Shmuel Ben-Gad names five scholars "ho [sic] I do not think would concur
with Mr. Katz". At the time I looked into the accuracy of Effraim Karsh's
book, I found some 20 reviews, about 3/4 of which were in scholarly
journals. Because of the controversial nature of the book and its thesis,
I read most of them; of those in newspapers, I looked at only the review
in the Times Literary Supplement (London). I also checked the subsequent
issues of all the periodicals whose reviews I read, to be certain that I
would see any rejoinders to their reviewers in the form of letters to the
editor. I believe that my method was quite neutral and sufficiently
comprehensive.
Of the five "scholars" named by Mr. Ben-Gad, only one turned up in my
widely cast literature search - Itamar Rabinovich. His review of the book
appeared in the Sept., 1998 issue (V. 20, no.3) of "The International
History Review" and was less than 2 pages long. The problem with such
relatively short reviews, is that they give the reviewer little space to
comment on her/his own examination of the sources.
Rabinovich did state his disagreement with one of Karsh's central themes
- that the "new historians" did not find anything really new in the
freshly opened archives and that what they did find changes nothing in
our understanding of history. Rabinovich says that he himself is "indebted
to [Avi] Shlaim [one of the three scholars who founded the movement] for
presenting the new archival material and for the challenge of his sharp
statements, and [I] recognize the contribution that he and his colleagues
have made by debunking a number of myths and by adding ferment to Israeli
historiography." While his short review does not record any analysis of
Karsh's proofs that the "new historians" falsifed historical evidence,
Rabinovich says that Karsh's "own conservative bent and genuine anger,
however, endow his book with a stridency that, in fact, detracts from its
effectiveness."
I do not find this review to be contrary to what I concluded about Karsh's
book (that it is not to be trusted), after reading Lustick's review, which
I cited in my earlier posting, as well as others.
For instance, in his lengthy review of Karsh's book (typical of the Times
Literary Supplement) of Oct. 3, 1997, Omar Bartov, Professor of History at
Rutgers University says: "There are some curious aspects to Karsh's
polemical essay. He has not worked intensively with the documents examined
by Morris, Shlaim or Pappe. If he criticises their interpretation of this
or that document, and at times raises reasonable doubts about some of
their conclusions, he nevertheless lacks the documentary basis which
underlies the major works by the scholars he attacks...For the vehemence
of Karsh's essay bears no relationship to the actual weight of his
criticism."
B'shalom,
Bernard Katz, former Head, Special Collections and Library Development
McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph
and founding Treasurer, AJL - Ontario Chapter
==========================================================================
HaSafran - The Electronic Forum of the Association of Jewish Libraries
Submissions for HaSafran, send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SUBscribing, SIGNOFF commands send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions, problems, complaints, compliments;-) send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AJL HomePage http://www.JewishLibraries.org/
