Well, given that the author is an Israeli academic who is known for writing pro-Zionist histories and criticising the Arab side, perhaps the title was not the thing to look for if you wanted a 'Palestinian' perspective?

And Pipes has an agenda himself, so I'm not sure his review is any more useful than one from an anti-Zionist would be (just that it's largely positive and theirs would be largely negative).

danivon wrote:Well, given that the author is an Israeli academic who is known for writing pro-Zionist histories and criticising the Arab side, perhaps the title was not the thing to look for if you wanted a 'Palestinian' perspective?

I think we are better off not reducing Mr. Karsh to the one dimension of pro-Palestine or pro-Zionist. You may feel that his perspective is one sided (and I do as well to a lesser extent), but his scholarship is very well respected. His thesis is that the Palestinians were betrayed by their own leadership and the other Arab leaders. Although Pipes and I suggest that the Palestinians could have been celebrating their own independence day instead of the Nakba if they weren't blinded by Jew hate, the reality is that neither Jordan, Syria, nor Egypt was going to let them have a state because of their own Jew hate / territorial ambitions. The Palestinian leadership continued to be the problem for many years, with the possible exception of Abbas.

There are also serious Israeli historians who have presented a view that somewhat challenges the Israeli narrative and somewhat supports the Palestinian narrative. The New Historians such as Benny Morris is one that Neal has referred to in the past. It's good to get beyond the politics and try to read what the historians are saying.

I'm also not so quick to dismiss Pipes. I know that he is more political these days and considered right wing, but from Wikipedia here is his background:

He credits visits to the Sahara Desert in 1968 and the Sinai Desert in 1969 for piquing his interest in the Arabic language,[15] and visits to Niger and Tunisia for piquing his interest in the Islamic world, and he changed his major to Middle East history.[16] For the next two years Pipes studied Arabic and the Middle East, obtaining a B.A. in history in 1971; his senior thesis was titled A Medieval Islamic Debate: The World Created in Eternity, a study of Al-Ghazali.[15] After graduating in 1971, Pipes spent nearly two years in Cairo. He learned Arabic and studied the Quran, which he states gave him an appreciation for Islam.[16]

Pipes returned to Harvard in 1973 and obtained a Ph.D. in medieval Islamic history[14] in 1978. His Ph.D. dissertation eventually became his first book, Slave Soldiers and Islam, in 1981. He studied abroad for six years, three of which were spent in Egypt, where he wrote a book on colloquial Egyptian Arabic which was published in 1983. He switched his academic interest from medieval Islamic studies to modern Islam in the late 1970s.[14]

He certainly knows something about the Arab world and can't just be dismissed as a hack.

Ray Jay wrote:

danivon wrote:Well, given that the author is an Israeli academic who is known for writing pro-Zionist histories and criticising the Arab side, perhaps the title was not the thing to look for if you wanted a 'Palestinian' perspective?

I think we are better off not reducing Mr. Karsh to the one dimension of pro-Palestine or pro-Zionist. You may feel that his perspective is one sided (and I do as well to a lesser extent), but his scholarship is very well respected.

Well, some argue that his scholarship is flawed, and that he distorts his sources, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if you want a Palestinian perspective, try looking for a book written by a Palestinian.

And like Pipes, it's not that I see him as a hack, it's that he clearly has an agenda. I've no doubt he's able to marshall his arguments and select his sources to suit them, and eloquently put them.