Talk:Efraim Karsh

message: JSTOR has a few reviews of Karsh's books from academic journals. Not sure that they have direct hyperlinks, though.
 - - - -
 - - - 
-
This place is some piece of work. Every entry CONTINUALLY changed to the Arabist/PC point of view.
I just cited a quote attributed to Morris from your FORMER wiki entry in which he ADMITS Karsh was correct.
Still Cached on Wiki Backup:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ip7QlqXXk2YJ:en.cyclopio.com/Efraim%2520Karsh+%22My+treatment+of+transfer+thinking+before+1948+was,+indeed,+Superficial%22&cd=38&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
<P>
".....In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris was Forced to Concede certain Refutations made by Karsh:
"Karsh has a point. 
My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, Superficial... He is probably Right in Rejecting the Transfer interpretation I suggested in 'The Birth' to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947].[11]. 
- 
Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I stretched the evidence to make my point."[12].
<P>
Of course, all quotes now point him Denying Karsh's charges. 
So tell me Chimpsky's.. what happened to the quoted section?
It hurts the Chimpsky/Wiki view and some Arabists objected?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.225.227 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the above mean? Would you care to repost in ordinary English? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the "Reception" of Karsh's book sounds like a blatant sales pitch.  I wonder if it was copied from the publisher's website?  Karsh has clearly generation positive and negative criticisim. I advocate that the excessive quoting in this section be reduced, but leave the references.Jemiljan (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of Karsh's books 

message: It is a grave ovesimplification to call the received wisdom of Middle Eastern studies to be that Muslims are victims.  That's far from the case with most scholars and even where they are considered victims it's time and location bounded.  It needs to be cleaned up and sourced. gren グレン 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite correct, but I believe the problem is with Karsh's simplistic representation of the received wisdom of Middle Eastern studies rather than with the reality. csloat 21:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by attributing the POV to Karsh. How "correct" he is, is beside the point. <<-armon->> 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. csloat 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section inserted by an anon is unsourced and reads like an attack piece. I wonder why it was not removed immediately per WP:BLP. Beit Or 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I'd say it read like an attack piece, but it was unsourced, so we do need to do better. <<-armon->> 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the version before your edits. Regardless, this discussion of one book overwhelms the articles and is, still, unsourced. Beit Or 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search turns up that the section was at least partly based on the "dust jacket" description of the book . <<-armon->> 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict / Islamic history 

message: It is time that Karsh view will be presentd side by side to Morrises/kahalidi view in Nakba Zeq 07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karsh - NPOV 

message: ::Compleate and uther noncence! If your only contact with the new historians are thru Karsh's work, you might think so, but thats just because you only seen one side of the debate.
::Karsh is usualy seen as a goof outside of the US, the New Historians is very well established in Israel and the rest of the world today, they wouldn't be if historians took Karsh seriously.
:::I am the one writing the section above, but I have not removed any link (in fact I haven't edited the article at all), so you must have confused me with someone else who edited the article.
:::Neither did I say that he was a goof what I said was that he is "usualy seen as a goof outside of the US", mayby the word "goof" was a little strong but Karsh is not taken seriously among historians outside of the US and especialy not in Israel.
:::And who are you to claim that the new historians are the ones driven by political agenda? Benny Morris is a devoted zionist who sees the palestinians as islamic fundamentalists. The new historians just reelevated some asumed facts in Israeli history and saw that they were not supported by the facts, Karash on the other hand started his attack on the new historians in a extremly right-winged magazine published by an organization founded by Daniel Pipes(!).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.182.96 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a point worth mentioning here is that the source for Yezid Sayigh is Karsh's reply itself, and it can't be found anywhere else. Anyone can point the primary source for the criticism? I also think it's worth mentioning that despite the criticism, Karsh authored the 'Israel' chapter in Sayigh's and Shlaim's "The Cold War and The Middle East", and they seem to have changed their opinion on him only after "Fabricating Israel History" release.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerneck (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'New Historians' section 

message: :"Political scientist Ian Lustick describes Karsh's writing in Fabricating Israeli History as malevolent and the nature of his analysis as erratic and sloppy. The book, he wrote, is ripe with 'howlers, contradictions and distortions'.[16] Lustick points to six instances in which Karsh gives quotes that say the very opposite of what Karsh tells his readers they say. One example he gives is of a statement made by Golda Meir that Karsh alludes to in support of his argument that there was never an agreement between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Zionist leadership. In the quote itself, Meir explicitly writes about an agreement: 'The meeting [in November 1947] was conducted on the basis that there was an arrangement and an understanding as to what both of us wanted and that our interests did not collide'.[17]"
:Sorry, but this article seems to be trumpeting Mr. Lustick's incorrect assertion that Golda Meir did indeed make an agreement with King Abdullah, but exactly the OPPOSITE is the case. Meir's quote in fact indicates that the meeting was convened between the two sides precisely because both sides were aware that there was a lack of agreement and a conflict of interest.
:Jacob Davidson  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lustick could have made a mistake, but not on this one. It's generally understood that Golda Meir visited Abdullah and arranged that Jordan (commanded by Glubb) would not try to over-run any part of Palestine set aside for the Jews. Which is what happened. It's all in Shlaim, "Collusion Across the Jordan".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.188.168 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Lustick did not debunk Karsh's claims. Quite the opposite. 

message: This section violated WP:COATRACK  WP:BLP From  WP:Coatrack#"But it's true!", An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.Historicist (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% right this violates WP:UNDUE, esp. wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise . Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content. The criticism section should be cut in half, eliminating the least academic and WP:RS material. The boxes in both sections are really unnecessary as well. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate material

message: Two items removed from "praise section":
* In reviews of Fabricating Israeli History, Benny Morris (professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva, Israel) acknowledges certain refutations made by Karsh:
::Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial...He is probably right in rejecting the transfer interpretation I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in [a speech by Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947].The Times Literary Supplement, November 28, 1997.
::--- This is very misleading.  In fact Morris in that source writes "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 Morris totally rejects Karsh's position on this issue. Zerotalk 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --- This is not adequately sourced.  We can't cite Karsh merely claiming that his arch-enemy wrote something.  Where did Morris write that and can we verify it?  And what's the context?  Is Morris actually admitting that he got something wrong or only that he could have made a better case?  Zerotalk 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, here is what Morris wrote (Journal of Palestine Studies, vol 27, iss 2, 1998, p83-84): "Indeed, in one instance (pp. 61-68) involving a statement by Ben-Gurion in his speech to the Mapai Central Committee on 3 December 1947 (Karsh wrongly gives the date as 13 December), Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I "stretched" the evidence to make my point. The original transcript of the speech indicates that Ben-Gurion was not referring to "transfer" when he said that the new Jewish state must "think like a state" (though, equally, he does not seem to have been referring to the need to bring to Palestine one and a half million Jewish immigrants immediately, as Karsh asserts)." Zerotalk 08:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morris in "praise" section 

message: Hi guys, I'm reading one of Professor Karsh's books at the moment and visited this page to find out more about him. Please could somebody create a page explaining the above phrase, used in this paragraph?
According to Howard Sachar, he is "the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism
I've got a vague idea of what it means, but a link would be very useful. Thanks. Msepryor (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Revisionist Zionism. Zerotalk 12:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionist Movement in Zionism?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929210406/http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv to http://skynews-clips.videoloungetv.com/public/skynews/latest/IsraelDebate_181006_0900.wmv
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Efraim Karsh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305011139/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/ArafatLives1.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/ArafatLives1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305011842/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/IsraelsArabsvIsrael1.doc to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/IsraelsArabsvIsrael1.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305005704/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/WerethePalestiniansExpelled.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/associates/karsh/articles/WerethePalestiniansExpelled.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified