Efraim Karsh (Hebrew: אפרים קארש; born 1953) is a professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London, and director of the Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle East Forum. He is regarded as a vocal critic of the New Historians, a group of Israeli scholars who have questioned the conventional history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Born and raised in Israel, Karsh graduated in Arabic and Modern Middle East History from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and obtained an MA and PhD in International Relations from Tel Aviv University. After acquiring his first academic degree in modern Middle Eastern history, he was a research analyst for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), where he attained the rank of major.
Academic and media career 
He has held various academic posts at Harvard and Columbia universities, the Sorbonne, the London School of Economics, Helsinki University, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Washington D.C., and the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. In 1989 he joined King's College London, where he established the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Program, directing it for sixteen years. He has published extensively on Middle Eastern affairs, Soviet foreign policy, and European neutrality, and is a founding editor of the scholarly journal Israel Affairs and editor of the Middle East Quarterly. He is a regular media commentator, has appeared on all the main radio and television networks in the United Kingdom and the United States, and has contributed articles to leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times,The Wall Street Journal, The Times (London) and The Daily Telegraph.
In a 2011 editorial in Haaretz, Karsh articulated his belief that "the tragedy befalling the Palestinian Arabs in 1948 was exclusively of their own making". Karsh argued that many Palestinians fled their homes as the result of pressure from local Arab leaders "and/or the Arab Liberation Army that had entered Palestine prior to the end of the Mandate, whether out of military considerations or in order to prevent them from becoming citizens of the prospective Jewish state." He stated that there is an "overwhelming and incontrovertible body of evidence" to support his position including "intelligence briefs, captured Arab documents, press reports, personal testimonies and memoirs..." Karsh claims that "the deliberate depopulation of Arab villages and their transformation into military strongholds" began in December 1947.
Praise and criticism 
Howard Sachar sees Karsh is the "preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist (politically-rightist) Movement in Zionism." Benny Morris called Karsh's article "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (...) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict." Reviewing Fabricating Israeli History, Morris said that Karsh belabors minor points while ignoring the main pieces of evidence.
Yezid Sayigh, Professor of Middle East Studies, wrote that "[Karsh] is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)." Karsh accused Sayigh of a "misleading misrepresentation of my scholarly background" and retorted that Sayigh's remarks were "not a scholarly debate on facts and theses but a character assassination couched in high pseudo-academic rhetoric".
Empires of the Sand 
Anthony B. Toth published a review of Karsh's Empires of the Sand in the Journal of Palestine Studies. Toth wrote: "This is a polemical book whose authors have extended the intemperate and unbalanced rhetoric customarily employed by dogmatic partisans of the Arab Israeli conflict to the normally sedate and measured arena of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Ottoman history. The book relies mainly on Western published sources and official British documents. But their use of even these sources is limited, since they actually ignore most of nineteenth-century history. Instead, the authors emphasize those episodes they feel support their interpretations.
Richard Bernstein characterized it as "a readable, scholarly re-examination of a long and complicated Middle Eastern history [...] The main purpose of this very detailed and broad-shouldered history is to revise many of the standard interpretations that have been given to Middle Eastern history over the last two centuries. Most generally the Karshes dispute the idea that the main events and developments in the region stem from the machinations of the great powers, especially Britain and France. The ‘main impetus behind regional developments,’ they write, was ‘the local actors’ [...] The authors write clearly and authoritatively and with great geographical sweep. Those who do not know much of these events will learn a great deal from this book, while specialists with views differing from the Karshes’ will face a robust challenge to their interpretations.
Richard Bulliet, Professor of History at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University, wrote that Empires of the Sand is "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".
Response from Karsh 
Karsh states that his book "has incurred the ire of the Arabist establishment" and that "scathing indictments have been made, on the basis of hearsay, without writers taking the trouble to read the book. A leading academic has even urged fellow academics to place negative reviews on the website of a major Internet bookstore, so as to warn potential readers of our book."
Karsh argues that "[the]conventional view – absolving Middle Easterners and blaming the West – is academically unsound and morally reprehensible. It is academically unsound because the facts tell an altogether different story of modern Middle Eastern history, one that has consistently been suppressed because of its incongruity with the politically correct dogmas of the Arabist establishment. And it is morally reprehensible because denying the responsibility of individuals and societies for their actions is patronizing and in the worst tradition of the 'white man's burden' approach, which has dismissed regional players as half-witted creatures, too dim to be accountable for their own fate... Little wonder therefore that Empires of the Sand was more favorably received by Middle Eastern intellectuals, fed up with being talked down to and open to real revisionism of their region's history after suffering decades of condescension from their paternalistic champions in the West."
Islamic Imperialism 
|Part of a series on|
|Criticism of religion|
In his review of Islamic Imperialism', Amir Taheri praised Karsh: "Anyone interested in the debate about the place of Islam in the modern world should read this book...Karsh offers a new approach. He rejects the condescending approach of the apologists and the hateful passion of the Islamophobes. Instead he presents Islam as a rival for Western civilisation in what is, after all, a contest for shaping of mankind. Karsh does not hide whose side he is on in this contest. Muslim readers would respect him because, while he designates Islam as an adversary, he respects them."
But Taheri does criticize Karsh's take on Islamic philosophy: "[Karsh] speaks of 'Islam's wholesale incorporation of Hellenistic culture and science', something that did not happen, and sees it as the genesis of Islamic politics and jurisprudence. He also states that Islam was attractive to people it conquered because in it 'ethnic and tribal origins counted for nothing'. But three of the Prophet's immediate successors were his fathers-in-law while the fourth was his son-in-law."
Robert Fulford said of Islamic Imperialism: "Only a shrewd and talented revisionist, a professor with curiosity and nerve, could take on the clichés of Middle East scholarship and insist that they be reconsidered. That describes Efraim Karsh, a much-published and much-admired professor at the University of London. His new book deserves serious consideration by anyone who cares about this debate."
Fulford also notes Karsh's criticism of Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong? (2002) in the book: "Bernard Lewis...misses the point, Karsh implies. The warlike stance of Islamists is not a riposte to Western imperialism. It's indigenous, deeply rooted in Muslim culture, and the most significant product of the Islamic belief that politics and religion are one. Karsh finds, in Islamic writing and practice, a profound impulse to expand Muslim power and eventually rule all countries."
Published works 
- Palestine Betrayed (Yale University Press, 2010);
- Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006);
- La Guerre D'Oslo (Les Editions de Passy, 2005; with Yoel Fishman);
- Arafat’s War (Grove, 2003);
- Rethinking the Middle East (Cass, 2003);
- The Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Palestine 1948 War (Oxford, Osprey, 2002);
- The Iran-Iraq War (Oxford, Osprey, 2002);
- Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh);
- Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians" (Cass, 1997; second edition 2000);
- The Gulf Conflict 1990–1991: Diplomacy and War in The New World Order (Princeton University Press, 1993; with *Lawrence Freedman);
- Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography (The Free Press, 1991; with Inari Rautsi-Karsh);
- Soviet Policy towards Syria Since 1970 (Macmillan & St. Martin's Press, 1991);
- Neutrality and Small States (Routledge, 1988);
- The Soviet Union and Syria: The Asad Years (Routledge for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1988);
- The Cautious Bear: Soviet Military Engagement in Middle East Wars in the Post 1967 Era (Westview, 1985).
- "Arafat Lives", Commentary, January 2005, pp. 33–40. Reprinted in Ha-Umma (Hebrew)
- "Israel's Arabs v. Israel", Commentary, December 2003, pp. 21–27]
- What Occupation?
- Benny Morris and the Reign of Error
- Benny Morris' Reign of Error, Revisited, a review essay on Morris' revised edition of his book on the Palestinian refugee exodus.
- Dear Diary: Juan Cole's Bad Blog
- "Were the Palestinians Expelled?"
- "European Misreading of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Finnish Foreign Minister Tuomioja – A Case Study"
- The Unbearable Lightness of my Critics
- Beirut Bob, a review by Karsh of Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation.
- Sky News, Efraim Karsh debates 1948 with Ilan Pappe on Sky News
- Professor Efraim Karsh, King's College London website.
- Middle East Forum, list of staff
- "Professor Efraim Karsh :Karsh :King's College London". www.kcl.ac.uk. Retrieved 2011-01-21.
- Reclaiming a Historical Truth, Haaretz
- Sachar, Howard. "Palestine Betrayed Reviews". Yale University Press. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
- Morris, 1996, "Undeserving of a Reply", The Middle East Quarterly
- Benny Morris, "Refabricating 1948", review of Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians." by Efraim Karsh, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Winter, 1998), pp. 81–95.
- I. Lustick, 1997, 'Israeli History: Who is Fabricating What?', Survival, 39(3), p.156–166
- I. Lustick, 1997, Survival, 39(4), p.197–198
- "The Unbearable Lightness of My Critics", Karsh, Efraim. Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2002.
- Anthony B. Toth, "History as Ideology", a review of Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1923, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2. (Winter, 2002), pp. 85–86.
- New York Times, 1 December 1999, p8.
- Richard W Bulliett. The Middle East Journal. Washington: Autumn 2000. Vol. 54, Iss. 4; p. 667–8
- Taheri, Amir (28 May 2006). "A different civilisation". The Daily Telegraph (London).