Historical whitewash: Great Britain must be held accountable for its role in the Nakba

Israel/Palestine
UK Prime Minister David Cameron addresses the Knesset (Photo: Knesset spokesperson/Times of Israel)

UK Prime Minister David Cameron addresses the Knesset (Photo: Knesset spokesperson/Times of Israel)

Nothing more exemplifies the historical whitewash of British rule in Palestine between 1917 and 1948 than the response (or lack of) to David Cameron’s speech in the Israeli Kneeset in March 2014. Therein he briefly propounded the much overlooked fact that Britain was the main western supporter of the Zionist colonial experiment in Palestine from the very beginning.

“From the early pioneers,” boasted Cameron, “the men and women of the Palestine Exploration Fund, who saw the Jewish history in this land and the possibilities for the future to the Balfour Declaration – the moment when the State of Israel went from a dream to a plan Britain has played a proud and vital role in helping to secure Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.”

Cameron clearly defined the Balfour declaration as the moment Israel went from “a dream to a plan.” This plan was then ‘secured’ which strongly seems to be euphuism for implemented. More so, he then, somewhat self-incriminatory, said that British imperialism “played a proud and vital role in helping to secure Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.”

Not one commentator in the UK, critical or otherwise, latched on to this crucial point. Presumably, it’s far less taxing on one’s moral conscience to emulate American, Arab and even Israeli commentators on the current Palestinian situation than face up to your own government’s historical criminal culpability – a culpability which Cameron drew attention to at the Knesset of all places?

Obviously, Cameron naturally never outlined how Britain ‘secured’ the homeland for the Jewish people.

However, it was in these years, i.e. 1917-1948, that the “only democracy in the Middle East” as Zionist propagandists lovingly refer to their colonial project was secured by Britain by first, denying Palestinians representative democracy which would have inevitably limited colonial immigration to their country.  Secondly, when the first Palestinian uprising finally exploded in 1936 it was the British that led the repression against the Palestinian resistance and in doing so, also educated the nascent Zionist-settler forces on how to military crush and oppress the indigenous population.[1]

By the time the state of Israel was declared on 14th May 1948, 400,000 Palestinians and 250 villages and towns had already been ethnically cleansed by the Zionist forces under Britain’s secured watch.[2] Further ethnic cleansing took place after the Zionists declared their state. Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian revolutionary, was to argue that the Zionists in the late 1940’s were plucking “the fruits of the defeat of the 1936 revolt which the outbreak of the war had prevented it from doing sooner.”[3]

Progressive British activists, writers and politicians rarely acknowledge, if ever, the central role played by their Empire in laying the foundations and facilitating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Cameron’s and Great Britain’s national hero, Winston Churchill on the other hand, specifically justified the “proud and vital role” of the Empire at the Peel Commission on Palestine in 1937 on this basis:

“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or, at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, ‘The American Continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here’. They had not the right, nor had they the power.”[4]

As Churchill strongly implies the Zionist project with its attendant occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, i.e. the Nakba, had nothing to do with Jewish history as discovered by the so-called ‘Palestine Exploration Fund’ and everything to do with racist colonialism backed by the power of the foreign policy of an Empire that has escaped accountability for its role in this ongoing tragedy.

Notes

[1] Laleh Khalili, “The Location of Palestine in Global Counterinsurgencies”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 42, Issue 3, pg. 413-433 and Matthew Hughes, The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936-1939, English Historical Review, 124 (2009).

[2] Rosemarie M. Esber, “Under the Cover of War”, Aribicus Books and Media, Alexandria (V.A), 2009. This book deals with the ethnic cleansing in final six months

[3] Ghassan Kanafani, ‘The 1936-39 Revolt in Palestine’, Tricontinental Society, London, 1980, pg. 30.

[4]Quoted in Angela Clifford, ‘Serfdom Or Ethnic Cleansing?  – Churchill’s Evidence to the Peel Commission (1937)’, Athol Books, Belfast and London, 2003, pg.34

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:

83 Responses

  1. Taxi
    May 15, 2014, 12:21 pm

    British Parliamentarians apologized for the Balfour Declaration back in 2013:

    “The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.”
    link to globalmbwatch.com

    And don’t get me started on that tub of racist lard, Mr. Churchill – who also had no compunction about gassing the Iraqi kurds! Here’s one of my fav portraits of the bugger:
    link to samdurant.net

    Till this day, the UK (USA and France too) continues to backstab the Arabs like there’s no tomorrow – all in the service of the white zionist project. When the heck are we gonna be rid of our colonial ideology and its representatives in government?!!! The Arabs have been consistently colonized for over 500 years!

    It’s way past time not just for an apology for the Nakba, but reparations too.

    • James Canning
      May 16, 2014, 3:15 pm

      Britain was trying hard to keep Russia in the war, when Lord Balfour sent his famous letter to Lord Rothschild – – who was one of the very few Zionists among upper-class English Jewry.

      • Hostage
        May 16, 2014, 7:31 pm

        Britain was trying hard to keep Russia in the war, when Lord Balfour sent his famous letter to Lord Rothschild – – who was one of the very few Zionists among upper-class English Jewry.

        Not really. To be honest, the War Cabinet Papers covering the 227th meeting to the 308th (Sept. 3rd to Dec. 31st, 1917) establish that the members were interested in obtaining the assistance of staunch American Zionists in getting Wilson to enter the war (227th) when the correspondence between Balfour and Rothschild first came up. That was long before it was noted that the majority of Russian Jews supported the proposal (245th) and it was finally pitched as a source of useful propaganda to influence both the Russian and American Jews (261st).

        In fact, the first mention of Russian Jews was also in the 227th meeting. But it was a discussion about a separate agenda item regarding “the Jewish regiment”. The cabinet had received a lot of irate correspondence from British Jews serving in regular Army units who did not want the Russians in the Mule corps calling themselves “the Jews” or representing them in any way. Here’s a link to the 125mb pdf from the UK National Archives link to filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk

      • James Canning
        May 16, 2014, 7:38 pm

        There was a stronger sense or over-assessment of the influence of Jews in Russia, that played a role. Influence of world Jewry also was over-estimated. By “ruling circles” in Britain.

    • lisa Bandrea
      May 17, 2014, 6:43 am

      Jews have lived in Israel before Britain existed

  2. Steve Macklevore
    May 15, 2014, 12:57 pm

    My grandfather’s brother, Joe was stationed in Palestine as a member of the RAF during the second world war.

    This can be no consolation to you, but the reason I became involved in ‘the cause’ was the stories he told of Palestine pre-1948, and especially early episodes of what would later become known as the Nakba.

    I would also respectfully point out that British soldiers, alongside their Jordanian comrades fought bravely and effectively against the Israeli Army and managed to hold a sizable piece of what became the West Bank and of course the entire old city of Jerusalem.

    Britain can never atone for what it has done to the Palestinian people, but I can honestly report that the mass of the population is pro-Palestinian. This includes people of the Right as well as the Center and Left. A surprisingly large number of British people have never forgiven or forgotten the activities of the Stern Gang and Irgun. Proof of this is Great Britain’s reluctance to recognise Israel, which didn’t happen until 1950.

    • Bumblebye
      May 15, 2014, 5:25 pm

      My Dad was there too, with the Royal Navy, the whole year he was 17. Still prefers to use the name Palestine. And uses the name SS President Warfield for the boat he was ordered to shin up and remove the (future) Israeli flag from. Tho’ that’s not how history knows her. Mum’s brother was also there, as Military Police.

  3. DaBakr
    May 15, 2014, 1:36 pm

    the ‘zionist experiment’ [lol*] had nothing to do with Jewish history in the land. oh please. i thought this was going to be a serious piece.

    * I suppose one could refer to Jordan, Saudi A, Syria and even the USA as “projects’ or “experiments” as well.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 15, 2014, 1:49 pm

      [lol*] …oh please.

      you don’t happen to have any zionist promotional hasbara circa 30’s or 40’s trumping that “3000 yr history” do you?

      posters, literature etc? link to wzo.org.il

      iow, source it.

      check this out:

      link to zionistarchives.org.il

      notice the title?

      Caption: Protect your homeland. Mobilization

      and then it says below:

      Caption in English: Protect your country – Enlist

      so which is it? when did the “homeland” jargon (other than trying to secure one for the future) get injected into the hasbara or was it there from the inception of zionism?

      here’s another: link to zionistarchives.org.il from the item description is says “caption: land is my land” and caption english says “o land”

      but on the current websites promo page link to wzo.org.il (scroll) it says

      Hebrew labor and farming were integral to the Zionist endeavor to redeem the Jewish people along with their land.

      anything mentioning “to redeem..their land” on the poster? in the early zionist literature? early zionists called themselves colonialists. doesn’t that run contrary to the concept of redeeming what’s already yours. i thought that hasbara came later. maybe i’m wrong.

      isn’t the translation of aliyah “ascent” whereas it has come to mean:
      link to en.wikipedia.org

      The concept of Aliyah (return) to the Holy Land was first developed ….

      but Aliyah בין is different than:

      return-noun
      חֲזָרָה
      return, repetition, rehearsal, reversion, turn, retraction
      הַחזָרָה
      return, reflection, restitution, reposition, restoration
      חִזוּר
      return, circulation, courting, wooing, circling, reduction
      שִׁיבָה
      return
      שְׁבוּת
      return, captivity, repatriation
      תְשׁוּבָה
      answer, response, reply, return, repentance, retort
      return-verb
      לַחֲזוֹר
      return, go back, come back, get back, revert, revert
      לְהַחזִיר
      return, restore, repay, bring back, give back, recover
      לָשׁוּב
      return, go back, come back, revert, repeat, repent
      לְהַשִׁיב
      answer, reply, return, restore, blow, blow away

      the early lingo, words like ” pioneers”, “explorers” “explorations” “colonial” , none of that alludes to the concept of ‘returning to a homeland’, as opposed to finding or securing one for the future.

      • DaBakr
        May 15, 2014, 3:06 pm

        Okay. You have me. The first Zionist’s simply picked Israel and Jerusalem out of a hat. No context whatsoever. Really. I am so convinced now.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 15, 2014, 4:20 pm

        lol!!! so that would be a resounding “NO” you have no evidence what-so-ever ?

        seriously, other than by implication and inference, you have nothing? somehow i doubt this is due to laziness.maybe some of your cohorts can help you out. go call hasbara central and tell them you need some proof or you’re gonna come out looking like a fool.

      • DaBakr
        May 15, 2014, 5:35 pm

        well-there are those numbers of supposedly ‘devout’ believers in Islam and Christianity- a few billion maybe? According to their own sacred books there is a pretty big historical connection between Jerusalem, its surrounding hills and other trifling little details that pronounce this connection to the words of the g-d they believe in so readily. Like the Quran ceding the ‘land’ to that tribe of Jews and the whole Jesus thing.

        But really…you must be trying to trick me into separating out the early theoretical Zionists from the land of Israel when if not for the land of Israel there never would have been need for a Zionist movement of any kind. I do know dear that the early 20thC zionists were just another high-falluting political upstart that dotted the whole of Europe-east and west as well as other movements in Turkey and some parts of the middle east, S+N America too.

        Still-you may be able to take the Jew out of Jerusalem but you can not take the Jerusalem out of Jew-no matter how you cut it up.

        And forgive me, but I am still clueless as to the argument you insist you have won by my not ‘referencing’ something you think you can shoot down. If you don’t like ANY of the archeological evidence I can site the hundreds of times Jerusalem is written in the Bible-which is regarded as an early religio-history of the Jews. Or even more specific how many times the prayer “next year in Jerusalem” is spoken. Even the least religious of Jews are surely aware of this.

        And I don’t even have to imply that the Jews have any given right to Jerusalem as I don’t believe ANY people have ANY given* (*the fact I do not agree that Israel was “given” at all but it was FOUGHT for and won is an entirely different argument which I haven’t been paid for [yet] to make;). The land they stood on for the first 19 yrs was not considered ‘occupied’ by any of the world body except by Egypt and Jordan ) right to ANY land and time after time-man[kind] has proven this concept and made the world in which we live. I don not begrudge the Palestinians for fighting for what they want as I simply doubt is is a peace treaty where Jews (or Christians for that matter) have any sovereignty over their holiest places . Israel and its capital will have to be fought for and preserved as a Jewish city where muslims and Christians retain their rights to pray and maintain their own holy places. The fact that some zealots believe that al-aqsa will tumble and a 3rd temple rebuilt is religious fantasy. Just like Mohamed ascending on a winged horse and Jesus coming with the rapture. But as for Zionism-a particularly Jewish form of collectivism, determinism and identity being divorced from the land of Israel and jerusalem? I suppose people desperate to be right avoid the obvious such as considering the following snippet:

        “Since the 10th century BCE Jerusalem has been the holiest city, focus and spiritual center of the Jews. Jerusalem has long been embedded into Jewish religious consciousness and Jews have always studied and personalized the struggle by King David to capture Jerusalem and his desire to build the Holy Temple there, as described in the Book of Samuel and the Book of Psalms. Many of King David’s yearnings about Jerusalem have been adapted into popular prayers and songs. Jews believe that in the future the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem will become the center of worship and instruction for all mankind and consequently Jerusalem will become the spiritual center of the world.

        Now…even if this never happens which it will not likely do-isn’t the almost entirety of European empire (through the bible+new test) and the entirety of the Arab conquests (Mohamed and the Quran) based upon this simple connection of one tribal-ehtnicity and its connection to the land since 1000 years BC? I guess I lose the debate. I’m not surprised

      • Annie Robbins
        May 15, 2014, 9:09 pm

        bakr, why are you changing the subject from zionism to judaism or jews? these are your words:

        the ‘zionist experiment’ [lol*] had nothing to do with Jewish history in the land.

        zionism is what caused the nakba. it was a colonialist endeavour and not the result of any 3000 yr history. that icing on the cake that’s been layered on since the founding of the state to justify the crime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. it wasn’t about any appeal from jews to reunite with their ancient homeland and had it been it would have been introduced in the hasbara luring jews to palestine. in fact, there was no longing need to ‘return’ to a place most jews had no intent or thought of ever living. and if they had you would have seen a lot more people going down there century after century.

        al wahid ended his article w/:

        As Churchill strongly implies the Zionist project with its attendant occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, i.e. the Nakba, had nothing to do with Jewish history as discovered by the so-called ‘Palestine Exploration Fund’ and everything to do with racist colonialism backed by the power of the foreign policy of an Empire that has escaped accountability for its role in this ongoing tragedy.

        and this is entirely correct. ‘the zionist project’ is a political construct. it’s not steeped in a 3 thousand year history.

        this whole idea of yearning for the ancient homeland garbage is brainwashing. it’s a trained concept to have a concept of going back to a place your ancestors lived thousands of years ago. that’s a learned condition, it’s not normal. and the desire to conquer a place ones alleged ancestors lived thousands of years ago`can be as easily learned by a bunch of peruvians (see taxi’s link) as easily as a bunch of europeans. it’s religious garbaldygook used to get the masses to support ethnic cleansing and support unthinkable crimes. that’s what zionism means to lost of normal people, justification to commit unspeakable crimes….and now you’re doing it in the name of ‘history’, that was not the case with the original zionists. they were seeking something new, zionism is just not that old.

      • Hostage
        May 15, 2014, 10:45 pm

        Still-you may be able to take the Jew out of Jerusalem but you can not take the Jerusalem out of Jew-no matter how you cut it up.

        Any Samaritan in Nablus can tell you that “Jerusalem”, as such, and “Next year in Jerusalem” do not really appear in the Torah.

        We had an article here just the other day which explained that the Reform movement, which represented most American Jews didn’t share Zionist beliefs:

        Among American Jews, Zionism had been a minority view. Well before there was a Zionist movement, Reform Judaism had rejected the religious premise of Zionism. Rabbi Gustav Poznanski, who was born in Poland and educated in Berlin, said at the dedication of the first Reform temple in Charleston, South Carolina in 1841: “This country is our Palestine, this city our Jerusalem, this house of God our Temple.”

        American Reform Jews declared that Judaism was a religion, not a nationality.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        I cited a 1921 Churchill memo which talked prospectively about founding, not reestablishing, a home for a limited number of Jews in Palestine. He was the Colonial Secretary and described the need to protect Jewish colonies and the Zionist experiment with an expensive armed force, while denying the Arabs any form of elective, representative government. He also noted that Labor Socialists were tainted by Bolshevism and were undesirables who could be turned away. Long story short, the author of this article was very accurately describing Churchill’s and the government of Great Britain’s classified views about the situation in Palestine.

      • wes
        May 17, 2014, 6:09 am

        hi annie
        hasbara central just called,said dabakr needed a hand……how about a coin,

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        First Revolt Shekel, Year 5 (Ellenbogen 161) 66-70 ce

        Bronze prutahs were issued in the second and third years of the revolt. They feature an amphora (uncovered on year 2, with a pointed cover on year 3), with the date and poignant Hebrew inscription “The Deliverance of Zion.”

        its all there,part of history,take the trip see the future.

    • Woody Tanaka
      May 15, 2014, 2:19 pm

      “the ‘zionist experiment’ [lol*] had nothing to do with Jewish history in the land.”

      It didn’t. It had to do with Jewish preference for stories and religious ideas set in Palestine, but when the Zionist project was underway, any such “history” was basically 2 millenia out of date.

    • Annie Robbins
      May 15, 2014, 2:44 pm

      i’m waiting, any takers will do. it doesn’t have to be bakr. hops? jon s? anyone going to source the allegation ‘zionist experiment’ was somehow grounded in the idea of Jewish history in the land, or refute al-Wahid:

      the Nakba, had nothing to do with Jewish history

      • DaBakr
        May 15, 2014, 3:16 pm

        not doubting it was, at its inception, a project or ‘experiment’ per se but its no longer either project or experimental no matter how much one wishes it so. and it always had to do with the history of the land. even if other more absurd locations were considered at various times.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 15, 2014, 4:58 pm

        it always had to do with the history of the land.

        really? check this out: link to mondoweiss.net

      • jon s
        May 15, 2014, 3:58 pm

        Annie, I’m not sure what the challenge is. The Zionists didn’t pick some random territory, they focused on the territory known as the Land of Israel, the Jewish historic homeland.
        An obvious, classic, source would be the Declaration of Independence:
        link to mfa.gov.il

      • Annie Robbins
        May 15, 2014, 4:25 pm

        jon,the challenge is producing zionist promotional hasbara circa 30′s or 40′s trumping that “3000 yr history”

        you failed.

        besides, the statement in the declaration of state could be easily perceived as no more than an after the fact allegation:

        Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses… made deserts bloom…loving peace…bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants

        but let’s not divert from the challenge. i’m not really interested in debating whether or not “progress” has occurred. the challenge is producing evidence jews were migrating to israel, calling themselves “pioneers” and “colonialists” were doing so due to some historic longing or attachment to be united with ‘their land’. and if that had been the case, why so few made the attempts to migrate there for so many many hundreds of years (had this been the case).

        and if what bakr said was true, why wasn’t this alleged ‘longing to return’ incorporated into the hasbara leading up to the formation of the state?

        i’m not asking for some treasure trove of evidence. just one poster perhaps? i’m curious when ” ancient homeland” first pops up in zionist propaganda.

        there must be something in the Palestine jewish colonization associations lingo referencing ” ancient homeland”, no? hertzl? weisman?

        hmm, nothing from a search of either “ancient” or “historic” here. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        in fact israel is only one of several countries,nothing to indicate it was more popular than the US, argentina, brazil, canada and/or other countries.

      • jon s
        May 16, 2014, 4:24 pm

        Annie, It’s one thing to object to Zionism, I get that . But it’s another thing to not understand what it’s about. It looks like you simply don’t get it. Zionism was predicated, from the start, on the idea that the Jewish people were in need of a state of their own , and the only suitable and appropriate territory for that state was the historic homeland, the land of Israel. The theme of a “return to Zion” (consciously echoing the return to Zion after the Babylonian exile) recurs so frequently I would hardly know where to start a list of references .
        For example , from a pamphlet of the Bilu Society in 1882: “To Zion, to Zion, to Zion, to the land of our fathers Eretz Israel” (cited in M.Eliav [ed.] , Sefer Haaliyah Harishona, p.24). See also Leo Pinsker’s reference to the “land of our forefathers ” (in his “Auto-Emancipation” p.6) , and , of course all the counter-arguments to the Uganda Plan in the 6th Zionist Congress. And much, much, more. See the words of Hatikva, see this lovely song:

        Zion, my innocent one,

        Zion, my beloved,
        My soul longs for you from afar.

        May my right hand forget its skill
        If I forget you, my beautiful one.
        Until the day my grave closes over me.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 17, 2014, 7:15 pm

        jon, please read john’s comment quoting Jabotinsky link to mondoweiss.net

        pinsker was one of the founders and a chairman of the Hovevei Zion movement, he died in 1891. link to en.wikipedia.org
        they made great efforts trying to persuade jews to move to palestine. from the wiki page:

        Laurence Oliphant failed in a like attempt to bring to Palestine the Jewish proletariat of Poland, Lithuania, Romania, and the Turkish Empire (1879 and 1882).

        In the Russian Empire, waves of pogroms of 1881-1884 (some allegedly state-sponsored), as well as the anti-Semitic May Laws of 1882 introduced by Tsar Alexander III of Russia, deeply affected Jewish communities. More than 2 million Jews fled Russia between 1880 and 1920. The vast majority of them emigrated to the United States, but some decided to form an aliyah.

        this doesn’t bode well for the idea most jews were longing ‘go back’. this was probably why references to the ‘ancient homeland’ were not part of the colonialist zionist promotional hasbara circa 30′s or 40′s (the challenge, remember) which look more like travel promotional posters. i’m not asserting there were no jews who felt sentimental about the land, i’m arguing the overwhelming thrust of the zionist movement was as a colonial enterprise. i’m not talking about 10th century poets. i’m talking about the “ordinary Jew”, like the ones Jabotinsky is referencing from john’s link:

        Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel.”

        It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl’s or Sir Herbert Samuel’s. Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.

        and you know who he means when he says “natives” right? he’s talking about the natives of the land, the indigenous people of palestine..vs, the colonialist jews. it was, primarily, a colonialist enterprise. after ww2 there was a dire need, but it could have been anywhere, it didn’t have to be there. even the Hovevei Zion wiki page says it is now considered the “forerunners and foundation-builders of modern Zionism.” because they are trying to erase the colonialist roots of the zionist movement. as big Z pointed out:

        “It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims”…and that would include ‘longing for your ancient homeland.’

        it’s manufactured emotion, otherwise known as brainwashing.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 15, 2014, 5:55 pm

        “they focused on the territory known as the Land of Israel,”

        Nope, it’s known as Palestine.

        “the Jewish historic homeland.”

        No, it was the Ancient Jewish homeland. As it, it was the Jews’ home before it became some else’s home.

      • Cliff
        May 15, 2014, 11:43 pm

        There is no Jewish historic homeland.

        You have no relation to a Jew from 3000 years ago.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 16, 2014, 9:06 am

        this ‘jews have been longing for their ancient historic homeland’ is invented jargon that started sometime in the 2nd half of the last century and used to justify conquering and destroying beautiful palestine. it’s hogwash and used to brainwash people.

        good morning.

      • jon s
        May 17, 2014, 2:21 am

        Cliff,
        No Jewish homeland? Sure, the Jews just appeared out of the blue, by magic.

        I don’t know about 3000 years ago, there are too many unknowns ( David’s kingdom?). 2000-2500 years ago is more like it.

    • Taxi
      May 15, 2014, 3:28 pm

      Debakr,

      Damascus is 12,000 years old; tel aviv is 66 years old. One of the two is an experiment – guess which one?

      And guess which city houses natives and which one houses foreign invaders from europe and other motley zio somnambulists who were mesmerized and sleep-walked to the holy land even from as far away as the jungles of Peru?
      link to theguardian.com

      Zionism is an idea born from a white jewish european who is basically responsible for the largest real estate swindle in the history of mankind – the deranged experimenter, the great mesmerizer, Mr. Theodor Herzl.

      When zionist culture stops sprouting out of occupation and excrement, we can then stop calling it a (lavatorial) experiment.

      Hey I dig this – little charmer:

      And the link below is a must (so you can really get what the salafist and their global ziocon supporters are jealous of and attempting to obliterate):
      link to whc.unesco.org

      DaBkr, on a day like this, Nakba day, a heck of a lot of respect for the suffering Palestinians is expected of you, otherwise you risk sounding like a sour-mouthed skinhead on holocaust memorial day.

      • Kay24
        May 15, 2014, 5:10 pm

        Good response, and very interesting links.
        Damascus is so beautiful. I am sorry that we are unable to visit this lovely city, and that the problems there might prevent us from doing so in our lifetime. It is hard to comprehend how these interlopers can be in so much denial. They have absolutely no history or culture where they have been rudely dumped in, and cannot compare their new cities to the culture and history, of their neighbors. They keep ignoring the FACT and documents, that show the UN experiment of dumping homeless Europeans in someone else’s backyard, has caused immense suffering, loss, refugees, and death, and their lack of conscience makes them make senseless comments, without the ability to feel remorse.

      • DaBakr
        May 15, 2014, 6:04 pm

        I actually do not have to ‘prove’ my respect to anybody as I and those I have known paid the not only the price in blood but the ultimate sacrifice. So-while I already said I do not begrudge the Palestinians their right to fight for what they want I owe no person any explanation as to why I am alive and how I have chosen to fight for my family and people. When the Palestinians are persuaded to sign a treaty ending the conflict I will show all due respect to what horrors the 66yr+ war has inflicted. But until that state of warfare is over-all bets are off.

        You should read up on your own Civil War and how brother fought bother, Son against Father, Husband against wife. It was a seething drawn out horror with death many 100s of times what has befallen the Palestinians and Israelis. But in lulls after great catastrophes-the two sides often mingled and co-existed as if no war had been declared. So, I choose to hedge my bets on any ‘respect’ owed to anyone who might gladly cut my throat and take my home.
        And I’ll tell you a little secret: I know many Jews who harp on the Shoah as the main reason for supporting Israel-right or wrong. But to me (and many many others around here its total BS. The shoah was only the crowning achievment of what went on for a few 100 years before. And no-the Arabs were not required to pay for the sins of the European jew-haters but no more then the Jews are required to pay for the sins of the colonial conquests and manipulations of the Arab, Turkic and Euro empires that went before. I just see it simply as an ongoing war that will hopefully end one day.
        But like your Abe Lincoln you was urged many times to end the war before he could be totally assured that even after his death slavery could not be revisited-Israelis will not likely sign a treaty that will provide any chance that they will have to continue fighting. So-unless we are beaten to submission or presented with a treaty that a majority of citizens can live with-it will continue on. No smug-for that is a soldiers sin in my book but sadly and with a burden that I suppose many Jews in the world are either too naive,(take that idiot Rothkopf e.g.) to weak, too assimilationist , too stupid or too hopeful to be of much use for the next decade or so.

        But then humans are sometimes surprising and I never give out hope of that.

      • Hostage
        May 15, 2014, 10:27 pm

        You should read up on your own Civil War and how brother fought bother, Son against Father, Husband against wife. It was a seething drawn out horror with death many 100s of times what has befallen the Palestinians and Israelis. But in lulls after great catastrophes-the two sides often mingled and co-existed as if no war had been declared. So, I choose to hedge my bets on any ‘respect’ owed to anyone who might gladly cut my throat and take my home.

        I have read-up one it. The secessionists and separatists, who proposed a two state solution , lost the war in the end. The fact that Zionists haven’t been able to win the war after a hundred years doesn’t bode well for your argument.

      • eljay
        May 17, 2014, 12:10 am

        >> … sadly and with a burden that I suppose many Jews in the world are either too naive … to weak, too assimilationist , too stupid or too hopeful to be of much use for the next decade or so.

        Will wonders never cease: A Zio-supremacist viciously (and anti-Semitically) condemns “many Jews in the world” for not being hateful, immoral and supremacist enough.

        Actually, “many Jews in the world” ought to be flattered by this condemnation of his.

      • DaBakr
        May 15, 2014, 6:27 pm

        When the 66yr+ war is over and a treaty is signed that guarantees that the conflict is over and that further generations of my people wont have to produce soldiers willing to lay down their lives to exist on a small strip of land that no matter what foolish tripe you try and use to pretend that Jerusalem was never the spiritual and ancient capital of the Jewish people and is merely an ‘experiment’ (and for g-d sakes…your using SYRIA as an example? Do you have any idea of how many suffering Syrian refugees would coming flying across the border if there was no stigma attached to an Arab excepting help from a Jew-let alone and Israeli?)
        When one and his family and fellow citizens have paid the price in blood along with the ultimate sacrifice-you can lecture me about “respect”. I respect people one at a time-be they Arab or Jew. I don’t belive that Israel exists becuase of guilt over the Shoah. And I don’t support those who use the Shoah to promote the existence of Israel except in the historical context of the years after ww2 when the culmination of the Arab, Turkic and European age of empires was flying apart at the seams and Jews had to fight for every inch of the land that is now israel.

      • Hostage
        May 16, 2014, 9:33 am

        no matter what foolish tripe you try and use to pretend that Jerusalem was never the spiritual and ancient capital of the Jewish people

        Judaism ceased to need “a center” or a capital centuries ago. In fact it had several even in the biblical era. It still doesn’t need one, unless you troglodyte nut cases intend to revive ritual animal sacrifices. Most civilized people aren’t going to line-up to subsidize or defend that delusional sort of behavior.

      • MHughes976
        May 16, 2014, 11:34 am

        Jerusalem played, though no one says that it was a Jewish foundation, an important part in Jewish history, certainly, and an important part in non-Jewish history also. The stories about Jerusalem – concerning the United Monarchy, Nehemiah’s wall and many things – are open to serious question but we should not address these questions in order to establish current rights, though they may be important in other ways. Rights in any territory here and now arise only from the situation here and now, ie from who is a resident, who a refugee, who a marauder and what (if any) social contract has been established.

      • pjdude
        May 16, 2014, 11:26 am

        So once again an israel supporter arguing the right of conquest. Your whining that people have a problem with your illegal acts is on you not on us

      • Taxi
        May 16, 2014, 11:34 am

        Hey DaB,

        Man you’re so brainwashed, I’m not even going to bother with your hasbara-dishwater. But I’m glad to see you squirming with jealousy at Syria’s impressive history.

        No one with any drop of intelligence and discernment will believe your fake sympathy for the Syrians. The Syrians, whose land and people you criminally occupy, will one day punch the lights out of your zionism – and so will the Palestinians and the Lebanese. And the beauty of this is that international law will be on their side.

        Finally, Jerusalem, I’ll remind you little mister colonialist, is jewish, is christian and is moslem – and more specifically, it’s Arab land, not Polish, not German, not Russian, not French, not yankee land neither – most certainly NOT PERUVIAN through conversion to judaism!

        You will eventually lose, DaBs, because you’re against a people who have truth and time and number on their side. Oh and this other cool, amazing thing they call sumud – they have plenty of that.

      • DaBakr
        May 16, 2014, 1:50 pm

        oh yes please do “remind” me how its all “Arab” land and then tell me where the “Arabs” came from little mister doesnt-know-his ass-from-his-face-about-colonizing

      • Taxi
        May 16, 2014, 2:50 pm

        Are you asking “where” Arabs come from?

        LOL dude, have another shot of ziocaine and the answer no doubt will manifest through the mouth of a one-eyed genie who will bellow: ‘The Aghabs are from da mooooooooon and you DaBakr are from jeghuuuuuuuusalem!’

        Good grief – you’re nutty, bombastic and boring. Classic case of a brute-handed thug with victim-envy.

        Zionism is losing the narrative and the axis of resistance is NOT getting weaker. Just thought I’d remind you of this fun little fact.

        And speaking of “mister doesnt-know-his ass-from-his-face”, well, I’m a ‘she’ who does actually know quite a bit about the human anatomy: I especially know where to put my foot and fist.

      • Ecru
        May 16, 2014, 4:11 pm

        @ DeBakr

        “…tell me where the “Arabs” came from…”

        It’s been well established for over a decade by amongst others Israeli researchers, that Palestinian Arabs (Muslim and Christian), clustering genetically as they do WITHIN local Jewish populations, are the acculturated descendants of native Jews, Christians and Pagans.

        So in answer to your question:-

        The Palestinians come from Palestine.

      • RoHa
        May 16, 2014, 7:31 pm

        @DB

        The Palestinian Arabs came from Palestine. They are descendants of the original inhabitants, and became Arabs a long time ago.

      • Dutch
        May 16, 2014, 7:59 pm

        @ Da Bakr, Taxi

        Actually, Jerusalem is Palestinian – a mirror of the Palestinian people, except that the people go back thousands of years further. Jews and Arabs and many others left their marks, but the city is Palestinian.

      • Taxi
        May 16, 2014, 10:46 pm

        Dutch,

        Jews are a followers of a religion, while Arabs are a semetic people. Some jews are semetic, some are not. That’s why I don’t use the ‘jews v Arabs’ phrase (and hey what about Arab jews – where do they fit in?!) If we do like the israelis do and use “jews” like it’s a nationality, then we’re feeding the zio lies that feed sectarianism and all them crimes against the Palestinians.

        I tend to say israeli v Palestinian. And YES the holy land is Palestinian. And YES Palestinians are Arabs: Arab moslems, Arab christians and Arab jews.

      • talknic
        May 17, 2014, 2:02 am

        @ DaBakr does typical Israeli propagandist deceit 101 “oh yes please do “remind” me how its all “Arab” land”

        Of course the poster didn’t say it was “all” Arab land…

        BTW the UNSC res 476 for people who’d really like to be well informed says “1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;” link to wp.me Oddly enough, it agrees with the Iranian stance on the regime illegally in Jerusalem

        But I’m guessing DaBakr isn’t allowed to read UNSC resolutions, or having read them prefers a typically Zionist re-worded version

        DaBakr in fetid fettle then goes on to abuse
        “and then tell me where the “Arabs” came from little mister doesnt-know-his ass-from-his-face-about-colonizing”

      • Walid
        May 16, 2014, 11:07 pm

        “Jews had to fight for every inch of the land that is now israel.”

        DaBakr, it’s more a case of Zionists having had to steal every inch of the land. There’s also that other tearjerker you guys haven’t used for a while, “a little sliver of land”.

      • RoHa
        May 17, 2014, 1:04 am

        “Jews had to fight for every inch of the land that is now israel.”

        So what?

        The Soviets fought for every inch of what is now Poland.
        The Japanese fought for every inch of Malaya.

        (I was once going to fight for a lady’s honour, but she gave me a discount, so I didn’t have to.)

      • talknic
        May 17, 2014, 2:57 am

        @ DaBakr “When the 66yr+ war is over “
        Uh? 116 yrs … Jewish COLONIAL Trust, a ZIONIST bank. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org “The first Zionist bank, it was founded at the Second Zionist Congress and incorporated in London in 1899. The JCT was intended to be the financial instrument of the Zionist Organization , and was to obtain capital and credit to help attain a charter for Palestine

        “and a treaty is signed that guarantees that the conflict is over”
        Uh huh. Like the Egypt Israel peace treaty where Israel was first required to withdraw from ALL of Egypt’s territories BEFORE peace was assumed? link to wp.me Israel could have unilaterally withdrawn in 1948!!

        “and that further generations of my people wont have to produce soldiers willing to lay down their lives to exist on a small strip of land “

        Uh? For 66 years Jewish/Israeli forces have been in territories the Israeli Government claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        “that no matter what foolish tripe you try and use to pretend that Jerusalem was never the spiritual and ancient capital of the Jewish people “

        That’s not what was written. It’s entirely your own foolish tripe. False accusations are against the basic tenets of Judaism.

        Say…. Why is it that the DaBakr’s of this world so readily betray the most basic tenets of Judaism? On behalf of the Jewish state what’s more. It’s really quite bizarre

        “Do you have any idea of how many suffering Syrian refugees would coming flying across the border if there was no stigma attached to an Arab excepting help from a Jew-let alone and Israeli?”

        Oh my, your concern is so touching. Odd though that they HAVE accepted Jewish help. Even weirder they’ve been sent back, no refuge has been offered by Israel, even though the Golan is actually Syrian territory.

        ” Jews had to fight for every inch of the land that is now israel”

        What nonsense. They fought to take MORE than the territory that had been allotted completely gratis for the Jewish state and they have been dying ever since to retain territory illegally acquired by war and never legally annexed to Israel. The wars have been “outside the State of Israel” predominantly in “Palestine”!

      • jon s
        May 16, 2014, 4:50 pm

        Annie, here are excerpts from two poems by a 12th century poet, R. Yehuda Halevi (1085-1140):

        Zion (translated by Maurice Samuel)

        Art thou not hungry for thy children, Zion,–
        Thy sons far-scattered through an alien world?
        From earth’s four corners, over land and sea,
        The heavy-hearted remnant of thy flock
        Now send thee greeting: “Know that as the dew
        Falls daily on the ancient slopes of Hermon,
        So daily on the faces of thy children
        Tears of vain-longing fall.” And as for me,
        When I remember thee, the Desolate,
        My voice is like the Jackal’s in the night,
        A wailing and a lamentation old;
        But when a dream of resurrection wakes–
        A momentary glory–then my voice
        Breaks like the harp’s into a jubilant ringing.

        My Heart Is In The East (translated by H.Pereira Mendes)

        My heart is in the East, tho’ in the West I live,
        The sweet of human life no happiness can give,
        Religion’s duties fail to lift my soul on high;
        ‘Neath Edom Zion writhes, in Arab chains I lie!
        No joy in sunny Spain mine eyes can ever see
        For Zion, desolate, alone hath charms for me!

        Are you sure about “invented jargon that started in the 2nd half of the last century”? (the last century btw was the 20th, you probably meant the 19th)

    • Hostage
      May 15, 2014, 5:13 pm

      the ‘zionist experiment’ [lol*] had nothing to do with Jewish history in the land. oh please. i thought this was going to be a serious piece.

      I guess the laughs are on you. The author said that:

      Churchill strongly implies the Zionist project with its attendant occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, i.e. the Nakba, had nothing to do with Jewish history as discovered by the so-called ‘Palestine Exploration Fund’ and everything to do with racist colonialism backed by the power of the foreign policy of an Empire that has escaped accountability for its role in this ongoing tragedy.

      The fact is that opponents of Zionism in the British War Cabinet had written papers before the Balfour declaration was ever adopted which claimed that the Jews were a religious group, not a nation that shared a common ancestry or homeland. They also advised that Palestine was of no military value. Churchill authored a memorandum in 1921 which explained in no uncertain terms that the “Zionist experiment” involved very limited and gradual Jewish immigration; withholding of all elective institutions from Arabs at the specific request of the Zionist movement; the employment of a very large, expensive armed force to protect the Jewish colonies; and cashiering or pensioning-off any administration employees who disagreed with those policies.

      The memos also defined the meaning of the Balfour declaration without any reference to a Jewish ancestral or historical connection, by employing expressions about Jewish attitudes couched in the present continuous or present progressive tense. For example:

      In the interests of the Zionist policy, all elective institutions have so far been refused to the Arabs, and they naturally contrast their treatment with that of their fellows in Mesopotamia. The present strength of the Imperial garrison is about 8,000 men; and so far from this garrison being reduced, I am more likely to be confronted with demands for increasing it.The War Office estimates for this garrison during the coming financial year 1922-23 are ,£3,319,000, including expenditure on works and land. It cannot be doubted that this expense is almost wholly due to our Zionist policy.

      Meanwhile, Dr. Weizmann and the Zionists are extremely dis­contented at the progress made, at the lukewarm attitude of the British officials, at the chilling disapprobation of the military, and at the alleged weakening of Sir Herbert Samuel.
      It seems to me that the whole situation should be reviewed by the Cabinet.

      THE presence in this country of a Moslem Christian delegation from Palestine; the necessity for drafting an instrument providing for the constitution of that country in the near future; and the recent representations made to the Prime Minister by Dr. Weizmann, the leader of the Zionist organisation, make it desirable that the position in Palestine should be briefly reviewed.

      Sir Herbert Samuel announced that immigration would be resumed under more stringent conditions;

      At the same time Sir Herbert Samuel defined the meaning of the Balfour Declaration in the following words:—
      ” They mean that the Jews, a people who are scattered throughout the
      world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine, should be enabled to found here their home, and that some among them, within the limits which are fixed by the numbers and interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants.”

      Great exception has been taken in Zionist circles to this last utterance, which is regarded as a negation of the declared policy of His Majesty’s Government. In non-Jewish quarters in Palestine it is regarded as a victory, and the delegation, which is now in London, announced their intention before leaving Palestine of endeavouring to secure the total abandonment by His Majesty’s Government of the Zionist policy.

      The problem which has to be worked out now is one of tactics, not strategy, the general strategic idea being the gradual immigration of Jews into Palestine to the extent to which they can be absorbed into the economic life of the country without detriment to the rights and privileges of the non-Jewish majority.

      A recent statement made by Dr. Weizmann that the language employed by Sir H. Samuel in his statement of policy (and subsequently quoted by the Secretary of State in Parliament) is wholly irreconcilable with the terms of the Balfour Declaration and with the interpretation which has by common consent been placed upon them from first to last, is open to question. He appears also to be unduly apprehensive at the proposal that representative institutions in some form should be established forthwith.

      The first essential is to establish public security on such a basis that the High Commissioner is in a position to enforce his authority. The present position is anomalous. The troops in Palestine form part of the Egyptian command, and Sir H. Samuel has not the benefit of personal contact with their superior commander. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the War Office that Palestine is of no military value from an Imperial point of view.

      Secondly, in order to ensure that every effort is made to bring the Zionist experiment to a successful issue, any officials, whether civil or military, who are publicly and confessedly opposed to the declared policy of His Majesty’s Govern­ment should be replaced. Recommendations are expected from the High Commissioner in the course of the next few weeks as to the civil officials who shall be placed permanently upon a pensionable establishment in Palestine. This will afford an opportunity of releasing any members of the Administration who do not feel that they can conscientiously carry out what some of them regard as an unfair and unpopular measure.

      Reference: CAB 24/127/13
      Record Type: Memorandum
      Former Reference: CP 3213
      Title: Palestine.
      Author: Winston S Churchill
      Date: 11 August 1921
      link to discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

      • john h
        May 16, 2014, 10:26 pm

        “and everything to do with racist colonialism”.

        As confirmed and spelled out by Jabotinsky in 1923 in his The Iron Wall:

        “My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

        The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage. Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.

        To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion… Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel.”

        It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl’s or Sir Herbert Samuel’s. Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

        Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

  4. amigo
    May 15, 2014, 1:57 pm

    “the ‘zionist experiment’ [lol*] had nothing to do with Jewish history in the land. oh please. i thought this was going to be a serious piece.” du bakr

    Don,t worry son.The Zionist Project failed and is past it,s use by date..Funny part is , the Jewish Homeland is also finished.Destroyed by non other than ,”The Zionist Project”.

    Oh well, easy come , easy go.

    • DaBakr
      May 15, 2014, 3:08 pm

      So you (and so many others) have been saying for going on 66 years now. ho-hum.

    • jon s
      May 15, 2014, 4:23 pm

      Amigo: “The Zionist Project failed”.

      The Zionist movement succeeded, a little over 50 years after its founding, to achieve its primary goal, the establishment of a Jewish State , home to a significant proportion of the Jewish people and recognized by the most of the international community.
      Some failure.

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 15, 2014, 5:52 pm

        “Some failure.”

        The Crusader kingdoms lasted much longer and were a failure.

      • talknic
        May 16, 2014, 4:39 am

        jon s demonstrates how putrid propagandists operate

        Amigo: “The Zionist Project failed”.

        “The Zionist movement succeeded”

        The ‘project’ is a failure, unless of course the Zionist ‘movement’ wanted to establish a criminal state

      • Ellen
        May 16, 2014, 7:24 am

        Jon s, the Zionist enterprise has been and remains absolutely dependent upon hand outs and subsidies from wherever it can get them. Extortion, intimidation and fear mongering belong to the methods to secure the largess.

        This is not the mark of a sustainable or successful movement.

        Talking about the drive for continued handouts,

        link to haaretz.com

        Germany just refused Israel the continuation of a special mega discount on the purchase of gunboats for the IDF.

        This could the start of treating Israel like a normal country. Let’s see how long the Zionist enterprise survives the real world and following international laws just as any non-rouge nation.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 16, 2014, 9:26 am

        ellen, from your link:

        the Germans sent a “secret letter” announcing the decision to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office on Independence Day (May 6). But Haaretz has learned that the news came not in a letter

        what’s independence also means financial independence. israel doesn’t know the meaning of that.

        Cohen accused the Germans of violating an explicit promise that Merkel made Netanyahu

        quit with the handouts.

  5. Les
    May 15, 2014, 2:21 pm

    Not just the UK but all the UN members who voted to partition Palestine, which is why they too should be at the table during negotions between Israel and the Palestinians since they are the ones who created the problem.

    • Kay24
      May 15, 2014, 3:02 pm

      I agree those entities, and nations, especially UK, who were instrumental in making one of the biggest blunders in history, should at least try to make amends for their mistakes. There is no point apologizing to the Palestinians, it will not help the victims in any way. They should at least support them against the European transplants. Time after time, I see the UK and the US protecting, and supporting, the transgressors, who have now got out of control, and keeps stealing all the resources belonging to the indigenous people. Those who created this problem must make things right, because the victims have lost too much, including their rights, freedom, and most of all, too many lives, because of this terrible decision.

      • jon s
        May 15, 2014, 4:13 pm

        You’re ignoring the “ups and downs” in British-Zionist relations. In the latter years of the British Mandate the Zionist movement and the Jewish Yishuv waged a fierce struggle against British policies as set forth in the 1939 White Paper.

      • tree
        May 15, 2014, 6:19 pm

        “fierce struggle” in this case being a euphemism for terrorist acts.

      • lysias
        May 15, 2014, 6:54 pm

        waged a fierce struggle against British policies as set forth in the 1939 White Paper.

        Until Britain was forced to abandon those policies by U.S. pressure.

      • NumanAbdalWahid
        May 16, 2014, 1:33 pm

        There were no “ups and downs” between the British and Zionists, they simply had tactical differences in how to establish the Zionist State. The two that come to mind immediately are firstly, Zionist, especially the Jabotinsky group, wanted mass immigration to Palestine from the early 1920’s onwards whereas the British wanted a gradualist approach to immigration. Secondly, the Zionist also wanted to keep Trans-Jordan (now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) as part of Palestine as it was in the original Sykes-Picot agreement. There were others, no doubt, but these were the main ones in the early years of the mandate.

  6. pjdude
    May 15, 2014, 4:09 pm

    Great article. The British are extremely culpable in the disspossession of the Palestinians and the theft of their rights.
    The uk had and obligation as a mandatory power to protect the Palestinians rights and ensure an orderly transion to indepedence they instead helped it be conquered. The uk has an obligation to ensure a Palestinian state comes into being and that it can regain it’s stolen land

  7. Kate
    May 15, 2014, 4:27 pm

    Al Jazeera video published on May 15, 2014

    An extraordinary insight into Palestinian life in the city before 1948, revealing the loss of a culture and lifestyle.
    Rarely seen archival footage accompanies memories and accounts of forgotten Palestinian cities and the catastrophic effect the creation of Israel in 1948 had on them.

    Haifa, Nazareth, and Jaffa have all been overshadowed by Tel Aviv, but in their day each of the Palestinian cities had magnificent commercial and cultural ability.

    Made for Al Jazeera Arabic in 2011, “Lost cities of Palestine” provides a rare opportunity to see Palestine as it was in the 30s and 40s and learn about the everyday life and culture of urban Palestine before 1948.

    • Kay24
      May 15, 2014, 4:51 pm

      I have seen pictures of life before the transgressors were rudely planted in the Palestinians territories, and it is sad to see these poor people deliberately kept in limbo, and unable to progress, make a livelihood, rights taken away, and having lost so much to a ruthless, and greedy menace, that devourers all it can, from land, water, trees, and even soil. Orchards and farms that flourished are no more, blockades have stopped their businesses, and people have lost their property and homes. As Americans we should be ashamed, that we have FULLY supported and aided, this most despicable occupier in our time, for decades. No Palestinian can look at this video, and NOT feel anger and hatred, for those who have decimated their territories. Thank you for posting this video.

    • Walid
      May 16, 2014, 9:29 am

      Thanks, Kate, great documentary. Also a sad one.

  8. MHughes976
    May 15, 2014, 6:31 pm

    I am as distressed over the British involvement in Palestine, and its terrible outcome, as my Prime Minister is pleased with it. But I don’t think that there is a sharp distinction between the supposed interests of the British Empire and the popular interpretations of ancient history. Leading British figures, crucially including Balfour and Lloyd George, had a deep commitment to Bible-based Zionism, thinking that imperial interests and duty to God Almighty coincided (people often think that sort of thing; it helps you sleep at night). The Palestine Exploration Fund had played its part on both levels. But the roots of the problem are much deeper. Zionism was in some ways our invention, with the first book-length exposition of it of which I’ve heard being Sir Henry Finch’s ‘Great Restauration’ of 1621. In some heady way early Zionism was, I think, connected with our colonisation of the Americas.

  9. libra
    May 15, 2014, 7:22 pm

    UK-based al-Wahid pops up regularly on MW with his Britain bashing. But what’s the point of MW publishing his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you stuff, other than to demonstrate that this ugly trait is not an Israeli monopoly?

    Meanwhile, whilst he gets us all arguing about whose fault Israel was in the first place, Israel itself can continue laughing all the way to rest of the West Bank.

    • Hostage
      May 15, 2014, 11:48 pm

      UK-based al-Wahid pops up regularly on MW with his Britain bashing. But what’s the point of MW publishing his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you stuff, other than to demonstrate that this ugly trait is not an Israeli monopoly?

      Did you miss the part where the current PM of Great Britain doubled down and bragged about his country’s role in denying Palestinians self-government based upon the will of the people? BTW, WTF has Great Britain fed the Palestinians lately? It demanded they negotiate without preconditions against settlement construction and refused to recognize their Bantustan state in the UN, unless it gives assurances that it won’t hold Israeli officials accountable in the ICC. link to bbc.com

      If that’s the hand that’s feeding you, then you may as well eat shit and die. Cameron is one of the self-righteous pricks who helped create and prolong this misery because his government refuses to recognize the rights of Palestinians and demands that they negotiate for permission to have a life from Netanyahu, Lieberman, Bennet, and Lapid. You know, the other pricks who claim that democracy is simply incompatible with Judaism or that Palestinians are unwelcome guests in Eretz Israel who need to be granted a legal divorce (from their equal rights). Cameron’s speech strengthens the argument of those who claim that Palestinians have to take the law into their own hands.

      • Ecru
        May 16, 2014, 3:55 am

        @ Hostage

        “…the current PM of Great Britain doubled down and bragged about his country’s role in denying Palestinians self-government based upon the will of the people?”

        NOT based upon the “will of the people” at all. Most Brits I’ve met are well aware that its the Judenreich that’s the problem, NOT the Palestinians. Most Brits still want free at point of delivery Health Care, the NHS that he’s trying to privatise by stealth. Most Brits want their children to be properly educated, not mucked about by inbred politicians with an axe to grind about WWI.

        Like all Conservative leaders (and I would include Blair in that number) he works not for the people but for the ruling/financial elite and whoever can vomit money into the Conservative Party coffers.

      • Hostage
        May 16, 2014, 9:45 am

        “…the current PM of Great Britain doubled down and bragged about his country’s role in denying Palestinians self-government based upon the will of the people?”

        NOT based upon the “will of the people” at all. Most Brits I’ve met . . .

        I wasn’t talking about the will of the British people, i.e.:

        “France and Great Britain agree to further and assist in the establishment of indigenous Governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia which have already been liberated by the Allies, as well as in those territories which they are engaged in securing and recognizing these as soon as they are actually established.

        Far from wishing to impose on the populations of those regions any particular institutions they are only concerned to ensure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the populations themselves”

        — Anglo-French Declaration
        7 November 1918

        Cameron is still interfering in the international relations and internal affairs of the State of Palestine on behalf of the Zionists that he addressed in the Knesset.

  10. Kay24
    May 15, 2014, 7:30 pm

    This is great. Haaretz reports that Germany has decided not to give Israel a massive subsidy for the purchase of German missile boats, because of the breakdown of peace talks. Good for Germany.
    Headlines
    Germany nixes gunboat subsidy to Israel, citing breakdown of peace talks
    Decision will cost Israel hundreds of millions of dollars.

    “The German government has decided not to give Israel a massive subsidy for the purchase of German missile boats, due to the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, both Israeli and German officials said on Thursday.”

    Time the rest of the world showed Israel some tough love.

    • Ecru
      May 16, 2014, 3:59 am

      Good for Germany. Better if they refused to sell them at all mind.

    • HarryLaw
      May 16, 2014, 8:25 am

      Kay24. Just to add to that story on the missile boats, this piece in Haaretz basically calling the Germans liars.. “The conversation between Heusgen and Cohen was an extremely difficult one that quickly deteriorated into mutual recriminations. According to a senior Israeli official, Cohen accused the Germans of violating an explicit promise that Merkel made Netanyahu during a joint meeting of the German and Israeli cabinets in Jerusalem in February. Heusgen responded that Merkel never made any such promise.”

      • Ellen
        May 16, 2014, 9:26 am

        That’s rich: Cohen accused the Germans of violating an explicit promise …

        What Cohen thinks or claims Angie said in a private meeting does not translate into a promise. Israel knows that Angie has no authority to make promises to Nuttyahoo that have to go through the German Bundestag. And they make themselves sound like fools insisting she has the single authority to make promises of subsidies.

        Angie is sharp and tough as nails in her most unassuming way. Yes, she is a politician and does politician stuff, but she runs circles around everyone especially buffoons like Netanyahoooo.

  11. Ellen
    May 16, 2014, 10:31 am

    Well, this story of the gunboat/sub deals is deep. Seems there were ongoing agreements, between Germany and Israel, but as a March report in Haaretz states,

    German funding of the sixth submarine would be dependent on Israel’s actions with regard to the settlements and peace talks with the Palestinians…”The Germans told us: ‘We need to get [the deal] through Parliament; give us tools to deal with this,” recalls Ben Zeev.

    link to haaretz.com

    This is a fascinating read, written at a time when Israel felt the deal was done in spite of a lot of resistance to it in the German Bundestag.

  12. Hemlockroid
    May 16, 2014, 11:28 am

    The Balfour Declaration operated enshrouded in secrecy, gave no reasons for the Declaration, outlined
    no conditions – other than those in the Declaration itself – and expected no
    accountability. The Declaration was not debated in either of the Houses of
    Parliament and like most foreign policy issues, was never approved by the
    British legislature.

    Many leading Christian Zionists were Jewish converts to evangelical
    Christianity who did much to shape the development of popular evangelical thinking in these matters. It was this Protestant religious discourse that
    marked the family backgrounds of many of the key members of the British
    political elite responsible for formulating the Balfour Declaration.

    link to assets.cambridge.org

    • talknic
      May 17, 2014, 4:06 am

      Hemlockroid “The Declaration was not debated in either of the Houses of
      Parliament and like most foreign policy issues, was never approved by the
      British legislature”

      Interesting. Evidenced by ?

    • talknic
      May 17, 2014, 4:18 am

      Interesting read here BTW link to ihr.org

  13. Hostage
    May 17, 2014, 4:25 am

    “The Declaration was not debated in either of the Houses of
    Parliament and like most foreign policy issues, was never approved by the
    British legislature”

    The declaration was approved by the War Cabinet. It wasn’t debated by the government in the Parliament, in advance. But it was discussed when it came time to implement it as part of the preamble of the Palestine Mandate. The House of Lords rejected it, while Churchill convinced the House of Commons to accept it.
    link to hansard.millbanksystems.com
    link to hansard.millbanksystems.com

  14. talknic
    May 17, 2014, 7:04 am

    Thx Hostage link to hansard.millbanksystems.com

    And what Lord Islington and Churchill said came to pass:

    ISLINGTON quoting Churchill “The difficulty about the promises of a National Home for Jews in Palestine was that it conflicted with our regular policy of consulting the wishes of the people in mandated territories and giving them a representative institution as soon as the people were fitted for it.” Then he went on to say: “The only cause for unrest in Palestine arose from the Zionist Government and our promises in regard to it…”

    link to pages.citebite.com Lord Islington “The Palestinians have asked for an early recognition of self-government in their country and they have been told that it must be very gradual, although, as your Lordships are aware, in Iraq where you have just the same kind of people, self-government has been established, and although you have self-government established in Egypt, where it will be found that many of the officials are similar to those who in Palestine would be forming part of the Administration in Palestine. Why is this delay? One can draw only one conclusion, and that is that before self-government is given to Palestine time must be allowed for that amount of immigration of the Jewish community to take place which will enable the system of self-government to be based upon a Jewish Constitution. When one sees in Article 22, which I read just now, that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilisation, and when one takes that as the note of the mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path when we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race.”

    Seems Balfour had been zapped by the same brain ziofryer as todays Israel apologists …. not checking before opening his mouth

    Why is it that now, for the first time, towards the end of June 1016 in 1922, we hear these accusations? If they have any basis at all that basis was as strong three years ago, or four years ago, as it is now. My noble friend has kept silence for those years—

    § LORD ISLINGTON

    No; we have had six debates on this subject, and possibly more.

Leave a Reply