New Historians

As the " New Historians " are referred to Israeli historian, whose aim is to subject the history of Israel and Zionism revision. Particularly affected are the Israeli state was founded in 1948 and its history. Relevant historian this direction Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev and Shlomo Sand.

Main arguments

Core thesis of this historian is that the establishment of the State of Israel, the expulsion of a portion of the Arab population was necessary, which was interpreted as voluntary migration from the traditional Israeli historiography until then. It follows the opinion of the " new historians " a ( main ) responsibility of the State of Israel for the Middle East conflict and the Palestinian refugee problem. As an example here are the five main theses of the school from the perspective Avi Shlaims presented:

Criticism

The theses of the " new historians " are mostly rejected by both the Zionist historiography as well as pro-Arab authors, who they accuse of trivialization. As one of the leading critics Efraim Karsh is true, who accuses them are systematic falsification of history.

There was criticism that the " new historians " often put the blame solely on the Israeli side and historical personalities among today's moral point of condemning, without sufficient time to respond to the context. Communication attempts by the Arab side - around 1955 by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser - were only tactically motivated and therefore not to be taken seriously. Also, it was assumed they would do research from a radical leftist and Marxist point of view.

Also from politicians learn these historians rejection. The works of the " new historians " " should not be taught in school ," said about former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Controversy among themselves

As Benny Morris in 2004 noted that the summary of each new historians was more influenced to a supposed " group " by their critics. In fact, it had " never been a firmly connected, homogeneous school" given that it had partially hardly knew. In this context, Morris noted methodological differences in the way the respective historians and criticized mainly Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim. Pappe's work was politically motivated and unfounded. Shlaims " anti-Israeli analyzes " were comparable to those of "European neo-fascists and Islamic jihadists ." Shlaim threw Morris again " racist views " before, because Morris since the outbreak of the Second Intifada, the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 to justify now.