Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, Jewish public’s endorsement of their leaders’ pro-terrorist stance and declare armies of Arab states were Palestinians’ ‘only hope’
The British government knew from the moment it planned to withdraw its forces from Palestine more than 60 years ago that partition of the territory and the founding of the state of Israel would lead to war and defeat for the Arabs, secret documents released make clear.
The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.
In the weeks leading up to the partition of Palestine in 1948, when Britain gave up its UN mandate, Jewish terrorist groups were mounting increasing attacks on UK forces and Arab fighters, the Colonial Office papers show.
And they reveal how senior British officials were occupied in deciding how to allocate between them two Rolls-Royces and a Daimler.
The papers, released at the National Archives, show how in regular intelligence reports to London, British officials in Jerusalem described a steady build-up of tension as Britain, the US, the United Nations and Zionists moved towards the partition of Palestine.
As early as October 1946, two years before partition, UK officials warned London that Jewish opinion would oppose partition “unless the Jewish share were so enlarged as to make the scheme wholly unacceptable to Arabs”.
British officials warned the colonial secretary, George Hall: “The Jewish public … endorsed the attitude of its leaders that terrorism is a natural consequence of the general policy of His Majesty’s Government”, including turning away ships carrying “illegal” Jewish immigrants.
Moderate Jewish leaders were frightened of being called quislings, British officials told London, referring to collaborators with Nazi Germany in occupied countries. The next UK intelligence report referred to “effective pressures which Zionists in America are in a position to exert on the American administration”.
After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: “Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision acceptable to Arab interests exists.” But they warned: “There is a real danger lest any further Jewish provocation may result in isolated acts of retaliation spreading inevitably to wider Arab-Jewish clashes”.
A report dated October 1947 refers to Menachem Begin, commander of Irgun, stating in a press interview that “the fight against the British invader would continue until the last one left Palestine”.
Begin was later elected prime minister of Israel and signed a peace treaty with Egypt’s president Anwar Sadat in 1979, for which the two leaders were awarded the Nobel peace prize.
By early 1948 British officials were reporting that “the Arabs have suffered a series of overwhelming defeats.” They added: “Jewish victories … have reduced Arab morale to zero and, following the cowardly example of their inept leaders, they are fleeing from the mixed areas in their thousands. It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states.”
London was warned: “Arab-Jewish violence is now diffused over virtually all of Palestine”. A few days later, British officials spoke of “internicine [sic] strife” and the “steady influx of Arab volunteers” from neighbouring countries.
The papers show that two years earlier, British intelligence officials were reporting “disturbing indications of a revival of political interest and activity among the rank and file of Palestinian Arabs … The decision to admit Cyprus deportees [Jews deported to camps on the island] against the immigration quotas, the impression that concessions have been made by His Majesty’s Government in deference to Jewish pressure and terrorism … have been instrumental in arousing Arab public feeling.”
Syria, then as now but for very different reasons, was a centre of concern for western powers. “Arab nationalism is moving towards another crisis. This is especially noticeable in Syria,” said a report drawn up during the second world war for British intelligence officers and propaganda chiefs.
There was a widespread view then that Syria and Lebanon would be handed back to France once the war was over. “Syria may be the scene of the next act of the Arab Revolution,” added the report, referring to a feeling of humiliation in the Arab world.
The wartime report drawn up for British intelligence officials said Arab nationalism had a “double nature … a rational constructive movement receptive of western influence and help [and] an emotional movement of revolt against the west”.
It concluded: “The conflict between these two tendencies will be decided in the present generation. The first aim of the policy of the western powers must be to prevent the triumph of the second tendency.”
Among the classified papers released today is a report on how to share out cars among the British diplomats and intelligence officers who would remain in Jerusalem after partition. A seven-seater Rolls-Royce was described as “a big fast car”.The problem, the report says, was the UK high commissioner in Palestine, General Sir Alan Gordon Cunningham “intends to bring it home for use in the UK protem [sic]”.
Another Rolls was described as “an excellent car except that for prolonged fast touring in the country it has not quite enough power on hills”. An armoured Daimler, described as “the King’s air raid car” when it was in Britain, was said to be “slow owing to its weight”.
The state of Israel was proclaimed on 14 May 1948. The following day, the last remaining British troops withdrew and the first Arab-Israeli war began.
yamit82 Said:
The mills of G-d grind exceeding fine,but exceedingly fine!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Yamit, you are amazing!!!!!!!!!! Where do find this stuff.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Nothing wrong with suicide bomber it’s a legitimate weapon of war. Japanese used suicide as a weapon, America and the Russians fought suicidal battles and sent soldiers and airmen to what amounted to suicide missions. Individual soldiers sacrificing their lives for others in his unit
Defense of cities and defensive lines were often suicidal for the defenders.
In war you are obligated to make the enemy pay a disproportionate price and if the price is high enough you can claim victory. Never allow the enemy to remain standing armed and within your borders. That’s madness and a recipe for continuous bloodshed all around. Our sages called that “The Mercy Of Fools”.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Apparently not enough. 🙁
P.S There are no innocent Arab civilians None not a one.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Less than a hundred. Hmmmm and how many were in retaliation for attacks against Jews?
Out of context use of a very biased and unreliable source to boot. Stupid Jews should have killed thousands more driving them all out of the country.
As Smokey The Bear says: “THE LIFE YOU SAVE MIGHT BE YOUR OWN”.
The only good Arabs are…..? (fill in the blank)
<a href="#comment-275136" title="Go to comment of this author" CuriousAmerican Said:
I am waiting for the day when America and Europe demand Israel give up her Nukes and our PM tell them we can’t we used them all!! 😉
Curious just for you…:P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoBrob3bjI
Believe it! the Irgun and Stern went after innocent civilians.
Jerry G Said:
Yes the Muslims and most of all each other.
Both deserving of that “SHITTY” LITTLE ISLAND!
Honey Bee Said:
Clabar, meaning ‘filth, mire or clay’ but clap is the usual word for animal dung. There is also the word shairn, which means ‘dung or excrement, especially of cattle’.
Ach ye wudnae hae a gleed o wut.
The Brits have finally gotten what they deserve…the Muslims. It won’t be long before you will be unable to tell the difference. At heart they are the same Jew haters.
Laura Said:
Laura: BBC, et al. name the Muslim terrorists who salivate before killing Jewish civilians, as “militants”.
Laura Said:
Laura: well said, I concur, it suffices to read history. Most Muslims will never love Israel and Jews. Too much religious brain washing with jewhate. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
There are rare exceptions , one of them is Azerbaijan: https://www.israpundit.org/archives/54366
retired Said:
Retired: very well said!!!!!
@ Laura:
You Go Girl.
@ CuriousAmerican:
I never feel sympathy for the arabs and they are never the victims. They are always the aggressors.
Laura Said:
Ditto
@ retired:
Well said!
@ CuriousAmerican:
British antisemitic bias in describing Jewish freedom fighters as “terrorists”. The Irgun and Stern gang did not target civilians. British soldiers were fair game however.
The declassified report reflects British antisemitic bias.
Typical anti-Jewish bias from the Guardian in describing the situation.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Didn’t the Irgun and Stern plant bombs and give warnings? What about the King David Hotel. They planted the bomb and got out of there.
What is your nonsense about growing a pair.
I am American. I was only giving history about what other people did?
But the fact is that the Irgun and Stern Gangs used IRA tactics. Ythzhak Shamir’s code name was Michael after Michael Collins.
That is nothing more than history. Deal with it.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Screw your 15 minute waring,only a coward set a bomb and runs. A real warior stands and faces his enemy. You need to grow a pair.
To Honey Bee:
It was common in the 1970s when the IRA did bombings to phone in a 15 minute warning.
When did the PLO ever do that?
When the IRA bombed the London Stock Exchange, they phoned in a warning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Stock_Exchange#IRA_bombing
Yes innocents were killed, but nowhere near what you see with the PLO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London#Irish_republican_attacks_during_.22the_Troubles.22
The list does not mention that many times warnings were called in.
You would be surpised how few of those bombings led to innocent civilians being killed.
Many times the IRA would call in warnings.
Here it says the gave a warning
Love or hate them, you do not see regular attacks on innocents with the intention to kill. Sometimes the bomb would go off ahead of time.
Love or hate them, they were not the PLO.
That was my only point.
You can love or hate them; but they were not the suicide bombers of the PLO.
Ythzak Shamir used the code name Michael after Michael Collins.
The IRA and the Irgun/Stern operated similarly. They were not regular random killers of innocents. They tended to go after quality targets.
Yes, both the IRA and the Irgun/Stern killed innocents, but it was not their normal behavior.
CuriousAmerican Said:
How do you say “horse-pucky” in Gaelic.
comment in moderation
CuriousAmerican Said:
Matter of cause and effect. Every colonial power wanted complient vassals running their colonies and countries designated as being in their sphere of influence. If the British had not betrayed the Jews the Jews would have been loyal subjects and compliant. Once britain lost India the jig was up for them. They were broke beaten and tired. it took the Irish 700 years to get the british out of Ireland and gain independence.
It took 4-7000 mean Jews to throw the British out of Palestine in less than 10. The British calculation was that to maintain order in Palestine they would have to insert near a million soldiers and police. Do you in your wildest Jew Hating wet dreams believe the British gave a damn what some primitive Bedouins thought or wanted? Even after WW2 the Brits had enough power to deal with the buggers. Maybe not India of Kenya but Jordan? The British trained and armed the Legion placed them under British officers for one reason. To fight and defeat the Jews. Jordan is a desert no resources and no water. Who needs Jordan? A fake made up country?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfRsBgNgSWs
Then obviously the Jews were NOT compliant.
Abdullah was compliant.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The Jews went after anyone with a British uniform between 46-48.
Jews are the most compliant of peoples. Arabs not so. They put Abdullah and his tribe into Jordan to settle a family feud .. They already controlled Egypt, Iraq and the Canal along with the Gulf states. They didn’t need a financial dependency of Trans Jordan except as a means for screwing the Jews. Abdullah did make a deal of accommodation with Israel and that’s why he was assassinated. Hussein was a witness and it’s been said it was the major reason he never followed in his Grandfathers footsteps of accommodation with Israel officially but did have under the radar good relations with Israel. We saved his ass in 1977 when the Syrians were threatening to invade Jordan. He owed us.
@ Ted Belman:
Disunity, lack of central command and internecine vying for power on the part of the Arabs led to their defeat as much or more than anything else.
The real miracle was that Israel increased her territory by another 20% and 400,000 plus Arabs fled the Jewish areas of the partition most for no apparent reason. Think what would have been if they had all stayed put?
Did the Black and Tans go after the Jews from 1946-48?
The Arab revolt was not the only thing responsible for British actions.
They wanted a compliant stooge in charge of the Mideast. Abdullah fit the bill. The Jews would not have remained compliant.
The British wanted a client state. Abdullah could provide that. The Jews could not.
It was more than the Arab revolt.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Seems the Jews gave them less trouble and reasons to attack and beat them.
The British Gendarmerie in Palestine was short lived. In 1926, it was dissolved due to financial constraints. But did all of the former “Black and Tans” then leave Palestine?
T. W. Williams reported to the New York Times that he had spoken with A. S. Mavrogordato, the British Deputy Inspector General in charge of the Palestine Police, who had informed him that “two hundred members of the former British constabulary, the famous ‘Black and Tans,’ are to be retained for any sudden uprising.” Indeed, about 200 of these former “Black and Tans” joined the “British Section” of the Palestine Police
Not only did former “Black and Tans” serve in Palestine, they played a significant role in the police force, controlling most district commander positions by the early 1940s. They acted at times in brash and rough ways. They were prone to controlling the situation through force and taking decisive, often brutal action.
The events of the revolt are surprisingly poorly documented in histories of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Militarily the Arabs suffered the most. About 500 Jews and 4,500- 5,000 Arabs died in total. A large number of Arabs were killed by Husseini’s faction, which apparently killed more Arabs than Jews, and most of the rest were killed by brutal British reprisals. Zionist sources do not dwell on Arab massacres and violence very much, because at the time the importance of Arab violence was minimized so as not to discourage immigration to Palestine. Diplomatically, there is no doubt that the Arabs won their objective with the publication of the British White Paper of 1939, which ended Jewish immigration for all practical purposes. In any event, immigration had been curtailed during the years of the revolt.
Ted Belman Said:
..and neither did the brits “bet” on the Jews, contrary to this report. this report cited no evidence. Their money, arms, military and diplomatic support went to the arabs. this report would have us believe they bet against themselves. The Guardian is well known for lying regarding the Jews and Israel, the conclusion comes first and the story invented afterwards.
What I read elsewhere was that John Glubb was ordered to take all land given to the Palestinians by the UN, but to go no further than the Partition line.
It is not clear who started the fight in Jerusalem; but only then did Glubb enter in.
What is clear is that the British and Jordan did not want the Mufti running even a rump Palestinian state. There is evidence that Ben Gurion and Golda Meir cut some unwritten deal with the Jordanians about this.
I have linked more than once to where General Arieh Eldad admits this. If anyone wants to hear him admit it, then ask me.
This is why I find it hard to believe that Israel complains about the Jordanian occupation when some members of Israel may have found it expedient in 1948 to encourage an Jordanian occupation rather than have the Mufti in charge.
The Palestinians never had a chance. Even if the Arabs accepted a Partition, Abdullah was going to be given Jordan. There was a growing sense of Palestinian identity; but the British were out to destroy it. Even if the Partition was accepted by all parties – and Begin would never have accepted it – the British had conspired to put Abdullah of Jordan in Palestine. He was their stooge.
The other Arabs knew this, and that is why they distrusted Abdullah, This is why the Arabs never coordinated.
The Egyptians seem to have wanted an independent Palestine. The Syrians saw Lebanon, and Palestine as a Syrian province.
That being said, I know someone who served in the British Army in 1947-48 in Palestine. He later moved to NY.
His orders, at that time, were
1) If you run over an Arab, take him to the hospital
2) If you run over a Jew, back up and run over him again.
Of course, he had to dig through the rubble of the King David Hotel, and that may have colored his opinions.
He was hostile to the Jews, and felt the Arabs had been wronged. He had contempt for the Arabs. He said they kissed your behind and said Saheeb, but he felt the Arabs were right.
Odd man.
He was the first man I ever met who had a good opinion of the Palestinians vis a vis the Jews.
YAMIT:
The Black and Tans came out of English prisoners and were given guns to fight the Irish. They were thugs.
If, as you say, they were turned on the Arabs, one has to feel sympathy for the Arabs who were victimized. The Black and Tans were cold blooded murderers.
The Irish fought the Black and Tans differently than the Arabs fight.
The Irish rarely went after innocents.
Second, if the British burned down a town in reprisal, the Irish would burn down the richest house owned by a Briton. Eventually, when enough Lords lost their castles the house reprisals by the British stopped.
Rarely were innocents killed.
The Irish went for quality targets, not innocents.
Were the Black and Tans turned on the Jews at some point; or were they out of the game by then?
This is the first time I have heard any such opinion. But many times have I read that the US firmly believed that the Arabs would make short shrift of the Jews and warned Ben Gurion to refrain from declaring a state.
Furthermore, when the Partition Resolution was passed by the UN, Ben Gurion had no army and certainly no armaments to fight the threatened war. To further complicate the matter, he had no money and the US placed an embargo on any US weapons going to Israel.
Finally the British administration were helping the Arabs prepare for war, were confiscating weapons in the hands of Jews and were intending to turn over all there military establishments and armaments and vehicles to the Arabs on their departure.
No body in their right mind would have bet on the Jews.
I wonder,did we actually expect an unbiased opinion from this establishment rag,The Guardian?The Guardian runs neck to neck with the BBC in a close race to see who is more anti Israel/anti Semitic.They are both propaganda outlets for the upper-class British blue blood snobs who hate Jews & Israel.The far left Nation Magazine,which at that time was still favorable to the Jews,tells a completely different story about British double dealing & betrayal of the Palestine Jews throughout the Mandate era up to 1948 .The account presented by the Nation Magazine in early 1948 was well documented with British Intelligence papers from that period.The British Foreign Office,as well as most of the British Elite,did all they could to destroy the Palestine Jews during the last days of the Mandate era.The British Jew haters released thousands of Nazi war prisoners,many of whom were war criminals,& sent them to the Middle-East to lead the Arab Armies attacking Israel.The British embargoed arms shipments to the Jews while supplying the Arabs with war materials.The British sent General John Glubb,Glubb Pasha,to lead in the effort to murder the Jews in Israel.They were so approving of his efforts at killing Jews that Glubb was later knighted by the Queen for meritorious service to the Crown!Toward the end of hostilities the early Israeli Air Force shot down a number of Egyptian Fighter planes piloted by British Pilots.This caused quite an uproar in London.To this day the British Elite are still conspiring,along with the Eurotrash running the EU,to harm Israel & the Jewish people.
Today the Limey Jew haters are in a cultural,as well as economic,twilight zone.They are in a one way fall into financial oblivion,pushed there by their own degenerate upper classes.For my part the British S.O.B.’s can go to the Devil,along with their Moslem immigrants,& they can take the Guardian & the BBC with them down into the pits!
I saw no corroboration for the statement that the British believed the arabs would be defeated.
I believe they supported, and expected, the regular Arab armies to win; which explains their support for the Jordan military and recognition of the Jordan occupation along with Pakistan(the only other country to recognize it).
By 1919, representatives of the Jaffa Muslim-Christian council were saying:
Bolstered by the British White paper. the revolt against the British and terrorism against the Jews did not cease but even intensified. The British report is full of holes if not outright untruths.
The British had pretty much stopped the Arab attacks against the British by 1945 and their Pro Arab policies and Brutal response to Arab terror or resistance against them pretty much had it’s effect. You are correct that the Jews had more reason to be upset with the British than the Arabs. Begin was in error for not joining the Etzel in fighting the British from the time of the riots in 1936-39. Weizmann was a British Stooge as were all of the leadership of the Jewish agency. They were all appointed and paid by the British.
In April 1922, approximately 650 former “Black and Tans” arrived in Haifa, Palestine and commenced their duties as the British Palestine Gendarmerie. How did so many former “Black and Tans” end up in Palestine? They were not transferred there as a unit. Rather, there seems to have been a personal connection. The Inspector-General of Police and Prisons, Major-General H. H. Tudor (who also served as the General Officer Commanding), was in charge of the British military, Palestine Police, and the Palestine Gendarmerie. Coincidently, Tudor had been the Chief of Police in Ireland during the Irish Rebellion. As the “Black and Tans” were being disbanded in Ireland, enrolment sheets were being circulated. One former “Blank and Tan” who served in Palestine later claimed that before they had left Ireland, he put his “name on a list calling for volunteers for a new Force, the Palestine Gendarmerie, which the gods at Whitehall [i.e. the British] proposed to raise.” So it was the case that 75 to 95 percent of the new British Palestine Gendarmerie were former members of the “Black and Tans.”
During the Arab Revolt in Palestine from 1936-1939, when the number of British police swelled and reinforcements from the Army and Royal Air Force were brought in large number, brutal tactics were employed, similar to the ones used to put down the Irish Rebellion in 1919 and 1920. These tactics included demolition of homes, or in some cases, entire villages of suspected rebels; arrests and imprisonments without warrants, charges or trials; beatings; and torture.
October of 1937, the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin el Husseini and much of the Arab Higher Committee were forced to flee after the murder of Lewis Andrews, the British High Commissioner for the Galilee. – The revolt did not end with the flight of Husseini and the higher committee, but rather increased in intensity, to the point where the British lost control entirely in Jerusalem and Beersheba for while. Numerous greater or lesser attacks on Jews like the Kiryat Haroshet Massacre of 1938 caused the Etzel to move to reprisal attacks, and the Haganah also began more pinpoint reprisals.
The revolt sputtered on until September of 1939 despite the issuance of the British White Paper in May of 1939 and despite brutal attempts at suppression. The final dissolution of the revolt did not come until the outbreak of World War II. Remarkably, until that time, the French had allowed the leadership of the revolt to continue its operations in Damascus unhindered. When war broke out, the French suppressed the Damascus leadership and the revolt came to an end.
Mohamed Iz-al-Din al Qassam (Izzedin el Qassam, Izzedin el Kassam) , who sparked the Arab riots of 1936-30, was not a Palestinian Arab. He was born in Jablah, near Latakiah in Syria, in the early 1880s. When the French were to take over Syria, he tried to organize guerilla resistance. He joined Feisal in Damascus, but then fled to Beirut and ultimately to Haifa when the French came. In Haifa he taught school, but soon became imam of the Istiqlal mosque. He was then appointed regional registrar of marriages for the Supreme Muslim Council of the Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini. He used this innocent post as a springboard for organizing terrorist cells to strike at the British and the Jews.
The Initial Jewish Response – Except for the initial revenge killing initiated by the Irgun Bet, the Zionist response was generally restraint – Havlaga. The Jewish Agency decided that the best course was to stay out of the fight, and let the anger of the British be directed against the Arabs, rather than entering the fight and becoming “part of the problem.” The latter course would have invited an “even handed” British response. The primary reaction of the Haganah was initially defensive. It guarded vulnerable Jewish neighborhoods and set up factories for armor plating and protecting buses and other vehicles.
With the arrival of Kaukji’s band and the increase in violence, the British finally began to show some resolution in ending the violence. An entire division was brought in from Egypt, and British began dynamiting houses in Jaffa and Nablus as punitive measures and to make it easier to control dense neighborhoods. Kaukji and his followers were eventually surrounded. They were forced to leave Palestine but were not arrested. Economically, the strike had little impact on anyone except the Arabs. The closing of Haifa port led to the development of the port of Tel Aviv. In the Jaffa area, citrus crops were ripening and had to be picked and exported. In any case, the economy of Palestine was carried by the numerically smaller Jewish sector rather than by the Arabs.
I am curious how Yamit82 will spin this.
Actually, one reason the Arabs did not fight the British so much during 46, and 47, was because the 1939 White Paper, which stopped Jewish immigration, gave the Arabs what they wanted.
It was the Jews who had reason to be upset at the British.
Are you saying the 1948 war was not a David vs Goliath story?! That aspect was a myth?!