UK Has A History of Foreign Policy 'Vandalism' Against Israel

Nick Clegg, the UK's second string dhimmi Prime Minister, belched out the UK's ignorance and foreign policy dhimmitude with the following vitriolic charge of 'vandalism' against Israel:

["Once you've placed physical facts on the ground that makes it impossible to deliver something that everyone has for years agreed is the ultimate destination... it is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years," Clegg said, referring to settlement construction.

Clegg was speaking alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was also holding talks in London with Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary William Hague – both of whom have previously expressed concern about settlements.

"The continued existence of illegal settlements risks making facts on the ground such that a two-state solution becomes unviable," Clegg said]

England, along with most [liberal dhimmi] Europeans want to impose the establishment of an Islamist state in the heart of Israel's own land of Judea and Samaria.

All the members of the so-called Quartet, -the U.S., UN, EU, and Russia, are in willful ignorance of previously established international law:

["The “Road Map” vision, as well as continuous pressure from the “Quartet” (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of Eretz-Israel are contrary to international law that firmly call to “encourage … close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” It also requires the Mandatory for “seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power.”]

["The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,⁴ and became operational on September 29, 1923.⁵

The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine. The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form."]

On the contrary it is the UK that has had a history of perpetrating political and foreign policy 'vandalism' against Jews and Israel:

It took some time for you to actually articulate an argument. Unelaborated, indefensible statements (i.e., if unelaborated) require a sarcastic response. But for an articulated argument I have a serious response.

The Irgun was not in rebellion in 1939. Furthermore, Winston Churchill was a great and a good man, and I am confident never would have signed the White Paper with that intention. I was reciting as briefly as possible the long litany of facts that lead to and justified the Jewish rebellion. I conjecture that the White Paper resulted from Arab violent rejection of Jews. Therefore, I mention the fact that anti-Jewish violence in Israel was the result of the Cairo-Khartoum cabal’s machinations, especially with Mufti Haj Amin ElHusseini. So the White Paper was the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, an appalling act by servants of His Majesty’s Government to sabotage the express will of that government.

When did the Irgun rise up in rebellion under Menachem Begin? In 1944, when Nazi genocidal programs were already known. The White Paper remained nevertheless in effect. 400,000 Hungarian Jews were sent to their deaths in 1944. Prior to 1944, in response to the White Paper, the Irgun was active in smuggling refugees, not attacking British police stations.

Now let me bring in a few more facts. Lord Balfour did not just up and decide to set up a Jewish homeland out of the goodness of his heart. The Jewish Brigades that fought in WW I for the British were instrumental in taking apart the Ottoman Empire. I haven’t yet learned all the particulars, but one thing they did was destroy all the crossing to the Jordan River as the British advanced across the Sinai from Egypt. Dr. Weitzman also invented some chemicals that helped the Allies win the war.

The Brigades and Dr. Weizman also didn’t act out of the goodness of their hearts. Jalal Pasha, the governor of the province containing Biblical Israel, was busily attempting to uproot and expel as many Jews as he could, believing them to be agents of the Czar (our favorite despot/s) and also evil incarnate because they were Jooos! So it was either fight for the British or walk away from our promised land and all the blood, sweat and tears that had been expended growing our presence there. Also, the British promised to establish a National Jewish Homeland in exchange for Jewish help defeating the Ottomans.

So we have an offer, an acceptance, execution of the terms of the agreement by the Brigades and Dr. Weitzman. You had a start on payment of the consideration on the part of Lord Balfour and His Majesty’s Government, and the League of Nations in their turns. All the common-law elements of a valid contract.

And then you have the partition of Mandatory Palestine into Transjordan and Israel. A breach, but no rebellion resulted. The Jewish Agency accepted the Partition, so life went on. Then the Cairo-Khartoum cabal went rogue. Having failed to excite Arab passions for the Husseini clan’s “right” to rule over the truncated Syria that the Jewish Homeland Israel and the Christian Homeland Lebanon had left France, they decided to use a more surefire method, and had a scion of the Husseini clan incite Jew-hatred in a big way. It worked great. Arabs united around the Grand Mufti. The Cairo-Khartoum-niks were poised to stiff the Jooos! and reneg on the whole Jewish Homeland deal but keep a leash on their Mufti. Only then the Mufti went rogue and rebelled outright against the British. The result was highly prejudicial to His Majesty’s Government, but left even Sir Winston with no alternative in war-time other than to sign the White Paper, contrary to his express wishes and sentiments.

But let’s skip ahead to 1944. Here is the Jewish Homeland promised for good and valid consideration. Here are the Jews of Europe desperate for refuge. Where else to go but the Jewish Homeland. But the British rigorously patrolled the waters and also lobbied neutral countries (who were so inclined anyway) to keep the Jews out, lest they enter their Homeland by the circuitous route provided by the Irgun. In 1944, Begin, released from the Russian Gulag, arrives in Israel, meets Yaakov Meridor, and together they organize a revolt. 1. To let the Jews into the Jewish Homeland denied them by the British before they were all annihilated. 2. To enforce the terms of the Jewish agreement with Britain under which they rightly perceived themselves to have been stiffed. The American Revolution was fought over much smaller grievances than this. If the American Revolution was justified, the Jewish revolt in Israel in 1944 was doubly and triply justified. This was no “light or transient cause,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it.

Let’s make some clear distinction. I did not say that all Jewish rebellions prior to 1944 were justified. When Scotsman says that the Irgun bombed the British Embassy in Rome, that refers to that period, unless Britain maintained an embassy in 1944 when they were at war with Italy. I did not say that the British people are therefore a bunch of rotters with no shred of decency. I’ve been at pains to say that my sentiments are the opposite. But keeping the blockade going in 1944 was a breach of the social contract sufficiently egregious to justify the Irgun’s all-out rebellion at that time. British excesses in both enforcing the White Paper blockade and attempting to put down the rebellion justified it even moreso.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.