The Motivation for the Egyptian Research
The main claim of Egyptian historiography is that Zionist historiography
invented a history for the Jewish people and that it constructed religious,
cultural, historical, and military myths based on lies in order to prove the
rights of the Jews to the territory of Palestine. Egyptian historiography
focused its attack on the Zionist narrative according to which the Jews
are the descendants of an ancient nation chosen by God to inherit Pales-
tine but that historical circumstances forced them to be exiled from their
country for about two thousand years, during which time they never
stopped yearning for Zion. Their situation in the Diaspora was mostly
full of humiliation, suffering, oppression, and persecution, which led
to the creation of a national movement that gathered the dispersed and
brought them back to the land of their forefathers.
This narrative is interpreted by Egyptian historiography as imaginary
and as a means of taking control over Palestine. Thus, in their desire to
counter that narrative and their devotion to the Palestinian cause, Egyp-
tian researchers devote their research to refute what they called “Lies of
the Zionist Historiography.” Among those so-called lies they criticize the
genealogical link of the Jews to the biblical Children of Israel; the topic of
the chosen people and the Promised Land; the question of the authentic-
ity of the Bible as a historical source; the question of the nationality of
the Jews; and the question of the existence of a Jewish problem in the
Diaspora, especially in Islamic countries. They write mostly in Arabic
and aim their histories at Arab readers. The main reason for this is their
concern that Arab youth might accept the Zionist version as true.
It is, however, interesting to compare this hostile attitude with the tone
and ambiance of three publications written before 1967 by Christian Ar-
abs. The first is by the Egyptian historian Shahin Maqaryus, published
in 1904; the second is by Emil Zaydan, published in 1914 in the Egyptian
journal Al-Hilal; and the third is by the Iraqi historian Yusuf Rizq Alla
Abu Ghunayma, published in 1924.
1
These books are characterized by
a sympathetic approach to the history and culture of the Jewish people.
Issues of Jewish History as Reflected in Modern Egyptian Historiography · 229
Their positive attitude regarding the contribution of the Jews to world
culture is obvious, and they even express reservations about the blood li-
bel and the persecution of the Jews by the mob. However, except for these
three books, it seems that whatever was written about the Jews was criti-
cal and unsympathetic. It is enough if we look at some of the book titles
to realize this trend: Israel: The Torah: Misleading History, The Real History
of the Jews from Their Appearance to Date, Delusions in Jewish History, The
Jews of the Arab World—False Claims of Persecution, The Jews and the Legend
of Historical Rights.
Egyptian historiography cannot, of course, be considered en bloc,
since it covers a wide spectrum that starts from the rightist, Islamist
angle, which examines historical events through a religious prism, up
to the leftist social one, which is mainly secular and whose historical vi-
sion is based on materialistic concepts such as economics and society.
Between these two extremes there are various religious undercurrents,
but the main characteristic of them all is their evaluation of the national
dimension as the main motivation for the course of history. In fact, three
different ideological streams can be distinguished in the Egyptian dis-
course, each implying a specific attitude toward the past: the nationalis-
tic-institutional stream, the revisionist-leftist, and the Islamist. This divi-
sion was introduced into academic research at the end of the 1960s by
Yehoshafat Harkavi. About two decades later, it was confirmed by the
Orientalist Emanuel Sivan, and it can be said that it is also accepted by
Arab researchers.
2
The common interest of these three streams is their negative approach
toward Jews, Judaism, and Zionism. For instance, national historians
consider Zionism to be a competitive factor and present its supporters
as a danger to the Arab nation. The leftist researchers refer to them as a
societal enemy by presenting them as capitalists who exploit the socially
weaker classes. The Islamists, on the other hand, point out that they are
heretics who compete with Islam about divine truth.
Among these streams and substreams there are differences. This is
expressed by the nature of their source material and claims, as well as the
terminology, symbols, and linguistic codes that served each of them to
describe the Jews, Judaism, and Zionism. There is a clear tendency among
Islamist historians to deal with issues relating to the Jewish faith and refer
to it as the main cause for the conflict between Jews and Muslims. These
historians base their claims on their holy scriptures and concentrate,
230 · Rachel Maissy-Noy
more than others, on religious aspects in the course of Jewish history.
Historians of the nationalist and leftist streams, on the other hand, tend to
concentrate on the economic activities of the Jews and their influence on
world diplomacy. These researchers deal mostly with the historical and
political causes of the conflict and base their claims on secular research
disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, Bible criticism, sociology,
demography, and international law. But above all they show great inter-
est in the Zionist movement, its aspirations and arguments, and insist on
presenting it as the main cause for the Arab-Israeli conflict.
However, the common aim of all of them is to shatter the Zionist nar-
rative and build on its ruins, using the very same elements for a coun-
ternarrative presented to the world for historical reevaluation. In fact, in
their introduction to their research, most of the researchers promise to
present to the readers the real history of the Jews, devoid of any fabri-
cation and forgery. Their historical narrative emphasizes five main the-
ses: First, there was no Jewish problem in the Diaspora, especially not in
the Islamic countries. On the contrary, the Jews in the Diaspora lived an
honorable life and reached a high economic and social standard in an-
cient, medieval, and modern times. Moreover, safeguarded by the Islamic
world and under its influence, the Jews managed to create monumental
works in philosophy, poetry, and grammar. Second, if there was a Jewish
problem, it emanated from the negative behavior of the Jews toward their
environment and not from the harshness of Muslim rulers, as claimed
by some Zionist historians. According to the third thesis, the Jews do
not constitute a nation, since Judaism is exclusively a religion and not a
nation, given that prior to the emergence of the Zionist Movement in the
nineteenth century, the Jews, scattered all over the world, showed none of
the common characteristics of a nation such as origin, language, history,
and common national aspirations. The fourth thesis is based on conclu-
sions from the sciences of biblical criticism and archaeology, which argue
that the Bible, on which the Jews base their bond to Palestine, cannot be
used as a reliable historical source to describe the past. The fifth thesis is
the conclusion from the previous four ones. It refutes the ideological basis
of the Zionist Movement and presents it as a camouflage for a colonialist
movement driven by economic interests. The following sections expand
on two of these theses.
Issues of Jewish History as Reflected in Modern Egyptian Historiography · 231
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |