Here are some of the thoughts arising from the London School of Economics and Political Sciences talk with Professor Avi Shlaim from Oxford University.

The debate generated around Israel has always been fierce from the political climate and the relationship with its neighbours. Professor Avi Shlaim has never questioned the Zionist movement or the state of Israel before 1967 but is critical about the occupation beyond the green line.

An exploration is needed to uncover the difference between the old (nationalist idea) history against the new histories, to unite people around a regime and to promote a positive definition to the rest of the world. This would create a strong political purpose.

The idea that Israel is not responsible for the refugee camps, for the war or the other atrocities happening within the region is false and the Professor wants to turn that Zionist rendition of events.

1948 the Arabs rejected the resolution and went to war with the Israeli’s with the Zionist’s winning. The narrative went unchallenged until 1988 (40 years after the birth of Israel). 1949 the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem and the name of Palestine was wiped off of the map, that part of history was never mentioned.

Four books which changed the political climate of the country and got some of the old documents released were: The birth of Israel myth to realities; Britain and the Arab and the Israeli conflict; King Abdulla and the conflict; and the birth of Palestine. Most of the primary sources on the conflict are from the Israeli side as they release classified documents after 30 years. The Arab side do not keep a record of classified documents.

“It’s always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness”

What was Britain’s policy role in the formation of the Palestinian mandate? Zionist’s believe that the mandate tried to stop the creation of a Jewish state. Revisionist’s state the mandate was created to stop the development of a Palestinian state. Some would argue that the Arabs were pushed out instead of being asked to leave and the old historians still cling to the doctrine of Israel’s Immaculate Conception. Are the facts presented true or false?

“One has to lie to protect the public”

There is a strong detachment of the Zionist’s treatment of the Arabs and public opinion has swung from the new histories back to the old histories. The history of the people and the land, with an emphasis on Zionist values rather than studying the new historians as led to a narrow nationalist perspective on the national history of the country.

The betrayal of history has been simplistic, selective and self-serving towards the nationalist view of history whilst the Palestinians have to be locked up in something like a cage. What is the main obstruction to peace either Israel itself of the Palestinian nationalist movement.

It is necessary to understand the past in order to go forward – the importance of understanding history. The more threatened that Israel feels the more they will shrink back into self-serving narratives. Things may be pessimistic in the near term but in the longer term, nations are able to act rationally when they have exhausted all of the alternatives.

Zionism is an outpost of colonialism but Professor Avi feels that people have a right to self interest, a nationalistic position for the people to protect it. Israel is legitimate as it was based on the UN resolution and further borders negotiated in 1967. The UN resolution was unfair but legal – Israel is losing the argument about legitimacy in some western public opinion.

It takes two to tango; both sides have to want peace for it to occur. The main sources of pessimism are the settlements – which are illegal. Israel can have peace with the Arabs or have more land, it cannot have both. Obama offered Israel enhanced military support, a fleet of F60s and a veto of any critical vote against Israel and Israeli Prime Minister said no to the 60 day freeze on settlement building, what more will it take?

“Either they throw us out or we throw them out” – there must be another way the conflict can be viewed!