ABSTRACT
The current chapter introduces scholarly criticisms of Israeli orientalism and mizrahanut and categorically analyses the assumptions, to discern what is shared across Israeli MEIS. The necessity and validity of classification is subsequently exemplified by analysing critical receptions of the only comprehensive academic study of mizrahanut to date. Anyway, the discordant borrowing of ideas from the three paradigms of critique caused confusion, and scholars could not agree on the reading of the book. The same classification of epistemological paradigms laid out can be applied to understand the fundamental differences in critical studies on Israeli orientalism. The first type of criticism of Israeli orientalism and mizrahanut addresses factual mistakes and biases in methods and conclusions with the hope of rectifying them, out of the contention that history can and must be made as objective as possible. The loud absence of colonialism, power-structures and discourse is shared across the 1985 anthology.
