Yes, I think that the Biblical history of Israel as described in scripture is accurate, because there is anthropology to back it up. Reviewing the military history of the Bible, they have found evidence that the civilizations occurred and the battles occurred like the said in the Bible. God also only speaks truth.
The broad outline of history as recorded in the Bible is
probably somewhat accurate. However, it is not literally true, because of information
lost with time, mythologizing and point of view. The details of everyday life
were not written down. Modern readers will never know exactly what happened,
but they can guess that the Red Sea did not really part, for example. Finally,
the Canaanites do not appear to have left a record of their side of the story
of the conquest of the land of Israel.
One of the worst things ever to happen to modern civilization is taking the Bible seriously. While it's a great work of fiction that uses some historical elements, it was never meant to be a guidebook for one's life. So no, I don't think that the Biblical history of Israel is accurate.
The Bible's description of Israel is generally accurate. However, there are points that are controversial, and it becomes difficult to distinguish who is more accurate. Without photos, videos, or blogs, we are stuck reading the descriptions of ancient places by those who could write. Because it was common practice to destroy libraries and records of conquered cities, many opposing views were destroyed. We must rely on the evidence that we have, and much of that is based on the proven integrity of the script in other regions.
I believe Biblical history does give us some in site into the history of Israel, but I in no way believe it is 100% accurate. Archaeologists have proven some of the events to be true and we have found many of the locations talked about, but on the whole it shouldn't be held as an accurate piece of literature.