Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alouette
Serious scholars (both in this country and Israel) have described her book as overtly partisan with a tendentious neglect of any historiography that shows a favorable interpretation of the Palestinian position.

To mention only a few of the reviews, Walter Reich in The Atlantic (July 1984), Ronald Sanders in The New Republic (April 23, 1984), Bernard Gwertzman in The New York Times (May 12, 1984), and Daniel Pipes in Commentary (July 1984) were among the more favorable. Alexander Cockburn and Edward Said in The Nation (October 13, 1984 and October 19, 1985), Norman G. Finkelstein in In These Times (September 5–11, 1984), Bill Farrell in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Fall 1984), and Ian and David Gilmour in The London Review of Books (February 7, 1985) have been critical of Peters's book. [2] See, for example, Bernard Lewis's The Jews of Islam (Princeton University Press); reviewed by Norman Stillman in The New York Review (October 25, 1984). [3] She should also consult the evidence in Tom Segev's 1949 — The First Israelis, published in Israel in 1984 and to be published in the US by Macmillan in 1986. It was reviewed by Avishai Margalit in The New York Review (September 26, 1985). [4] See, for example, the articles cited above by Farrell and the Gilmours. [5] Ketavim le-Toldot Hibbat Zion, Vol. I (Odessa, 1919) and Vol. II (Tel Aviv, 1925). These were republished by the Institute for Zionist Research at Tel Aviv University: Vol. I, 1980–1981; Vol II, 1984–1985.

45 posted on 09/29/2003 9:34:52 AM PDT by zacyak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: zacyak
Ronald Sanders in The New Republic (April 23, 1984), Bernard Gwertzman in The New York Times (May 12, 1984), and Daniel Pipes in Commentary (July 1984) were among the more favorable. Alexander Cockburn and Edward Said in The Nation (October 13, 1984 and October 19, 1985), Norman G. Finkelstein in In These Times (September 5–11, 1984), Bill Farrell in the Journal of Palestine Studies (Fall 1984), and Ian and David Gilmour in The London Review of Books (February 7, 1985) have been critical of Peters's book.

BOTTOM LINE: CONSERVATIVES LOVE IT, ARAB-RUMP-SUCKING LEFTISTS HATE IT.

46 posted on 09/29/2003 9:37:24 AM PDT by Alouette (Neocon Zionist Media Operative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: zacyak
Obviously Ms. Peters is a partisan. Taht does not discredit her work. (Especialy since you are citing the open and now burning in hell liar, Edward Said)
87 posted on 09/29/2003 7:26:02 PM PDT by rmlew (Copperheads are traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson