Rethinking 1948
Under Consideration: Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab Israeli War, Yale University Press (2008), 524 pages.
Back in the late 1980s and 90s, Benny Morris was identified, some would say targeted, as the stormy petrel among Israeli historians. In tomes such as The Birth of the Palestinian Problem (1988), Israel’s Border Wars (1993), and Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict (1999) he slaughtered any number of sacred cows. He started with the heretical idea that during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, 600,000 or so Palestinians did not leave their homes out of their own free will but had been expelled by the Israeli army. He ended with the equally heretical one that most of the Palestinians who were caught (many of who were shot) by the IDF while trying to “infiltrate” across the border to Israel during the 1950s were unarmed civilians who were simply trying to return to their former lands. It speaks volumes about Morris’s work that for several years, no Israeli university would give him a job. That work also earned its author the undying hatred of many Israelis from Likud minister of education Limor Livnat down (or up: when it comes to nationalist stupidity, it is hard to sink lower than she did). As the saying goes, it is by his enemies that a man should be judged.
Then came the Second Palestinian Uprising. Morris, who hitherto was considered the doyen of the so-called “new historians,” changed his mind (though it took him some time to admit the fact). Like many other dovish Israelis, for years on end he had placed much of the blame for the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel’s own leaders who, in his view, had been far to harsh in their dealings and with the Palestinians. To achieve that peace he advocated negotiations with the PLO—in spite of all the terrorist acts the latter had committed, and in spite of its refusal to recognize the Jewish State—and withdrawal from the occupied territories.
Like many of his fellow doves, he simply lost patience with Arafat, the PLO, and the Palestinian people as a whole. Much to the surprise of those familiar with his works, the historians who had criticized his government for so long started defending it and justifying it. If that is bad news for the peace process and for the Palestinian aspirations to obtain a state of their own, then so be it.
In 1848, Morris’ central message is simple. The Arabs, both those inside Palestine and those who live in the neighboring countries, hated the Zionist enterprise right from the beginning and did whatever was in their power to stop it and—as many of their leaders said—push the Jews back into the sea. They were, however, hopelessly unable to resist the Zionist onslaught. In part this was because of the extraordinary dynamism of the Zionist movement itself; in the whole of history, it is hard to find a national liberation movement that was more determined and more prepared to do whatever it would take. In part it was because the international situation, specifically including the great powers, often favored the Zionists, and in part because the Palestinian community, for all that it outnumbered the Jews in Palestine (as late as 1948, twice as many Arabs lived west of the Jordan than Jews) was backward, disorganized, and corrupt. Time after time, first the British Imperial Government and then the United Nations came up with proposals to defuse the conflict by dividing the country between Jews and Arabs. Time after time, the former accepted whereas the latter refused.
It was the last of these proposals, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 1947, which formed the immediate background to the war. In narrating the history of the latter, Morris comes up with few surprises. The traditional picture that presents the war as a desperate struggle for survival mounted by the small and the few against the big and the many is, generally speaking, correct. At the beginning of the war the Israelis (as they now were) fought outnumbered, but owing to a much more efficient system of mobilization this soon changed. By the time the state was proclaimed on 14 May 1948, the Palestinians had already been decisively beaten; had the armies of the neighboring Arab countries not intervened in the conflict, the Israelis would have made mincemeat of them even more easily than was actually the case. Of the five invading armies, the Arab Legion was far and away the best both as a fighting force and when it came to observing the law of war in regard to the wounded, prisoners, and so on. By comparison the remaining Arab armies were, in a word, lousy.
From the Israeli point of view the most difficult period in the war, and the only one in which their state and they themselves were in real danger, was the one that began on 15 May, when the regular armies of the neighboring Arab countries invaded Palestine. That period ended on 11 June when the so-called first truce, mandated by the United Nations, went into effect. Though both sides tried to use the truce for their purposes, the Jews were much better at doing so. By the time hostilities were resumed they had decisively changed the balance of forces by mobilizing many more personnel and importing heavy weapons from abroad. Though hundreds of thousands of Palestinians lost their homes because of the war, many of them after being expelled, there was no overall plan coordinated from above to get rid of them. Both sides committed atrocities, but owing to the fact that the Arabs only succeeded in conquering very few Jewish settlements—whereas the Jews, on their part, conquered hundreds of Arab ones—the latter probably committed more of them than the former. Had the Jews lost the struggle, the outcome would very probably have been a real holocaust. Had it not been for the intervention of the great powers, which twice saved the Egyptian army in particular, Israel would have completely demolished its enemies and expanded its borders.
To a reader familiar with the literature, especially the Israeli literature of the last twenty years or so, none of this will come as a particular surprise. Sixty years after the events, the time for the kind of hagiography that often marked the first few decades of Zionist-Israeli inquiries into the origins and development of their state is past; that of real historical research, based on real sources many of which have only recently become available, has arrived. What makes this volume unique is the author’s unrivaled mastery of the Israeli and British archives (no Arab archives have been opened to the public; in any case, Morris does not read Arabic) as well as his eye for detail and splendid style. The result is a fascinating work that contains any number of fascinating details.
Morris has often been criticized in the past, and there can be little question about that, in publishing this book, he has opened himself to more criticism in the future. Some will no doubt accuse him of not being sufficiently Zionist—after all, he does say that the Palestinians were never any match for the Israelis, and he does mention some atrocities the latter committed. Others will claim, in fact are already claiming, that in presenting Israel’s conduct of the war in a favorable light he all but ignores the role the country played in originating the conflict and perpetuating it. In this short review, I do not want to go into the details or determine who, Morris or his critics (and, among the latter, which ones) is right and who is wrong; perhaps the fact that he has come under fire from both sides speaks for itself. Suffice it to say that he has produced a comprehensive, very well documented, and very well written, work. For anybody who wants to understand the war in which modern Israel was created, but also the present mood of much of the Israeli left, a better starting point is impossible to find.
Martin Van Creveld is professor of history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is the author, most recently, of The Culture of War and Defending Israel: A Strategic Plan for Peace and Security.
Comments
Good article. Thanks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Any thought of covering serious Israeli conservatives or nationalists?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
My mistake. I failed to look up the leaning of the reviewer.
Will Takimag ever consider running an article by an independent Israeli conservative or even a nationalist, or are only those quoted by Chomsky allowed?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
independent Israeli conservative or even a nationalist
What is an independent Israeli conservative or a nationalist? A Zionist or no? Someone who is critical of the way the conflict is being handled?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Civilization and its genetic basis are abnormalities on this planet. Defending them and spreading them will require realism. Realist historians show what it takes. Liberals recoil with horror and want to embrace the extinction of civilization and its genetic basis.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Good stuff. A few years ago I tried to figure out who was right in the Israeli Palestinian struggle. I gave up. Trying to unearth the moral complexities of this issue is truly hopeless.
How does one weigh on one side Deir Yessin, ethnic cleansing, settlements, and perceived mandate from God to the land and, on the other side, suicide bombings, Third World corruption, anti-Christian extremism, and long ties to the land? This is not to say individual acts have no moral dimension, wheter it’s aerial bombing Lebanon, kidnapping and murdering soldiers, or suicide bombing civilians. The moral complexity does matter for this reason: it undermines America’s uncritical support for Israel, which depends upon widespread American acceptance of the Israeli propaganda line completely. Most of Israeli’s American supporters literally don’t know about Deir Yassin, Kibya, Sabra and Shatilla. They even accept the ridiculous idea that millions of people left their homes in 1948 because of radio broadcasts by Arab armies.
Even if I alternately identify with the pioneering Israelis and the Palestinians who want to restore their self-rule over the land where they and their parents were born, I conclude from this moral and practical complexity that it is foolish to take sides when no real American interest is at stake, and some are positively harmed by being as one-sidedly involved as we are.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
-- Martin Van Creveld, in an interview to the Observer Guardian, 21 September 2003.
I’m really busy these days, but depending on how long this article stays up, there are lots of “interesting” quotes by this psychopath.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Are you guys looking for a copy editor? I’m available for cheap. I don’t have experience, but I can catch things like “far to harsh” and “1848.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Good stuff. A few years ago I tried to figure out who was right in the Israeli Palestinian struggle. I gave up. Trying to unearth the moral complexities of this issue is truly hopeless. “
The guy with the boot on his face is always right. That’s what Christian morality implies.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Chris - I caught those egregious oversights as well....also egregious is “many of who were shot”. Please editors, use better oversight before posting columns. There are a few blatant grammatical errors in Marcus Epstein’s most recent column as well....respectfully, bg
Click to flag this comment as abusive
So no one else here is at least a bit bothered by Mr Van Creveld’s assumption of the Dr. STrangelove approache to the world? I am sure I am not the only one who is aware of his threat to annihilate Europe.
Here is another interesting quote on the “Final Solution” for the Palestinians:
“The Palestinians should all be deported,” declared Van Creveld in 2003. “The people who strive for this (the Israeli government) are waiting only for the right man and the right time. Two years ago, only 7 or 8 per cent of Israelis were of the opinion that this would be the best solution, two months ago it was 33 per cent, and now, according to a Gallup poll, the figure is 44 percent.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“In part it was because the international situation, specifically including the great powers, often favored the Zionists...”
...More than often. In the case of the West, always. Without the support of those established powers - Britain and especially the U.S. - the fledgling state truly would have been pushed into the sea by the first week of June 1948, regardless of the irresistable uniqueness of its dynamism and determination. And whatever other myths we tack on…
And this ironclad validation of “everything it took”, didn’t spring from postwar guilt over the fate of Europe’s Jewry. It was the product of strong, relentless Zionist lobbies in both countries.
If there is to be any progress in the Mideast all of the parties - players then and now - must set aside their cherished fairy tales and finally address the real.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Madrid,
Yes. I for one have read such things about Van Creveld’s claims. I think the most recent outrages from this character have been in a Playboy interview - June, last year maybe. I have not been able to track it down.
And, I understand he made almost exactly the same threats: if Israel is headed down, they will take European (and probably Arab) cities, down with them. This is a threat that not even Hitler or Stalin were able to accomplish: mass murder and destruction on a scale unseen in human history.
Apparently, this guy is no crackpot. So, the question should be asked: to what extent do his views reflect the real views of the ruling class in Israel?
That’s a question I bet no one will want to touch.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
After visiting Nixon after his resignation, I remember Pat Buchanan relating how when asked about the future of Israel, Nixon gave the thumb down sign.
Nixon was a realist. The incessant demographic trends in the region do not lend confidence for Israeli survival. At some point, confrontation with a likely fate should prove sobering. Some Israelis might decide to abandon the state and emigrate; while others might resort to desperate measures. The future of the middle east is likely to be increasingly dangerous as the balance of forces equations change.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kudos to this website for carrying articles by a scholar of Dr. van Creveld’s stature. If you want to understand what’s happening in the Middle East, van Creveld’s writings are indispensable. Reportedly, his The Transformation of War (an outstanding book) is required reading for US Army officers.
Some comments on some of the comments posted here: Mr. Roach’s comment displays a wisdom that’s extremely rare in the paleo universe. For some reason, many paleos seem compelled to stick their noses into a fight half way around the world and decide (without bothering to acquaint themselves with the situation) who’s Good and who’s Evil. Good for Mr. Roach for espousing the lost virtue of neutrality. (By the way, the answer is that both sides are right.)
RonL’s call for columns by “Israeli conservatives” is amusing. “Conservative” is not a category of Israeli political discourse, and imposing foreign political categories like that only confuses things. Ditto with the non-Israeli term “nationalist”. If by “nationalist” he means “Zionist”, of course van Creveld is a loyal one. If “nationalist” refers to the “national camp”, those who support sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel for ideological reasons, of course such views are easily found in neoconservative and mainstream conservative outlets. I wonder which particular Israeli “nationalist” writers RonL had in mind?
I don’t agree with everything van Creveld says about the conflict, but his analysis of it is (like that of Paul Gottfried’s at this site) honest and reality-based, a refreshing change from most Western (including paleo) writings on the subject.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey, Madrid and other commenters, maybe you should try and calm down about these so-called “threats” of van Creveld’s. Both of you guys conveniently forgot to quote this follow-up question from the interview:
Interviewer: This isn’t your own position, is it?
Creveld: Of course not. You asked me what might happen and I’ve laid it out. The only question is whether it is already too late for the other solution, which I support, and whether Israeli public opinion can still be convinced. I think it’s too late. With each passing day the expulsion of the Palestinians grows more probable. The alternative would be the total annihilation and disintegration of Israel. What do you expect from us?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you Mr.Almoni: I always thought this was Dr.van Creveld’s position but didn’t have time to check it out. He was just explaning the Samson doctrine or sometimes called the Massada complex which is so prevelant among some Israeli groups. I sure hope some of you sane Israelis figure out a sane solution.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I personally like Van Creveld’s writings very much. He’s one of the great war thinkers of our time—certainly no psychopath.
Btw, Van Creveld also said that Bush should be convicted for war crimes and he didn’t care if Iran would go nuclear. He believes that proliferation pacifies (deters) the Middle East.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Oh, please. Look, Im not going to argue what should be self-evident for any civilized human being. When someone like
Van Creveld, who is a major cog in the military-industrial complex (Eisenhower’s words), a
a person who presumably formulates the military strategy of Israel, says, ““The Palestinians should all be deported,” or even more unsettling, “We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under,” the rest of us have a right to be
concerned about what is going on in his head and the heads of the top brass of that country.
The man is making himself perfectly clear, and any later half-retraction shows at least
that the man is not digging graves in his backyard yet.
Pioni: it’s obvious that you have a personal stake in this-- perhaps I am wrong, but I assume you are an Israeli national, so in that case, we understand perfectly your attempt to defend this, yes, psychopath, but there are lots of Catholics, who write for and read this magazine. Do the Catholic conservatives who
frequent this site, many of whom are quite articulate, think it appropriate that this
magazine, which shows a great deal of sympathy for Catholic intellectual thought, should
publish a man who has threatened to annihilate the holy city of Rome?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why is it this issue (at least in this country) is framed always from an Israeli view? Just because Morris said a couple of things in the past that clashed in some respects with the Pollyanna view of the Zionist enterprise doesn’t mean he doesn’t approach his subject steeped in all sorts of Israeli Jewish-centric biases. Moreover, from the little narrative that Hebrew University Professor Creveld provides, its fairly clear Morris is on a mission of sorts to backtrack on his previous scholarship given his recent political disillusionment with the Palestinians. Morris is writing feel good Israeli Jewish propaganda, with a few minor dissents to make the effort look objective and scholarly. Palestinians need to be let into the historical debate of what happened to Palestine when the Zionists decided to create their “homeland”. Israeli Jews, no matter how supposedly well intentioned, objective,or scholarly they are reputed to be,cannot speak for the Palestinian side of the equation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
In many ways Morris reminds me of Edwin Black the author of the “Transfer Agreement”. Black seems to have gone from an honest author to a ADL operative.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
GM, you make a very good point, although I think there are Israeli Jews who can speak for the Palestinian side--Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, among others. But as you suggest, they write in Israel, not in America. In America, even paleoconservative publications are biased in favor of Israel, in that they support its continued existence. That’s almost surely a minority opinion in the world today.
What I don’t understand is why paleos talk so much about Israel/Palestine at all. What difference does it all make? There’s no oil underground. But I can’t figure out why half the articles at Chronicles are about Serbia either, so hey, what do I know.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What I don’t understand is why paleos talk so much about Israel/Palestine at all.
Good point, Ploni. But mine’s more fundamental: Why do we blow billions in aid money on Israel every year? They have a middling economy and are a nuclear power. (In fact, if some of the posters here are to be believed, the Lion of the Levant is planning some kind of deep-grudge Armageddon should their days grow short.) Time for them to flit from the nest… and be gone.
And if the “Chronicles” crowd can dig up any reasons why we demonized the Serbs with hysterically unbalanced propaganda and set-up accusations - then dropped the hammer on them - I want to know.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
PB: “ What is an independent Israeli conservative or a nationalist? A Zionist or no? Someone who is critical of the way the conflict is being handled?”
An Israel nationalist would be a Zionist, but there are multiple schools of Zionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Types_of_Zionism
Most Israelis are critical of Olemrt’s policies. The guy is in single digit approval numbers and his party, Kadima, will probably lose 3/4 of its seats.
Would it be that hard to get someone like Shmeul Ben-Gad, who not only opposes aid to Israel but supported Ron Paul?
Mr. Roach,
American support for Israel has never been uncritical. Whether it was forcing ceasefires that saved Arab armies, pushing Israel to give up territory, or giving military aid to Israel’s current and possible future enemies, the US has been anything but one sided.
I find it unfortunate that you buy into liberal media lies regarding Deir Yassin, Sabra and Shatilla. There was no massacre at Deir Yassin and this has been proven repeatedly. Civilians die when soldiers use them as shields. The Arab forces at Deir Yassin pretended to surrender, drawing in members of the Irgun and Stern Gang, and then opened fire on them. Civilians died in the crossfire. Welcome to war. Unfortunately, the Israeli left, which was at ideological war (and in the case of Rabin fired on) members of the Zionist right, joined Arabs in perpetrating the myth for political ends.
Sabra and Shatilla were real massacres, but they were revenge for massacre of Christian Lebanese. And the Phalangist Christian militia, which carried out the vengeance, was led by Eli Hobeka a Syrian agent. It was a sad incident, but par for the course of the Lebanese civil war. It was just played up so that Israel or the right-wing Israeli government would suffer.
Finally, most the old Palestinians were a minority of Arabs in 1948. Get the demographics right. They were overwhelmed by the foreign Arabs, Circassian, and Albanian and Yugoslav Muslims resettled by the dying Ottoman Empire.
It seems to me that your views come from uncritical acceptance of liberal propaganda.
Then again, back in 2004 you did liken American opposition to immigration to the plight of the Palestinians, so you might simply be a partisan. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002151.html
Madrid and Joe,
Mr. Van crevelds asseriot about Israeli nuclear policy are unsighted incitement. He is too smart (I think) to presume that such claim of blackmail would not create resentment or even a backlash. And that is its only purpose.
No one else claims that Israel target’s any European city, save those in the USSR/Russia. That Israel would, as a last resort, bomb Arab lands is a given. Look up “The Sampson Option.” Facing a successful genocidal war, the Israelis might well go tit for tat.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ploni Almioni writes
“ RonL’s call for columns by “Israeli conservatives” is amusing. “Conservative” is not a category of Israeli political discourse, and imposing foreign political categories like that only confuses things. Ditto with the non-Israeli term “nationalist”. If by “nationalist” he means “Zionist”, of course van Creveld is a loyal one. If “nationalist” refers to the “national camp”, those who support sovereignty over the whole Land of Israel for ideological reasons, of course such views are easily found in neoconservative and mainstream conservative outlets. I wonder which particular Israeli “nationalist” writers RonL had in mind?”
If you are an Israel, which your pseudonym suggests, you know better or are deliberately lying.
You know damn well that the Likud or National Union would fall in this. Likud is a free-market party that respects religious and national heritage. NU is a religious nationalist party.
Neoconservative magazine might run the occasion Security Zionist, but they will never run someone from National Union. Religious Zionists are not run, and those who think that Arabs and not Jews should be expelled are simply called racist. They never run people like Paul Eidelberg, who actually studied under Strauss. Rachel Strauss, Michael Freund, Steve Plaut,
……………………
“In America, even paleoconservative publications are biased in favor of Israel, in that they support its continued existence. That’s almost surely a minority opinion in the world today.”
I take it back. You want Israel destroyed. That is not a position most people would support in the US since it would involve genocide. I also doubt that given the facts European would support it.
GM,
Is it possible that Morris, having been a leftist attacking Israel might have become their equivalent of a neocon?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Why I am I locked out, when I am now trying to post as “RonL”?
Is dissent not allowed?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Martin van Creveld is on of the best military thinkers. Period. He is also an analyst whose views on Israeli and American policies are based on Realpolitik considerations—as opposed to romantic nationalism or left-wing idealism—and in that sense it’s a conservative perspective. His support for Israeli withdrawal from the occuppied territories to the 1967 lines is based on a reading by a realist of Israel’s current predicaments—demography, security, diplomatic. he has been critical of the Iraq War by considering U.S. strategic interests, the balance of power in the Middle East, etc. I agree with most of the comments that Ploni Almoni made. I do want to respond to something that San Fernando Curt had written:
Without the support of those established powers - Britain and especially the U.S. - the fledgling state truly would have been pushed into the sea by the first week of June 1948, regardless of the irresistable uniqueness of its dynamism and determination.
In fact, it was the Soviet Union and its allies that provided the new Israel with critical diplomatic and military support. It immediately recognized Israel while the American hesitated and certainly refrained from providing the Israelis with any military assistance in that period. Britain opposed the creation of Israel and povided support to the Arab states during 1947-48.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Hadar is it true as
Gore Vidal among others has asserted that Harry Truman received 2 million dollars in a bag to Recognize Israel? Or was Gore just blowing smoke? Thank you for all your fine work, as well I have been a fan of you for years.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There was a serious debate among members of the foreign-policy establishment over the recognition of Israel, with Marshall and others opposed to the move. I think that there were a lot of factors that influenced Truman’s decision, including the Jewish vote in New York but also the anti-British views of some of his advisors. And the loss of Palestine was considered to be a major blow to the the British Empire.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
RonL, I’ll give your comments about me the attention they deserve, and instead respond to your comment about Benny Morris. First of all, unlike other “New Historians”, Morris never really attacked Israel. In any case, there were many, many on the Left who were “mugged by reality” in September 2000, and who are in that respect now equivalent to “neocons”. (Then there are those like Shimon Peres and Amos Oz, who get mugged over and over, each time completely by surprise, and keep coming back for more.)
Morris has said that he still considers himself on the Left.
His hawkish, pessimistic view of the conflict is neoconnish, but he favors unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 borders, which I don’t think many American neocons advocate. At least you won’t see it much in Commentary.
If “neocon” refers to politics rather than biography, then there are virtually no “neocons” in Israel, as far as I can tell. Maybe Netanyahu and the folks at Azure (tekhelet), all of whom are either immigrants or who spent long periods outside Israel. All of them, including Netanyahu, are completely marginalized culturally.
“Neocon” is a useful category to apply to the Israeli political circus only if it means “mugged by reality”. If you associate the concept with concrete political views, it’s more misleading than enlightening.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
From the Harry S. Truman Library:
At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel. On that same date the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31
Truman’s recognition followed the independence proclamation by all of 11 minutes.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Excellent review, but there is a small typo in paragraph 4. It reads “1848” not “1948”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.