That Labour Party's Unofficial Balfour Declaration

As we approach the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, let us recall the unofficial Balfour Declaration of 1944 when the British Labour Party adopted a platform position relating to Mandate Palestine, a surprising one if we consider today's Corbyn-led Labour Party.

The time is 1944 and the arena is the Labour Party's Conference and the decision was to transfer Arabs from Palestine to Iraq.

From a thesis I found:

[Labour MP Hugh] Dalton recalls in a sentence that clearly shows he understood the significance and thus likely reaction of the Foreign Office and the few Labour figures with knowledge and experience of the actually realities of Palestine and political Zionism, - the `informed quarters: '

`I all but tell them [Noel-Baker and Chaim Weizmann] that I have drafted a very hot paragraph for the Labour Party on post-war Palestine.' 327

Dalton's statement began by questioning the previous British policies, which had first allowed, then prevented Jewish immigration to Palestine as the government responded to sporadic violent events in Palestine and the responses of the various channels of pro-Arab and pro-political Zionist groups:

`Here,' we declared,`we have halted half-way, irresolute between conflicting policies. But there is surely neither hope nor meaning in a 'Jewish National Home' unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority. There was a strong case for this before the war. There is an irresistible case now, after the unspeakable atrocities of the cold and calculated German Nazi plan to kill all Jews in Europe.' 328

The overt proposal to allow the Jews to become a majority in Palestine, with all accompanying implications, was radical enough in itself. But it was the following section of the statement that contained the most significant aspects of Labour's Policy, as Dalton continues:

`Here, too, in Palestine surely is a case, on human grounds and to promote a stable settlement, for transfer of population. Let the Arabs [Palestinians] be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in. Let them be compensated handsomely for their land and let their settlement elsewhere be carefully organised and generously financed. ' 329...

...Dalton reconciled this proposal - and presumably in an effort to allay his own dilemma of conscience - on the misguided assertion that:

`The Arabs have very wide territories of their own; they must not claim to exclude the Jews from this small part of Palestine, less than the size of Wales. Indeed, we should examine also the possibility of extending the boundaries by agreement with Egypt, Syria and Transjordan.' 331

In the contextual magnitude of a ruined Europe, Dalton claims the section on Palestine cause barely a ripple within Labour or conference. But the Conservative, Oliver Stanley, said, this was `Zionism plus plus.' 332 

For Dalton what mattered was that what he called a `strongly pro-Zionist' statement became policy. In the numbing climate of the Holocaust however, Dalton states he had little trouble securing the approval of the NEC or the Cabinet: 

`I put this in my draft and persuaded my colleagues to accept it - Laski expressed most emotional gratitude.' 333

...Dalton's biographer Pimlott notes that six months after its publication, and while the section on Europe divided personalities in the party into bitter acrimony, the section of the statement on Palestine had an easy passage into Labour Policy:

`At the December 1944 Party Conference, this extraordinary declaration aroused no interest. Nobody raised Palestine, or the possible difficulties that disposing of `this small area' ... might involve. In the end the whole document was accepted by Conference without a vote.' 336

In conclusion, the Post-War Statement and its adoption as policy were arguably as significant as any other statement on Palestine by a British political party; and certainly as a statement of policy by Labour. By late 1944 and early 1945 - and in the wake of the Holocaust - the pro-Palestinian safeguards had been abandoned by Labour to the extent that as Pimlott says:

`It had become a kind of unofficial Balfour Declaration.' 337 

Footnotes:327 Pimlott, Ben [Editor] (1986 [b]: 720) The Second World War Dairy of Hugh Dalton 1940- 45, quoting, Hugh Dalton, Wednesday, March 8,1944, (London: Cape)  328 Dalton, Hugh (1957: 425-426)  329 Ibid., (1957: 426)  330 In the context of 1944 the proposal to transfer the Palestinians was not a unique or isolated practice and policy: significant Kurdish (1915), Turkish and Greek populations had experienced similar fates; and the partition of the Indian sub-continent into Pakistan and India in 1947 was to follow with the transfer of millions.   331 Childs, David (1992: 48) [Third Edition] Britain Since 1945: A Political History, Chapter 3, Colonial Retreat and Cold War, War in Palestine, quoting, Hugh Dalton, (1957: 425-426) The Fateful Years: Memoirs 1931-1945, (London: Frederick Muller), (London: Routledge)   332 Pimlott, Ben (1985: 390) Chapter XXIII, Planning for Post-War, quoting, Hugh Dalton Dairies, April 28,1944   333 Dalton notes the extent of Harold Laski's gratitude: `Indeed, Laski had embarrassed and surprised me at the first meeting by saying how wonderful he thought it all was, and nearly weeping over my Palestine Paragraph, on which he afterwards wrote me a most emotional and effusive letter. ' Pimlott, Ben [Editor] (1986 [b]: 732) quoting, Hugh Dalton, Wednesday, April 5,1944...   336 Pimlott, Ben (1985: 390) quoting, Labour Parliamentary Archive Centre Records(LPACR), 1944, pp. 4-9,140  337 Ibid., (1985: 498) 

Jabotinsky Was a 'Fascist' and Weizmann the Moderate?

Think again:

Odd how prejudices set in.

^

And Thank You Benny Morris

For repeating this here:

...I also believe that the emergent Jewish state, in 1947-1948, having been assaulted by the Palestinian Arab militias and, subsequently, by the armies of the Arab states, had no choice, as a matter of self-defense and survival, but to attack the villages and towns that served as the bases of their militias.  And before and during these attacks, most of the inhabitants fled; some were expelled; others were ordered or advised by their own leaders to flee.  Subsequently, Israel decided not to allow the refugees to return, rightly viewing those who had just attacked the Jewish community as a potential fifth column and enemies.  They launched the war (which the Jews believed aimed at their annihilation); they suffered the consequences.

^

An Alt-Neu "Transferist"?

With all the controversy in Israel over the idea of 'transfer' (see here) over the years, this is all we need:

Abraham Lincoln's...remarks in 1862 to a White House audience of free blacks, urging them to leave the U.S. and settle in Central America.


"For the sake of your race, you should sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people," Lincoln said, promoting his idea of colonization: resettling blacks in foreign countries on the belief that whites and blacks could not coexist in the same nation.

Lincoln went on to say that free blacks who envisioned a permanent life in the United States were being "selfish" and he promoted Central America as an ideal location "especially because of the similarity of climate with your native land — thus being suited to your physical condition."

...The book, "Colonization After Emancipation," is based in part on newly uncovered documents that authors Philip Magness and Sebastian Page found at the British National Archives outside London and in the U.S. National Archives...Lincoln even referred to colonization in the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, his September 1862 warning to the South that he would free all slaves in Southern territory if the rebellion continued. Unlike some others, Lincoln always promoted a voluntary colonization, rather than forcing blacks to leave.  But historians differ on whether Lincoln moved away from colonization after he issued the official Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, or whether he continued to support it.

Magness and Page's book offers evidence that Lincoln continued to support colonization, engaging in secret diplomacy with the British to establish a colony in British Honduras, now Belize.  Among the records found at the British archives is an 1863 order from Lincoln granting a British agent permission to recruit volunteers for a Belize colony...[but] presidential secretary John Hay wrote in July 1864 that Lincoln had "sloughed off" colonization.  "Most of the evidence points to the idea that Lincoln is looking at other ways" to resolve the transition from slavery besides colonization at the end of his presidency, Schwartz said...[however] "He never had a chance to complete his vision. Lincoln's racial views were evolving at the time of his death," Magness said.

What would we do if an American president ever actively promoted an extreme Israeli idea?

Transfer. Colonization.

^

It Should Be Formulated Differently

Yoram Ettinger has a very good piece, "Does freeze deal make sense?", over at YnetNews where he writes on The complex nature of Jewish construction in the communities:-

If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the same effect?!

If the uprooting of Jewish communities advances peace, why would the uprooting of Arab communities undermine peace?! The call for uprooting Arabs is immoral; Isn't the uprooting of Jews just as immoral?!

If the 300,000 Jews, among 1.5MN Arabs, in Judea and Samaria constitute an obstacle to peace, how would one define the 1.5MN Arabs, among 6MN Jews, within pre-1967 Israel?!

If Jewish settlements/communities in Judea and Samaria (est. 1967) constitute the obstacle to peace, why was the PLO established in 1964?! Why did anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism flare up during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s?!

Why did the Arab-Israel wars erupt in1948/9, 1956 and 1967? Why did an unprecedented Palestinian terrorism surge following the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 uprooting of 25 Jewish communities in Gaza and Northern Samaria?!

Past freezes, slowdowns and dismantling of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria intensified pressure and exacerbated terrorism – what would be the impact of another -freeze?!

But he errs.

In the international context, to compare Jews in Judea & Samaria and rights and restriction with the Arabs of the same territory is a mistake. First of all, as wrong as it is - and it must be challenged in another manner - most of the world accept the idea that there is a separate and distinct nation called "Palestinians" and they had a country called "Palestine" which they "lost" to the Jews, quite unfairly. Moreover, the Jews really aren't a nation and shouldn't have national claims on a territory but simply realize that due to antisemitism and the Holocaust, maybe they be allowed to live in the 1947 lines or better, as a minority within the future-to-be-established state of Palestine.

Many Jews and non-Jewish Zionist simply cannot fathom the full extent of the idiocy and meanness and animosity with which Jews are treated when they seek to assert national identity forms. Some may wish to ignore that situation, make fun of it, respond in irrational forms, but that is the situation.

But be that as it may, I wish to suggest another formulation in Ettinger's imagery. He writes:

If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the same effect?!

That should be formulated:-

If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Arab construction in the state of Israel have the same effect?!

Notice the difference? Ettinger does this but only in his third paragraph.

I have suggested that Arab residential locations within Israel be referred to as "Arab settlements". That will establish the more correct balance between the competing narratives and claims.

If persons demand a total removal of Jews from Yesha and the dismantlement of their homes there, then that framework must apply equally to the Arab population of Israel. If there is proposed a transfer, it works both ways and for both population groupings.

^

British Plans for the Arabs of the Palestine Mandate

A very good read.


^

Harvard's MESH Mush

Harvard has a site called MESH.

MESH?

Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. MESH is a community of scholars and practitioners who are interested in the formulation of U.S. strategic options for the Middle East.

In a post by one Robert O. Freedman, Avigdor Lieberman's policy vis a vis Israel's Arabs is discussed, inter alia.

I have a problem with these formulations:

a.

Lieberman’s call for a transfer of territory inhabited by those Israeli Arabs who won’t pledge loyalty to Israel, to a new Palestinian state, in return for Israel maintaining some of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

and

b.

Lieberman’s plan to deal with the Israeli Arabs, which some commentators both in Israel and abroad have called “racist,” involves giving the Israeli Arabs a choice. Either they can pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State, or they can leave Israel—with their land. What Lieberman suggests is the transfer of Israeli Arab cities like Umm al-Fahm and towns in the Arab triangle in the Galilee, to a new Palestinian state, in return for Israel’s annexation of Jewish settlement areas on the West Bank such as Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion.

and

c.

The outspoken Lieberman says aloud what many Jewish Israelis increasingly believe—that it is impossible for Jews and Arabs to live together in a single state.

All these are poorly written. They are convoluted and thereby misleading.

Lieberman, as far as I know, doesn't support transfer. People will stay where they live. The border will be redrawn. Israel didn't ask the agreement or permission of the Arabs who stayed in Israel in 1949 whether they wanted to be citizens. Does it have to ask their permission to place them in a "Palestine"? In fact, they could maybe even retain Israeli citizenship in some circumstances.

You can read his official presentation here. And in this interview.

I don't agree and you don't have to agree. But a proper presentation

Actually, Not a Bad Idea

During a debate in the Egyptian Parliament in Cairo on Saturday night, several parliamentarians said that Israel was behind the crisis since it wanted to settle the Gazans in the Sinai.

Source.

Would You Believe It?

Some Palestinians prefer life in Israel
In East Jerusalem, residents say they would fight a handover to Abbas regime

JERUSALEM — After 40 years of living under Israeli occupation, two stints in Israeli prisons and a military checkpoint on the same road as his odds-and-ends shop, one would think Nabil Gheit would be happy to hear an Israeli prime minister contemplate handing over parts of East Jerusalem to Palestinian control.

But the mayor of Ras Hamis, a Palestinian neighbourhood on the eastern fringe of this divided city, says that he can't think of a worse fate for him and his constituents than being handed over to the weak and ineffective Palestinian Authority right now.

"If there was a referendum here, no one would vote to join the Palestinian Authority," Mr. Gheit said, smoking a water pipe as he whiled away the afternoon watching Lebanese music videos. "We will not accept it. There would be another intifada [uprising] to defend ourselves from the PA."

More here.

Humanitarian Relocation

Well, seems like an old idea, one that had been adopted by the British Labour Party back in 1944 to deal with Arabs of Palestine (*) and have them moved to Iraq, is now being touted as "humanitarian" and intended to ease the plight of the Kurds in Kirkuk who had been displaced by Arabs:-

Iraq Prepares to Resettle Arabs Sent to Kirkuk by Hussein Edict

The Iraqi government will soon begin relocating Arabs who were moved to Kirkuk under an edict by Saddam Hussein to force Kurds out of the disputed northern city, officials said Saturday.

...Iraq's cabinet on Thursday endorsed a committee's recent recommendation to compensate eligible Arabs who voluntarily leave the city, said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Those who choose to move will receive about $15,000 and a plot of land in their home town. Officials will soon accept applications to determine eligibility, he said.

"This can, in a humanitarian framework, fix the mistakes of the previous regime," said Razgar Ali, a Kurd and the leader of Kirkuk's city council.

...Under Hussein, tens of thousands of Kurds were forcibly removed from Kirkuk and replaced by Arabs -- mostly Shiites from southern Iraq -- as the president sought to solidify his power in the city.

After Hussein was ousted in 2003, thousands of Kurds flooded back to the city but found their homes occupied by Arabs. The influx has strengthened Kurdish influence in the city and aggravated ethnic tensions.

For more info on transfer vis-a-vis Arabs who moved into the Land of Israel, taking advantage of the fact that the Jews had lost political and military power over the centuries so as to steal our land, see here.

============

(*)

In April 1944 the executive of Britain's Labour party published its platform for a postwar settlement. It included full-throated endorsement of the transfer of the Arabs out of Palestine and, indeed, the expansion of the mandatory borders to facilitate the absorption of large waves of Jewish immigrants. The relevant paragraph was formulated by Hugh Dalton, the chancellor of the exchequer.

Earlier, in January 1943, an under-secretary of state at the Colonial Office, the Duke of Devonshire, proposed that Britain set up an independent Arab state in Libya and that, in exchange, the Arabs acquiesce in the establishment of a Jewish state "in Palestine". He added: "The Arab population in Palestine might be dealt with by an offer of assistance to migrate to Libya for those families who find conditions in Palestine unendurable."

But also see this.


(Kippah tip: IJM)