Avi Shlaim is in love: When the King Hit the Sky like a big pizza pie

Avi Shlaim is in love. It is official. He is in love with the Hashemite royal family in Jordan, and he wrote a 700-page tribute to King Husayn. His book, Lion of Jordan, is worse than a hagiography: it is an official work of royal propaganda based on royal fabrications and lies. I mean, where to begin? With that title? Lion? Who except for Shlaim would refer to King Husayn (or Khuuuuusaaaayn, as Peres calls him) as a lion? Don't get me wrong. He can be compared to some animals but a lion is not one of them. The author does not even adhere to the standards of basic journalism for a story: in this book, the history of Jordan can, and should, be told only from the standpoint of the royal family. Avi Shlaim does not even try in this book. He basically believes everything that he is being told, and he merely reports it verbatim as the definitive truth. Shlaim has changed from the days of his first book, Collusion across the Jordan (the title was changed in later editions under Zionist pressures): he has become an official chronicler of the alleged heroism of the King of Jordan. The book is so propagandistic that it is funny at some points (like reporting about a daring raid by King `Abdullah to capture "Iraqi terrorists"--I thought that he was talking about Indiana Jones when he was talking about that king). I should also say Shlaim is quite sexist in this book: he can't mention a woman without commenting on her appearance: whether she is pretty or not pretty--according to the standards of beauty set by St. Anthony College at Oxford University. He complains that King Husayn's second wife is "not strikingly beautiful" (p. 182) But his sexism is worse: Shlaim even justifies the cruel treatment by King Husayn of his 1st wife who was not even allowed to see her own daughter. On that he tells you: "One should therefore not be too harsh in judging his handling of either the political crisis or his private life in 1955." (p. 98). He said that his disgusting treatment of his 1st wife, Dina, was "the result of youth and inexperience in the face of unprecedented political upheavals."(p. 98) You read that and wonder why and how a Middle East historian would reach such a degree of apologia for a reppressive and sneaky royal who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Palestinians and Jordanians. And then you wonder why a critic of Israel would admire such a king: do some critics of Israel harbor admiration deep down for Arab traitors and collaborators? Is Shlaim planning a biography of Dahlan next? His defense of King Husayn extends to his corrupt grandfather who was not reluctant to beg for hundreds of pounds in return for political stances and speeches (p. 30). But Shlaim makes his intentions very clear right in the beginning of the book when he says that Husayn managed to "combiune humility with humanity and exceptionally gracious manners."(p. xviii). Where did you see that humanity, Mr. Shlaim? Did it show itself in the repression of the 1950s? Or did you find the exceptionally gracious manners during the massacres of Black September? And Shlaim's account about the plots to assassinate the king (p. 180) can't be verified: they are all based on the claims by the King and his tools in government. And please: if I hear one more time the story of the dead cats in the palace of the King, I am going to yell obscenities. There is no evidence whatsoever to the story of the cats. And if that assassin/chef/plumber/carpenter wanted to kill the king, why would he practice on the cats in the palace? Please, some common sense. It is particularly disturbing that Shlaim's love and admiration for King Husayn extends also to everybody who ever worked for him, including the lousy Wasfi At-Tal (or to `Adnan Abu `Awdah who was trained on British pyschological warfare just before he was appointed Minister of Information during Black September). He wants me to believe that Wafi At-Tall--Wasfi At-Tal for potato's sake--had a plan for the liberation of Palestine (p. 189). And Shlaim's account of Israeli terrorism are also apologetic. According to him the Palestinains (and Arabs in general) attack, and the Israelis merely retaliate. Not only he avoids referring critically to Israeli raids and aggression, but he has no qualms in referring to Palestinian political activities in Jordan as "reign of terror." (p. 319) But the worst part of the book, is the chapter on Black September. Shlaim merely rehashes the claims of King Husayn and Wasfi At-Tal (based on the account of his brother). He does not even find it necessarry to include even a token account of the Palestinians. But this is one of the problems in the book: he does not deem it necessary to include what Arabs have to say, unless they are Hashemites and their entourage. No Arabic sources are necessarry but he includes Hebrew sources--about King Husayn and Jordanian history. The body of literature on Jordan and Black September is huge in Arabic, and Shlaim ignores it. How could you write the history of Black September and ignores the memoirs of Abu Dawud, for example. Not a word. And not a word about the torture techniqures of the Jordanian mukhabarat in this book. In fact, Shlaim gives a favorable impression of the mukhabarat, perhaps because they served his lovely king. And Shlaim hurt his own cause by covering up for the King in many instances: he tries to cover up King's pleas for Israeli intervention in 1970s; he tried to cover up (and distort) the fact of Husayn's warning to Israel about an impending Arab attack prior to the 1973 war; he also distorts the contents of a speech by King Husayn in 1990 when he decided to refer to his title as Sharif. Shlaim wants us to believe that it was all innocent and had nothing to do with glances toward Saudi Arabia. Shlaim should have told us more about the "friendship" between King Husayn and Saddam Husayn: he does not even once mention the deep friendship between `Uday Husayn and the present-day king. As for as book are concerned, this book will not add to the reputation of King Husayn (it is too apologetic and too hagiographic for that) and it will also not add to the reputation of Avi Shlaim unless he wants to be known as the chief propagandist of King Husyan in the West.