Big problem in this Karsh article.
Reader comment on item: Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians."
in response to reader comment: This is truly an amazing book

Submitted by Andy Dyer (United Kingdom), Jan 23, 2008 at 09:59

Karsh's treatment of Morris is deeply worrying. The quote from Morris that starts "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial" particularily so.

If this quotation had been fairly presented, Karsh has forced Morris to back down. But the source, (Times Literary Supplement, 28 November 1997) has Morris writing exactly the opposite.

Rather that conceding about "transfer" in the direction of Karsh's viewpoint, he wrote "Since writing my books on 1948 (The Birth and 1948 and after, 1990, revised 1994), I have begun to probe pre-1948 Zionist thinking on transfer, and the evidence so far unearthed and published, of which Karsh is well aware, has only strengthened my original conclusion - that the Zionist leadership devoted much time and thought to the subject and consensually accepted a transfer solution to the Arab problem (though it preferred, for good diplomatic and political reasons, not to publicize this)." In other words, Karsh misrepresents this document. If we can't trust Karsh to be honest about such easily obtained sources as TLS, why should we trust anything he writes about obscure documents in the archives?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.