[noir]

Just saw the new British Ch4 four part series "The Promise". In the end the British soldier who liberated Bergen Belsen and saw all the Jewish problem in first hand adopts the British imperial strategy to help the "defenceless" Arabs against the Jews. In reality it was the other way around the Jews were alone while the Arabs had all the Arab armies and the British forces on their side. The reason the Jews nevertheless won was because the Attlee-Bevin gov' calculations went wrong. In short the film is rewriting of history but it corresponds well with current British "bien pensant" views. The period restoration was well done.

[youtube]lzPOBrwh3TU[/youtube]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-promise


The historian David Cesarani criticised the series in The Guardian for not bringing out underlying selfish geopolitical motives behind British policy, saying that Kosminsky had "turned the British, who were the chief architects of the Palestine tragedy, into its prime victims...Ultimately, Kosminsky turns a three-sided conflict into a one-sided rant".

The chief policy maker of the British strategy in the Middle east was Sir Harold Beeley. The policy makers were certain that with the mass resources of the Arabs both in men and weapon provided by the British (with maintaining an arm embargo on the fledging state of Israel) the Jews simply had no chance.

Harold Beeley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1946 Beeley officially joined Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, which at his age was later than most.[1] His first posting was as assistant in the geographical department responsible for Palestine, which led him to advise Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin.[1] Together with Bevin, he negotiated "the Portsmouth Treaty" with Iraq (signed on January 15, 1948 ), which was accompanied by British undertaking to withdraw from Palestine in such a fashion as to provide for swift Arab occupation of all its territory. According to then-Iraqi foreign minister Muhammad Fadhel al-Jamali,

" It was agreed that Iraq would buy for the Iraqi police force 50,000 tommy-guns. We intended to hand them over to the Palestine army volunteers for self-defence. Great British was ready to provide the Iraqi army with arms and ammunition as set forth in a list prepared by the Iraqi General Staff. The British undertook to withdraw from Palestine gradually, so that Arab forces could enter every area evacuated by the British in order that the whole of Palestine should be in Arab bands after the British withdrawal. The meeting ended and we were all optimistic about the future of Palestine."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Beeley

I spoke at length with Sir Harold — all my interviews were long (at the request of my editor); only a fraction of the total was used in the actual programmes. I questioned him about Bevin's methods of work. According to his former advisor, Bevin was a voracious reader of reports and written material. Sir Harold Beely was not far behind Bevin in our league of evildoers. Foreign Office eminences grises like Sir Harold hardly ever appear in the lime-light, but his name cropped up in the Jewish press in Palestine as soon as word spread that it was his influence that prompted Bevin to reject all compromises with the Jews and to pursue the White Paper policies to the bitter end at the cost of hundreds of lives — Jewish, Arab and British. He read Sir Harold's resumes and recommendations — the line was decisively anti-Zionist and pro-Arab — and followed them to the letter, tossing aside pro-Zionist Labour party conference resolutions, he himself had voted for! I found Sir Harold, as a distinguished historian, perhaps the most lucid and morally honest interviewee. Without dropping his pro-Arab bias, he admitted that Bevin's policy was proven wrong because events subsequently moved in a different direction from that anticipated. This most unacademic pragmatism makes Sir Harold a better politician, I reckon, than many professional statesmen, some of whom are in power today, who claim a right to put the clock of history back by virtue of some abstraction or other...

To Attlee, all Jews were 'tailors' and therefore no fighters according to Crossman. Their defeat by the Arabs was a forgone conclusion. This view was shared, of course, by Montgomery who advised Attlee and Bevin, and also, let it be said in all fairness, by many in the Yishuv. . . While Bevin, his underlings and his boss in London were vainly looking for ways to check 'Jewish Zionist ...

(See: "Palestine Mission" 1947 by Richard Crossman)

[pugsville]

The British effect on the Zionist-Palestinians conflict cannot be viewed as anything other than fundamentally pro-Zionist.

Without the British arms Jewish immigration would have been impossible, without Jewish Immigration the civil war would not have been possible. No population is going to embrace large numbers foreigners coming to their region in order to set up their own state and rule other them or kick them out. Palestine was not empty it had a local native population that could and would have prevented Jewish immigration if it wasnt for the presence of armed forces of the British Imperial power.

British Co-operation with the Zionist immigration was absolutely necessary and precondition for it. It would not have been possible at all. Teh British sympathized with the Arabs at times and took various action against the Zionist but while any significant immigration was allowed ultimately they were just controlling how fast the Palestinians were losing.

The Conflict between Zionist immigrants arriving in Palestine and the local population was just fundamental. Either the area would be ruled by the recent arrivals or the native population. The only way any Zionist state could be established was force. The Idea that a native population is going to accept that foreigners are going to come in large numbers and run their country is laughable, they were going to compromise on what? Just how many of them would have their lives and lands placed in the hands of these foreigners? Just what were they getting in exchange for this domination? Nothing. Of course they were opposed the Idea that they wouldnt is just denying reality. If the locals would not agree to it then force is the only way the foreigners can have their way over the locals.

As the Zionists really didnt have a large armed force at had and were initially vastly outnumbered without the intervention of an outside Military force there was no way for them to achieve their goal. That was were the British came in. British arms held down the locals until the foreigners were strong enough to launch there bid for control (at which point they could be encouraged to leave by terrorism)

The Fact is British arms was absolutely responsible for the founding of the state of Israel without them there was no way the foreigners could have imposed their will over the local native population.

[noir]

Without the British arms Jewish immigration would have been impossible... Either the area would be ruled by the recent arrivals or the native population. The only way any Zionist state could be established was force.

The reason the British allowed after WW1 the enerence of the Jews was to create a rule and divide situation. The reason British want after WW2 the native to rule was keep its dominance over the Arab world.

The film implys analogy between the than deserters and today do-gooder grandaughter. In reality the liberal camp were solidly behind Israel because British/Arab success means prolonging of British imperialism. Yes, the Palestinian cause associated (up until 1956) with imperialism! No contemporary liberal whined of ethnic cleansing, back than it was seen as logic war result just like the millions of Germans expelled from Poland and Czechoslovakia.

The Idea that a native population is going to accept that foreigners are going to come in large numbers and run their country is laughable, they were going to compromise on what? Just how many of them would have their lives and lands placed in the hands of these foreigners?

You are "running against open doors"

Britain which started the Zionist project as its patron became more and more hesitate to tackle the refusal of the indigenous. Jabotinsky gave up on getting Britain back to Zionism cause, he argued that it could be different if British Imperialism were "younger in 100 years". But I don't think so. The British were ready to defend their own colonial enterprises by force against Indians or Zulu but would they do it for foreign people? Than they all see the just of the native cause. Surely it must be done by the Zionist themselves.



The Iron Wall by Vladimir Jabotinsky from 1923. The father of rightwing ("revisionism") Zionism.

He argues that if the Zionist project was justifiable at all, then it had to accept that the Palestinian Arabs were not going to surrender their land without a fight - why should they? - and that force would be necessary. Time and again he calls the Zionists as Colonialists. But also this: "There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

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.

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.

We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism.

In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true: either Zionism is moral and just ,or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.

We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality.

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.

Among the Arabs, even their intellectuals have never heard of this theory. But these same intellectuals would know that a minority always suffers everywhere: the Christians in Turkey, the Moslems in India, the Irish under the British, the Poles and Czechs under the Germans, now the Germans under the Poles and Czechs, and so forth, without end. So that one must be intoxicated with rhetoric to expect the Arabs to believe that the Jews, of all the people in the world, will alone prove able, or will, at least, honestly intend to realise an idea that has not succeeded with other nations who are with much greater authority.

Let us consider for a moment the point of view of those to whom this seems immoral. We shall trace the root of the evil to this – that we are seeking to colonise a country against the wishes of its population, in other words, by force. Everything else that is undesirable grows out of this root with axiomatic inevitability. What then is to be done?

There are no more uninhabited islands in the world. In every oasis there is a native population settled from times immemorial, who will not tolerate an immigrant majority or an invasion of outsiders. So that if there is any landless people in the world, even its dream of a national home must be an immoral dream. Those who are landless must remain landless to all eternity. The whole earth has been allocated. Basta: Morality has said so:

Yet if homeless Jewry demands Palestine for itself it is "immoral" because it does not suit the native population. Such morality may be accepted among cannibals, but not in a civilised world. The soil does not belong to those who possess land in excess but to those who do not possess any. It is an act of simple justice to alienate part of their land from those nations who are numbered among the great landowners of the world, in order to provide a place of refuge for a homeless, wandering people. And if such a big landowning nation resists which is perfectly natural – it must be made to comply by compulsion. Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice. This is the only Arab policy that we shall find possible. As for an agreement, we shall have time to discuss that later.

And now when the whole of the civilised world has recognised that Jews have a right to return to Palestine, which means that the Jews are, in principle, also "citizens" and "inhabitants" of Palestine, only they were driven out, and their return must be a lengthy process.

All sorts of catchwords are used against Zionism... it is immoral to colonise a country against the will of its native population, the same morality must apply equally to the black man as to the white."

[noir]

Israeli reaction

'British show demonizes Israel' - Israel News, Ynetnews

BRITAIN is in complete denial about the extent that Islamic radicalism could threaten their very existance. The day of rekoning is coming and it will be ugly. Eventually the radicals will feel emboldened and it may turn out to look like Pakistan 2

The press only caters to leftist views and is very intolerent of anything that not fit their agenda. The UK media has become a propaganda tool for extreme left views. Let's see how they do when Sharia law takes over (it already has for domestic matters in certain areas). I don't know what will wake them up but they are walking a very dangerous path.

Ha. The Brits will reap what they sow when their country becomes an Islamic state in the 22nd century. The left wing politically incorrect British journalists and move/tv producers will find themselves enslaved to the same abusive Muslims whom they are so endeared with today.

Waves,now they are finding it hard to rule their pissy little country. The Arabs and Muslims have taken them over.They are too scared of the Muslims in their midst.so to suck up to these Muslims they target Israel instead.

In another 2 generations or so, Britain will be a Moslem state.

Muslim population is exploding (pardon the pun) and Jolly Old England should have a Muslim majority by 2050. Enjoy.

[Xotica]

Palestinian Arabs consider the War of 1948 with Israel to be the "Nakba" (Catastrophe). In reality however, the true Nakba occurred a decade earlier when the British violently crushed the Arab revolt. The Palestinians never recovered from that turning-point event, and the die was cast for Palestinian intransigence and miscalculations during World War II and the British Mandate period. Anti-British sentiment resulted in debilitating decisions such as the vocal/material support of Nazi Germany by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. A huge mistake generated by the Nakba of British colonialism.

[Daktoria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

The Brits made a far earlier promise. Neither the Arabs nor the Palestinians nor the Jews should have had a stake at hand.