-white way. The Arabs/Palestinians were blamed for the outbreak of the conflict and its continuation, de-legitimizing them, while the Jews/Israelis were portrayed positively as peace-loving and moral, and as the sole victims of the conflict.8
In this Zionist inclusive narrative, one of the central historical events is the 1948 Palestinian exodus. In the 1948 War, some 650,000 Palestinians left the area which Israel seized at the end of the War, and the Palestinian refugee problem was created. This problem has great political, psychological, and social importance for both parties. Since 1949, it has been the focus of a broad diplomatic campaign conducted by the Arabs/Palestinians against Israel, demanding the return of the refugees into Israel. Since the 1990s, resolution of this problem has been a major goal adopted by the parties involved in the peace process. The Zionist narrative assumes no responsibility for the exodus among the Jews/Israelis themselves, but blames it on the Arabs/Palestinians exclusively. The Palestinians, it argues, left willingly due to fear and to explicit, inclusive (of all Palestinians) appeals to them by the Palestinian leadership and the Arab states to leave their localities. Acts of expulsion by Jewish and later Israeli fighting forces were ignored or even denied. The Palestinians, in contrast, largely argue for the most part that the exodus was caused by expulsion by the Jews and later by the Israelis.9
The Zionist narrative of the exodus was disseminated by various state institutions such as the Israeli army (IDF), the Publications Agency at the national Information Center, and the educational system.10 Until the late 1970s, the state was extensively supported in its dissemination endeavor by various Israeli societal institutions such as newspapers, Jewish 1948 War veterans' memoirs, and research community11 studies.12
The dominance in Israel of the inclusive Zionist narrative began to be challenged by Israeli societal institutions beginning in the late 1970s. For example, various scholarly studies and newspaper articles, as well as some 1948 Jewish war veterans' memoirs, have presented a critical narrative regarding the exodus (at times called a "post-Zionist" narrative).13 This narrative maintained that some Palestinians left willingly while others were expelled by the Jewish/Israeli fighting forces.14 The expulsion cause stood in sharp contrast to the Zionist narrative.
This societal change intensified in the late 1980s with the commencement of a historical revisionist period commonly called the "New Historians" era.15 New historical studies criticized additional aspects of the Zionist narrative of the conflict or supported criticism raised earlier. The major figure among these critics was historian Benny Morris whose most widely discussed findings focus on the exodus and support the critical narrative. Moreover, since the late 1980s, the publication of critical newspaper articles and of 1948 War veterans' memoirs regarding the exodus has increased. Also, Israeli NGOs started at that time to present the critical and Palestinian narratives of the exodus more prominently in their publications.16 The documents provided by the scholarly studies and the testimonies given by Jewish 1948 War veterans formed a solid basis for concluding that the critical narrative of the exodus is more accurate than the Zionist one. As for Israeli state institutions, the IDF, the Publications Agency, and the Ministry of Education continued at least until 2004 to present by and large the Zionist narrative of the exodus. The Ministry represents the only exception: since 2000, its approved history textbooks have presented the critical narrative.17
BENNY MORRIS'S PATH
Morris was born in 1948 in Israel. After completing his service in the IDF, he got a BA degree in European history and philosophy from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and later a PhD in modern European history from the University of Cambridge. From 1978 to 1991, he was a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, the main Israeli English daily. Politically, he was largely dovish, to the extent, for example, that in the late 1980s he refused to serve in the West Bank as an IDF soldier and consequently was sent to prison.18
Morris was introduced to the issue of the 1948 Palestinian refugees during the first Lebanon War, which erupted in 1982. He was in Lebanon as a reserve soldier in the IDF and as a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, and there he met with 1948 Palestinian refugees. They told him, inter alia, about events surrounding their exodus from what came to be the State of Israel, including the expulsion of some of their own. Still, as Morris was later contemplating writing a book, he thought of writing about the Palma"ch, the elite fighting unit of the mainstream Jewish community in Palestine/Eretz Israel. Many of the documents regarding the Palma"ch were stored in its own archive, managed by The Association of the Palma"ch Generation, made up of Palma"ch veterans. He received permission from the Association to examine the documents in its archive, and while doing so he came across documents describing the exodus of Palestinians in 1948, including their expulsion. He might have continued this line of research and written a book about the Palma"ch, but he was asked by a member of The Association to stop researching at its archive. He was told that it was decided that a veteran of the Palma"ch would write a book about it. Morris believed he was told that because the veterans were concerned that he might present the Palma"ch in his book less favorably than they would have liked, describing their wrongdoings prior to and during the 1948 War. Nevertheless, at that time, the integrated information Morris had accumulated from the refugees in Lebanon and mostly the Palma"ch archive increased his interest in writing a book about the 1948 exodus.19
To get funding for researching the exodus, Morris approached various institutions in Israel such as the Lavon Institute for the Study of the Labor Movement and the Moshe Dayan Center for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. His applications were rejected -- because, in his view, the exodus was considered a taboo subject in Israel at that time. He was successful, however, in getting funding from institutions outside of Israel, such as the British Research Council and St. Anthony's College at Oxford University.20
Morris's decision to write about the exodus was well timed. In the early 1980s, documents about the 1948 War that were stored in Israeli, American, British and other archives began to be declassified. Not all Israeli documents, however, were declassified; a report, for instance, about illegal conduct of the Jewish/Israeli fighting forces (e.g., looting, killing of prisoners and expulsion) remained classified. Morris was aware of this report and appealed to get permission to view it. His requests of the management of the Israeli State Archive where the classified report was stored, and of a special ministerial committee, as well as his appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice (the highest judicial institution in Israel) - were all rejected.21 Still, at times Morris was able to bypass the official classification of Israeli archival documents by receiving them secretly from the staff of the archives. On other occasions he conveyed his speculations about certain topics to these staff members and got their responses to these speculations after they examined the documents.22
Eventually, the documents that were available to Morris provided him with copious data about the exodus. In 1985-1986, therefore, he gradually published in international academic journals partial findings of his larger research in five articles.23 Morris published these outside of Israel because, among other reasons, he did not expect Israeli journals to publish his findings (and he was probably right24). Four of these articles deal with the following topics: the crystallization of the Israeli policy against a return of the Palestinian refugees in 1948; the activity in 1948 of a Zionist-Israeli mid-level figure - Josef Weitz - in the Transfer (of the Palestinians) Committees; economic pressure that the Israelis used to make the Palestinians leave in 1948; and the exodus specifically from the Palestinian cities of Lydda and Ramla.
The article that resonated most strongly, however, with Israeli society was the fifth one, which addressed a report by the IDF Intelligence Branch from June 1948. This report was found in the archive of the dovish organization Hashomer Hatsa'ir (later, the staff of that archive was reproached by the staff of the Israeli State Archive for giving the report to Morris25). The report analyzes the nature and causes of the Palestinian exodus from the beginning of the 1948 War (11/30/1947) until the time it was written. It argues that the main cause of the exodus was hostile activities against the Palestinians engaged in by Jewish/Israeli fighting forces -- in addition to psychological warfare and expulsion applied by these forces, fear on the part of Palestinians, and orders to leave issued by Arab/Palestinian entities. This academic article was described in an article published in early 1986 in the Jerusalem Post26 and later, in several articles in Israeli Hebrew dailies, on an Israeli television program, and at an academic conference at the abovementioned Dayan Center. At the conference, a controversy erupted among some of its participants: Moshe Carmel, the Israeli commander of the north front in 1948, claimed he never got orders to expel Palestinians for political reasons; the renowned scholar Bernard Louis claimed that a historical narrative about the exodus cannot be based on one document such as the intelligence report. On the other hand, Ya'acov Shimony, a senior figure in 1948 in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, supported the findings of the report. Morris claimed that he would support the findings of the report through many documents to be included in his forthcoming book.27 This greater resonance of the fifth article, in addition to the lower resonance of Morris's other four articles, prepared the Israeli research community for the appearance of Morris's 1988 book, "Birth."28
"Birth" is Morris's most important book, being the first to focus on the exodus while presenting the critical narrative based on many Israeli and international documents. It is also the first Israeli book to describe the exodus as it took place specifically in most of the Palestinian and Jewish- Palestinian integrated localities. In a nutshell, the book asserts that the exodus was caused by the war and not by a master plan of the Jews/Israelis or of the Arabs. Many reasons led to the exodus such as willing flight of the Palestinians due to fear (before and during the fighting), the collapse of the Palestinian society and economy in part due to the earlier flight of most of its elite, and orders by Arabs and Palestinian leaders and commanders for partial evacuation.29 Morris claimed, however, that the Arab/Palestinian leadership made no inclusive explicit appeals for the Palestinians to leave, thereby challenging a major component of the Zionist narrative. Other causes were deliberate actions of the Jews/Israelis such as expulsion, psychological warfare and attacks that aimed to frighten the Palestinians and make them leave.30
In Israel, the academic journals totally disregarded "Birth," as did the media to a significant extent. That is, no Israeli academic journal reviewed it, and only two of the five main dailies, the more dovish-liberal ones, did so - these were Al-Hamishmar and Ha'aretz (the latter only a year after the book's publication). Both, for the most part, accepted the book's findings.31 The general disregard was mostly due to the taboo regarding the exodus, in addition to micro factors that related to the book and Morris, such as: it was published in English (a language, as mentioned, less prevalent in Israel than Hebrew); 32 it was written by a journalist (the writing of journalists is considered less qualitative); 33 and a dovish scholar produced it (which led some people to believe that Morris's political attitude might have led him to biased critical scholarly findings).34 The situation abroad was the opposite, however. More than ten international academic journals, including some leading ones (e.g., "American Historical Review," "International Affairs," and "The Middle East Journal" 35) published reviews of the book, which were complimentary for the most part, in terms of its historical approach and methodology. American newspapers responded similarly: at least four articles in major newspapers reviewed the book or discussed it favorably (at times, together with other critical studies). The newspaper articles had resonance in the U.S., especially among its Jewish community, which spread to Israel. The American community constitutes the biggest Jewish Diaspora outside of Israel, with widespread influence in the U.S. and in Israel. This dual international recognition of the book - in scholarly circles and newspapers - helped Morris to overcome the fact that most segments of Israeli academia and media ignored his book. Morris explains this process regarding, for example, American newspapers:
It ["Birth"] was resonant [in Israel] because it was published in English and got positive reviews in important newspapers in the U.S. Two very positive articles were published in The New York Times and The Washington Post … and in other places in America, and this echoed from the Jewish community in America to Israel. This was the direction [of impact on Israel] - the impact was not directly in English, they [Israeli scholars] do not read [books in] English … English is truly read among the foreigners, but if it echoes in the Jewish community and academia in America, it gets here [Israel] and then you [Israelis] have to relate to it.36
The impact of "Birth" is inseparable from an article Morris published in late 1988 in Tikkun, an American-Jewish semi-academic journal.37 He was asked by the editor of the journal (as opposed to initiating the idea himself) to write his views on Israeli historiography. Morris claimed in that article that until recently, Israeli historians writing about the Zionist movement and the conflict had been "Old Historians." They provided distorted historical narratives aimed at presenting Israel positively, supportive of Israel in the context of the conflict. Morris asserted that these narratives were less accurate than those provided as of the late 1980s by the New Historians. The latter type of historians included, according to Morris -- based on what he learned from articles in American newspapers -- Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Simcha Flapan and himself. These were historians who published books in 1987-198838 that advanced critical narratives regarding Israel in the context of the history of the conflict, mostly regarding the 1948 war. He explained this wave of critical studies by the facts that the archival documents from 1948 were not disclosed until the early 1980s and that the New Historians39 were younger and more open-minded than the generation of conservative Old Historians of the 1948 era. Later, Morris widely repeated in academic publications and other media the above claims he had made in the Tikkun article: the Old Historians were "propaganda people"40 who disregarded important topics or distorted them41 and who consciously and intentionally distorted the past and misled their readers. At the same time, Morris extolled the virtues of the New Historians' studies.42
The Tikkun article, along with its theme that appeared elsewhere, had various important effects. First and foremost, it brought the wave of critical studies by the New Historians to public awareness. It is one thing for all of these books to be published at roughly the same time -- but it is another thing for one to be aware of them and to bring them and their significance to public awareness. The latter indicates a widespread change in the historiography of the conflict, and strengthens the initial credibility of each book in this wave (due to the common tendency to believe "if there are several critical books and not just one, there is probably some truth in their findings"). As Morris put it, "No doubt that the way it happened, a wave of books and then an article that describes them as a revolutionary wave of books, somehow increased their effect."43
The second major impact of the Tikkun article was that it directly caused the eruption of the long and heated disagreement between Shabtai Teveth and Morris. This came about in 1989-1990 and was publicized in seven articles in the renowned Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz 44 and in the following four international academic publications: three academic journals (Commentary, Tikkun, and Middle Eastern Studies) and the book "1948 and After."45 The controversy was initiated in April 1989 by Teveth, a major Israeli historian who probably saw himself as one of the Old Historians and was therefore offended by Morris's attack on them. Later he explained what caused him to initiate the controversy: "… my article [the first one he published against Morris in Ha'aretz], I do not know what a lynch is [responding to people saying he is attacking Morris in this article], it is certainly not a lynch. This [his first article] is an outcome of an article that Benny Morris wrote in Tikkun … "46 The controversy concerned various aspects of the 1948 War, including the Palestinian exodus, and was the main historical controversy with Jews that Morris encountered after publishing "Birth" (see two other controversies below). It was especially important because Teveth explicitly agreed that expulsion took place in 1948, but only, he claimed, after the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948 and not also before - as Morris claimed. Still, it was apparently the first time Teveth addressed 1948 expulsions in his scholarly writings. Teveth also contradicted a main component of the Zionist narrative regarding the exodus, claiming that there were no inclusive explicit calls by Arab/Palestinian leaders for the Palestinians to leave. All of these assertions, coming from such a senior Old Historian as Teveth, strongly supported the critical narrative of the exodus and challenged its Zionist one. This controversy had another important impact - it provided a platform for the dissemination of the critical narrative, which, as we saw, had not easily found acceptance shortly after the publication of "Birth." Teveth's efforts to challenge Morris and his research by initiating the controversy were ultimately counterproductive for Teveth; his challenge actually served to support Morris.47
In sum, these two impacts of the Tikkun article significantly amplified the impact of "Birth" by placing it in a wider context of critical studies which were the first of their kind. Criticizing the Old Historians also contributed to the resonance of the article and its theme among the public, scholars and journalists. As Yossi Melman, a central Israeli journalist wrote: "Of course that language has an impact … the bigger it is, colorful and noisy, the more it catches the eye and the ear … whoever is more aggressive, making noise, further promotes [interest in a topic]."48 Melman's colleague Israel Zamir, former central Israeli journalist, adds that, "Provocation is the biggest factor that promotes publicity." 49 Thus, the Tikkun article contributed significantly to the resonance,
dissemination and impact specifically of Morris and "Birth," and of critical studies regarding the conflict in general.50 Without the boosts described above, "Birth" would have needed much more time to achieve such a strong impact in Israel, if it had been received in Israel at all.
The theme presented by the Tikkun article -- and the provocative language used to present it there (as well as later in other public forums too) -- also raised antagonism against Morris among various scholars and other Israelis. This included not only Shabati Teveth, discussed above, but also, for example, another leading Old Historian, Nathanel Lorech, who wrote about Morris (who was critical also of him) in his 1997 memoir.51 Dan Gilady, a former National Civic Inspector in the Ministry of Education explained: "… he [Morris] gives the impression that he writes things also to make people angry … there was something opposing in him, also in his public appearances …."52 This discussion highlights another micro factor involved in the reception of research: the type of speech used by a historian when referring to his research and that of others.
Another factor that contributed to the resonance of "Birth" was the timing of its publication. Its English version was published just a few months after the eruption of the first Palestinian uprising (Intifada) in December 1987. This significantly increased the centrality of the Palestinians in Israel, thereby increasing interest in them and in 1948 as the cornerstone of the conflict. As Anita Shapira, a leading Israeli historian, wrote, "The Intifada … provided a dramatic character to the book ["Birth" in English], an actualization of past sins in light of present sins … Benny Morris's book indeed was published with excellent timing."53 And Morris himself says: "I was lucky with regard to the background of the publication [of "Birth" in English] - the historical background was the Intifada, the book came out in 1988 … and I think it helped. The Palestinians and their claims were in the headlines."54 Since the early 1990s, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has kept this centrality at a high level, or has even increased it.
In 1990 Morris published another book, which had no particular impact on Israel: "1948 and After."55 It is a collection of his articles dealing with the 1948 War and the fate of its Palestinian refugees immediately thereafter, in Israel and in their hosting Arab countries. More importantly, however, in 1991 he published the updated Hebrew version of "Birth." This was not an easy thing for Morris; several respectable Israeli publishers that Morris approached refused to accept his manuscript (e.g., Sifriyat Hapoalim and Zmora-Bitan). Morris thought this was due to the book's critical nature with regard to the sensitive topic of the exodus. Eventually the book was published by Am Oved, but only after a special reviewing process. Eli Shealtiel, the Am Oved editor who dealt with "Birth," asked seven respected scholars to review the book - a much higher number than usual. He knew he would need especially strong support to get the manuscript approved by the management of Am Oved. Positive reports were given by the reviewers and the manuscript was approved. The fact that the book was initially published outside of Israel in English also contributed to its being accepted for publication in Israel.56 Nonetheless, the road was still not totally open for the publication of "Birth" as Morris wrote it. When he submitted the manuscript of the book to the Israeli censorship - as he was obliged to do by law -- he was asked to take out descriptions of massacres of Palestinians and - to the best of Morris's recollection - also of their expulsions. He refused, saying that these descriptions did not threaten Israel's security, and eventually was allowed to leave them in the manuscript.57
Thus, we can see that the findings of Morris's research were initially published in scholarly channels outside of Israel - in 1985-1986 in five academic articles and in 1988 in a book - and in Israel only six years later, in 1991. This was due to the conservative attitude of the Israeli academy and publishers toward the exodus, and Morris's awareness of that.
"Birth" in Hebrew was largely ignored by Israeli academic journals similar to the response to the English version: only one review article was published.58 In contrast, the response of Israeli newspapers was drastically more accepting: all five main dailies published reviews.59 The more receptive approach of the newspapers to the Hebrew version compared to the English version (when only two newspaper reviews were published) can be explained in part by several micro factors. The Hebrew version was published after the English one, so it was as if the latter "made way" for the former, in terms of making the book and Morris more known and accepted.60 Moreover, the fact that the former was published in Hebrew - and journalists are aware that their readership is more interested in Hebrew books - contributed to the decision to review the Hebrew book. 61 These two factors - sequence and language - illustrate again the importance of micro factors that influence the reception of studies. Thus, we can see that Israeli newspapers were much more open than Israeli academic journals to both the English and Hebrew versions of "Birth."
The five newspaper reviews published in the early 1990s, along with the two published in the late 1980s regarding the English version of "Birth,"62 contributed significantly to the acceptance in Israel of "Birth." These articles were largely written by leading scholars (such as Avraham Sela, Alon Kadish and Imanuel Sivan), focused on the real substance of the book, and most importantly, expressed the scholars' opinions on its quality. All of them accepted for the most part Morris's description of the causes of the exodus, and also complimented its methodology.63 For example, Avraham Sela wrote: "Benny Morris's work is the most comprehensive, thorough and exhaustive research which has been done to date about the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem ... the wealth of official and personal documents that are used in the book … allow Morris to draw an inclusive and convincing picture of the immediate causes of the exodus, the flight and the expulsion …."64 The book's methodology, however, was also criticized. It was argued that it was one-sided, since it did not use sources in Arabic/Palestinian, including oral history (Morris did not read that language); that the analysis of 1948 events was done from the author's present point of view rather than from a 1948 perspective or that of the previous generation; and that Morris ignored evil acts conducted by the Arabs/Palestinians. Moreover, critics stated that a structural approach should have been developed to explain the exodus, and that the use by Morris of the diaries of Josef Weitz as evidence for the expulsion of Palestinians was mistaken, since the diaries represented Weitz's aspirations more than his actions.65 All of this criticism, however, was not presented as rejection of the book's main findings regarding the causes of the exodus..
This positive reception was also evident in academic channels by scholars who had commented on "Birth" shortly after its publication in English (but only vocally and privately, in conferences66) and later, in their studies, mostly since the early to mid-1990s.67 They largely accepted its findings and complimented its methodology.68 Some scholars, however, criticized Morris's methodology with regard to his not using Arabic/Palestinian sources, as noted above,69 and his not using more modern historical research methodologies, such as quantitative methods used in social sciences and comparative analysis with other conflicts.70 This criticism, like that in newspaper articles described above, did not undermine Morris's main historical findings regarding the causes of the exodus..
In light of all the above, from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s, the New Historians were central in the Israeli public sphere -- discussed extensively in the media, the research community, cultural channels, state institutions and the political system. Among the New Historians, Morris and his research regarding the exodus were the central topic of discussion,71 for various reasons, including: It was Morris who coined the term "New Historians" and attacked the "old" ones; he researched the exodus, the main historical event in the conflict; and he was more accessible in Israel than some of the other New Historians (e.g., Avi Shlaim, who lives in Britain, and Simcha Flapan, who died shortly before the publication of his own book in 1987). In this context, various aspects of the New Historians were discussed, such as the reasons for their arrival, and whether or not they were really "new" (i.e.., should they be labeled "new" because they used different methodologies, because the narratives that they presented were more accurate, or because they based their studies more on newly declassified documents?). Moreover, the term "New Historians" - although challenged, as mentioned - has been widely used since then in Israel and abroad with regard to scholars writing critical studies beginning in the late 1980s.72.
Other aspects of the New Historians - specifically related to the 1948 exodus - that were discussed in Israel can be divided into four categories: historical, methodological, instrumental and interpretational. 1) Historical - what really happened in 1948, what were the causes of the exodus? For the most part, Morris's description of these causes was accepted in Israel,73 despite the Teveth- Morris controversy (in which, in fact, Teveth largely accepted the "willing flight and expulsion" narrative) and despite a controversy occurring later that involved Moshe Tsachar and the events in a specific locality. 2) Methodological - whether Morris's research was conducted according to a proper methodology. His methodology was largely well received - with some criticism, not serious enough to undermine his findings. Specific manifestations of widespread acceptance of the historical aspect of Morris's work, as well as a significant degree of acceptance of Morris's methodology, were described above -- as indicated by seven positive reviews published by Am Oved, six newspaper reviews, and acceptance by the research community..
In contrast to the general acceptance of the historical and methodological aspects of the New Historians' research,74 much more criticism was raised against Morris and the New Historians (with Morris as their main figure) when it came to the next two categories.
3) Instrumental - what impact does a more accurate narrative of the 1948 War have on Israel, a question that springs from the present and looks to the future. Some Israelis - e.g., the renowned novelist Aaron Meged - argued that it is not prudent to present Israel negatively because it damages its international image and demobilizes the Israelis, turning them against their own history and people.75 This argument has been reinforced by people who observe that the Palestinians are not critical of their own acts in 1948 - therefore the damage to Israel from self-criticism would be greater (e.g., the Israeli historian Yeoshua Porat76). Others, in contrast, such as Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, argued that no matter how the Arabs or Palestinians present the history of the conflict, the Israelis should present the truth about it. Various people also argued that presenting the past more accurately could promote peace.77 4) Interpretational - facing the past and considering the context surrounding the exodus. This aspect takes into account the situation of the Jews/Israelis in 1948, how they saw the expulsion of Palestinians at the time, and why they saw it the way they did. Many Israelis argued that in light of the fact that the Arabs/Palestinians initiated the 1948 War and of the severe threat that the Jews/Israelis felt the Palestinians would have presented had they remained in Israel, the Jews/Israelis were justified in expelling Palestinians. Still others argued that the Palestinians should not have been expelled, and because some of them were expelled, Israel "was born in sin."78.
Summarizing the four aspects above, we can see that in a relatively more open Israeli macro context, and in light of many concrete documents that supported the expulsion cause - the main aspect, the historical one, was largely well received in Israel. The instrumental and interpretational aspects were much more contested and remained unresolved. Still, these latter two aspects were debated mostly prior to the mid 1990s, and significantly less thereafter. Nonetheless, Morris was very reactive to every criticism that was raised against him. He tirelessly defended the four aspects of his research in various channels of academia (e.g., articles, books, and conferences) and of the media -- mostly newspapers.79 His main claims were that: historically - his description of the exodus was accurate; methodologically - testimonies, including oral history of the Palestinians, were unreliable and therefore should not be used, and his critics could not point out any concrete fault in his findings based on his minor use of Arab/Palestinian sources; and instrumentally - his analysis was not one- sided. There was an objective truth and he explored it, without being influenced by his political attitudes or considering the implications of his research on Israel in the present, all in accord with what historians should do.80.
Over the years, Morris was involved in various other controversies, aside from the one involving Shabtai Teveth, regarding the causes of the exodus, All were initiated not by Morris but by people who challenged the findings of his research in order to protect the narratives that they held, people who can largely be divided into Jews and Palestinians. Two of the main disagreements were between Morris and other Jews. In 1991-1992, Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish American political scientist who was often critical of Israel's conduct during the conflict, began an argument with Morris. This was played out within three articles in the academic journal, Journal of Palestine Studies, and a book of his, and was different from other disputes between Morris and other Jews.81 Usually, Morris's findings were challenged by Jews who were trying to present Israel more positively (see below). Finkelstein's argument, however, presented Israel more negatively. He argued that almost all of the Palestinians were expelled in 1948 (according to a master plan which was approved by the Jewish leadership). In 1996-1997 another controversy took place. This time it involved Moshe Tsachar, an Israeli-Jewish 1948 War veteran who, in 1948, was the head of the Jewish military committee in the integrated town of Tiberias, located on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Tsachar reacted to the 1996 "Documents Comparison" article by Morris in which he claimed that various important Zionist documents from the 1937-1948 period (e.g., the diary of David Ben-Gurion, the Jewish/Israeli leader in the pre- and post-1948 period) were altered before their publication in order to present the involved personae and Israel more positively in the context of the conflict.82 Specifically with regard to Tiberius in 1948, Morris claimed that its Jewish residents constituted the aggressive and violent side, that they confronted the Palestinians, were glad that the Palestinians left the town, and prevented efforts to stop them from leaving. Tsachar challenged these assertions in an article published in Alpaim, an Israeli academic journal. He claimed that the Jews were the peaceful ones among Tiberius residents, that they attacked the Palestinians only after the latter attacked them, and that he himself tried to stop the Palestinians from leaving. Morris responded to him in an article.83Both of the above controversies, along with the one involving Teveth, supported Morris in effect by providing him platforms from which to disseminate his research..
As for the Palestinians, for the most part they complimented Morris's research and its breadth, and welcomed his willingness to discuss the expulsions of 1948 and thereby challenge the Zionist narrative. They did criticize him heavily, however, on a most important general issue - for choosing the middle position between the Zionist position of willing flight and the Palestinian one of expulsion by integrating both explanations. In the Palestinian view, Morris should have gone the entire way in the direction his research was heading, and adopted the Palestinian narrative. His interpretation of the documents he used was biased and erroneous: the exodus was caused entirely by the Jews/Israelis, influenced by a long lasting transfer ideology inherited in Zionist thought, and executed according to a premeditated master plan to empty the State of Israel of Palestinians. While Morris agreed, as mentioned earlier, with the assertion regarding the transfer ideology, he rejected the one about a premeditated master plan. The difference between Morris's approach and that of the Palestinians regarding the causes of the exodus is largely an outcome of the two parties having different definitions of "expulsion." Morris adopted a narrower definition, limited to only the forceful removal of the Palestinians from their localities. In contrast, the Palestinians adopted a broader definition which included various acts that directly or indirectly caused the Palestinians to leave, such as attacking their localities, practicing psychological warfare, conducting massacres in order to provoke fear (e.g., the case of the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin), and simply instilling fear through general aggressiveness on the part of the Jews/Israelis. Specifically, the Palestinians criticized Morris's research, for example, for not using Palestinian documents and testimonies84 and for not adequately discussing the hostile British attitude toward themselves. They also claimed that Morris created an artificial differentiation between the aggressive activities of the more hawkish Jewish/Israeli fighting groups IZL and LHI and the more moderate mainstream "Hagana" (presenting the former as dissidents and therefore not representing the entire Jewish community). In addition, they asserted that Morris analyzed the 1948 War as if it occurred in a vacuum disconnected to the preceding decades of negative relations between Palestinians and Jews.85.
Such opposing views held by Palestinians were expressed, for example, in the above- mentioned 1991 Finkelstein-Morris controversy by the Palestinian scholar Nur Masalha; part of Morris's response addressed Masalha's critique.86 These views also characterized the polemic discussion at a conference which was held in 1998 in Paris in which Israeli scholars (Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Itamar Rabinowitch and Zeev Sternhel) and Palestinian ones (Elie Sambar, Nur Masalha and Edward Said) discussed their approaches to the history of the conflict, focusing on 1948.87 Later on, what seemed to be a political turn to the right by Morris beginning in the early 2000s (see below) shocked many Palestinian scholars and writers. While until then they used parts of Morris's research to a large extent to support many of their assertions regarding the Palestinian narrative of the exodus, this shift greatly embarrassed them and inhibited their use of some of his research.88.
After publishing "Birth" in Hebrew, Morris published more new books, articles and book chapters regarding the conflict. The main studies that followed, Morris's books, included: in 1991, "Israel's Secret Wars" published with Ian Black (dealing with Israel's intelligence and secret services); in 1993, "Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956" (in Hebrew in 1996); in 1999, "Righteous Victims: A History of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999" (Hebrew, 2003); in 1999, in Hebrew "Tikun Taut" [English version: Repairing a Mistake - Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel, 1936- 1956] (a collection of articles about the conflict, in 1948 and shortly thereafter); and in 2002, "The Road to Jerusalem" (dealing with Glubb Pasha, commander of the Jordanian army from 1939 to 1956).89 In between the above books, Morris published various updated editions of others of his books. None of these new books focused on the exodus or revealed anything substantial about it, although some discussed the exodus in part, further disseminating Morris's findings about it. Taken together, however, they all contributed to Morris's general presence in and impact on the Israeli scholarly scene and society.90.
Before the publication of "Birth" in English, and immediately thereafter, Morris encountered, as we saw, many obstacles along his scholarly path. These were mainly difficulties in getting permission to write the "Palma"ch" book, and later, obstacles relating to the exodus research. The latter included: getting funding, getting classified documents, finding an Israeli publisher for "Birth" in Hebrew, getting approval from the censors to publish "Birth" in Hebrew, the initial partial disregard by newspapers of "Birth" in English, and almost complete disregard by academic journals of both "Birth" books. Another type of difficulty was related mostly to the methodological, instrumental interpretational, and to a lesser extent, historical criticism, mainly in the media and the academic spheres. Apparently one of the biggest difficulties that he encountered, if not the biggest, however, concerned finding a job..
Prior to the 1990s especially, Israeli universities were highly conservative, and therefore all of the scholars that belonged to university departments that researched the history of the Jewish nation and Israel were largely conservative and Zionist in their orientation.91 Some manifestations of this conservative approach were, for example, the abovementioned difficulty Morris encountered in getting funding for the exodus research, the avoidance by Israeli academic journals of reviewing "Birth," and, as discussed below, Israeli academics not writing critically regarding the exodus. Therefore, before the 1990s, critical historians could hardly get positions at Israeli universities.92 Morris thought that he suffered from this policy. After 1991, when he was laid off by the Jerusalem Post, he tried in vain to get a job at an Israeli university.93 Consequently, as time passed his economic situation deteriorated so significantly that he had to borrow money from friends to support his family.94 In 1996, seeing no possibility of finding employment in Israel, he considered leaving Israel for a job at an American university. He explained then in a newspaper article, "Economically, I cannot support myself any more in Israel. In Communist countries they used to put skeptical people in mental hospitals. In Israel they prevent you from working. This is also a method of getting rid of skeptics."95 Eventually he got a job at the Israeli Ben-Gurion University, where he has worked until today. This was, however, through a special procedure (reminiscent of the procedure involved in getting "Birth" in Hebrew published). When the President of Israel in 1996, Ezer Weizmann, read in the newspaper article that Morris was thinking of leaving Israel, he invited him to his office, as Morris says, in part to see if he really was as anti-Zionist as his critics claimed. When the President saw that Morris was not especially anti-Zionist, he helped him get the job at Ben-Gurion University.96 Afterwards, however, major efforts were still made to reverse the decision to hire Morris. Family members of David Ben-Gurion, Israel's past leader, contacted the University and the highest institutions in Israel, arguing that Morris falsified the Zionist idea and therefore should not be hired - but they failed.97 Later, Morris said, "Now I have work and this is what is important."98.
Since the early 2000s, there has been a shift to the right in some of the political attitudes that Morris has presented in public.99 For example, he expressed strong criticism of the Arabs and Palestinians, as well as understanding of the need to expel Palestinians in 1948. He also justified their expulsion on the basis that they initiated the 1948 War and posed a threat to the nascent State of Israel.100 He largely did not change, however, his scholarly approach to the causes of the exodus, which remained critical. This political shift seems to have inhibited future criticism that could have been raised against him, such as the past assertion that his then dovish political attitudes led to his critical scholarly findings.101 Morris, however, claimed that those who believed the latter were mistaken. This discussion highlights the micro factor of the perceived political attitude of a historian by colleagues and by the public..
Morris's last major relevant activity to be discussed here is the publication in 2004 of his book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited."102 This was his last book focused on the exodus, an updated version of previous versions of "Birth," based in part on newer documents, although with no substantial new findings. This book got very little attention in Israeli academia and media.103 No reviews of it were published in any of the main dailies, and in the Ha'aretz daily only a short notice appeared with the book's name and the fact that it was published.104 Morris himself was surprised by this lack of notice, but in fact, this was a manifestation of the changes Israel was going through. At that time, the critical narrative regarding the exodus was so prevalent in Israel - significantly because of Morris - that his 2004 book was not "worthy news.".
MORRIS'S IMPACT.
Having described Morris's path, it is time to evaluate his impact on the thinking in Israel as to the causes of the exodus. Despite the fact that, as we saw, the critical narrative regarding the exodus was presented in many Israeli studies as early as the late 1970s, the micro characteristics of these studies reduced their impact in Israel. Not all of them focused on the exodus and most dealt with it relatively briefly. As for support for presenting the 1948 expulsion -- some studies were not based on primary sources, others were based only on testimonials as primary sources, and only those from around the mid-1980s were based in part on documents. In contrast, "Birth" was the first book to focus in a critical manner and in detail on the exodus using many primary sources (documents). This, together with the abovementioned more open-minded macro contextual factors, including the high centrality of the Palestinians, the micro factors such as the fact that "Birth" was also published in Hebrew and its good methodology, and the Tikkun article - all led to "Birth" being the most important and influential study on the exodus. As Yeoshua Froindlich, a senior figure in the Israeli State Archive, and later the Israeli National Archivist, said in 1989 in a conference at the Dayan Center, "No doubt Benny Morris's book ["Birth" in English] is pioneering and no one can take from him this exceptional achievement."105 Compliments were expressed by many other scholars as well, for example, in newspaper reviews described above..
Morris's research influenced Israel considerably. It contributed significantly to the increase in the centrality of the Palestinians and the exodus, and thereby promoted research and discussion about it in Israel.106 As Anita Shapira, a leading Israeli historian, said, "… the mere publication of this book ["Birth"] increased the Israeli awareness of the disaster of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in the 1948 War … among a relatively wide group …"107 Similarly, Israel Zamir - a 1948 War veteran and later a journalist, who published his memoir of the 1948 War in 2004 - explained why he addressed the exodus in his memoir. He said, "Of course this [the publication of "Birth"] influenced me … because in the past we addressed it [the exodus] very rarely … but because it [the exodus] surfaced into the public sphere in the 1980s [via Morris's research] it influenced me… and was expressed in the book [Zamir's memoir], since as a journalist I wanted to be contemporary and relevant."108
Morris' research also contributed significantly to the decrease in the taboo regarding the critical narrative of the exodus. Thus, increasingly, members of various societal and state Israeli institutions felt it was more acceptable to put forward the critical narrative; after all, it was already a major part of the public discourse. This change was manifested in a variety of societal institutions. For example, in the research community, since the early 1990s Israeli academic scholars started presenting the critical narrative in their books and in nearly all of their studies. Since the mid-1990s Israeli academic journals have also widely presented the critical narrative. Moreover, since the late 1980s, the number of critical Israeli studies has increased to the point that they comprise the vast majority of them. Many of these studies, books and articles written as early as 1990, mention Morris's research or base their discussion of the exodus on his research.109 Similarly among 1948 War veterans, many have presented the critical narrative in their memoirs since the late 1980s,110 feeling it was safe to do so partly due to Morris's research.111 His research also induced peace NGOs operating in Israel, such as Zochrot, to increase public awareness of the disaster that befell the Palestinians in 1948 due to the exodus. This has been done, inter alia, by producing dozens of booklets that describe the history of many Palestinian localities prior to the 1948 War and during the War. Eitan Bronstein, the director of Zochrot, was mentioned above as emphasizing Morris's importance to Zochrot; indeed, Morris's research is the most cited in its booklets.112 Similarly, since the late 1980s, Israeli daily newspapers have referred to Morris as the main figure connected to the critical narrative of the exodus.113.
The influence of Morris's research was somewhat similar within the three main Israeli state institutions that addressed the history of the conflict: the National Information Center, the Publication Branch in the Education Corps of the IDF, and the Ministry of Education.114 Morris and his critical research regarding the exodus were well known among their staffs and were generally their main resource about the exodus.115 In the Ministry of Education, for example, this was true for Shifra Kulat and Ada Moscovits (Director of the Civics Unit), among others, both of whom worked in the Curriculum Branch which was charged with writing textbooks in history and civics. "Birth" had a "huge" impact on them, being critical, scientific and well validated.116 This impact applied as well to authors of the first three critical textbooks approved in 2000 by the Ministry to be used in the educational system - Eyal Nave, Dan Ya'acoby and Ktsiya Tavivian: "Birth" was the main scholarly source for the first two, and the secondary one for the third author.117 It should be emphasized that these authors did not feel that they were challenging the mainstream perspective on the exodus by presenting the critical narrative in their textbooks, but that, on the contrary, they were presenting the mainstream perspective at the time, the late 1990s. Furthermore, presenting the biased Zionist narrative would have been perceived as unacceptable, not serious. As Ktsiya Tavivian explained: "The criticism [regarding the exodus] was highly manifested in the research, to someone who keeps updated and reads about it … it also surfaced into the public sphere, into the newspapers … it created here an atmosphere that … it was impossible to ignore [the critical narrative of the exodus], it was impossible to tell the one-sided story [the Zionist narrative] ".118.
Still on the state level, Morris also contributed to a softer approach by Israel to the Israeli- Palestinian peace negotiations, until their collapse in 2001. For decades after the 1948 War, Israel refused to acknowledge the tragedy of the Palestinians in 1948 and take any political responsibility for the exodus. In contrast, the 2000 Camp David and the 2001 Taba Israeli-Palestinian peace summits witnessed a change. At that time, the critical narrative of the causes of the exodus was so prevalent in Israel - largely due to Morris - that it was hard for Israeli negotiators to ignore it, as they had in the past. They also actually read Morris's studies. For example, Gilad Sher, the Bureau Chief and Policy Coordinator for the former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak, and a senior negotiator in the peace talks with the Palestinians in 1999-2001, mentioned that before and during the negotiations he read Morris's studies, which provided for him historical background for the negotiations.119 Accordingly, during the summits the Israeli negotiators expressed a basic willingness to publicly acknowledge the Palestinians' 1948 tragedy, and indirectly and implicitly Israel's partial responsibility for it.120.
Thus, we can talk about a double impact by Morris on the (increased) centrality and the (decreased) taboo of the exodus, double in terms of the extent of impact and the number of institutions being influenced. All of this is especially noteworthy considering that the abovementioned societal and state institutions are the main ones in Israel that address the history of the conflict..
Up to this point, we have described only Morris's direct impact on the view in Israel of the exodus. His impact on Israel, however, can be seen as even greater when taking into consideration his indirect influence. This conclusion stems from the facts that the exodus was the most important historical event in the conflict and that "Birth" was closely associated with the significant Tikkun article which introduced the New Historians -- as well as from the vast influence of these historians in Israel (Morris being the main one). All of the above influence by Morris and the New Historians served to weaken acceptance among Israeli society of previously held narratives, on many topics, which had been dominant for decades Counter-alternative narratives on various subjects, some presented as early as the 1970s, were supported or gained more salience in Israel, and new critical narratives emerged. Some of these narratives addressed such aspects of the conflict as the relations between the Jewish pioneers and the local Palestinians in the early 20th century; the 1936-1939 Palestinian Rebellion; the 1948 War and the British Mandate's approach toward the Jews in Eretz Israel; the post-1948 Palestinian infiltration into Israel; the 1967 Six Day War; and missed opportunities for peace during various time periods. Other subjects inspiring new narratives did not relate to the conflict but rather, for example, to the relationship of the Jewish community in Eretz Israel to the Holocaust; to the history of the Jewish nation; and to the discriminatory relations between Israeli-Jews of differing origins (e.g., Ashkenazi toward Sephardic/Mizrachi). All in all, the historical narrative realm of Israeli society has gradually become significantly challenged and fragmented.121.
While thus far, we have only discussed Morris's impact on Israeli society, he also somewhat influenced the Palestinians. Their rendering of the history of the conflict and other subjects has been perceived by many among them122 and by many Israelis123 as conservative, self-serving and uncritical. The New Historians and Morris specifically, encouraged some Palestinians to become more self-critical and to re-examine various myths that underlay their people's beliefs in certain areas. This might have been a general inspiration, or a more specific one with regard to the conflict, meant to encourage the following line of thought: if our rival, Israel, is becoming more critical of itself, we can also do so. Such need for self-criticism was voiced, for example, in 1998 by the late Edward Said, a renowned Palestinian scholar. When outlining the characteristics and influences of the New Historians, he wrote:.
… speaking self-critically, I feel that as Arabs generally, and Palestinians in particular, we must also begin to explore our own histories, myths, and patriarchal ideas of the nation, something which, for obvious reasons, we have not so far done ... as intellectuals and historians we have a duty to look at our history, the history of our leaderships, and of our institutions with a new critical eye. Is there something about those that can perhaps explain the difficulties as a people that we now find ourselves in? … [T]hese are serious, and even crucial matters, and they cannot either be left unanswered or postponed indefinitely under the guise of national defense and national unity.124.
IN CONCLUSION.
In the early 1980s, Benny Morris entered the scene of research on the 1948 exodus and encountered many obstacles in Israel before the publication of "Birth." After its publication he continued to encounter in Israel many difficulties such as: initial partial disregard by newspapers and nearly total disregard by academic journals of his work, severe difficulty in finding a job; and four-fold criticism. As for the historical aspect of his work, however, he and his findings were largely well received by critics in Israel -- although not publicly, for the most part, until 1991, with the publication of most of the reviews in the main dailies. In the mid-1990s, most of Morris's difficulties decreased significantly in Israel -- criticism of the instrumental and interpretational aspects of his work waned, and he found employment. Later, however, he still dealt occasionally with some of the four-fold criticism. The lack of attention attracted by the publication of the updated version of "Birth" in 2004 signaled that Morris and his exodus research had become well established in Israel..
Along his path, many factors external to Israel supported him, such as: critical theories developed in western academia influencing Israeli academia; his PhD studies in Britain; funding from abroad of his research; his opportunity to publish his first five articles and first book abroad; the positive coverage of "Birth" in international academic journals and in American newspapers; the American-Jewish Diaspora being exposed to these articles; and even finding a job in the U.S. This highlights the immense support that the international arena can provide for a revisionist historian who encounters taboos and various restraining measures in his/her own country..
As described, it took Morris about a decade - from the beginning of the publication of his studies (the 1985 article) to the mid-1990s - for most of the difficulties he experienced in Israel to be resolved. There were ups and downs along the way, with gradual improvement as of the early 1990s. This was a difficult path, and Morris was able to overcome its obstacles partly due to his own deliberate actions and partly to luck and other developments that he did not anticipate - including the timing of the eruption of the Second Intifada, the publication of reviews in American newspapers and in international academic journals, being asked to write the Tikkun article, and the macro more open climate of Israeli society as it developed Eventually, as we saw, he had a significant critical influence on Israel regarding its beliefs about the exodus.
1 Evi Gkotzaridis, "Revisionist Historians and the Modern Irish State: The Conflict between the Advisory Committee and the Bureau of Military History, 1947-66," Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 35, No. 137 (2006), pp. 99-116. 2 "Israeli" (people, society, scholars etc.) here refers to Israeli-Jews, the main sector in Israel. 3 "Palestinians" here refers to those living prior to 1948 in Palestine/Eretz Israel (in Hebrew "the Land of Israel") and currently within Israel or externally. However, some of the publications the article is based upon (e.g., textbooks and newspaper articles) refer to the aforementioned as "Arabs." Volume V, Issue VIII August 2017 478 4 Significant 1948 exodus-related topics that are not addressed in this article include: whether there was a transfer ideology among the Jewish community in Palestine/Eretz Israel prior to the 1948 War, and whether there was a Jewish/Israeli inclusive premeditated plan to expel the Palestinians in 1948. 5 Coby Ben-Simchon, "Kets Hasichsuch, Al py Benny Morris" ["The End of the Conflict, according to Benny Morris"], Ha'aretz, September 7, 2012. (Hebrew). 6 Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987). An error in the book gives 1987 as date of its publication; it was actually published in early 1988 (interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006). 7 Among many: Neil Caplan, The Israel-Palestine Conflict - Contested Histories (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Asima Ghazi-Bouillon, Understanding the Middle East Peace Process - Israeli Academia and the Struggle for Identity (London and New York: Routledge, 2009); Nur Masalha, "New History, Post-Zionism and Neo-Colonialism: A Critique of the Israeli 'New Historians," Holy Land studies, Vol. 10, No. 1 (2011), pp. 1-53. See also onwards in various places in the article. 8 Daniel Bar-Tal, Lihyot Besichsooch: Nituach Psychology-Hevrati shel Hahevra Hayeoodit Beisrael [Living in a Conflict: A Psychological-Social Analysis of the Jewish Society in Israel], (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2007). (Hebrew). 9 Bar-Tal, Lihyot; Caplan, The Israel-Palestine. 10 Respectively, regarding the: IDF - Rafi Nets-Zehngut, "The Israeli Army's Official Memory and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus - 1949-2004," War in History (2015), 22 (2), 211-234; the Publications Agency - Rafi Nets- Zehngut, "The Israeli National Information Center and Collective Memory of the Israeli-Arab Conflict," The Middle East Journal, Vol. 62, No. 4 (2008), pp. 653-670; and the education system through textbooks approved by the Ministry of Education - Rafi Nets-Zehngut, "Israeli Approved Textbooks and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus," Israel Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2014), pp. 41-68. 11 The "research community" includes academic scholars (those affiliated with academic institutions) and independent scholars (those not affiliated with such institutions). 12Respectively, regarding the: research community - Rafi Nets-Zehngut, "Origins of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: Changes in the Historical Memory of Israelis/Jews - 1949-2004," Journal of Peace Research 48, no. 2 (2011): 235-248; newspapers - Author, "Israeli Newspapers and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus - 1949-2004," (in preparation); and war veterans memoirs - Author, "Israeli 1948 War Veterans and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus - 1949-2004," (under review). 13 Respectively, regarding: newspapers - Author, "Israeli Newspapers;" and war veterans' memoirs - Author, "Israeli 1948 War Veterans." 14 For more details regarding this narrative, see the discussion of Morris's first book below. 15 Caplan, The Israel-Palestine; Ghazi-Bouillon, Understanding. 16 Respectively, regarding: newspapers - Author, "Israeli Newspapers;" war veterans memoirs - Author, "Israeli 1948 War Veterans;" and NGOs - Author, "Israeli NGOs and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, 1949-2004," (under review). 17 Respectively, regarding the: IDF - Nets-Zehngut, "The Israeli Army's;" Publications Agency -Nets-Zehngut, "The Israeli National;" and the education system through textbooks approved by the Ministry of Education - Nets-Zehngut, "Israeli Approved Textbooks." 18 Benny Morris University's website: http://humweb2.bgu.ac.il/middleeast/profile/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A4- %D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A1-%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99; Ari Shavit, "Mechake Labarbarim" ["Waiting for the Barbarians"], Ha'aretz, January 9, 2004. (Hebrew). 19 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 20 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 21 Benny Morris, "Papers on 1948 Expulsions of Arabs Stay Closed," Jerusalem Post, May 30, 1985; Requesting, "Tovea Beatira Lebagats Lekabel Doch al Ma'asim Charigim shel Tsa'al Betashach," ["Requesting in a Petition to the Supreme Court of Justice to Get a Report about Irregular Conduct of the IDF in 1948"]," Ma'ariv, September 19, 1986. (Hebrew). 22 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 23 Benny Morris, "The Crystallization of the Israeli Policy Against a Return of the Arab Refugees: April- December, 1948," Studies in Zionism Vol. 6, (1985), pp. 85-118; Benny Morris, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine - The Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948," Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 22, (1986), pp. 5-19; Benny Morris, "Yosef Weitz and the Transfer Committees, 1948-49," Volume V, Issue VIII August 2017 479 Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 22, (1986), pp. 522-561; Benny Morris, "The Harvest of 1948 and the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem," The Middle East Journal, Vol. 40, (1986), pp. 671-685; Benny Morris, "Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramla in1948," The Middle East Journal, Vol. 40, (1986), pp. 82-109. 24 See discussion below of the difficulties he encountered in publishing his first book in Hebrew in Israel, and the initial disregarding of this book - in English and Hebrew - in Israeli academic journals. 25 Yossi Melman, "Meolam lo Kibalty Pekudot Legaresh Aravim Mesibot Politiyot" ["I Never Got Orders to Expel Arabs due to Political Reasons"], Davar, March 14, 1986. (Hebrew). 26 Jewish, "Jewish Attacks Caused Most of Arab Exodus," Jerusalem Post, March 2, 1986. 27 Author, "Controversies of Historical Narratives of Conflicts - Israel and the 1948 Palestinian Exodus," (in preparation). 28 Shabtai Teveth, "Haistorionim Hachadashim: Mi Gazal Mehfalestinim et Admatam?" ["The New Historians: How Stole from the Palestinians their Land?"], Ha'aretz, April 7, 1989. (Hebrew). 29 Usually, to evacuate the women, the children and the elderly from various specific localities and areas. 30 Morris, The Birth. 31 Alon Kadish, "Beayat Haplitim: Haistorya Vea'ashma" ["The Refugee Problem: the History and the Guilt"], Ha'aretz, April 14, 1989. (Hebrew); Israel Shamir, "Cacha ze Hitchil" ["This is how it Started"], Al-Hamishmar, May 13, 1988. (Hebrew). 32 Interviews by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006, and July 10, 2006; as well as see above discussion regarding Morris's five first academic articles. 33 Interviews by authors with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006, and July 10, 2006. Being a journalist, however, also helped Morris in his scholarly work, because his connections within the media assisted in disseminating his work, he knew how to use the media, and his writing style was accessible to the public (interview by author with Yossi Melman, September 7, 2007; interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006). 34 For example: Amnon Rubinstein, "Hama'apecha Nichshela, Hatsiyonut Hitslicha" ["The Revolution Failed, the Zionism Succeeded"], Ha'aretz, June 10, 1997. (Hebrew); Shabtai Teveth, "The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and its Origin," Middle Eastern Studies 26, (1990): 214-249. Many Israelis felt that Morris's dovish political attitudes led to his critical research; critical scholars in Israel are typically dovish. More importantly, Morris asserted in some of his earlier publications that writing more accurately and critically about the history of the conflict could promote peace. 35 Michael Cohen, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949," American Historical Review, Vol. 95, No. 1 (1990), pp. 219-220; C. Hurewitz, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949," Middle East Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1 (1989), pp. 117-118; Akiva Orr, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949," International Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 2 (1989), pp. 365-366. 36 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006, pages 10, 12. See also: interview with him on July 10, 2006; and support from three other Israeli journalists, two of whom were also scholars: interview by author with Yossi Melman, September 7, 2007; interview by author with Tom Segev, November 3, 2007; interview by author with Isarel Zamir, September 11, 2007. 37 Benny Morris, "The New Historiography: Israel Confronts its Past," Tikkun, Vol. 3, No. 6 (1988), pp. 19-23, 99-102. 38 Simcha Flapan, The Birth of Israel - Myths and Realities, (New York: Pantheon, 1987); Ilan Pappe, Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-51, (New York: Macmillan, 1988); Avi Shlaim, Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of Palestine, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). Later, other scholars were added to that list of New Historians. 39 The term "New Historians" is used here simply because this is the term commonly used in the literature regarding Jewish/Israeli critical scholars since the late 1980s, not because the author takes a side in the debate as to whether these historians are really "New" (see more details about this debate below). The same applies to the use here of the term "Old Historians." 40 For example: Benny Morris, "Haistoriya Hachadasha Veata'amulanim Haieshanim" ["The New History and the Old Propaganda People"], Ha'aretz, May 9, 1989. (Hebrew). 41 For example: Benny Morris, "Historiya Obiectivit" ["Objective History"], Ha'aretz, July 1, 1994. (Hebrew). 42 For example: Aniram Avny, "Dr. Benny Morris Baderech Hachutsa" ["Dr. Benny Morris is on His Way Out"], Ma'ariv, January 21, 1996. (Hebrew). 43 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006, p. 18. 44 Teveth's articles are: Teveth, "Haistorionim Hachadashim: Mi Gazal;" Shabtai Teveth, "Haistorionim Hachadashim: Mi Geresh et Hfalestinim?" ["The New Historians: Who Expelled the Palestinians?"], Ha'aretz, April 14, 1989. (Hebrew); Shabtai Teveth, "Haistorionim Hachadashim: Haim Haya be-1948 Transfer Aravy?" ["The New Historians: Was there an Arab Transfer in 1948?"], Ha'aretz, April 21, 1989. (Hebrew); Shabtai Teveth, "Yonim Porchot Vearnavot Tsivoniyot" ["Flying Doves and Colorful Rabbits"], Ha'aretz, May 19, 1989. (Hebrew); Shabtai Teveth, "Hearat Shabtai Teveth" ["Shabtai Teveth's Comment"], Ha'aretz, June 7, 1989. (Hebrew); while Morris's articles are: Morris, "Haistoriya Hachadasha;" Benny Morris, "Krav Nesiga Noash" ["A Desperate Retreat Battle"], Ha'aretz, June 7, 1989. (Hebrew). 45 Teveth's studies are: Shabtai Teveth, "Charging Israel with the Original Sin," Commentary, Vol. 88, No. 3 (1989), pp. 24-33; Shabtai Teveth, "The Palestine Arab Refugee Problem and its Origin," Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, (1990), pp. 214-249; while Morris's studies are: Benny Morris, "The Eel and History: A Reply to Shabtai Teveth," Tikkun, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1990), pp. 27-29; Benny Morris, 1948 and after - Israel and the Palestinians (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). 46 Shabtai Teveth, "Divrei Teguva" ["Responding Remarks"], Transcript of a Conference on "How did the Independence War Finish," (Tel Aviv: Dayan Center, 1989), p. 56. 47 Author, "Controversies." 48 Interview by author with Yossi Melman, September 7, 2007, p. 2. 49 Interview by author with Israel Zamir, September 11, 2007, p. 5. 50 Mordechai Bar-On, "Hama'avak al Zichronot Hamilchama" ["The Struggle on the War's Memories"], in Milhemet Ha'atsmaut Tashach-Tashat, Diyun Mechadash [The War of Independence, 1948-1949, Revisited], (Ramat Efal: Israel Galilee Association, Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 2004), pp. 967-1003. (Hebrew); Caplan, The Israel-Palestine; Ghazi-Bouillon, Understanding. 51 Natanel Lorech, Hayom Ifne [The Day will Turn] (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 1997). (Hebrew). 52 Interview by author with Dan Gilady, September 23, 2007, p. 8. 53 Anita Shapira, "Hirbet Hiza - Zikaron Veshichecha" ["Hirbet Hiza - Remembrance and Forgetfulness"], Alpaim, Vol. 21, (2000), pp. 9-53. (Hebrew), p. 51. 54 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006, p. 13. 55 Benny Morris, 1948 and after - Israel and the Palestinians (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). 56 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 57 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. The decision by censors to disqualify certain pieces of information is often based on their assertion, according to the law, that this information could damage Israel's security. 58 Yossi Ben-Artsi, "Al Haistografya shel Milhemet Ha'atsmaut" ["On the Historiography of the War of Independence"], Katedra, Vol. 65, (1992), pp. 159-167. (Hebrew). In this case review articles in international academic journals are not relevant, since these journals do not review books in Hebrew. 59 The article by "Ha'aretz" was divided into two parts, so actually six articles were published: Amnon Raz- Krakochkin, "Rikuna shel Ha'aretz Hareika" ["The Emptying of the Empty Land"], Davar, June 28, 1991. (Hebrew); Avraham Sela, "Me'ever La'aganot Hapsichologiot" ["Beyond the Psychological Defenses"], Ha'aretz, October 4, 1991. (Hebrew); Avraham Sela, "Anachnu o Em" ["We or Them"], Ha'aretz, November 7, 1991. (Hebrew); Imanuel Sivan, "Beayat Haplitim: Haim Haya Tichnun Mukdam?"["The Refugee Problem: Was there a Preceding Planning?"], Yedioth Achronoth, May 10, 1991. (Hebrew); Moshe Za"k, "Mismach Ze Lo Hakol"["A Document is not Everything"]. Ma'ariv, April 19, 1991. (Hebrew); Dan Yahav, "Transfer: Haya o Lo Haya?"["Transfer: Was or was not?"], Al-Hamishmar, May 31, 1991. (Hebrew). 60 Interview by author with Benny Morris, July 10, 2006. 61 Author, "Israeli Newspapers." 62 Kadish, "Beayat Haplitim;" Shamir, "Cacha." 63 Only one reviewer, Moshe Za"k, objected to the expulsion cause, claiming that the Palestinians left willingly, but it seems that his review was less influential because he was a journalist, not a scholar. 64 Sela, "Me'ever." Similarly, see also: Raz-Krakochkin, "Rikuna;" Shamir, "Cacha;" Sivan, "Beayat." 65 Kadish, "Beayat Haplitim;" Sela, "Me'ever;" Sivan, "Beayat; "Za"k, "Mismach." 66 M. Cohen, "Divrei Teguva" ["Responding Remarks"], Transcript of a Conference on "How did the Independence War Finish," (Tel Aviv: Dayan Center, 1989), pp. 51-52 (Hebrew); Yeoshua Froindlich, "Divrei Teguva" ["Responding Remarks"], Transcript of a Conference on "How did the Independence War Finish," (Tel Aviv: Dayan Center, 1989), pp. 133-145, (Hebrew); Yeoshua Porat, "Divrei Teguva" ["Responding Remarks"], Transcript of a Conference on "How did the Independence War Finish," (Tel Aviv: Dayan Center, 1989), pp. 120-133, (Hebrew). 67 Among many: Ben-Artsi, "Al Haistografya;" Yigal Eilam, Memalei Hapkudot [The Followers of Orders] (Jerusalem: Keter, 1990). (Hebrew); Asher Sasser, "Narrativim Historiim, Plitim Vesofiyut Hasichsuch" ["Historical Narratives, Refugees and the Termination of the Conflict"], in Mokdei Mashber - Hamizrach Hatichon [Crisis Centers - The Middle East] (Tel Aviv: Dayan Center, 2004), pp. 75-85 (Hebrew). 68 For example: Cohen, "The Birth;" Norman Finkelstein, "Myths, Old and New," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1991), pp. 66-89; Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York & London: Verso, 1995). 69 Cohen, "The Birth;" Teveth, "The Palestine Arab." 70 Ilan Pappe, "Haistoriya Hachadasha shel Milhemet 1948" ["The New History of the 1948 War"], Teorya Vebicoret, Vol. 3, (1993), pp. 99-114. 71 For example: Caplan, The Israel-Palestine; Ghazi-Bouillon, Understanding; Masalha, "New History ;" Sasser, "Narrativim." 72 Caplan, The Israel-Palestine; Ghazi-Bouillon, Understanding. 73 Nets-Zehngut "The Israeli Historical;" Author "Israeli Newspapers." 74 In passing it should be mentioned that Morris's claim that there was a transfer ideology among the Jewish community in Palestine/Eretz Israel prior to the 1948 War was challenged mostly by Ephraim Karsh (and Shabtai Teveth) in various publications, who argued that there was no such ideology - e.g., Ephraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History - The "New Historians" (London: Frank Cass, 1997). Karsh, however, actually supported Morris in that book with regard to the critical narrative about the causes of the exodus. 75 For example, Aaron Meged, "Yetser Haitabdut Haisraeli" ["The Israeli Suicide Tendency"], Ha'aretz, June 10, 1994. (Hebrew). 76 Yeoshua Porat, "Hagirush Mimajdal Na'asa Leor Yom" ["The Expulsion from Majdal was Conducted on Day Light"], Ha'aretz, May 17, 1991. (Hebrew). 77 Author, "Israeli Newspapers." 78 Author, "Israeli Newspapers." 79 For example: Avni, "Dr. Benny Morris;" and Morris: "Haistoriya Hachadasha;" "Historiya Obiectivit;" Benny Morris, "Mamik o Pagum" ["Thorough or Defected"], Yedioth Hacaronoth, May 31, 1991. (Hebrew); Benny Morris, "Asity Ma'ase Tsiyony" ["I did a Zionist Thing"], Ha'aretz, June 16, 1997. (Hebrew). 80 Morris and another Israeli revisionist historian, Ilan Pappe, argued with each other about whether it is possible to be an objective historian, Pappe claiming it is impossible, even for himself (Benny Morris, "Politics by Other Means," The New Republic, March 22, 2004; Ilan Pappe, "Response to Benny Morris' 'Politics by other means' in the New Republic," The Electronic Intifada, March 30, 2004). 81 Finkelstein, "Myth;" Norman Finkelstein, "Rejoinder to Benny Morris" Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2 (1992), pp. 61-71; Finkelstein, Image; Benny Morris, "Response to Finkelstein and Masalha," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1991), pp. 98-114 82 Benny Morris, "Sfarim Vegvilim Bezikna Regilim: Mabat Chadash al Mismachim Zioniim Chadashim" ["Old Books and Parchments: A New Look on Central Zionist Documents"], Alpaim, Vol. 12 (1996), pp. 73-103. (Hebrew). 83 Benny Morris, "Ma Mistater Meachorey Hashichtuv" ["What is Hiding Behind the Rewriting"], Alpaim 14, (1997):193-205. (Hebrew); Moshe Tsachar, "Historionim Chadashim: Hiza'aru Bemekoroteichem" ["New Historians: Be Careful with Your Sources"], Alpaim, Vol. 13, (1996), pp. 201-211. (Hebrew). 84 Morris claimed he did not believe in the value of testimonies, though he did use (e.g., in "Birth") interviews he conducted with some Israeli key figures. Since most Palestinian historical sources are based on oral history (Rafi Nets-Zehngut, "Palestinian Autobiographical Memory regarding the 1948 Palestinian Exodus," Political Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 2 (2011), pp. 271-295.), Morris did not use many Palestinian sources. 85 For example: Salech Abdel Jawad, "The Arab and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War," in The Intertwined Narratives of Israel-Palestine: History's Double Helix (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2006), pp. 72-113; Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, "Israel Thmenah" ["The Eighth Israel"], Aafak 4, (winter, 1999). (Arabic) (as discussed in: Mustafa Cabha, "A Palestinian Look at the New Historians and post-Zionism in Israel," in Making Israel (Ann Arbor, MI, 2007), 299-319); Farid Abdel-Nour, "Responsibility and National Memory: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem, International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 17, No. 3 (2004), pp. 339-363; Cabha, "A Palestinian Look;" Walid Khalidi, "Benny Morris and before Their Diaspora," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3 (1993), pp. 106-119; Nur Masalha, "On Recent Hebrew and Israeli of the Palestinian Exodus, 1947-49," Journal of Palestine studies, Vol. 18. No. 1 (1988), pp. 121-137; Nur Masalha, "A Critique of Benny Morris," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, (1991), pp. 90-97; Nur Masalha, "'1948 and After' Revisited," Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4, (1995), pp. 90-95; Masalha, "New History;" Edward Said, "New History, Old Ideas," Al-Ahram Weekly, May 21-27, 1998. 86 Masalha, "A Critique;" Morris, "Response." 87 Said, "New History;" Masalha, "New History." 88 Cabha, "A Palestinian." 89 Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel's Secret Wars (New York, 1991); Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation and the Countdown to the Suez War (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993); Benny Morris, Mihamot Hagvul shel Israel, 1949-1956 [Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1996). (Hebrew); Benny Morris, Tikun Taut: Yeudin Vearavim Be'eretz-Israel, 1936-1956 [Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel, 1936-1956] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1999). (Hebrew); Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999 (New York: Vintage, 1999); Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews (London: Tauris, 2002); Benny Morris, Korbanot: Toldot Hasichsuch Hatsiony- Arvy, 1881-2001 [Victims: The History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003). (Hebrew). 90 And so did, to some degree, another book he published in 1991 that was not about the conflict: The Roots of Appeasement, the British Weekly Press and Nazi Germany during 1933-1939 (London, 1991). 91 Baruch Kimmerling, "Haim Lihiyot Chelek Meahuma hu Tnay Lehivut Haistoria?" ["Is being Part of the Nation is a Condition to the Distortion of History?"], Ha'aretz, December 23, 1994. (Hebrew); Uri Milstein, "Madua lo Nechkera ad Ko Beofen Mematse Haistoriya shel Milhemet Ha'atsmaut?" ["Why the History of the War of Independence was not yet Researched Thoroughly?"], Ha'aretz, April 20, 1980. (Hebrew); Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006; Shlomo Zand, Hahistorin, Hazman Vehadimyon: Measkolat ha"anal" Vead Harotseach Hapost-Tsiyony [The Historian [The Time and the Imagination: from the "Anal" School until the Post-Zionist Murderer] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2004). (Hebrew). 92 Zand, Hahistorin. 93 Ghazi-Boullion, Understanding; Amira Lam, "Mechir Ha'atsmaut" [The Price of Independence], Yedioth Acharonoth, May 24, 2010. (Hebrew); Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 94 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 95 Avny, "Dr. Benny Morris." 96 Morris's Profile, The Worm Book Website - http://www.thewormbook.com/elegans/helmintholog/archives/BM%20for%20hlog.pdf; Masalcha, "New History." 97 Avny, "Dr. Benny Morris;" Nechama Duek, "Hamilchama al Milchamot Israel" ["The War over the Wars of Israel"], Yedioth Acharonoth, May 22, 1994. (Hebrew); interview by author with Banny Morris, June 19, 2006; Meiron Rapoport, "Ha'aravim em Otam Aravim" ["The Arabs are the Same Arabs"], Yedioth Acharonoth, November 23, 2001. (Hebrew); Ruth Sinai, "Lo Beveit Sifrenu" ["Not in our School"], Ha'aretz, May 27, 1997. (Hebrew). 98 Rapoport, "Ha'aravim." 99 Ilan Pappe, however, claimed that already in the late 1980s Morris held, and expressed to him in person, "… abominable racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular" (Pappe, "Response"). As mentioned from the outset, this article addresses only the period ending in 2004, though Morris continued to express hawkish views afterwards.. In any case, the focus of this article is on Morris's academic path and not his political attitudes. 100 Benny Morris, "Eineny Tomech Begeirush" ["I do not Support Expulsion"], Ha'aretz, January 20, 2004. (Hebrew); Rapoport, "Ha'aravim;" Shavit, "Mechake." 101 Rubinstein, "Hama'apecha;" Teveth, "The Palestine Arab." 102 Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 103 Interview by author with Benny Morris, June 19, 2006. 104 Ma'adora, "Ma'adura Meudkenet Vemechudeshet shel Sifro shel Benny Morris Shera'a Or Barishona be-1988" ["A Revised and Updated Edition of Benny Morris's Book that was Initially Published in 1988"], Ha'aretz, September 15, 2004. (Hebrew). 105 Froindlich, "Divrei," 134. 106 Cabha, "A Palestinian Look." 107Anita Shapira, Yeudim Chadashim, Yeudim Yeshanim [New Jews, Old Jews] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1997), p. 24. (Hebrew). 108 Interview by author with Israel Zamir, September 11, 2007, 3. For further evidence of the New Historians having such impact, see the following interviews with two Israeli 1948 War veterans, both also members of the media: interview by author with Uri Avnery, August 24, 2006; interview by author with Yitshak Tishler, December 27, 2007. 109 Generally: Nets-Zehngut, "The Israeli Historical;" and as a specific example of a book from 1990: Eilam, Memalei. 110 Author, "Israeli 1948 War Veterans." 111 Interview by author with Uri Avnery, June 19, 2008; Interview by author with Yitshak Tishler, June 5, 2008; Interview by author with Israel Zamir, June 5, 2008. 112 Author, "Israeli NGOs." 113 Author, "Israeli Newspapers." 114 Respectively, the first was charged with disseminating official information to the Israeli citizens, the second - to the IDF soldiers, and the third - to the students (elementary through high school). 115 Nets-Zehngut, "The Israeli Army's;" Nets-Zehngut, "Israeli Approved Textbooks;" Nets-Zehngut, "The Israeli National." 116 Interview by authir with Ada Moscovits, September 17, 2007; Interview by author with Shifra Kulat, September 17, 2007. 117 Interviews by authir with: Eyal Nave, May 7, 2009; Ktsiya Tavivian, June 14, 2009; and Danny Ya'acoby May 4, 2009. 118 Interview by author with Ktsiya Tavivian, June 14, 2009, 1. 119 Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch, "From Taboo to the Negotiateable: The Israeli New Historians and the Changing Representation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem," Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2007), pp. 241-258. 120 Ben-Josef Hirsch, "From Taboo;" Ian Lustick, "Negotiating Truth: The Holocaust, Lehavdil, and Al-Nakba." Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 60, (2006), pp. 52-77. 121 Yoav Gelber, Nation and History: Israeli Historiography between Zionism and Post-Zionism (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2011); Uri Ram, Israeli Nationalism: Social Conflicts and the Politics of Knowledge (New York: Routledge, 2011); Zand, Hahistorin. 122 Cabha, "A Palestinian;" Said, "New History." 123 Nets-Zehngut, "Palestinian Autobiographical." 124 Said, "New History."