Reviewing
Empires of the Sand, Dr. Anthony Toth (D.Phil, Oxford) says:
In response to one particular attack by Karsh on the work of the New Historians, Benny Morris said that:
Reviewing
Fabricating Israeli History, Morris later said:
The 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, was ripe with 'howlers, contradictions and distortions'. Lustick cites six instances where Karsh, he alleges, presents quotations the originals of which state the very opposite of what Karsh tells his readers they say. One such, says Lustick, is a statement by Golda Meir alluded to by Karsh in support of his argument that there was never an agreement between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Zionist leadership. In the original, says Lustick, Meir explicitly states that there
was 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'.
Yezid Sayigh, Professor of Middle East Studies within the Department of War Studies at King's College London, has written of his King's College colleague that, "He is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)," urging "robust responses [that] make sure that any self-respecting scholar will be too embarrassed to even try to incorporate the Karsh books in his/her teaching or research because they can't pretend they didn't know how flimsy their foundations are." Karsh, citing his own doctorate in political science and international relations, and undergraduate training in modern Middle Eastern history and Arabic language and literature, retorted that Sayigh's remarks were "not a scholarly debate on facts and theses but a character assassination couched in high pseudo-academic rhetoric".
Richard Bulliet, Professor of History at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University, describes
Empires of the Sand as:"a tendentious and unreliable piece of scholarship that should have been vetted more thoroughly by the publisher" and asserts that the authors failed to "contribute a dimension of sense and scholarship that raises the debate[s in question] to a higher level." Karsh in response wondered "what credential did Bulliet possess, that a leading journal in the field should ask him to review our book? He is a medievalist who has done no research or writing on the subject. But in his spare time, he propagates the view of the Middle East and its nations as hapless victims of Western imperialism".