As I See It: The British Foreign Office remains true to type

By Melanie Phillips/April 27, 2017
The British prime minister, Theresa May, appears to be a genuine supporter of Israel. In which case she needs to address the fact that her Foreign Office is not.

The Palestinians have been demanding that the British government apologize for the 1917 Balfour Declaration which supported “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

This declaration was embodied in the 1922 Mandate under which Britain accepted the administration of Palestine and the obligation to settle the Jews there.

The demand for an apology led to a British petition signed by more than 13,000 people. A few days ago the government dismissed it. “The Balfour Declaration,” it said, “is an historic statement for which Her Majesty’s Government does not intend to apologize. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel.”

Let’s put to one side that, in the 1930s, the British actually reneged on the Mandate, betrayed the Jewish people and instead of settling them in Palestine kept them out during the Holocaust. The statement dismissed the demand for an apology. So far, therefore, so good.

Yet just as happened after the Declaration itself, the Foreign Office then proceeded to negate its own position. For it went on to say in effect that the Balfour Declaration was a mistake.

“Much has happened since 1917,” it said. “We recognize that the Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination.”

This statement displays quite astounding ignorance.

Whose right to self-determination was overlooked in the Declaration? There were no Palestinians demanding such a right because there were no Palestinians.

The Arabs living there at the time did not regard themselves as such. They considered themselves pan-Arab or southern Syrian.

Many living in Palestine weren’t Arabs at all. A 1920 British government handbook noted: ‘The people west of the Jordan are not Arabs but only Arabic- speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin… (agricultural laborers of diverse backgrounds). In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of the most mixed race.”

The only people for whom the Land of Israel has ever been their national kingdom are the Jews. That was why Britain stated in its 1922 white paper that they were entitled to be settled there “as of right and not on sufferance.”

It was why the Balfour Declaration said nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – a commitment honored to the letter – but omitted political rights.

Because no one else had political rights. Only the Jews had them, because only the Jewish nation was the rightful, indigenous inheritor of the land.

And it was why, at the time of the Declaration, the Arabs themselves approved of the Jews’ return to Palestine which they referred to as the Jewish “fatherland.”

Subsequently, many Arabs made plain that Palestinian identity was always a total fiction.

“There is no such country as Palestine,” said the Syrian leader Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi in 1937. “Our country was for centuries part of Syria. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it.”

In 1946 the Arab historian Prof. Philip Hitti observed: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

In 1977 Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO executive committee, said: “The Palestinian people does not exist… Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

In its retrospective acknowledgment of these fictitious Palestinian rights, the Foreign Office has shown it has zero understanding of the war being waged against the Jewish homeland.

In its statement, it says it wants to establish security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution: “… a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.”

The assumption is that this is a conflict over the division of land between two peoples with legitimate claims to that land. This is untrue. It is an Arab war of extermination against the Jewish homeland.

What’s more, Britain patented this so-called solution in 1937 when it offered to carve out of Palestine a state for the Arabs alongside one for the Jews. This two-state offer has been subsequently repeated several times. In each case the Jews agreed but the Arabs merely responded by war, terrorism and the mass murder of yet more Jews.

That’s because their agenda, the destruction of Israel, is nonnegotiable. By definition, there can be no compromise with a nonnegotiable agenda. The very act of negotiation is a signal of surrender. Britain would never urge a compromise with al-Qaida or ISIS. So why doesn’t it recognize the analogous threat to Israel? At root it’s because the British don’t regard the Jews as a nation. They don’t therefore understand that the Jews have the only legitimate political claim to the land. Today’s Foreign Office is thus in line with the British diplomat who said in 1938 that the Arabs and Jews were “each as loathsome as each other.”

The Balfour Declaration was the high-water mark of British decency toward the Jewish people. It’s been downhill all the way, Mrs. May, ever since.

The author is a columnist for The Times (UK).

Advertisements

About johnmhummasti

Was the victim of Human Rights Abuses (e.g. Hummasti v Bell, 98-3651-JTC) while a patient in the custody of the US Attorney General and hospitalized under 18 USC 4241 through 4244, et seq.! Interests: Biblical Studies, Talmudic Studies, Dead Sea (Yam Melek [Sea of Kings Soferim]) Scrolls, Scribal (Stam Sofer) Traditions, Cantorial (Hazzan) Psalms (Tehillim). Illustrated Calligraphy (e.g. Ketuvim [Jewish Marriage Contracts], Poetry). Self Published Manuscripts and Screen Plays at yhummastiscribd web site:
This entry was posted in Conflict Resolution, Israel, Mid East Policy, Palestine, Peace Process, Rule of Law, Zionism and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to As I See It: The British Foreign Office remains true to type

  1. The Balfour Declaration and it’s subsequent Mandate for Palestine was not about protecting the political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Eretz Yisrael (“Palestine”) as the Arabs of the Great Revolt were given independence in the Kingdoms of Iraq and the Hejaz due, in part, to the Mandate for Iraq/Mesopotamia. The Hashemites of Mecca asked for and were given political independence (self-determination) following the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. The French drove them out of the Kingdom of Syria while the British propped them up in Iraq and trans-Jordan.

    As for the right of self determination of the local Arabs of Western “Palestine” – they have been given the right to exercise self-determination – They sent delegates to the Jericho Conference in December 1948 who voted for Abdullah to be their sovereign (the Wikipedia “Jericho Conference” entry refers to Abdullah as the “King of Palestine” and the US’s de jure recognition of Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria as the unification of “Central Palestine”) and voted for Jordan to annex the “West Bank” – The conference was led by Sheikh Muhammad Ali Ja’abari Mayor of Hebron! Other delegates were Mayors from Bethlehem, and Ramallah…. Just how much “self-determinism” are the Arabs of Greater “Palestine” (Eretz Yisrael) entitled to?

    Like

  2. Awesome! Its truly remarkable paragraph, I have got much clear idea regarding from this paragraph.

    Like

  3. Ha ha… I was emphatically surfing approximately and took a glance next to these reviews. I can’t believe there’s still this much pastime. Thanks for posting about this.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s