He made claims that contrast with known history (even some assertions that aren't being disputed by Arab, Israeli, or other partisans), and wouldn't back up 95+% of his asserions with supporting facts, even after I made several requests for him to provide citations (and after I'd provided him with many of my own citations, which were contrary to his claims).

Despite that my citations were of credible sources like the UN, major media, self-criticisms by heads-of-state which they published themselves in their memoirs, etc., and despite that I'd typically provide several varying sources to corroborate each of my assertions, AND despite that he'd not even bothered to rebut 95+% of my assertions (and if he did rebut, he'd never cite any facts/figures, so for all I know, he was using data from partisan groups), he'd go on believing his "version" of history over those well-documented assertions I made to him. In other words, he seemed like an irrational/illogical nut who'll believe what he wants in spite of commonly-accepted facts.

Although he seemed to love debating these issues, he made very poor arguments because he provided me with NO reason to believe the wide majority of his assertions, and gave me threadbare reason to believe the rest ("the rest" being maybe about 1%, if that); so, since this book is about a controversial subject, if you do bother reading it, take it with a grain of salt and if he actually cites sources, check them carefully, and check whether he's giving you the whole picture or not.