A History of Modern Israel by Colin Shindler
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Modern-Israel-Colin-Shindler/dp/0521615380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210358451&sr=1-1

I somehow feel that a few local “anti-imperialists” would do well to add it to their (non-existent) reading list

(1) If I were to make that assumption that the anti-Muslim bigots around here did speak for you, that would be amazingly unfair wouldn’t it? Even if you hadn’t explicitly disassociated yourself from them? I think the imperative here is one about confronting and exposing nearby assholes, rather than disassociating yourself from them.

(2) Your post made no allowance for anti-Imperialists who had disassociated themselves from the Galloway crowd, as you say they should.

As for myself, I don’t consider a very limited selection of common opinions to amount to much of an “association” – you obviously don’t think your degree of agreement with them (which I suppose is 0.9 times mine) does either. However, I’m happy to disassociate myself from them, if you like.

I am certain that most “anti-imperialists” (whether camp or not) are anything but antisemites.

I’m delighted to hear it, but you’ll forgive me if that didn’t come across especially clearly in your post!

No problem. My only advice is not to rely upon Shlaim. I simply would not use him for facts.

The SoI and Jordan? Shlaim could still be correct as regards the British. They may have intended a carve up of the Mandate even if Golda Meir apparently rejected such an idea. They may not have expected their client state to get the OK from the Yishuv and acted unilaterally.

However after looking at some of Karsh’s work appears to suggest that while the British didn’t necessarily expect to see the Jews thrown into the sea they did want to see a Jewish state that was ‘cut down to size’ to ‘prevent communism from spreading to the red sea’. This would certainly make sense as Bevin’s foreign office had form here. Fear of the Reds caused them to undermine Jose Giral’s Spanish Republican exile govt and induced them to supply arms to a very reactionary conservative side in the Greek civil war.

Once more, ta for the links. It is a bit tricky to study these things at work!

Shlaim’s theory is detailed in his book Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of Palestine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). What Shalim tries to argue is that The State of Israel and Transjordan agreed to carve up Palestine when the British mandate ended. It is a bit of a conspiracy theory. If you have access on line do read Sela’s article. It is superb. You can also see on line the publishers blurb for Gelber’s book

http://www.sussex-academic.co.uk/sa/titles/middle_east_studies/GelberIsrael.htm

Spot on, absolutely agree.

Mikey,

Not sure about the last paragraph (Conspiracy Theory?). But otherwise I am perfectly willing to believe that Shlaim’s account in inaccurate. Interesting looking sources, I shall check them out, ta.

Absolutely. In general, there are seldom such things as perfect anything. (Storms and numbers excepted.) The real challenge of conflict resolution is to make peace between flawed, imperfect sides, each carrying its burden of past victimhood and each carrying its moral burden of victimising others. We are always quicker to forgive and argue away our own imperfections than to allow for the imperfections of the other side.

The first step must be to humanise the other side, to make them into multi-faceted, real beings with all the wonderful and awful features which, in their totality, make us and them human. This is why the worst enemy of peace, reconciliation and justice is racist stereotyping, no matter from which quarter it originates. And given that it originates on both sides, the litmus test for all of us is whether we oppose this when originating on our own side.

Shlaim on Transjordan and collusion has been comprehensively debunked by Efraim karsh. See Efraim Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History: The ‘New Historians’(Abingdon, Oxon: Frank Cass & Co Ltd, Second Revised edition, 2000) pp. 68-107

For an authoritative article on the matter see Avraham Sela, “Transjordan, Israel and the 1948 War” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 28, no. 4, October 1992 pp. 623-688

Middle Eastern Studies is the preeminent journal in the field and after reading these, you will no longer believe Shlaim’s account.

If you want something else that debunks Shlaim see Yoav Gelber Israeli–Jordanian Dialogue, 1948–1953: Cooperation, Conspiracy, or Collusion? (Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 2004)

Just for the record, Shlaim’s 1948 conspiracy theory originates in a book written by a certain Israel Beer while he was serving a 15-year prison sentence for spying on behalf of the KGB.

He makes a good point though, the Palestinians were offered their own land and they got greedy and rejected it thinking they could win more later. But surely what matters now is if todays generation can reach a compromise. This refusal to try to see the other sides point of view or acknowledge that there are seldom such things as perfect victims is a sad feature of most modern day conflicts.

But perhaps it matters less because Israel will always be dealing from a position of strength?