Policy of Deceit: Britain and Palestine, 1914-1939

by Peter Shambrook

The untold story of Britain’s role in the Israel–Palestine conflict

‘A magnificent new book … a major historical achievement’

Peter Oborne, Middle East Eye

In this eye-opening book, Peter Shambrook delves into the secret correspondence between the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, and the Sharif of Mecca during the First World War. McMahon promised the Sharif an independent Arab state, including Palestine, after the war, in exchange for his alliance with Britain against the Ottomans. But what happened next changed the course of history.

Despite the promises made, two years later Lloyd George’s government declared that Palestine would be for the global Jewish community. Shambrook’s meticulous analysis of official records and private papers reveals the behind-the-scenes machinations that led to this betrayal of the Arabs and exposes how successive British governments blocked the publication of the Sharif and McMahon’s correspondence.

Presenting compelling evidence, Shambrook debunks the myth perpetuated by Britain and pro-Zionist historians that Palestine was never part of the lands guaranteed to the Sharif. He lays bare the truth and its devastating consequences, which have reverberated throughout the decades-long conflict in the Middle East. Shockingly, no British government has launched an impartial investigation into this matter or officially acknowledged its betrayal of the Palestinian people.

This definitive work is a must-read for anyone interested in the history of the Israel–Palestine conflict, revealing a hidden chapter of British deceit and shedding light on the ongoing tensions in the region.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Middle East, British Literature

416 pages, Hardcover

Published September 12, 2023

About the author

Peter A. Shambrook is an independent scholar and historical consultant to the Balfour Project, which works to advance equal rights for all in Palestine/Israel. He holds a PhD in modern Middle Eastern history from the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge, and over the course of his career he has held a number of research positions, including at Durham University and at the Centre for Lebanese Studies in Oxford.

Reviews

[Eva Hnizdo · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was well written and very interesting. Many facts I didn't know. Did you know that Jews presented only 2% of Palestine population in 1914?
The book doesn't cover up the bad moves by Britain, or anybody else. But the British politicians promised the land to the Arabs to get their support with conflict with the Ottoman empire.
Then in the understandable general shock of the Holocaust, Israel was created. The Jews were trying to get out of Europe where they were not wanted to Palestine where they were not wanted either.
Oh I wish my ancestors didn't come up with a stupid idea of a single God, and with all those religious differences. One of my Czech Jewish friends told me that the Jews would vanish, like the old Etruscans'. " What would be wrong with that? " I said." They would merge with the other nations, instead of being exiled, killed, discriminated. One of my British friends' told me I shouldn't tell people I was Jewish, that it might get dangerous yet again. Or as my mum would say " What kind of Jew are you?"
" The pork eating Christmas celebrating Prague kind" I replied. All my Czech Jewish friends belong to that group. Maybe me telling people make them realise that my Jewishness does not make me different . Maybe my parents were right in not telling me we were Jewish. If you don't know you are Jewish, other people won't know either. My deep persuasion is that national pride, and other attributes are dangerous and stupid. Who cares? I certainly don't. I have friends in various ethnic or religious backgrounds. But I feel we are just Humans' am learning my 6th language. Spanish. And maybe we should just see the things we have in common rather that the differences. Forget the historical right to live somewhere. we call all dogs dogs. The differences between a Chihuahua
and the Alsatian are much bigger than the differences between humans. Yet we say " dogs" but The Jews' The Arabs, The Russians...and yet, we are all people.
This is more a personal diatribe,not a review. I liked the book, but I don't like the Middle Eastern conflict.I am Jewish and Czech and British, But who cares? I don't and I hope the majority of human will finally one day understand that we have more in common rather than our differences. MAYBE IF I LEARN MORE LANGUAGES I WILKL STOOP BELONGING. I don't want to belong to a group. I am human, and colour, religion, clothes, language. Although this is a very good book, it made me angry with those people who are ready to fight for their nation instead of taking a deep breath...Let's try to be just humans.

[Mark Parta, · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thorough documentary evidence is the point, I think, although the documentary evidence is a meta- issue, in that the documents continually point out that the documents, as they accrue, are so much fluff. The twisting and turning of the British government to make a previous policy, incoherent with their developing ties to Zionism, not be treacherous is emetic.
Of course, the meta-meta view is what's important, and in the weeds one doesn't always see it, but the real point is that the British had no business promising Palestine to anyone, since IT WASN'T THEIRS. The British of course thought everything was theirs. That seems to have not been the case and here we are.
Evidence Dumbledore's gifting the Sword of Gryffyndor to Harry Potter. The sword was nowhere to be found, but importantly, it wasn't Dumbledore's to give. Those Brits, gotta keep an eye on your wallet.
Oh, for that peasant in the Holy Grail-- "Who made you king? I didn't vote for you!"

[Mannie Liscum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid enough research and presentation; it’s the clearly biased interpretation that is questioned. The authors Epilogue makes clear his ‘feelings’ via a vis the Palestinian Question, if those feeling weren’t already clear by the ample peppering of anti-Zionist bias throughout the text leading to the last 4 pp of the book. In his conclusion the author invokes an ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) fallacy to explain away what could represent a major criticism of his work: “…although I have not found a single document t by any British official which states that successive governments’ refusal to publish [the McMahan-Hussein Correspondence] was motivated explicitly by their desire to maintain a pro-Zionist policy, I have found no evidence in the official records that points to any other motive.” Classic appeal to ignorance. But as an experimental scientist I would point out that ‘lack of evidence is also no evidence lack.’ It’s too bad the author is so clearly part of the anti-colonialist using their social justice to bash Zionism and Israel, his book has good stuff to offer but is made less effective by his obvious biases.

[Darren Whitehurst · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite honestly shocked by how involved Great Britain was in the events that have led to the current situation in Palestine. I am also in some ways disappointed that the British/western media coverage while I was growing up did not upon reflection try and give a balanced view or give context to events.


This book is good at painting the picture of the politics involved regarding Palestine and the building of the state of Israel. The author maybe let’s his bias bleed through too much at times but nevertheless he makes a strong case regarding potential British disingenuous dealings and quite rightly highlights the plight of the inhabitants of the area during this period.

Can recommend 😊

[MargCal · Rating 5 out of 5]

6 ⭐️
Finished reading: Policy of Deceit: Britain and Palestine, 1914-1939 / Peter Shambrook ... 24 June, 2024
ISBN: 9780861546329 ... 354 pp. + Appendix I and II, Selected bibliography, Index

When I saw this book reviewed in The Tablet (UK) I thought it would fill the gap in my hazy knowledge of the period covered. I didn't know just how big that gap was. I knew that Theodor Herzl was designated the 'Founding Father of Zionism' in the late 19th C. [It should be noted, not covered in this book, that not all Jews are Zionists – then or now in the 21st century.] And I knew the 1917 Balfour Declaration essentially promised Palestine to the Zionists in 1917. I did not know that in 1915 Britain had already promised self governance to the Arabs in Palestine in return for them fighting for the British against the Ottomans, the then rulers of Palestine, in WW I.* And therein lies the origin of today's ethnic cleansing/genocide in Gaza.

When the Arabs asked for the promised self-governance, the British said they'd made no such promise. The Zionists lobbied hard to a majority Zionist sympathising British government. Both the British and the Zionists were 'loose with the truth'. The perfidy and deceit are mind blowing – horrors revealed on every other page almost.

The essential aim of this book is to examine the contested meanings in the letters in which the promise was made to the Arabs. The author shows through a variety of historical documents that those letters support the Arab claim and, through describing the words and deeds of the British cover-up, they knew the Arab claim was correct. Some reviews have questioned or found boring that a whole book is dedicated to examining the contents of a handful of letters. But this microscopic investigation is necessary to show just how badly the British government and the Zionists behaved. Only the Arabs emerge with their dignity and integrity intact.

British racism (doubly) and colonialism is on show. The Arabs were treated as of no consequence, “say anything to get them onside” during the war, treating them as ignorant, backward, and in the later years covered, as suspicious of anything the British said. Well, hello! They were only treated like dirt and lied to for the preceding decades. The British were also secretly racist towards the Zionists. It is heavily suggested that not a few of the British saw a Jewish homeland in Palestine as meaning that Jews would be leaving Britain.

If you're seriously wanting to understand what has been going on in Palestine/Israel over the past century and what is happening there right now, this book is a must read.

* This is essentially what the film Lawrence of Arabia was about, but back then when I saw it, I certainly didn't pick up on the future ramifications of the negotiations with the Arabs. I'll have to hunt out the film and view it with new eyes.


Borrowed from my local library.

[E.J. J Doble · Rating 4 out of 5]

Identifying the niches and divisive details that led to the settlement of the 'Jewish Homeland' in the 1920s, Shambrook goes into - often painstaking - examination of the key words, clauses and agreements that led to future hostilities, with erudite precision and strong arguments throughout.


[Note: this book was read to understand the historical contradictions and misunderstandings surrounding the British Empire's claim and establishment of territories on the Arabian Penninsula to achieve a "Jewish Homeland" as stataed in the Balfour Declaration 1917 and subsequent correspondences - it is not designed to be in any way politically charged in light of current affairs, nor to represent any opinions of myself or of this account; thank you!]

[Marguerite Gratton · Rating 2 out of 5]

A small amount of documents analyzed to death in this book. To summarize- the British Colonial Office and Government, through dishonesty, subterfuge and deliberate misinterpretation, robbed the Palestinian Arabs of their agreed upon land. An eye opener and heartbreaking black mark on British politics of the 1910- 1940 period.

[Scott Oatley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Meticulous. A book that focuses on an issue that is very rarely spoken about. A contention on whether or not deceit is entirely appropriate for an empire that changed rapidly during the time period covered is one I wished was explored more. Other than that, excellent.