It's going to get worse, much worse.

Sorry for the blogging hiatus. I had a lot to write, and still do, but I could not bring myself to actually sit down and get it out of my system. I hope that this post will help "break the ice".

A while back, I made mention of Norman Finkelstein's false claim that there is a scholarly "consensus" that Israel had expelled the Palestinians in 1948. Unfortunately, this falsehood is part of a much bigger pehnomenon - the creation and solidification of a new, anti-Israel orthodoxy, according to which Israel and Zionism were always in the wrong during its existence. According to this narrative, Israel was the guilty party in 1948 and launched an unjustified quasi-colonial war in 1956. Everything that happenned to Israel after the victory of the Six Day War was also mostly if not solely Israel's fault due to the occupation and Israel's militaristic nature. It goes without saying that only Israel's faults - which do indeed exist - are stressed while positive qualities are ignored. The Arabs and especially the Palestinians are of course perfectly innocent victims - the 'New Jews' if you will.

The only task remaining for the new orthodoxy is to connect the two halves of this portrait, by 'proving' that Israel was not justified in launching a pre-emptive strike in 1967. This task was somewhat stymied by the fact that Dr. Michael Oren's careful historical account demonstrated that Israel had very good cause to strike first. Rest assured, anti-Israel scholars are hard at work trying to undermine Oren. No less than two articles have been published in the mildly pro-Arab Middle East Journal doing just that. This is merely the opening salvo of the historiographic debate Oren predicted would happen even before he came out with his book. I don't doubt that Tom Segev's tome will help things along.

I check new books and articles on a regular basis, and I am not comforted by what I see. The new orthodoxy, a rather extreme mirror-image of yesteryear's heroic image of Israel and Zionism, is all-encompassing. The "concensus", especially that of 1948 but soon to include 1967, is present in virtually every "objective" or critical work coming out - and there are many. No-one is willing to cut Israel any slack, or at least take the historical zeitgeist of various periods into account. Israel apparently must act perfectly or not at all. Its wars are either completely "no choice" or "choice". It is either stands up to every unrealistic demand of purist liberal democracy or it is not a democracy at all.

There are few real protesters to this orthodoxy. Many of the legal scholars, historians and sociologists that study Israel, including those who are native Israelis, either adopt the "critical" narrative wholesale, or at least in part. Indeed, some of the worst bile has come from native Israelis.

I'm not sure what to recommend at this point. The few attempts to fight the "new orthodoxy" feel like too little too late. Perhaps a new approach is needed, one where the new orthodoxy is shown for what it is - an "establishment" and "hegemonic" position, and no longer the rebellious challenge it once was. Then the tables can be turned, since now it is those who support Zionism and Israel who are the true contrarians in worldwide academe.

If anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears. AIWAC