Rating: 
Summary: A tour de force
Review: Accusations that this book is "propaganda" cannot be further from the truth. I suspect that people who make such accusations have not read the book. What Karsh does is show how the "new historians" (especially Morris, Pappe, and Shlaim) distort and misrepresent historical evidence in an effort to fabricate the history of Israel. Likewise, Karsh shows how these historians purposely ignore evidence which contradicts their claims, even though they may be aware of its existence. He shows that the only thing "new" about the "new historians" is their willingness to play loose with historical evidence. Karsh's book completely undermines the credibility of these historians. "Fabricating Israeli History" is an admirable defence of the truth against shoddy, biased scholarship.
Rating:
Summary: Dispels the myths of the 'propagandists'.
Review: An excellent work ! `The pen is mightier than the sword', as the maxim proclaims. The `sword' has failed so the propagandists reach for their pens. The state of Israel has been subjected to many wars since the day of it's rebirth in 1948. Conflicts in pursuit of the genocide of the Jewish race and the eradication of Israel from the Middle East. Wars, pogroms, terrorism and dispersal through the nations have all failed in parallel agendas against the Jewish people. Now their enemies have resorted to a new strategy through the pens of pseudo-scholars and historical revisionists who seek to distort, re-write and vilify the very fabric upon which the state of Israel and the Jewish people are founded. Efraim Karsh presents a full frontal attack on those who would wish to denigrate Jewish history and in so doing further fan the flames of the ever present anti-Semitism eternally waiting in the shadows for any opportunity to denounce the state of Israel. Karsh proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these so-called `new historians' are no more than propagandists & he professionally exposes their falsifications through a careful and systematic analysis of significant documentation & sources. Beginning with Middle East `expert' Benny Morris, Karsh shows that through the latter's falsification of documentation in pursuit of an obvious agenda of vilification, his own presumed existence of some elementary academic integrity amongst Middle East `scholars' was sadly mistaken. The oppressive atmosphere pertaining to all debates concerning the Jewish state and it's relationship with it's Arab neighbours should be seen in the context of the revelations within this book, together with the underlying hostility towards the very existence of a Jewish state in the midst of an ocean of Arab nations, and what can only be described as a virulent, rudimentary anti-Semitism amongst avowed intellectuals in the field. This book is splendidly written by Karsh and one does not need to be an academic to digest this extremely important topic. One of the best books on this subject to be found. Should be revised and kept up to date as often as possible, as the pens of the `revisionists' are still active. Have a nice day.
Rating: 
Summary: A Cautionary Tale
Review: In the late 1980s a group calling themselves the
'new historians', including Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe
and Benny Morris burst onto the scene, claiming to
have written the 'real' history of the beginning of
the state of Israel, a history that had ostensibly
been covered up and which they wished to expose. According to the 'new history', Israel was guilty of
a multitude of sins, from direct or indirect
responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee
problem (Morris) and colluding with Jordanian monarch Abdullah
I to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by
secretly agreeing to divide the country between them (Shlaim
and Pappe). Morris also insisted that the idea of
'trasferring' the Arabs out of the Jewish state had been a
central tenet of the Zionist movement, at least from 1937. They attracted criticism quickly, and for years the argument
over what exactly happened in the Israeli War of Independence
was THE hot topic, resulting in many
journalistic and scholarly articles and mutual accusations. By far the most straight-forward, no-holds-barred attack on
the collective theses of the 'New Historians' is this book.
Karsh, professor of King's College, faces the 'new historians'
on their home turf-namely their claim that their research is
based on newly uncovered archival material, a claim that is
only partly true. After first demonstrating that their 'ideas' are not new -
indeed, many of them have been staples of Arab propaganda for
years - Karsh takes a look at the evidence the 'new
historians' bring to support their ideas. Repeatedly, whether it is the claim that the Zionist movement was obsessed with 'transfer' or that Britain under Atlee and Bevin, long thought to be anti-Zionist, was in fact a friend of Zionism,Karsh demonstrates that these historians ignored evidence that contradicted their thesis, blew the (slim and selective) evidence they had out of proportion, and at times even misread what the document actually said, such as the case where Morris claimed that a meeting discussing the future of the Negev actually discussed transfer. Worse, they completely failed to consider the historical context of various documents, thus jumping to conclusions not allowed when examining the whole picture. Though Karsh may overreach at times with his rhetoric, it
is impossible to ignore his claims. Karsh's rebuttal is
not just important in the limited context of correcting a
distorted picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but is an
important warning against the dangers of forcing the facts
to fit the theory, rather than the other way around.
Historians the world over should take note. This book is a must-read on the still controversial subject
of the fateful period of 1947-1949, whatever side of the
conflict you may be on.
Rating:
Summary: A Cautionary Tale
Review: In the late 1980s a group calling themselves the
'new historians', including Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe
and Benny Morris burst onto the scene, claiming to
have written the 'real' history of the beginning of
the state of Israel, a history that had ostensibly
been covered up and which they wished to expose. According to the 'new history', Israel was guilty of
a multitude of sins, from direct or indirect
responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee
problem (Morris) and colluding with Jordanian monarch Abdullah
I to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state by
secretly agreeing to divide the country between them (Shlaim
and Pappe). Morris also insisted that the idea of
'trasferring' the Arabs out of the Jewish state had been a
central tenet of the Zionist movement, at least from 1937. They attracted criticism quickly, and for years the argument
over what exactly happened in the Israeli War of Independence
was THE hot topic, resulting in many
journalistic and scholarly articles and mutual accusations. By far the most straight-forward, no-holds-barred attack on
the collective theses of the 'New Historians' is this book.
Karsh, professor of King's College, faces the 'new historians'
on their home turf-namely their claim that their research is
based on newly uncovered archival material, a claim that is
only partly true. After first demonstrating that their 'ideas' are not new -
indeed, many of them have been staples of Arab propaganda for
years - Karsh takes a look at the evidence the 'new
historians' bring to support their ideas. Repeatedly, whether it is the claim that the Zionist movement was obsessed with 'transfer' or that Britain under Atlee and Bevin, long thought to be anti-Zionist, was in fact a friend of Zionism,Karsh demonstrates that these historians ignored evidence that contradicted their thesis, blew the (slim and selective) evidence they had out of proportion, and at times even misread what the document actually said, such as the case where Morris claimed that a meeting discussing the future of the Negev actually discussed transfer. Worse, they completely failed to consider the historical context of various documents, thus jumping to conclusions not allowed when examining the whole picture. Though Karsh may overreach at times with his rhetoric, it
is impossible to ignore his claims. Karsh's rebuttal is
not just important in the limited context of correcting a
distorted picture of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but is an
important warning against the dangers of forcing the facts
to fit the theory, rather than the other way around.
Historians the world over should take note. This book is a must-read on the still controversial subject
of the fateful period of 1947-1949, whatever side of the
conflict you may be on.
Rating:
Summary: A tour de force
Review: In this work, Karsh presents a credible academic refutation to the scholars who call themselves the "New Historians". Karsh carefully documents their errors and omissions of which there are many, and effectively demolishes their arguments. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: a fascinating read
Review: Karsh (a professor of Mediterranean Studies at the University of London) presents the first full-length and detailed rebuttal to those Israeli scholars who call themselves the "new historians." This group, whose ranks include Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, and Avi Shlaim, seeks to expose Zionism as a rapacious movement and Israel as the actor that bears nearly full responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian plight. Noting that others have critiqued the new historians' ignoring important source materials, Karsh concentrates on proving that "the very documentation used by these self-styled champions of `truth and morality' reveals a completely different picture from that which they have painted." Elaborating on the argument first made in his June 1996 article in the Middle East Quarterly, Karsh focuses on three main issues: David Ben-Gurion's alleged endorsement of "transferring" Arabs out of the territory to become Israel, "collusion" between the Zionist movement and King `Abdallah of Jordan to snuff out a Palestinian state, and secret British support for this joint effort. To establish his case, Karsh digs deeply into the documentary record, even going so far as to interpret crossed-out sections in Ben-Gurion's handwritten letters. That's all vital to making his case, but Karsh's key strength is the application of unprejudiced common sense to clarify issues clouded by the pseudo-scholarship of propagandists. Middle East Quarterly, Sept 1997
Rating:
Summary: To err is human, to lie is unforgivable
Review: Karsh takes the "new historians" to task. He convincingly shows that they (Benny Morris and company) have not just misinterpreted events, but they have knowingly created half-truths, selectively quoted and deliberately mis-translated statements made( as by Ben Gurion)to paint a picture to their liking. This don't not fall under the heading of a different school of thought, but rather cut and paste words and create evidence where none existed. This goes beyond just bad history into lying, decietfullness, and deliberate falsehood. This should discredit the vast majority of the so-called "new historians". However, given the current state of middle east studies, where facts are less important than ideology, it unfortunately will probably not make much of a dent.
Rating:
Summary: This is how history should be written.
Review: Rely on primary sources.
Be intellectually honest.
Let evidence form the conclusions.
Any first-year history major should have that drilled into their heads. It's also a basic set of tenets for journalists, academics, and anyone else seeking truth among facts and fiction.
What I gain from Karsh's book is an objective perspective of the origin of the modern conflict in Israel. I am treated to primary sources, secondary accounts, and conclusions drawn directly from the evidence, and not wild imagination or heresay. The way it hangs together, and the way it is written, almost compels you to consider going through the bibliography to learn more. Presented in the context of an academic response to sloppy historiography, it is a scathing rebuttal that cannot be ignored.
Presented as an introduction to the conflict, it doesn't stand alone. More than basic familiarity with the facts of Israel's modern (re)birth as a nation is needed to understand a majority of the references. However, once a basic understanding is in place, this book should serve as the standard by which other accounts or works are judged.
Fred
Rating:
Summary: New History as New Garbage
Review: The fact that so many reviewers fail to see the value in this work speaks volumes about the success of Arab propaganda in the last 30 years. Any study of any of revisionist and leftist historians, so-called "new" for good reason, should be filtered through the eyes of Professor Karsh--and Anita Shapira's 10,000-word New Republic piece, "The Past is Not a Foreign Country." Both call to task Avi Schlaim and Benny Morris, who like Tom Segev, fail to explain the war and peace that has afflicted the Middle East since Israel's founding. These new historians all make one gross omission: They consider it irrelevant that seven Arab nations attacked Israel upon her founding in 1947, making no secret of their intention to destroy the new Jewish state. In 1947, Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha promised "a war of extermination," "a momentous massacre" to be remembered "like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Nor do new historians bother to note that such words were followed by gruesome acts, about which the world has forgotten, given the ubiquity of biased news reports. In 1947 and 1948, for example, all but one of the 600 Jews captured by Arab forces, including many noncombatants and children, were murdered in cold blood--and mutilated beyond recognition. According to Dr. Eugene Narrett and Jerusalem Post reporter Sarah Honig, amid scenes of rape and other sexual abuse, the Jewish victims were dismembered, decapitated and photographed by their proud captors. In the Etzion settlements south of Jerusalem, three truckloads full of Jewish corpses were found sexually mutilated. Current accounts of those years often do, however, detail supposedly heinous deeds of Jewish fighters-without appropriate context. In the so-called massacre at Deir Yassin some 200 Arabs were killed. But new historians like Morris, Schlaim and Segev delete the relevant and defining fact that Deir Yassin was the scene of a pitched all-day battle, in which every male Arab villager was armed. One has to turn to more thorough and honest reporters, like O Jerusalem author Larry Collins, to learn that Arab fighters in Deir Yassin used women and children as shields. In war, bad things happen. But new historians fail to ask four critical questions: Who started the war? What were their intentions? Who was forced to mount a defense? What were Israel's casualties? Ask, and truth becomes crystal clear. As I note in a forthcoming Midstream article, "Mourning the Death of Peace," Israel agreed in 1947 to accept a further partition of less than 20% of the land allotted by the League of Nations in 1922 as a National Home for the Jews. The Arabs, however, begrudged Israel even that small patch of land. In every war since, Arabs have mounted an effort to destroy Israel, either militarily or politically, just as they did in 1947. In 1967, Egyptian leader Gamel Nasser promised to wash Israel into the sea. This intention remains sadly evident today in the Fateh Constitution-and countless Arabic reports, statements and broadcasts, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. It seems that moderate Muslim leaders like Shaykh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi, who support both Israel and peace, remain a depressing minority. When the conflict is seen through the wide-angle lens of clear-sighted historians like Karsh and Shapira, who DO include all the relevant facts, the work of new historians goes up in smoke--as dishonest garbage. Alyssa A. Lappen
Rating:
Summary: A Classic Time-Piece and Excellent Exposition
Review: The writing of history is in itself an historical event which reveals many things about those who write history and why they write it. With the sharp rise in self-repudiating, left-wing historiography in Israel in the 1980s (a fad which affected other Western countries), many contemporary Israeli scholars have attempted to seek justification for their radical political agenda and moral self-righteousness in the events of the past.
In FABRICATING ISRAELI HISTORY, Karsh dissects the claims of the self-anointed "new historians" of Israel: he delineates the serious flaws in the narratives that these men and women are attempting to propound by going back to the archives and showing how the "new historians" have systematically distorted facts in their construction of historical evidence. "New historian" Benny Morris has conceded Karsh's point about his treatment of certain historical records issues. "New historian" Ilan Pappe has shown his true colours as a socialist propagandist with a political agenda by claiming, as sorry defense against Karsh's indictment, to be most concerned with "moral issues [and] not the natural human follies of professional historians [i.e. distortion of historical facts]" (see http://hnn.us/articles/4482.html). So much for historical integrity?
Karsh's book is a time-piece in the ongoing attempt to establish a degree of consensus in the writing of Israeli history. For this alone, it deserves attention. It is also, in a more contemporary sense, an essential examination of the wilful abuse of the historians' craft by those in Israel and elsewhere who attempt to validate their personal political paradigms through corruption of the "way things were".
| 
