Question 1

Why did the author face controversy over the term “collusion” in the original title?

Accepted Answer

Critics treated “collusion” as a pejorative term implying fraud, secret trickery, and wrongdoing. The author explains that the term was used to describe a longer-term, not perfectly explicit, process of dialogue and coordination rather than a precise military-political agreement of the type seen elsewhere.

Question 2

How does the author distinguish between true political agreements and the kind of coordination he describes?

Accepted Answer

The author clarifies that he did not mean a definitive agreement like those reached in 1956, but rather a sustained process leading toward actions not entirely above board. He emphasizes elements such as secrecy, denial by participants, and intent to frustrate international will.

Question 3

What role did timing and terminology changes play in the book’s argument for 1948?

Accepted Answer

The author states that the “collusion” wording was softened for May to September 1948, when he preferred terms like “adversary partnership” and “tacit understanding.” Despite this shift, he maintains that the diplomatic and military moves of Jordan and Israel during the war support his broader argument.