Posted on 08/02/2010 11:44:11 PM PDT by propertius
I’m glad Shimon Peres has retracted his claim that the British Establishment is motivated by anti-Semitism. It was a silly and unpresidential thing to say and, more to the point, it was inaccurate. No doubt it can be frustrating to deal with FCO mandarins; but, wrong as our officials are about most things, they are rarely anti-Semitic. It’s true that our diplomats tend to emphasise Britain’s relations with its former Arab protectorates, notably Jordan and the Gulf monarchies. Nothing wrong with that, of course, though you can see why it makes some Israelis uneasy. It’s true, too, that many FCO officials are Euro-federalists. Committed as they are to supra-nationalism, they subliminally resent the country which represents the world’s greatest vindication of the national principle. For 2000 years, Jews were stateless and scattered, but they never abandoned their dream of a homeland: “Next year in Jerusalem!” Then, against all the odds – providentially, we might almost say – they fulfilled it, thereby refuting the EU’s ruling doctrine, namely that the nation-state has no special legitimacy. So, are British civil servants unsupportive of Israel? Yes, sometimes. But the idea that anti-Semitism is unusually prevalent in Britain is wretchedly ahistorical. I suggest President Peres reads Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews. Johnson argues convincingly that, prior to the opening up of North America, England was the securest and freest place to live if you were Jewish.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
One more time, there was no issue whatsoever of “where were you going to put all those people”.
Space was never a problem.
You have no evidence that the British ignored any warning of the King David attack because of their "usual contempt for Jews" - that's just you showing your usual contempt for the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.[1] The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1]
...
The preamble of the mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]
Are you just ignoring my caveats because it doesn’t suit your arguments? I said “mostly because of Arab pressure”. I’m actually agreeing with you.
I still don’t follow how that links to your argument about “promises immediately broken.” As far as I can see, the preamble makes the position of the British utterly untenable, given the demands of the Muftis on one hand and the Zionists on the other.
The San Remo[1] Conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan’s Ambassador K. Matsui.
It was agreed –
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
.............................
The International community gave Britain the Mandate under a pledge to fulfill the Balfour Declaration. When they failed to do so, when in fact they did everything in their power to stifle Jewish aspirations, the British presence in the Land of Israel became illegal in and of itself.
That illegal behavior by Britain is what the Jewish underground fought against.
The promises immediately broken was Britain cutting off 2/3’s of the mandate territory and giving it to the Arabs- no Jews allowed.
You can not argue that that British were in an untenable position, when it is that exact position that the British voluntarily took upon themselves.
The English/Brits (whatever) do have a very strong attachment to the Hebrew Bible, and that's good. Unfortunately, they have always tended to think that they're the Israelites.
The Jews that were hung were not involved in the King David.
Long prior to the King David, the British made it a capitol offense for Jews to simply belong to an organization that the British considered terrorist.
The British considered terrorists any Jews that offensively defended Jews from Arab attacks.
There is no dispute that the British were warned with sufficient time - odd behavior for terrorists, don’t you think.
There is no question but that the British ignored the warnings.
1) An increasing "Asian" (read Pakistani, et al.) population that hates Jews is strongly influencing internal politics (been to Leicester recently?).
2) A historical attitude that Jews (and Israel) are "troublesome" and need to "calm down." (which is easy to say when you hold them to different standards than you do yourself vis a vis the IRA).
3) A cultural attitude among the elite (in both Europe and the US) whereby a little anti-Semitism is considered "sophisticated." Sit around with a party of American and European (including British) multi-millionaires and you'd be surprised as to what they think is "normal" conversation.
Sorry, I don't even see how Peres' statement is even controversial (except amongst the British elite, who want to be anti-Semitic without appearing guache)...
The real problem in Palestine was that the British had made contradictory promises to the Jews and the Arabs. As now, there were pro-Jewish and pro-Arab wings in the British establishment, which is why Perez's statement that the British state is fundamentally anti-semitic is such utter nonsense. A fundementally anti-semitic Britain wouldn't have allowed any migration into Palestine at all. A fundamentally anti-semitic Britain wouldn't have allied with Israel against Egypt in 1956, or sold Centurion tanks to Israel (in spite of severe opposition from the Arab States), which was a major factor in Israel's very survival in '67 and '73.
Nations do things for many reasons, but principally they are motivated by their own internal concerns. Just because the British government does a deal with some Arab country, or condemns the bombing of Gaza, or decides to limit the number of Israeli students allowed into Britain, doesn't neccesarily mean they are anti-semitic. They might equally well be motivated by good business, humanitarian concern and a desire to be "seen" by the British electorate to be doing something about immigration. If you go down that route, you can hardly complain if an Arab sees the invasion of Iraq, the continued presence of western troops in Afghanistan, and the campaign to stop a mosque being built at "ground zero" as evidence of anti-moslem opinion.
Your contention that the Jewish underground were fighting against "illegal behavior by Britain" is a flimsy alibi, probably thought up as an explanation long after the event. They were fighting for Zionism, pure and simple, against anyone or anything that even seemed to be in the way. Their campaign was all about power, not legitimacy. These things always are.
Just because the British administered the whole mandate doesnt mean that all the mandate was going to an Israeli homeland.
True, there is no question the British did. The question is that of “contempt for jews”, which you cant say. For example, how many false warnings of bombings had they received?
I didn't say they were.
Long prior to the King David, the British made it a capitol offense for Jews to simply belong to an organization that the British considered terrorist.
Lots of countries do that. So what?
The British considered terrorists any Jews that offensively defended Jews from Arab attacks.
And also those who knifed our sailors in the med, shot at our troops, set off bombs in towns, massacred whole villages with machetes and so on. Are atrocities by Jews somehow less atrocious?
“Not sure it’s an arguement I’d engage in. The inventors of the blood libel which persists to this very day, Judaism being illegal from the late 13th to mid 19th century. It could be argued that their treatment of Jews was better than most of western Europe at the time, but it’s kind of like argueing about who was the most enlightened slaveholder. More modern times, the Brits accepted the burden of resettling the Jewish Homeland with Jews. A charge they consciously failed, dividing the Jewish homeland and not only refusing to accomodate large scale Jewish immigration but eventually barring it. Resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of Jews who were trapped on the continent. And the author wins the arguement, there were other countries far more complicit in the slaughter of Jews. Not a pleasant arguement, we persecuted them less through most of the history of Jews in western Europe, even if true. Unmentioned on the thread, the King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British Mandate Authority, as well as of the British Military in what is now Israel and Jordan. A perfectly legitimate target.”
An excellent post, as always.
Britain’s saving grace vis a vis the Jews was Churchill, and it was a further tragedy that he was kicked out right after the war.
Churchill had to know that most members of his own party in the 30s had sympathies to Hitler because they were anti-semitic. I believe much of his opposition to Hitler was driven by his pro-Zionist beliefs. Perish the thought what would have been had Churchill stayed “in the wilderness” of British politics.
You quote it but don't seem to understand.
Even when Israel declared its independence, the civil and religious rights of the Arabs was enshrined. Arabs in Israel have such rights.
The British pledge was to help create a Jews homeland. If they made promises to the Arabs, that is proof of perfidious behavior.
Remember that even if that is an excuse, that they made contridictory promises, they acted in only one way, supporting the Arabs, ignoring their atrocities and stifling the Jews.
Most importantly remember that at the time, this was much more then a debate. With the coming Holocaust in Europe, the British closing off the land of Israel doomed Jews to certain death.
The King David Bombing of British HQ came after the tragedy of the the Holocaust was known and when the British were repulsively imprisoning men, women and child survivors.
The Land of Israel was not Britain's country.
So what? So the British murdered Jews at will and the Jews decided to fight back.
Maybe the Jews learned from the American patriots.
Read the wordings of the documents I cited.
You are making things up. The British had spelled out obligations.
The British made war on the Jews. Period.
So much so that in 1948 the British armed, trained and ACTUALLY LED, Arab armies attempting to destroy Israel.
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.