Here's how things work in science, history, philosophy, any discipline.
You read one book - it's a revelation that changes your thinking.
You read two or three more books. The first one doesn't seem to have addressed a lot of things and got many wrong. The more you read, the deeper you
go, the more you discover the shortcoming and inadequacies of many works. Often you find what you accepted early on in your investigations was more
wrong than right.
This happens a lot when you get into a subject, partly because most start with a sensationalized bestseller then only graduate to the real stuff much
later. I've been through it a dozen times. I'm embarrassed by a lot of nonsense I thought was true once.
Bertrand Russell once remarked on someone pointing inconsistencies in books he'd written decades apart that he simply believed certain things years
ago but had learned they were incorrect after further investigation.
We all have to do that. That's why so many people get divorced, as an example.
I'm reluctant to tear into Walt & M because, 1) this isn't the time and place, and 2) all my typing will result in having to read a reply with the
letter Z used repeatedly and some snappily phrased accusations and then more "Aha, I beat you ... you sniveling dog" stuff.
"Israel Lobby" was published in 2007. Written probably in 2005 and before with updating. To put it mildly, it hasn't stood up to serious
analysis.
H.G. Wells's "Outline of History" which was considered definitive for decades, and which I read as a kid, is mostly dismissed as one-side, biased,
non-inclusive, and just plain bad history.
There are dozens of well-researched books on the subject we are talking about. Ones that have a controversial selling hooks are the ones
undiscriminating people end up with. They're usually far from the best, often they're just sensationalistic junk.
Mike