Some Thoughts on Ilan Pappe and Israeli Historiography

Ilan Pappe - sometime professor at the University of Exeter and formerly of the University of Haifa - is something of a rarity among jewish scholars of jewish history: as critical of jews as he is of gentiles. That might sound like a harsh judgement to those unacquainted with the field of jewish studies, but it is unfortunately if anything something of an understatement of the situation in which we find ourselves. In that the academics, researchers and general odd-bods who populate the field of jewish studies tend to churn out apologetics for jewry rather than taking a critical view of their subject.

The focus - in spite of the various jewish studies ‘mission statements’ - in essence is not to critically study jews, Judaism and the interaction with the societies in which they lived and still live, but rather to find excuses as to why the jews aren’t to blame for anything that happened to; or anything that has been said about, them. Literally gallons of ink is spilled every year in the field in great tomes and numerous journal articles wondering out loud how anyone could think ill of the jews and how anyone who did - or does - is ipso facto irrational and otherwise a ‘nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-millions-jews’. (1)

Pappe is something rather different and it is refreshing to see some kind of critical attitude to the jewish role in jewish history as an active - as opposed to a passive - factor in their ‘persecution’ and why people might not like jews. What is interesting is that the Israeli ‘revisionist historians’ are not actually revisionists in the historical sense at all as revisionism is a form of historical skepticism and a demand for facts to back up bland assertions and wide interpretations. In essence then revisionism in the historical sense is the constant revision of the interpretation of history in close reference to the facts including extensive source criticism.

Israeli historical revisionism – as pointed out by one of Pappe’s jewish colleagues - (2) is actually a more sophisticated form of non-biblical literalist apologia for Israel’s existence and the jewish people in general. Rather than using the old methods of Israeli historiography backed up by a few credulous or nefarious Christian academics in the United States, which were in effect to present a wholly incredible history of the jews from the time of the final destruction of the jewish kingdom by the Emperor Hadrian to the beginning of the occupation of Palestine by the jews as the logic end of Yahweh’s plan for them. All that they needed was the Messiah to turn up and the jews would literally be ruling the world!

Israeli ‘historical revisionism’ by contrast simply does away with the old pure certainties and claims that while Zionism was desirable it has not been without problems and that it is possible that the Messiah might not turn up: such is the historical position of the ilk of Benny Morris. Who has for reasons unknown to me long been feted on the leftist side of the anti-Zionist fence, but they suddenly and violently rejected him after his vicious defamation of Pappe proving what some of us had long suspected. (3) This was that Benny Morris and his ilk were just more sophisticated proponents of the jews as the proverbial master race theory of traditional (i.e., from Labour to Revisionist) Zionist - and most schools of Israeli - historiography.

Although the Messiah does appear to be rather late (or perhaps he has just been a very naughty boy): hence why the jews in New York take the occasional trip out to the backwoods of America to con the proverbial yokels out of their hard-earned savings to ‘send more jews to Israel’ (or to be pedantic ‘make Aliyah’) so that the ‘end times’ scenario can start. Of course, Israel has its own modern day zealots who deny anything remotely science related (unless they can claim Hashem inspired a jew to create it or assist in its creation) and periodically demand that Israel start the long-awaited slaughter of the goyim (as Hashem will surely marshal his celestial armies in support). (4)

With all of what is going on in academe Pappe is something of a breath of fresh intellectual air - in spite and not because of his foetor judaicus (lit. ‘jewish stench’) - in his honesty to tackle the proverbial ‘pink elephant in the room’ in jewish studies: i.e., that the jews might just have caused much of the reaction to their own behaviour. Such a revolutionary thought is not really brought up by Pappe in his most famous book ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ (5) and neither is it really considered in his journal articles or other academic or popular books of his that I have read.

Instead, Pappe focuses on proving that the anti-gentile genocide - lets not beat around the linguistic bush, shall we? - committed by Israel during their supposed ‘War of Independence’ - perhaps more aptly named the ‘War of Western Dependence’ - were:

A) The logical result of Zionist political philosophy.

B) Systematically planned and organised before hand by major jewish figures.

With his first point I think Pappe has stayed his own hand considerably as Zionism as a political philosophy was implicitly genocidal towards gentiles from its very earliest days as the basic ideological plank that informs Zionism is the ‘chosen’ nature of the jewish people and how they are called to rule the world (as the priestly class and proverbial interface between Yahweh and the world). You can read that suggestion in both Herzl and Hess: the two intellectual fathers of Zionism. (6) You can also read that attitude among Zionism’s early major rabbinical supporters such as the Baseler Rav (7) and Rav Abraham Kook. (8)

Perhaps that just cuts too close to the bone for Pappe?

With the second point Pappe is much stronger and provides ample evidence for the existence of Plan Dalet - the plan to kill, torture and generally terrorism the native Arab population to leave so that the self-chosen could move in and steal (or rather ‘find’ halakhically speaking) everything that wasn’t nailed down - which actively included such major figures in jewish history as David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Yigael Yadin (i.e., the founding fathers of modern Israel).

Pappe notes - not incorrectly - that it is hard to argue that this coordinated activity wasn’t the centralised organised conspiracy that he evidences it to have been. Indeed, those Israeli apologists who argue that either Arab losses have been grossly exaggerated (i.e., ‘there was no Nakba’) or that there was no conspiracy, but what massacres there were merely the work of a few jewish extremists (i.e., Benny Morris and the Israeli ‘historical revisionists’) are offering utterly fanciful interpretations of Israeli history according to Pappe.

Interestingly Pappe hints that the basis of much of this assumption of general jewish innocence in Israeli history is the sentimental notion that jews like Ben Gurion, Yadin and Dayan cannot be held up to the same intellectual scrutiny as others as they are part of hero-pantheon of Israel’s national mythos (pun not intended).

In essence Pappe tells us that some jews are open to criticism from other jews - although one can imagine that there will be a lot of screeching about ‘jewish self-hatred’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ from quite a few lifelong jewish and/or Israeli apologists for Israel - but that other jews - perceived to be the ‘chosen of the chosen’ if you will - are immune from non-superficial criticism in Israeli historical circles because to criticise them would in effect mean criticising Israel and doubting Israel’s right to exist as an entity squatting on other people’s land.

According to Pappe and those jewish historians who agree with him - like Shlomo Sand - no jew should be immune from criticism and that historical research serves a higher purpose than adjunct propaganda for the Israeli state.

Now that’s a first: I agree with a jew!

References

(1) Possibly the classic example of this attitude may be found in Moshe Zimmerman, 1988, ‘Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of anti-Semitism’, 1^st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, where he spends the entire somewhat detailed biography trying to invent reasons why Marr was completely irrational, was jealous of jews and otherwise invented his anti-Semitic attitudes because the jews rejected him.

(2) Cf. Shlomo Sand, 2010, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, 1^st Edition, Verso: New York

(3) For example: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16848

(4) I pointed out just an instance in my article ‘Rabbi Lazer Brody: ‘Hashem will Slaughter the Goyim’, which is available at the following address: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/rabbi-lazer-brody-hashem-will-slaughter

(5) Ilan Pappe, 2007, ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’, 1^st Edition, One World: New York

(6) This is most easily found and described in Alan Clark, 2005-10, ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews’, 3 Vols., 1^st Edition, World Focus/Clarity: London, but it may be found in numerous works on the question of Israeli history and the history of Zionism.

(7) Arthur Cohn, 1972, ‘Of Israel’s Teachings and Destiny: Sermons, Studies and Essays’, 1^st Edition, Ahron Press: New York, pp. 111-113

(8) Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht, 1996, ‘To Rule Jerusalem’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 200-209