The Suez Canal and the British empire’s need for the Balfour Declaration

Israel/PalestineMiddle East
on 22 Comments

For the average British pro-Palestinian human rights activist, the Balfour Declaration, published ninety- five years ago today on the 2nd November 1917, is only mentioned in passing in their publications or agitations. For them, the declaration seems to have drafted in, one autumn day most likely alongside the brown and crimson leaves for then to triumphantly and jubilantly land on Lord Balfour’s, the British foreign secretary, desk. For them, it is more convenient to strongly imply that the Palestinian predicament began when the young United Nations partitioned Palestine on the 29th November 1947 or when the British Empire’s Palestine mandate officially ended on 15th May 1948. For them, the fact that up to 400,000 Palestinians under the Empire’s watch were ethnically cleansed between these latter two dates literally doesn’t warrant a footnote.[1]

This is certainly the impression given by reading the literature of “revolutionary socialists” as well as other supposedly pro-Palestinians. In his book Imperialism and Resistance, John Rees argues that the Israeli state began to take a shape on Palestinian land as a result “of the decline of the Ottoman Empire” and on the basis of this ‘shaping’ the British state “committed” itself to the Balfour Declaration.[2]

Being committed to a proposition does not necessarily mean that the proposition originated with the upholders of the commitment. The notion that the British government may have written and issued the Declaration is quite simply overlooked.

Furthermore, according to Rees, this Balfour Declaration “heralded the increase in Jewish settlers”. In other words it wasn’t the British Empire that dictated the terms of European Jewish immigration to Palestine but the “Balfour Declaration”. Actually, the pattern of immigration proved to be one of the early bones of contention between British Imperialism and right-wing Jewish-Zionism. The Empire wanted an incremental approach to immigration so as not to totally aggravate the indigenous population, while Zionists of the Vladimir Jabotinsky hue wanted mass Jewish immigration as soon as the British Empire officially wrenched itself into Palestine.

What’s galling about Rees’s analysis of the Balfour Declaration and Palestine is that he makes no attempt whatsoever to connect the Balfour Declaration to the perceived economic and political needs of the British Empire. In his hands the declaration is some random document of ethereal provenance which the British state somehow found itself “committed” to one November morning in 1917.[3]

Another “revolutionary socialist”, Richard Seymour in his book the Liberal Defence of Murder, argues that “British colonialists prepared some of the legitimacy for a future Zionist state in its response to” the Palestinian uprising between 1936-1939 “by advocating the partition of Palestine.”[4] This is not true because the Zionist proposition found legitimacy in 1917 otherwise it is unlikely the declaration would have been issued. Lord Balfour was very unequivocal in this. And so were the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George and his Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill. In a meeting they informed the head of Zionist Federation, Chaim Weizmann “that by the Declaration they had always meant an eventual state.”[5]

One of the strategies employed by the British to bring about the “eventual state” was to deny real democracy to Palestine, as Lloyd George instructed Churchill: “You mustn’t give representative government to Palestine.”[6]

Once again the demand for democracy was a factor when the first Palestinian uprising erupted in 1936. The then British Colonial Secretary, William Orsmby-Gore confirmed in parliament that:

“…The Arabs demand a complete stoppage of all Jewish immigration, a complete stoppage of all sales of land, and the transfer of the Government of Palestine…to what they call a National Government responsible to an elected democratic assembly. Those are their three demands, and quite frankly, those demands cannot possibly be conceded.”[7]

As such the British were hell bent on creating their Zionist entity in Palestine by denying democracy to Palestine and military crushing the indigenous population. So for Seymour’s framing of the Zionist state within the context of a ‘legitimate’ British response to the Palestinian uprising is erroneous, simply places the cart before horses and avoids the geo-politics on why the British Empire wanted a Zionist state in Palestine.

However, the geo-politics behind the Empire’s Zionist enterprise in Palestine was not eschewed by respected opinion of the period.

In 1917, C.P. Scott the then editor of the Guardian was in no doubt about why Palestine should be colonised by European Jewry.

After claiming that Palestine is not a country, he insisted “it will be a country; it will be the country of the Jews. That is the meaning of…” the Balfour Declaration. The fact that in 1917 the population of Palestine was 80,000 Jewish and 700,000 Arab Palestinian literally meant nothing to the editor of this great liberal bugle.

Clearly the Guardian’s dictum “comment is free, but facts are sacred…” never quite extended to Palestine. After all, the Arabs of Palestine were “at a low stage of civilisation” and that they contain within “itself none of the elements of progress…” according to the esteemed and progressive editor.

He further stated that the British government’s deliberate policy will be then “to encourage in every way in our power Jewish immigration…with a view to the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State.”

Scott continued to reason that there should be a Zionist state in Palestine because, “Palestine has a special importance for Great Britain because in the hands of a hostile Power, it can be made…a secure base which a land attack on Egypt can be organised…” Therefore, it is in Britain’s interest that “no Power should be seated in Palestine” that “is likely to be hostile” to British Imperialism.[8]

The left-wing New Statesman magazine was far more blunt in legitimising support for the Balfour Declaration and Zionism. It was also more specific on why there should be a Zionist state in Palestine. It informed its readers that the “special interest of the British Empire in Palestine is due to the proximity of the Suez Canal.” The only obvious conclusion is then to imperatively “effect a Zionist restoration under British auspices.”

After all, the New Statesman added, the then position of Jews as “unassimilated sojourners in every land but their own can never become satisfactory…It is far better…to make a nation of them” in the interests of Empire.[9]

The Guardian’s and New Statesman’s reasons legitimising the Zionist entity in Palestine were echoed by a prominent left-wing politician in this period, Colonel Josiah Wedgwood. He argued that Palestine was the “Clapham Junction” of the British Empire. As such a “friendly and efficient population” is required to settle there. And as Egyptians did not want the British occupation of their country, Palestine should be settled with “men on whom we can depend, if only because they depend on us…The Jews depend on us.”[10]

History testifies that the colonial-settler state of Israel essentially came about not as a result of the “decline of the Ottoman Empire” (John Rees) or as a legitimate British response to the first Palestinian uprising in the 1930’s (Richard Seymour) but as a result of the British Empire’s need for security for Egypt and specifically the British owned Suez Canal.

The Empire’s first military governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storrs had claimed that Egypt was the “jugular vein of the British Empire.”[11]

At the turn of the twentieth century, eighty per cent of the shipping passing through the Suez Canal belonged to the Empire.[12] Therefore, with Palestine in close proximity to the canal it was thought best to colonise it with European Jews so as to pre-empt any challenge to the British presence in Egypt either from the indigenous Arabs or another foreign power.

The newly European Jewish settlers were to be the Praetorian Guard of Egypt and specifically of the Suez Canal. As such, in the words of Winston Churchill, European Jews would then “be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire”[13] rather than “unassimilated sojourners in every land.”

Footnotes

[1] Rosemarie M. Esber, “Under the Cover of War”, (Alexandria V.A.: Aribicus Books and Media, 2009). This is an excellent account of the ethnic cleansing that took place under the British Mandate.

[2] The Balfour Declaration stated that the British government will “…view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…” quoted in Christopher Sykes, “Cross Roads to Israel”, (London: Collins, 1965), pg. 15

[3] John Rees, “Imperialism and Resistance”, (London: Routledge, 2006), pg.74-76

[4] Richard Seymour, “The Liberal Defence of Murder”, (London: Verso Books, 2008), pg.66

[5] Max Egrenot, “A Life of Arthur James Balfour”, (London: Collins, 1980), pg. 314.

[6] Richard Toye, Lloyd George and Churchill, (London: Macmillan, 2007), pg220

[7] Commons Debates, Fifth Series, Vol. 313, Column 1324, 19th June 1936.

[8] The Guardian, 9th November 1917

[9] New Statesman, 17th November 1917

[10] Josiah Wedgwood, “The Seventh Dominion”, (London: The Labour Publishing Company Limited, 1928), pg.3. Clapham Junction is a main a busy termini in central London.

[11] Sir Ronald Storrs, “Orientations”, (London: Readers Union Ltd., 1939), pg.155

[12] Roger Adelson, “London and the invention of the Middle East, 1902-1920”(London: Yale University Press, 1995), pg.32

[13] Winston Churchill, “Zionism vs. Bolshevism”, Illustrated Sunday Herald, (London), 8th February 1920.

About Nu'man Abd al-Wahid

Nu'man Abd al-Wahid is a UK based freelance Yemeni-English writer specialising in the political relationship between the British state and the Arab World. My focus is on how the United Kingdom has historically maintained its interests in the the Middle East. A collection of articles are posted at www.yamyam-yemeni.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

22 Responses

  1. pipistro
    November 2, 2012, 3:26 pm

    I quote.

    “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”. (Arthur James Balfour, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, August 11, 1919, cit. by Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage, p. 36; footnote #15, p. 234)
    Note that, in Balfour’s view, the “ancient” land of Palestine did not belong to the Arabs who constituted the majority of its population; these Arabs just happened to inhabit the country at that moment in time, and they did not have lofty “traditions”, “needs” or “hopes” like the Jews; by contrast, they had the far baser “desires and prejudices”. (Ibidem, p. 37)

  2. pabelmont
    November 2, 2012, 4:15 pm

    Although “the Arabs of Palestine were “at a low stage of civilisation” and that they contain within “itself none of the elements of progress…” according to the esteemed and progressive editor”, nevertheless, in 1922 the League of Nations create (of Palestine) a Mandate of the highest type, nearly ready for self government. What changed in the interim? The huge Jewish immigration might have appealed to the League’s sense of Palestine’s readiness–but it hadn’t occurred yet.

  3. Rudolph
    November 2, 2012, 5:40 pm

    I have always felt that the following helps to explain Britain’s support of Zionism (at least until 1939): “In 1922, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann queried a British official why the British supported Zionism despite Arab opposition. Didn’t it make more sense for the British to keep the Palestine mandate but drop support for Zionism? ‘Although such an attitude may afford a temporary relief and may quiet Arabs for a short time,’ the official replied, ‘it will certainly not settle the question as the Arabs don’t want the British in Palestine, and after having their way with the Jews, they would attack the British position, as the Moslems are doing in Mesopotamia, Egypt and India.’” (It’s interesting that US support for Israel is also motivated by the need to have a reliable non-Arab ally in the region.)
    link to detailedpoliticalquizzes.wordpress.com

  4. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    November 2, 2012, 9:03 pm

    I find the concept of “the decline of the Ottoman Empire” intriguing. By what definition had it declined and what are the implications of this decline?

    Is decline defined as no longer able to field an army to defend itself from the predations of the British Empire? Is declined defined by the discovery of oil in the Middle East?

    Did this decline create a dilemma that necessitated the occupation of Palestine to secure the Suez Canal which had been built 50 years before the Balfour Declaration?

  5. Citizen
    November 3, 2012, 8:13 am

    “What’s galling about Rees’s analysis of the Balfour Declaration and Palestine is that he makes no attempt whatsoever to connect the Balfour Declaration to the perceived economic and political needs of the British Empire. In his hands the declaration is some random document of ethereal provenance which the British state somehow found itself “committed” to one November morning in 1917.”

    Indeed, quite a huge omission. Consider who Balfour wrote his declaration to, and the state of Britain in 1916-1917; it’s not hard so see why the hick doughboys like Sgt York found themselves “over there, over there.” You just won’t ever read about it in an American HS text book:

    link to wiki.answers.com

    • Citizen
      November 3, 2012, 8:25 am

      Wilson decided to go to war on April 6, 1917. By the time US effectively entered the war, Russia had already surrendered to the Germans and the engaged military was at stalemate in the field, with France and Belgium being the field.

      • ThorsteinVeblen2012
        November 6, 2012, 12:30 pm

        The Battle for Jerusalem began in November of 1917. General Allenby entered Jerusalem the next month.

        The British didn’t have anything to give away until they occupied it themselves.

    • jon s
      November 3, 2012, 12:07 pm

      Citizen, I hope you don’t take that wiki-answer seriously. It’s nonsense.

      • MHughes976
        November 3, 2012, 2:14 pm

        I’d recommend David Stevenson’s ’1914-1918′, which has chapters on war aims, peace feelers and home-front politics. The German peace note of December 1916 was a call for negotiations without specifying conditions and the records of German internal discussions show that, following victory over Romania, the conditions would have been harsh. The Wiki answer is part of Dolchstoss historiography which has I think always been based on failure to acknowledge that Germany, ultimately the weaker power in population and resources, lost the battle and the war.

      • Rusty Pipes
        November 3, 2012, 5:04 pm

        After your lies about the Mavi Marmara, why are you still here? I’m sure there is a more receptive audience for your spin on Israeli history elsewhere.

  6. Miura
    November 3, 2012, 9:12 am

    No wonder Palestinians’ blood ran cold when they heard Jewish and later Israeli leaders speak of “socialism”, “universal values”, “labor”, etc. (Hit CC for subtitles).

    There was undoubtedly the occasional noble soul, but most anarchists were hardly any better.

    Russell Means who passed away a few days ago is worth quoting here:

    I’m referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and “leftism” in general. I don’t believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the of the European intellectual tradition. It’s really just the same old song…

    There’s a rule of thumb which can be applied here. You cannot judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-European peoples. This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe’s tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. I defy anyone to point out an example where this is not true.

    So now we, as American Indian people, are asked to believe that a “new” European revolutionary doctrine such as Marxism will reverse the negative effects of European history on us. European power relations are to be adjusted once again, and that’s supposed to make things better for all of us. But what does this really mean?

    …Revolutionary Marxism, like industrial society in other forms, seeks to “rationalize” all people in relation to industry–maximum industry, maximum production. It is a doctrine that despises the American Indian spiritual tradition, our cultures, our lifeways. Marx himself called us “precapitalists” and “primitive”. Precapitalist simply means that, in his view, we would eventually discover capitalism and become capitalists; we have always been economically retarded in Marxist terms. The only manner in which American Indian people could participate in a Marxist revolution would be to join the industrial system, to become factory workers, or “proletarians” as Marx called them. The man was very clear about the fact that his revolution could only occur through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society.

  7. douglasreed
    November 3, 2012, 1:17 pm

    The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was written at the behest of Chaim Weizmann, a European chemist, who was influential in British government circles at that time. It was a piece of geo-political expediency that had no other merit other than its use as a justification for the expulsion of three quarters of a million Arab residents of Palestine in 1948 and the massacres at Deir Yassin and other villages by the LEHI and Irgun terrorists. As is well documented, Ben Gurion took what he wanted from the declaration and treated is conditions in regard to the indigenous people, with contempt.

  8. mcohen
    November 3, 2012, 9:41 pm

    well done -finally the moderators of this site of shown some courage and published an article that goes to the very heart of the conflict between arab and jew.even more interesting is the denials being put forth.

    The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain’s imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Kashmir dispute

    link to news.bbc.co.uk

  9. DICKERSON3870
    November 4, 2012, 1:32 am

    ♦ RE: “After all, the New Statesman added, the then position of Jews as ‘unassimilated sojourners in every land but their own can never become satisfactory…It is far better…to make a nation of them’ in the interests of [the British] Empire.[9]” ~ Nu’man Abd al-Wahid’s article

    ♦ MY COMMENT: This reminds me of something quite shocking that I recently read about Louis Brandeis having touted Zionism to westerners by arguing that it would be better for Jews to go to Palestine than for them to remain in Europe (or emigrate to the U.S.) and thereby cause problems for the U.S. and Western Europe (as a consequence of these Jews pressing for reforms and/or supporting revolutionary movements in the U.S. and Western Europe). [I will try to find the source for this.]
    As much as I like Brandeis otherwise, I find this particular ‘talking point’ to be virtually tantamount to using (and possibly even promoting) anti-Semitism (and fears of communism) in Europe and the U.S. in order to encourage support for Zionism.

    ♦ SOMEWHAT IN THAT SAME VEIN, SEE: Zionism versus Bolshevism, by Winston Churchill, llustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

    [EXCERPT] . . . The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.

    International Jews.

    In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

    Terrorist Jews.

    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. . .

    CHURCHILL’S ENTIRE ANTI-SEMITIC SCREED – link to en.wikisource.org

    ♦ P.S. “FREE DON” SIEGELMAN PETITION – link to change.org

    • DICKERSON3870
      November 4, 2012, 1:09 am

      P.P.S. ♦ RE: “It [the world-wide conspiracy of the "international Jews" for the overthrow of civilisation] has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century. . . The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. ” ~ Herr Churchill (from his anti-Semitic screed above)

      ♦ MY COMMENT: Wouldn’t you just know that Netanyahu (the King of Israel) keeps a picture of Winston Churchill on a shelf behind his desk! ! !

      ♦ SEE: King Bibi’ is ready for his close up, and ‘Time’ is willing to oblige, by Craig Higgins, Mondoweiss, May 20, 2012

      I feel a little slow on the draw. ‘Time’ beat me, Barak Ravid of ‘Ha’aretz’ and everybody else to the punch to give Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu a massive dose of free publicity and attention that’s size-appropriate for his ego. One of America’s finest news publications decided to crown Bibi King of Israel! Long May He Reign! I mention Mr. Ravid because he almost sounds miffed about not getting to do the laying on of hands himself. . .
      . . . From the piece we are led to believe that the Prime Minister has risen to the ranks of peerage by brave deeds of political skill. . .
      . . . It’s also clear from the article that Netanyahu, a man who keeps a picture of Winston Churchill on a shelf behind his desk, is now eyeing his role as “a defining figure in Israeli history and a significant player on the world stage.” . . . It’s not enough that His Highness has power and prestige; he must also cement his claim to being a demigod in the pantheon of World Leaders.
      This kind of pomposity should surprise no-one; it has always been Netanyahu’s stock in trade. Stengel also dropped the tag word that sums up Bibi’s raison d’être as a political animal: Security. When he first ran for Prime Minister in 1996 they called him ‘Mr. Security’, meaning his focus was going to be more on swords than ploughshares. Nobody messed with Mr. Security then, except those who did, but now that he’s King Mr. Security it’s as if all the stars have aligned and the big moment has arrived for the former commando and son of a historian. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to mondoweiss.net

    • DICKERSON3870
      November 4, 2012, 1:41 am

      ♦ RE: “It [the world-wide conspiracy of the "international Jews" for the overthrow of civilisation] has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century. . . The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. ” ~ Herr Churchill (from his anti-Semitic screed above)

      ♦ CHURCHILL’S ANTI-SEMITIC WORDS LOOSELY TRANSLATED: Those “international Jews (terrorist Jews)” were an “existential threat” to civilization ! ! ! In fact, they were a far, far worse threat to civilization (most notably in Bavaria) than what Michael Oren today refers to as a mere “security concern” for Israel! ! !

    • DICKERSON3870
      November 4, 2012, 11:02 am

      RE: “Zionism versus Bolshevism”, by Winston Churchill, 1920 (Churchill’s anti-Semitic screed above)

      FOR BACKGROUND/CONTEXT, SEE: Roots of Hate; Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust, by William I. Brustein, Cambridge University Press, 2003

      [EXCERPTS] . . . At the other end of the political spectrum, Arnold White and Joseph Bannister couched their anti-Semitism in the language of race. Arnold White’s ‘The Modern Jew’, published in 1899, alleged that the Jews, unsuccessful at assimilating into British culture, had, through their ability to control influential administrative positions, achieved authority over the English race. White charged the Jews with creating a state within the state and drew attention to the absolute solidarity of world Jewry and its immense power, which he claimed constituted a threat to British international interests.133 Two years after the publication of White’s ‘The Modern Jew’, Joseph Bannister authored his maliciously biased ‘England under the Jews’. Recalling the rabid racial anti-Semitism of Lagarde and Langbein, Bannister referred to the Jews as a pestilence, a poison, a deadly bacillus, a parasite, and a beast of prey and implied that the health of the British nation necessitated the removal or elimination of the Jews. Bannister was particularly incensed about the influx of foreign Jews, which he warned had turned Britain into the dumping ground of foreign Jewish parasites – all of whom were thieves, swindlers, perjurers, sexual perverts, forgers, usurers, and blackmailers.134
      As we witnessed in the cases of France and Germany, the last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the rise of anti-Semitic political movements and parties. . .
      . . . The earliest of the British anti-Semitic groups was the British Brothers’ League (BBL), founded in 1901 . . .
      . . . The BBL sought to put pressure on the British government to halt the influx of poor foreign Jews into Great Britain. Gordon, who became known as the “father of the Aliens Bill,” referred to the type of aliens reaching the British Isles from the Russian empire as “refuse” and not of the material to make good British citizens.135 In these efforts, the BBL succeeded; in 1905, the British parliament passed the Aliens Act, putting into place Britain’s first restrictive immigration policy.136 Though the Aliens Act did not mention Jews outright, it was clear to most observers that the purpose of the act was to halt the flow of Eastern European Jews into Great Britain.137 Regarding the Aliens Act of 1905, Winston Churchill aptly remarked that it appealed to the “insular prejudice against the foreigners, to racial prejudice against the Jews, and to labor prejudice against competition.”138
      The Britons, clearly more racially anti-Semitic than the BBL, emerged on the British scene in 1918. Henry Beamish founded the Britons in 1918… Beamish and his movement resolved to warn the world of the Jewish menace and to rid Great Britain of its Jews by forcing them to return to Palestine. In 1923, leaders of the Britons put forward the idea of Madagascar as a Jewish homeland; an island homeland would better ensure the isolation of the Jews. . .
      . . . In the spring of 1929, Arnold Leese founded the Imperial Fascist League (IFL) and began publishing its journal, ‘The Fascist’. Leese, a veterinary surgeon, claimed that the Jews were responsible for all the corruption and evil existing in the world. Leese attributed to the Jews responsibility for Freemasonry, communism, capitalism, and unemployment.
      Race thinking was central to the platform of the IFL. Leese asserted that race served as the basis of all politics and claimed that the Aryan and Jewish races were locked in a battle for control over the world. Leese called upon the “noble” Aryans to rid the world of the Jewish pollution in order to preserve civilization and frequently referred to Jews as a “negroid tribe.” Like Beamish, Leese supported a plan to relocate the Jews to Madagascar . . .
      . . . A forerunner to Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was the British Fascists. . .
      . . . The British Fascists included calls for the removal of Jews from public posts, the revocation of Jewish citizenship, and the termination of Jewish domination over British financial, political, industrial, and cultural interests. The British Fascists additionally alleged that Jews were responsible for the spread of communism and that German Jews ran the government of the Soviet Union.142
      The largest and best-known of Britain’s fascist and anti-Semitic movements between the wars was the British Union of Fascists (BUF), led by Sir Oswald Mosley. Official estimates put the movement’s membership at roughly 500,000 in 1934. . .
      . . . Signs of an emerging anti-Semitism first appeared in
      a front-page article in November 1933 in the movement’s newspaper, ‘Blackshirt’. The article accused Jews of controlling British newspapers, international finance, and politics and spoke of a Jewish aim to achieve world domination. The article alleged that British Jews were using their influence for the benefit of their race as opposed to the interests of the British. Jews, especially recent immigrants to the East End of London, were singled out as perpetrators of unpalatable crimes and antisocial behavior. The major publications of the British Union of Fascists advocated a policy of segregation and deportation of Jews . . .

      ENTIRE BOOK (available for download as a PDF) – link to scribd.com

  10. mcohen
    November 4, 2012, 5:30 pm

    LORD KITCHENER indeed old chap
    well his name also pops up in the history of palestine strangely enough
    this from wiki wtf
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Survey of Western Palestine

    In 1874, at age 24, Kitchener was assigned by the Palestine Exploration Fund to a mapping-survey of the Holy Land, replacing Charles Tyrwhitt-Drake, who had died of malaria.[5] Kitchener, then an officer in the Royal Engineers, joined fellow Royal Engineer Claude R. Conder, and between 1874 and 1877 they surveyed what is today Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, returning to England only briefly in 1875 after an attack by locals in the Galilee, at Safed.[5]

    Conder and Kitchener’s expedition became known as the Survey of Western Palestine because it was largely confined to the area west of the Jordan River (Hodson 1997). The survey collected data on the topography and toponomy of the area, as well as local flora and fauna.[6] The results of the survey were published in an eight-volume series, with Kitchener’s contribution in the first three tomes (Conder and Kitchener 1881–1885).

    This survey has had a lasting effect on the Middle East for several reasons:

    The ordnance survey serves as the basis for the grid system used in the modern maps of Israel and Palestine.
    The collection of data compiled by Conder and Kitchener are still consulted by archaeologists and geographers working in the southern Levant.
    The survey itself effectively delineated and defined the political borders of the southern Levant. For instance, the modern border between Israel and Lebanon is established at the point in the upper Galilee where Conder and Kitchener’s survey stopped.[5]

  11. mcohen
    November 4, 2012, 11:43 pm

    hey hey cyber sleuth strikes again

    In 1874, at age 24, Kitchener was assigned by the Palestine Exploration Fund

    anyway a quick search of the Palestine Exploration Fund at wiki -wtf which i had never heard of before got these results

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    even more interesting are the people who are associated with the fund and what role they played in the british military.

    I WILL REPEAT WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL THESE YEARS THAT THE FOUNDING OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL WAS A STRATEGIC MOVE BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE TO SECURE THE SUEZ CANAL

    • Mooser
      November 5, 2012, 1:54 pm

      Gosh, mcohen, if founding Israel was a strategic move by Britain, and a gift to the Zionists, why did those poor people at the King David Hotel have to die?

      • mcohen
        November 5, 2012, 5:54 pm

        gush mooser

        it was a timely exit-this from wiki-wtf

        ” From the fact that a bomb search had already been carried out, it appears that a hoax call or tip-off had been received at the hotel earlier that day.[4] Subsequent telephone calls from a concerned Palestine Post staff member and the police caused increasing alarm and the hotel manager was notified. In the closing minutes before the explosion, he called an unknown British officer, but, for whatever reason, no evacuation was ordered.[5] The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel.[5] Some of the inflicted deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.[5] Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated.[5]”

        it suited the british to pull out -they set the 2 sides up against each other and kept control of the suez canal

        mooser

        the “terrorists” operating in the sinai right now are fighting for control of the suez canal.countries like china and india that export goods to europe have ……….blahblahblah if you do not got it wot ?say wot?

  12. mcohen
    November 4, 2012, 11:47 pm

    Palestine Exploration Fund members

    you only have to read up on these people to understand the path that lead to the state of israel

    Claude R. Conder
    Charles Warren
    Horatio Kitchener
    Edward Henry Palmer
    T. E. Lawrence
    Kathleen Kenyon
    Conrad Schick
    Charles Wilson

Leave a Reply