Violent and anti-Semitic actions by the British during the Mandate period reverberate today in the relations between Israel and the UK, two British journalists said at an event on Sunday marking the 96th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.
The conference at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem featured the Hebrew premiere of a documentary about British policy from the period between the publication of the declaration, on November 2, 1917, to independence.
In addition to speeches by British journalists, the former speaker of the Knesset, Shlomo Hillel, and a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem addressed the gathering.
The film screening and speeches largely focused on British actions in the Middle East nearly a century ago. The speakers also discussed how the British “betrayal” of Jews is portrayed in the mainstream British press. While participants did not specifically reference contemporary issues between Israel and the United Kingdom, the event came at a time of increased tensions regarding Iran and accusations that the former British foreign secretary made anti-Semitic comments in Parliament.
“I can speak to you as a British citizen who represents tens of thousands of Christians in Britain who have a very real sense of sorrow and shame of our nation’s betrayal of the Jewish people during the mandate period,” said Hugh Kitson, the producer of the documentary titled The Forsaken Promise. “Our government needs to make a formal apology to the nation of Israel for the handling of the mandate – or really I should say the mishandling of it – and the wholesale suffering it caused to thousands and thousands of people,” he added.
The documentary argued that despite the Balfour Declaration’s assurances of a Jewish homeland, the British government went to extraordinary lengths to impede the creation of a Jewish state. The film accused the British government of obstructing efforts by Jews to flee the Holocaust.
And it said the British did not try to stop massacres of Jews in Hebron and on the convoy route to Hadassah hospital on Mount Scopus.
In addition, the film featured interviews with Holocaust survivors who were denied entry into Palestine following the war. The narrator said that “Britain’s international reputation was in tatters” after the military either detained Jews fleeing Europe or sent them back.
Hillel called the film a “masterpiece.”
“The relationship between Great Britain [and] the British people, and the Jews and Israel, have been very complex and very, very old. It has its ups and downs,” Hillel said.
He paused and then added, “It continues to have its ups and downs, I have to say.”
Melanie Philips, a British author and publisher, said the film told the “story of the utmost treachery and malice, as the British upended their international treaty obligation” under the mandate. She argued that the British public is besieged with anti-Israel propaganda that obscures the history of British action during the mandate.
“It is essential that people understand this history, in order to show them that, contrary to what they believe, Israel stands for law, history and justice,” she said.
Robert Wistrich, a professor at the Hebrew University, concluded the discussion, arguing that “Britain placed every conceivable obstacle in the way of any relief of that suffering,” referring to the Holocaust.
“I can only use a word very much avoided by historians: A sense of ‘evil,’” he said.
“British policy – just looking at the facts themselves and the documents and what we know – is increasingly afflicted by kind of evil design. [It] wasn’t necessarily there at the beginning, but was an absolutely cold and callous disregard for the most elementary human values,” he added.
MK Shimon Ohayon also spoke briefly at the event and noted that, when he was in high school, “everybody was proud to learn [the Balfour Declaration] by heart.”
I must agree with Curious American in one sense. The terms were not clear and unambiguous in my view. When the Balfour policy was framed, the British did not want to rile up the Arabs unnecessarily. Meinertzhagen was concerned they might have gone too far in the ambiguity so as to make it easy for anti-zionists and anti-semites to frustrate the project. But based on Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, the Preamble to the Mandate that refers to it, and the Palestine Mandate Article 2,”The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble . . . .”, the authors went possibly far enough. To any country that will use legislative history to clarify intent — Britain, Canada, and the US do — I think that the language when bolstered by the legislative intent – which was to avoid an antidemocratic government at the outset but permit Jewish sovereignty later on, the language is clear enough to have been fairly enforced. Read Salomon Benzimra’s excellent history The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel for the facts and read my article Roots of Israel’s Sovereignty and Boundaries in International Law to get the history with my legal interpretation. It is almost the same as that of the late Eugene Rostow except I sprinkle in a little equity jurisprudence:
“The 1920 mandate[for Palestine] implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favour of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent “natural law” claim to the area. Neither custom ary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.” Eugene Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for Streategic Studies, November 1993
If you read the notes of the meeting at San Remo of April 25 you learn that the French tried to amend the savings clause to insert the term “political rights’ to supplement civil and religious rights”. That was what Lord Curzon was referring to when he talked about the implicit denial of political rights for the Arab People. Rashid Khalidi agreed with him in his book the Iron Cage. He says the Arabs were ignored in passing out the political rights to Palestine. What was an even better “implicit denial” of the Arab claims, is that the Arab and Jewish People had competing claims and the Principal Allied War Powers adopted the Jewish claim and showed it by adopting the Balfour Declaration word for word.
Salubrius Said:
thanks for the info. Curio brought up the 1922 White Paper as a basis for demonstrating that the 1939 White paper was LEGAL: Thereby using a prior swindle as a legal basis for the latter swindle and using the declarations of the swindler as evidence of the legality of the swindle.
CuriousAmerican Said:
nice try:
It was YOU who FALSELY stated that the British White Paper of 1939 was LEGAL
I merely do not allow you to get away with your deceptive claims
The Mandate Commission considered it illegal and they were charged with ascertaining its legality for the League of Nations. You merely parrot the fraudulent and swindling position of the British whose only authority in Palestine derived from the League of Nations and the Mandate Commission.
I point out that in spite of the enormous credible testimony of its illegality you still choose to broadcast the position of the accused swindlers: that it was LEGAL!
Stop spreading false propaganda!
XLucid Said:
That is the point of “Leagl drafting”, only lawyers understand ” legal drafting”. Example “Obamacare”!!!!!!!!!!!!sweetie
Not everybody has the state of mind to understand the legal drafting and grasp its subtleties. And CA is part of them.
@ CuriousAmerican:
If I called you unkind names in Spanish or English,despensame!!!!!!!!!
XLucid Said:
There is a difference between legality, law and order and justice!!!!!!!Darlin I lived in the “Old South” during the time of “Jim Crow” laws.Darlin. Legal yes, law and order yes, justice no!!!!!
The Balfour/San Remo documents were NOT drafted by Jews but by the British assisted by a liberal Jew, Montague. British legality is not of the standard of Jewish legality.
If you look at this video, by Israel Rabbi Berel Wein, the Balfour Declaration was watered down. The Balfour Declaration is the core of San Remo.
Hence the whole matter was watered down.
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-ietLpUw8&t=28m51s (28:51) but it may be linked to start at the right time
My point is that it was watered down and so the WHITE PAPER OF 1939 may have been legal.
CuriousAmerican Said:
My cowboy taught to never bother deating a dead horse. Who cares the Bristish no longer exist, like Ninivah they are dystroyed.
Legal drafting is a very structured method of writing. A long and thorough training is required to master the language used by legal scholars.
Not everybody has the state of mind to understand the legal drafting and grasp its subtleties. And CA is part of them.
Yes, Jews have a fixation with legality. From Sinai Mount they have been taught about justice, law and order.
While during their long history and peregrinations they have confronted liars, thieves and killers.
You said it. I did not. If I even admitted to even thinking it, I would be accused of bigotry by some here.
The WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was thoroughly despicable.
But I believe it was legal. It was wrong but legal.
I do NOT conflate legal with moral.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Jews are obsesed with legality.
Salubrius Said:
The Bristish Govt. is an ant-semitic ass, past-present-future!!!! So what,beating a dead horse.
In 1939 Chamberlain was Prime Minister. Churchill called the 1939 paper “another Munich”
I agree THE WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was IMMORAL.
I agree THE WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was DESPICABLE.
I agree that Britain should have left the doors to Israel open.
What is your fixation with it legality?
It is as if LEGALITY takes on a life of its own with you, independent of morality.
Look, if you really believe the BRITISH WERE ACTING ILLEGALLY, then you have standing in court to sue. So contact:
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center
10 Hata’as St., Ramat Gan 52512
ISRAEL
Phone: 972-3-7514175
Fax: 972-3-7514174
US line: 212-591-0073
http://israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=3&show=contact
Why is this such an issue to you?
I am not going to argue this with you any more.
Do I think the WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was reprehensible? YES!
Do I think the WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was morally wrong? YES!
Do I think the WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was crummy? YES!
Do I think the WHITE PAPER OF 1939 was illegal? NO!
But I do not conflate legality with morality. You seem to.
I think the British have been perfidious throughout history, but they were careful to protect themselves legally.
Sue the British and prove me wrong.
No matter how weakly it was written, if it were to be held to be a trust, then it is subject to equity jurisprudence. @ bernard ross:To understand the background of the 1922 White Paper, you cannot rely on Churchill. It was he who made the decision in a meeting in 1921 in Cairo to give Eastern Palestine to Abdullah. The British, right after the end of WWI gave the throne of Syria to Feisal. But in the Sykes-P:icot Agreement that had given Syria to the French. Feisal asserted his independence from the French. The French Army defeated the Syrian Army at the Battle of Maysalun and they deposed Feisal. Abdullah, who was the most warlike of Hussein’s four sons marched his army to East Palestine (transJordan) and made ready to attack the French in Damascus. To put an end to this, Churchill awarded Feisal the throne of Mesopotamia.
After WWI the British assigned three junior officers to set up governments in Eastern Palestine. The following is from the account of Sir Alex Kirkbride who was one of them. He had heard that Abdullah was coming and he wired headquarters in Jerusalem. They wired back that Abdullah wouldn’t dare attack His Majesty’s government in East Jerusalem. When Abdullah arrived, Kirkbride had only a few policemen and wisely chose not to fight. He wired Jerusalem and they accepted Abdullah as a fait accompli. To take care of this matter Churchill decided to give Feisal the Throne of Mesopotamia and to give Abdullah transJordan. That is the genesis of Paragraph 25 of the Palestine Mandate. In his book, A Bramble of Thorns, Kirkbride jests after this occurred, His Majesty’s government made “the remarkable discovery” that they never really meant to give all of Palestine to the Jews.
As for rthe 1939 White Papers, here is what the British said:
Many of those who had participated in the original deliberations on the Balfour policy that had been adopted at San Remo strongly objected. David Lloyd-George who had been the Prime Minister of England then, characterized this action as “an act of national perfidy which will bring dishonor to the British name.” Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons, condemned the Paper as “plainly a breach and repudiation of the Balfour Declaration” and he referred to it as “another Munich” (Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister in 1939). Harry Truman, then a U.S. Senator also criticized the 1939 White Paper as a “repudiation of British obligations” and President Franklin Roosevelt expressed his “dismay [at] the decisions of the British Government regarding its Palestine Policy”. That 1939 White Paper even blocked the sale of property in Palestine to the Jews.
CuriousAmerican Said:
It took you a long time and lots of research to get there but you finally reiterated your original statement that the British white Paper of 1939 was LEGAL. During the process you claimed that although the Mandate Commission had determined it was illegal you claimed that because it was not adjudicated it was not ILLEGAL. There are two problems with this argument: one is that if you claim that it is not illegal due to non adjudication then you must apply the same standard to the declaration that it is LEGAL. On the basis of your argument you should have stated that your original declaration that it was LEGAL was incorrect because it had not been adjudicated. Therefore the lack of adjudication should have no sway in your arrival at a legal opinion. The fact that you chose the British position was as I always predict about you. Now you are claiming that the first British concocted White Paper 1922 which sought to swindle the Jews is a credible basis to declare the 2nd 1939 paper by the same swindlers legal. The legality of the British action cannot be determined by the criminal himself. The league of Nations is the adjudicator and as war began the adjudication never took place but we both know that the Mandate Commission had already advised that the British paper was illegal regarding the mandate terms. The British in 1939 had no legal authority in Palestine except that which was given to it by the League of Nations and the Mandate Commission. Therefore the British declaration of 1922 was irrelevant in determining the legal reality of the British action in 1939. Why would you choose to give credibility to an anachronistic document from 1922 issued by the same accused swindler rather than to the legally appointed Mandate Commission, who was charged with such determinations, in 1939? You grasped at every possible straw in your determination to give legal credibility to the British white paper. You knew it was indefensible morally but you were hoping to justify their action as being LEGAL. The best argument you could reasonably have is that it was not adjudicated ILLEGAL as the adjudication could not take place. You veered to that argument but then grasped at the 1922 straw. However, the legal preponderance was in the direction against the British as a result of the Mandate Commission determination. It was not important for me to show that it was legal or illegal but that you would do anything to “prove” its legality. Your attempt to again offer declarations from the same party accused of the crime and consider those declarations superior to the Mandate Commission charged with the duty to decide LEGALITY beggars belief. It was an attempt to obfuscate the facts in order to lead to the conclusion you desired. Your repetitive mantra of it was “immoral but legal” is simply a replay of your usual throwing the Jews a poisoned bone and then knifing them in the back when they pick up the poisoned bone.
All of your frantic grasping for citations does not explain why you would ignore the decision of the Mandate Commission, the one party who was specifically charged with determining the LEGALITY of the British White paper of 1939?
Let’s be clear about this.
I think the White Paper of 1939 was despicable.
But the Churchill White Paper of 1922, Rabbi Berel Wein’s comments on the watering down of the Balfour Declaration, Weizmann’s historic protests about San Remo’s weaknesses, lead me to conclude that though the White Paper of 1939 was thoroughly despicable, it was legal.
It was written weakly.
The mandate was not just “weasel words”. It was a trust agreement. The political rights to Palestine were put in trust so that the government would not be antidemocratic when the recognition of the Jews as owners of the political rights was initially made. The trust res was not supposed to vest until the Jews had a majority of the population in the area to be governed and the capability of exercising sovereignty. Putting anything in trust gives the trustee legal dominion over it. The requirements for exercising sovereignty were well known but they were restated in an International Convention at Montivideo in 1933 to my recollection. A British Barrister and member of the New York Bar named Lee gave a lecture at University College in 1921 that was later printed as a book saying in effect, don’t be fooled by the language. It is called a mandate but it is simply a trust agreement. You can buy a reprint of his lecture that was later published as a book and recently republished at Amazon. It was about the Mespotamian mandate but was focused on the aspect of it being a trust agreement. . Lee, The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle of Trusteeship in English Law, (1921) League of Nations Union, Forgotten Books Critical Reprint Series (2012). See also the International Court of Justice decision in the Namibia case, LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH-WEST AFRICA) NOTWITHSTANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 Fifty years later, the International Court of Justice agreed with him.
Let’s go to a Jewish source.
Let’s go to an Israeli Jewish source.
Let’s go to a Zionist Israeli Jewish source.
Let’s go to a Rabbinical Zionist Israeli Jewish source.
I tried to link these links to the right part of the video.
Rabbi Berel Wein MOST INGENIOUS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-ietLpUw8&t=28m51s (28:51) but it may be linked to start at the right time
“It was because of Montague that the Balfour Declaration was watered down. Because originally it was a much stronger statement in support of Zionism and in support of Jewish rights in the country.”
It is admitted the document was “watered down.”
Montague was a Jewish member of the British cabinet. He explains it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-ietLpUw8&t=28m13s
Even Rabbi Berel Wein admits that the Balfour Declaration was weasel words. The Balfour Declaration was the core of the Mandate.
Despite all the public statements, in 1917, and 1920, even Rabbinical Zionist Israeli Jewish historian Rabbi Berel Wein admits the Balfour/San Remo Document was a flawed weak document.
Weizmann thought the document was flawed; and asked the British to declare OPENLY that they were preferring the Jews. Britain would not.
This proves that the San Remo document was flawed to begin with.
The White Paper was legal, because the British were perfidious in 1917 when they wrote the Balfour Declaration. They wrote the San Remo document with escape clauses.
Oddly, you cannot blame the British for this document weakness; but rather it goes to a Jewish member of the Cabinet who was anti-Zionist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN-ietLpUw8&t=28m13s
You can blame the British for implementation; but it was Montague, the Jewish member of the cabinent – according to Rabbi Berel Wein – who was responsible for watering down the document.
Since the Balfour Decl. was the core of the San Remo Mandate, the mandate was flawed.
Blame the British for implementation; but blame Montague for making British perfidy legal.
Here is some more proof.
Could it be any clearer that even in 1922 the Mandate was viewed as ambiguous?
The Mandate was rifled with weasel words. In 1922 the Churchill was able to weasel out of declaring preferentially for a Jewish state.
I am not defending Britain, I am saying the British were perfidious enough to refuse to state clearly a preference for the Jewish state in the San Remo document.
The legality of the Church White Paper stood, and hence the White Paper of 1939 stood.
Was the White Paper of 1939 despicable. YES!
Was the White Paper of 1939 immoral. YES!
Was the White Paper of 1939 illegal. NO!
Do not confuse law with morality.
Now, if you still believe the BRITISH WHITE PAPER WAS LEGALLY WRONG, then contact
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center
10 Hata’as St., Ramat Gan 52512
ISRAEL
Phone: 972-3-7514175
Fax: 972-3-7514174
US line: 212-591-0073
http://israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=3&show=contact
Now, you stop squirming. Stop your weaseling. Call Shurat HaDin now, and say: Have I got a case for you?
Not in Israel. I have never met an Israeli who did not consider the British to be accessories to the Holocaust
Everybody hated the British. Robert Kennedy, writing from the Mandate in 1948, just before the Declaration of Independence, noted how both the Jews and Arabs hated the British more than each other.
I am glad you are looking at this from a Moral Aspect, now.
The British have always couched their immoral behavior under legality.
They are not the only ones to do this.
I have no illusions about the British. I just do not confuse legal with moral.
For ex: The execution of many of those Jewish – and even some Arab – fighters in Acre prison was thoroughly immoral, though legal.
yamit82 Said:
the fraud known as Great Britain. The British have escaped proper perusal of their despicable role in the swindling and murder of the Jews. Your post putting their behavior in the context of their history and showing it to be their natural modus operandi is very apropo. There should be more publication of this crooked British behavior because that will point out the obvious truth of their real agenda today. Israelis should be made aware of exactly how perfidious and despicable they were, the light should be shone bright on britain and remain for a while, they escaped their proper due. It has always been their posture to falsely pretend to a morality.
@ yamit82:
Yamit82 Sugar, how do you make your post so pretty. You like deviled eggs, I making deviled eggs tonight. I am ignoring CA,by talking about food. Last night subject s was sex, tonight food.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Yes I can be more anti christianity. Give me the power and I would happily show you how much more.
Their Jewish souls were destroyed.
No they are Cut off and no longer part of or beneficiaries of the covenant.
Don’t know I never researched the subject. Do you know?
Again, I don’t know do you?
No, they were more hostile to the Jews than the Muslims.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Then why did you state it was LEGAL and have still not withdrawn that statement? You lied when you stated it was LEGAL. Now you claim it was not adjudicated but before you had no problem stating it was legal..
Answer the question: its a simple yes, no or don’t know. Will you squirm out again?
bernard ross Said:
CuriousAmerican Said:
Honeybees don’t lie, we preveracate!!!!!!!
CuriousAmerican Said:
I call it England just being England, Try some historical context:
“England was the first nation to slaughter Jews using the fabulist libel that matzo is made with the blood of gentile children, thus proving the depth of their “love” and that in its Judenhaas the gentile world becomes incapable of reason or perception.”
“It also was the first nation, as a nation, to expel the Jews (1290) so the Anglo-Vatican axis, writ large in the geopolitics that preceded and included WW II, are deeply rooted. While British universities bar Israeli Jews and promote the “Palestinian narrative” their government dialogues with Hizballah and participates in boycotts on products of Jews in Judea and Samaria, and even from using buildings owned by people who do business there.”
““The UK government has always regarded [Jewish] settlements as illegal” a government spokeswoman said and indeed, this is true of British diplomatic chiefs: they are anti-Jewish racists, ethnic cleansers and segregationists. Even when they were mandated by international law to which they were signatory to “facilitate Jewish immigration and close settlement of Jews on the land” East and West of the Jordan River, they found various pretenses to do the opposite or just plain refused. This is what they mean by “the rule of law.” “color of law” is a bad joke for bigotry and pre-determined Malthusian outcomes.”
Why do I defend Israel’s claim to J&S, then? If that is not prioritizing Jews, then what is?
Stop with your lies.
In the end, the White Paper was not adjudicated.
If you think it was illegal, then contact these people and tell them you have a major case:
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center
10 Hata’as St., Ramat Gan 52512
ISRAEL
Phone: 972-3-7514175
Fax: 972-3-7514174
US line: 212-591-0073
http://israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=3&show=contact
The White Paper was slimey. It was atrocious. It was terrible. But the exception clause was a loophole.
Weizmann knew the weakness in the Mandate and asked the British to OUTRIGHT declare a preference for Jews. The British would not.
Now, if you really believe the BRITISH WERE WRONG, then contact
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center
10 Hata’as St., Ramat Gan 52512
ISRAEL
Phone: 972-3-7514175
Fax: 972-3-7514174
US line: 212-591-0073
http://israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=3&show=contact
and prepare to sue.
I admit the White Paper, was immoral, and evil. But I do not conflate legality with morality.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Salubrius Said:
and yet Curious American states unequivocally that the White Paper was LEGAL!
I wonder why he would so state?
CuriousAmerican Said:
and yet the Mandate Commission said it was illegal.
CuriousAmerican Said:
As usual you have done everything possible to avoid answering a direct question. You stated that the British white Paper was LEGAL as if it were a proven fact wheras you knew that the Mandate commission opinion ruled it illegal.
Why did you not choose the Mandate Commission opinion instead of the opinion of the British who were accused of illegality? After all the Mandate Commission opinion of the legality of the Trustee behavior would make them superior as a legal arbiter than the accused. Can we rely on a Trustee to decide on the legality of his own behavior when accused of illegality by his overseers? Instead you knowingly chose the opinion of the Trustee who committed the illegal behavior to be your guide in choosing. This demonstrates that you are knowledgeable of the facts and that you decided to support the legal position of a known swindler rather than the Mandate Commission itself.
You continue to evade the question and continue to leave your original statement in place without overtly owning it.
CuriousAmerican Said:
we were discussing your legal opinion and not mine.
Stop evading the issue:
Do YOU still maintain that the British White Paper of 1939 was LEGAL as you previously stated, knowing the Mandate Commission Opinion, the obligations of Trustees and the track record of the British Govt.
Let us see your next effort to evade a simple question about a statement you made, do you intend to keep wriggling out of it, hoping to avoid being responsible for and owning your position. Arriving here making false statements about the legality of the fraudulent British behavior, an illegal criminal british action, an attempt to defraud the beneficiary of the trust. You claiming that no one sued the British so it must be legal and yet you already knew of the legal opinion of the Mandate Commission. Now you pretend that the Mandate Commission opinion is equal to the opinion of the accused swindling Trustee. Are you “sincere” as others here have stated?
It was my goal to demonstrate that you predictably choose the position that will reduce the stature or position of the Jews. You have done that here
CuriousAmerican Said:
Yes, he could put Christians in concentration camps and gass them!!!!!!!!!
I admit the White Paper of 1939 was immoral. I do not conflate morality with legality.
However, the British were taking their case to the League of Nations, where it might have prevailed. I am aware of the preliminary opinion of the Mandate Commission; but they remained opinions until the League of Nations adjudicated it. The League of Nations never got to the matter.
It is my belief that the “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” exception clause was a loophole one could drive a truck through.
It was still slimey for Britain to do such a thing, in light of Hitler. I have condemned the British for doing it; but it may have been legal.
Just because you have the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do.
The British acted immorally. On that point, we all agree.
However, if you are convinced the British were legally wrong the contact:
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center
10 Hata’as St., Ramat Gan 52512
ISRAEL
Phone: 972-3-7514175
Fax: 972-3-7514174
US line: 212-591-0073
http://israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=3&show=contact
Tell them you have a whopper of a case.
If Germany can be sued for reparations … Think of the what you could get out of Britain?
Could you be any more anti-Christian, Yamit?
Their souls were not destroyed.
You do not have to agree with the conversions; but they were not destroyed. They remained descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and heirs to the covenant.
Tell me, were those converts allowed to remain in Israel in 1948 as equals?
How many of those converts were Arabs?
Arab Christians are less hostile to Israel. The missionaries did you a favor.
Shy Guy Said:
Mother was a W.A.S.P..!!!!!!!!!!!!Kosher Darlin
honeybee Said:
Ya mean ya didn’t get in because you’re tainted honey?
Shy Guy Said:
That is because you are pure?????? Sugar
Roslyn Pine, my grandmother’s maiden name on my mother’s side was Pine. Are you Jewish?
honeybee Said:
Even I got in. What are you kvetching about?
Meinertzhagen made some changes before
Publication. I would recommend relying on the contemporaneous account.
The mandatory powers of which Britain was the one for Palestine were subject to oversight by the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission. In 1939 the Commission unanimously said that the interpretation of the mandate by the British in its White Paper of 1939 was completely opposite to the interpretation the mandatory had taken previously. A majority of the Commission held that the action proposed under the 1939 White Paper was outside the scope of the authority under the mandate. The only authority Britain had over Palestine was the authority of the Mandate. Therefore, unless the League of Nations Permanent Council approved the change — it had authority to do so — the mandatory’s action would be illegal. The Permanent Council never approved the change. I am advised that the matter was set for hearing at a meeting before the Permanent Council the week that WWII commenced. The meeting was never held. It follows that the action taken by Britain in blocking Jews from going to Palestine was illegal. Bevan seemed obsessed in blocking Jewish survivors from reaching friendly hands in Palestine until 1948 when it abdicated its authority as mandatory power or trustee. As a trustee, it had a fiduciary relationship with the Jewish People who were the owners of the political rights to Palestine. By placing its own political interests before those of the beneficiaries of the political rights it was rightly called “Perfidious Albion”.
All the evidence to the truth of British treachery is laid out in Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen’s “Middle East Diary”, recommended to me as essential reading by the late Howard Grief.
Meinertzhagen was HM’s Chief Political Officer in Palestine in 1919, Allenby’s chief intelligence officer, and then in 1921, Churchill’s advisor on military matters in the ME Department of the Colonial Office, and was there at the same time as T.E.Lawrence.
The book contains extracts from 70 volumes of his diary, and there are copies to be had….at a price sometimes.
Published 1959.
It is the most powerful ammunition for Jewish rights in Palestine that I can think of, by a very important person who witnessed events as they unfolded.
Remember, it is a diary, not a memoir.
Where’s Curio??? Remember, he was the one who repeatedly and emphatically stated that the British White Paper of 1939 was LEGAL and submitted the White Paper itself as evidence of it’s own LEGALITY. He called the swindler to the dock as proof that there was no swindle. …??????
I guess those pesky Jews will believe anything.
yamit82 Said:
Tried to sign up for this site,they are too damn nosey
And where are the liberal Jewish establishment in all this? When books like FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL and THE SECRET WAR AGAINST THE JEWS were published they were largely ignored by the Jewish leadership. This self-betrayal continues to this day.
Once again Yamit, thnks for your comments.
Hospital History in the Holy Land: a Proactive Jewish Response to Christian Missionary Activity
Death after life: missionary targeting of elderly, disabled, and deceased Jewish souls
Brits, the Mandate and Missionaries: Can They be Forgiven?
Journalist Judy Lash Balint attended the screening, at the Menachem Begin Heritage, of the film “The Forsaken Promise”, an indictment of British conduct toward Jews during the mandate period. Dozens of Christian groups assisted in the production of the film (including known missionary organizations).
“At a screening in Jerusalem tonight of the film The Forsaken Promise, an indictment of British conduct toward Jews during the mandate period, the British producer, Hugh Kitson, thanked a list of 22 Christian groups involved in the making of the film.
He chose to mention one by its initials only–the CMJ. Hmm…wonder why? Well, those letters stand for the Church’s Ministry Among Jewish People, the modern name for the venerable London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews founded in 1809.
Pretty obvious from their title what their mission is/was, right? These are the upstanding Brits who came to slum it among the Jews of Palestine, so that they would see the light.
In 1836, two physician/missionaries were sent to Jerusalem: they opened a clinic that provided free medical services. By 1844, it had become a 24-bed hospital and soon after, there were 250 British missionaries operating in Jerusalem.
Kitson’s film, which was screened with Hebrew subtitles,lays out in stark detail the horror of the British attitude toward the Jews in Palestine and the policies that shut off immigration of Holocaust survivors. It’s a project of the Christian Hatikvah Fund (not to be confused…or perhaps to be confused, with the very Jewish Tikvah Fund)
In his remarks after the screening, Kitson did an al cheyt for the sins of his forefathers and government and told the audience he was “sorry” for those actions.
But neither during the film nor in the remarks following the screening, was there any mention of the long history of British missionary activity in Israel that by 1913 had claimed 5,000 converts. [Schaff, Philip (1914). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. p. 177.]
No mea culpa uttered about that destruction of Jewish souls.
A week prior to the screening, the UK branch of the International Christian Embassy posted a bulletin about the Jerusalem event. Amongst other things, it asked adherents to pray for “The Lord to be very present by His Holy Spirit at the reception and the screening.”
In the row in front of me tonight, a friend struck up a conversation with the white-haired American gentleman sitting next to her. Before the evening was out, she was handed a copy of a book about the end of days and the Jews’ role in it.
Al cheyt, anyone?”
It would be a start.
But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.
— Don’t have any shirts or ties that match that charming shade of greyish blue.