Writing the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Historical Bias and the Use of History in Political Science

Abstract

When doing political science research, how do we know that one story is not just as good as the next? Every historical school of thought purports to provide a “true” account of its subject matter. But contradictory schools of thought can not all be given equal weight. While much has been written on the epistemological question of objectivity in history, remarkably little work has been done regarding the practical problem encountered by political scientists faced with multiple narratives and historical bias. This essay develops a pragmatic method, which aims to evaluate historical narratives according to their utility in solving analytic and political problems. I illustrate the approach through the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where multiple, conflicting accounts of the “story” are vivid and copious. I conclude that while historical objectivity is elusive, some narratives are better than others at adjudicating both political science debates and “real-world” political problems.Jonathan B. Isacoff is assistant professor of political science at Gonzaga University (isacoff@gonzaga.edu). The author thanks Jennifer Hochschild, Bob Vitalis, Ian Lustick, and four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

The Egyptian Revolution and the Politics of Histories

“…The use of historical evidence in constructing causal arguments is a subject of wide discussion in political science. See for example, Brady and Collier (2010), Büthe (2002), Capoccia and Ziblatt (2010), George and Bennett (2005), Elman and Elman (1997), Geddes (2003), Isacoff (2005), Kreuzer (2010), Lustick (1996), Mahoney and Rueschemeyer (2003), Tetlock and Lebow (2001), and Thies (2002) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13. Kassab (2011) 14.…”

Exogenous Shocks or Endogenous Constructions? The Meanings of Wars and Crises

“…Similarly, in the security realm, debates over the lessons of history have had a recurring effect on foreign policy determination. In the case of Israel, for example, Isacoff (2004) attributes variation in foreign policy by tracing the arguments of traditional and ''new'' Israeli historians and how they construct contending images of Arab and Palestinian roles in different phases of their conflict. In this sense, even when a particular crisis-construction has apparently triumphed, constructivists should resist temptations to reify the resulting social facts, as any conventional wisdom can always be reconstructed.…”

“…1 1 For example, see Gilpin (1981); Gourevitch (1986); Ruggie (1993); Hay (1996); Bially‐Mattern (2001); Ikenberry (2001); Blyth (2002); Hall (2003); Widmaier (2003a); Isacoff (2004); Frederking (2003); Seabrooke (2006). On socialpolitik , see Alkopher (2005). …”

Theory as a Factor and the Theorist as an Actor: The "Pragmatist Constructivist" Lessons of John Dewey and John Kenneth Galbraith1

“…For this reason, the significance of the Great Crash as a focus of debate—between those supporting Galbraith and Friedman—remains ongoing, long after its material impact has dissipated. Rather than viewing history as an unproblematic repository of empirical data, IR scholars might find it useful to more directly recognize that historical narratives are themselves constitutive of particular “lessons” (see Isacoff, forthcoming, on this point. ).…”

“… 1 For comments on this essay, the author owes thanks to several colleagues including Lisa Baglione, James Galbraith, Jonathan Isacoff, Thomas Kane, Francis Graham Lee, Susan Liebell, Janice Bially Mattern, Darren Trippell, Robert Vitalis, and Alexander Wendt as well as David Edwards for the title. The author is, of course, responsible for the final product. …”