From Time Immemorial - Growing Criticism

Growing Criticism

Norman Finkelstein's (1984) review was based on his doctoral thesis, later expanded and published in Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Finkelstein mounts a systematic critique of the book, attacking the two major pillars of Peters’ thesis. Firstly, in a number of lists, tables and examples Finkelstein juxtaposes the historical evidence Peters presents, with extended quotations of the primary and secondary source material showing its original context. By doing so Finkelstein believes he has shown that the “evidence that Peters adduces to document massive illegal Arab immigration into Palestine is almost entirely falsified". Secondly, in a detailed analysis of the demographic study central to Peters’ book, Finkelstein believes he has shown that Peters' conclusions are not supported by the data she presents. Finkelstein asserts that the study “is marred by serious flaws: (1) several extremely significant calculations are wrong; and (2) numbers are used selectively to support otherwise baseless conclusions”. Despite Finkelstein's revelatory assessment of a best-selling book that had been greeted with widespread critical acclaim he was initially unable to obtain any interest in publishing his findings more widely. He later opined that:

The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax."

Noam Chomsky defended and promoted Finkelstein's critique, commenting:

soon as I heard that the book was going to come out in England, I immediately sent copies of Finkelstein's work to a number of British scholars and journalists who are interested in the Middle East—and they were ready. As soon as the book appeared, it was just demolished, it was blown out of the water. Every major journal, the Times Literary Supplement, the London Review, the Observer, everybody had a review saying, this doesn't even reach the level of nonsense, of idiocy. A lot of the criticism used Finkelstein's work without any acknowledgment, I should say—but about the kindest word anybody said about the book was "ludicrous," or "preposterous."

As Chomsky recounts, on its UK release the book was subject to a number of scathing reviews. David and Ian Gilmour in The London Review of Books (February 7, 1985) heavily criticized Peters for ignoring Arab sources and "censorship of Zionist sources that do not suit her case". They also present examples that in their view show that Peters misuses the sources which she does include in her work. They accuse Peters of basic errors in scholarship, such as the citation of Makrizi, who died in 1442, to support her statements about mid-nineteenth century population movements. Oxford University historian, Albert Hourani, reviewing the book in the Observer (March 3, 1985) stated:

The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood, tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language. This is a ludicrous and worthless book, and the only mildly interesting question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American writers.

Following the book's negative reception in the UK, more critical reviews appeared in the United States. Columbia University professor Edward Said wrote unfavorably in The Nation (October 19, 1985), while Robert Olson dismissed the book in the American Historical Review (April 1985), concluding:

This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author's professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. ...The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977.

Reviewing the book for the November 28, 1985 issue of The New York Times, Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath described the book as a "sheer forgery," stating that "n Israel, at least, the book was almost universally dismissed as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon." In 1986, Porath repeated his views in The New York Review of Books, and published a negative review that cites many inaccuracies.