The Life and Legacy of Simha Flapan
A Great Israeli historian remembered
Among the ‘New Historians’ of Israel whose works were published in the 1980s, Simha Flapan is perhaps the least well-known today. The term ‘New Historians’ was coined by Benny Morris to describe a group of scholars who wrote and published historical works in the 1980s. They include Flapan, Morris himself, Ilan Pappé and Avi Shlaim. Unlike the ‘Old Historians’, who Morris describes as mere chroniclers of the Zionist movement, the ‘New Historians’ question the seemingly clear-cut Zionist narrative by examining the past in great detail. Works such as The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Morris), Collusion across the Jordan (Shlaim), and Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Pappé) reveal certain inconvenient facts that previous generations of Zionists have left out of their narrative, among them the mass displacement of Palestinian Arabs during the War of Independence, the collusion of Jordanian authorities in producing the Palestinian refugee crisis, and the role that Britain plays in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Simha Flapan was the eldest among the four, and the only one who witnessed the establishment of the State of Israel in his adulthood. Born in 1911 in Poland, he joined the Labor Zionist Mapam party after Israel’s creation, and served as director of the party’s Arab Affairs department from 1959 to the mid-1970s. Additionally, he served as the editor of New Outlook magazine, a monthly publication that promoted Arab-Jewish rapproachment.
Flapan has two published historical works to his name. The first is Zionism and the Palestinians, published in 1979. In the preface to the book, Flapan writes of the purpose of his historical research:
To dispel misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that my belief in the moral justification and historical necessity of Zionism remains unaffected by my critical reappraisal of the Zionist leadership. The history of Zionism demonstrates the extent to which the urge to create a new society, embodying the universal values of democracy and social justice, was inherent in the Zionist movement and responsible for its progress in adverse conditions. Israel's problem today lies in the disintegration of these values, due largely to the intoxication with military success and the belief that military superiority is a substitute for peace.
Here lies the moral conundrum that faces all New Historians: How can one justify his personal belief - as well as the historical necessity - of Zionism, all the while staying true to the historical complexities brought on by the movement? While Benny Morris remains a steadfast Zionist, his colleagues Ilan Pappé and Avi Shlaim swung hard against Zionism. Because Flapan passed away before the publication of his second book - The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities - it is unclear how his stance on Zionism would change over time.
The Birth of Israel is Flapan’s best known work. Published in 1987, it seeks to debunk some of the long-held misconceptions regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely:
That Zionists Accepted the UN Partition and Planned for Peace: “By some twist of vision, historians have generally taken Ben-Gurion’s acceptance of the idea of a Jewish state in less than the whole of Palestine as the equivalent of an acceptance of the entire UN resolution. Yet, as we have seen, Ben-Gurion had always viewed partition as the first step toward a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon.”
That the Arabs rejected the Partition and Launched the War: “The image of the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, leading hordes of Palestinians into battle against a small Jewish community intent on defending the principles of the UN Partition Resolution has all the elements of simplistic Manichaeanism… In fact, prior to Israel’s unilateral Declaration of Independence, many Palestinian leaders and groups wanted nothing to do with the mufti or his political party and made various efforts to reach a modus vivendi with the Zionists. But Ben-Gurion’s profound resistance to the creation of a Palestinian state significantly undermined any opposition to the mufti’s blood-and-thunder policies.”
That the Palestinian Arabs fled voluntarily, intending reconquest: “It is true, of course, that many Palestinians left of their own accord. Tens of thousands of community leaders, businessmen, land- owners, and members of the intellectual elite who had the means for removing their families from the scene of fighting did so… But hundreds of thousands of others, intimidated and terrorized, fled in panic, and still others were driven out by the Jewish army, which, under the leadership of Ben-Gurion, planned and executed the expulsion in the wake of the UN Partition Resolution.”
That all the Arab states united to Expel the Jews from Palestine: “Given the actual balance of power in the region… the danger of an Arab offensive did not loom large. Belligerent statements, however, were cheap and plentiful, and provided moral support for the Palestinians, who were, by now, in the throes of exodus. They also provided the Jewish Agency with a good deal of raw material for depicting the Arab leaders as incurable and fanatic aggressors. Nonetheless, a detailed analysis of the events reveals an enormous distance between verbal belligerence and actual preparations for war, between claims of solidarity and the reality of contesting power blocs.”
That the Arab invasion made war all but inevitable: “The Zionist leadership, concerned that American opposition to partition would increase, became more determined to accelerate the achievement of statehood. They decided to initiate a military offensive in Palestine and a complementary political offensive in the United States and at the United Nations, aimed at dissuading the Americans from pursuing the trusteeship policy. On March 10 the Haganah launched Plan D, the large-scale offensive that eventually brought most of the territories assigned to the Jewish state by partition under their control.”
That Israel was the David to the Arabs’ Goliath - a tiny state faced with destruction by a military giant: “In fact, the superiority of the Jews over both the Palestinian Arabs and the invading Arab armies was never in dispute. As Winston Churchill told the British cabinet during World War II, ‘In the event of a conflict, not only can the Jews defend themselves, but they will defeat the Palestinian Arabs.’ Both Arab and Jewish military experts, it appears, held similar opinions, as did numerous foreign observers.”
That Israel has always sought peace, but no Arab leaders has responded: “The myth of Arab intransigence was given a severe setback by the visit of Anwar al-Sadat to Jerusalem in November 1977. What all the Israeli peace movements were unable to achieve in thirty years, Sadat achieved overnight… There is, however, a good deal of evidence that Arab leaders and governments were ready to negotiate a solution to the conflict before, during, and after the War of Independence… A few examples will suffice to prove that the efforts of Egypt, Syria, and the Palestinians provided opportunities for peace that were not exploited because Israel was not ready or able to pay the price required.”
All of these myths have been uttered by pro-Israel commentators throughout the decades, and will continue to present themselves over the course of the Jewish State’s present war against Hamas. As Simha Flapan suggests, these myths harm the moral promise of Zionism as well as hamper the peace process with the neighboring Arab states. The Israel-Palestinian conflict has shrunken down to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Under the aegis of the Abraham Accords, two additional Arab states has normalized relations with Israel. However, the same principal signatory to the Accords, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is determined to wage an all-out war in the minuscule Gaza Strip. Netanyahu’s belief in military might is an example of what Flapan warned Israelis about - hard-liners who believe that superiority of force is an adequate substitute for peace. Despite the horrifying reality unfolding in Gaza, the Middle East as a whole has changed greatly since the days of Israel’s founding. Because of that, perhaps the myths of that time should be discarded as well.