In the 1980s, the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) opened its archives pertaining to the 1948 war to the public. This prompted a revision of the origins of the Palestinian refugee crisis, which birthed a new interpretation of the historical events. Two narratives of this history emerged, the new history that is led by Benny Morris and the old history that is advocated by Shabtai Teveth. Morris contends that Israel is more to blame for the refugee crisis because of rumors of a transfer idea for Palestinians prior to the war, lack of evidence of Arab involvement in Palestinian retreat and due to Israel’s wartime political policies. Teveth stands to uphold Israel’s old historical narrative of the refugee crisis, which argues that it was merely the
…show more content…
Prior to examining the disagreements between Morris and Teveth it is beneficial to understand what the old narrative of Israel was. Teveth refers to a quote written by Morris which states that “the essence of the old history is that Zionism was a beneficent and well-meaning progressive national movement; that Israel was born into an uncharitable, predatory world; that Zionist efforts at compromise and conciliation were rejected by the Arabs; and that Palestine’s Arabs, and in their wake the surrounding Arab states…launched a war to extirpate the foreign plant” . The quote ends with the start of the 1948 war and suggests that Israel was innocent in its endeavors in Palestine, that the Arabs started the war for aggressive purposes and hints that the eventual flight of the Palestinian Arabs was a result of the war and not a result of Israeli policy. Thus, as a defender of the old narrative, Teveth aims to discredit the main points of Morris’s new historical narrative. The notion that the original Zionists leaders had been planning the exodus of Arabs from Palestine was the first to be shot down by Teveth, which he writes that the 1948 war “formed a different Israel from the one intended by its founders. The latter had never imagined in their wildest thoughts that Israel would one day be obliged to …show more content…
Teveth, although bias in his views, offers a rather neutral interpretation of the events of the 1948 war, one that he calls a two-phased explanation. Teveth writes about the shift in Jewish attitude that occurred amidst the war, “before the invasion the Palestinian Arabs were seen, for the most part, as citizens of a future Jewish state; after it, as declared enemies. Accordingly, one may properly speak, in the former period, of an Arab flight, and in the latter of expulsion by Israel” . To Teveth, who offers the best explanation of the Palestinian refugee crisis, the IDF did eventually create a policy of evicting Arabs from Palestine, but this was a process that occurred mid war and was not a premeditated pillar of Zionist ideology. The Palestinian Arabs initially fled due to a domino effect that was a result of their leaders and local bourgeois fleeing which prompted more Arabs to pack their bags and head for the neighboring Arab nations. It would not be until near the end of the war that the Israeli leaders obtained the idea of pushing out the remaining Arabs and restricting any possible return of these Arab refugees. The thinking behind the expulsion policy may have dealt with fear of a subversive Arab fifth column of Arab refugees in the Jewish nation that might undermine or threaten Israel’s national safety. This line of thinking, although
Prior to examining the disagreements between Morris and Teveth it is beneficial to understand what the old narrative of Israel was. Teveth refers to a quote written by Morris which states that “the essence of the old history is that Zionism was a beneficent and well-meaning progressive national movement; that Israel was born into an uncharitable, predatory world; that Zionist efforts at compromise and conciliation were rejected by the Arabs; and that Palestine’s Arabs, and in their wake the surrounding Arab states…launched a war to extirpate the foreign plant” . The quote ends with the start of the 1948 war and suggests that Israel was innocent in its endeavors in Palestine, that the Arabs started the war for aggressive purposes and hints that the eventual flight of the Palestinian Arabs was a result of the war and not a result of Israeli policy. Thus, as a defender of the old narrative, Teveth aims to discredit the main points of Morris’s new historical narrative. The notion that the original Zionists leaders had been planning the exodus of Arabs from Palestine was the first to be shot down by Teveth, which he writes that the 1948 war “formed a different Israel from the one intended by its founders. The latter had never imagined in their wildest thoughts that Israel would one day be obliged to …show more content…
Teveth, although bias in his views, offers a rather neutral interpretation of the events of the 1948 war, one that he calls a two-phased explanation. Teveth writes about the shift in Jewish attitude that occurred amidst the war, “before the invasion the Palestinian Arabs were seen, for the most part, as citizens of a future Jewish state; after it, as declared enemies. Accordingly, one may properly speak, in the former period, of an Arab flight, and in the latter of expulsion by Israel” . To Teveth, who offers the best explanation of the Palestinian refugee crisis, the IDF did eventually create a policy of evicting Arabs from Palestine, but this was a process that occurred mid war and was not a premeditated pillar of Zionist ideology. The Palestinian Arabs initially fled due to a domino effect that was a result of their leaders and local bourgeois fleeing which prompted more Arabs to pack their bags and head for the neighboring Arab nations. It would not be until near the end of the war that the Israeli leaders obtained the idea of pushing out the remaining Arabs and restricting any possible return of these Arab refugees. The thinking behind the expulsion policy may have dealt with fear of a subversive Arab fifth column of Arab refugees in the Jewish nation that might undermine or threaten Israel’s national safety. This line of thinking, although