UK Labourites in Russia Spring 1917...and the Jews

In the spring of 1917, a delegation of the British Labour movement set out for Russia.

The background:

And on Jews, in their report:

Source.

Here they are:

^

Not That Clever

On September 24, James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, rose in Parliament to respond to MK from Aberavon, Stephen Kinnock), who had secured a debate on "settlement and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian territories" during which he uttered not a few inanities. It last an hour and a quarter.

Cleverly stated the issue is "a sensitive but incredibly important", even "complex". Perhaps being complex, Cleverly was challenged to provide factual replies.

He stated the Britain desires "a ​stable, secure and peaceful two-state solution, with a thriving Israel next door to a thriving Palestine based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and fair, agreed and realistic settlements for refugees...a two-state solution is the only viable long-term solution for the area...we genuinely believe it is in Israel’s best interests to also have a viable Palestinian state so that it can maintain its desired future as a Jewish democratic state...annexation...would be a violation of international law."

Asked if he woud agree that boycotting Israel if nannexation goes forward "would demonstrate a genuine commitment to the rights of the Palestinian people and international law?", he expressed opposition:

The UK Government have a long-standing position to oppose the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement towards the state of Israel, but more than that, it is better that we prevent annexation from taking place. 

Nevertheless, he indicated that

We give guidance to businesses and ultimately it is a decision for individual companies whether to operate in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, but the British Government absolutely do not encourage or support such activities...It was in order to allow consumers to have that choice that in December 2009 the UK Government ​introduced voluntary guidance to enable products from Israeli settlements near the OPTs to be specifically labelled as such.

He then addessed the matter of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria:

The UK’s position on settlements is also clear. Again, they are illegal under international law and present an obstacle to a sustainable two-state solution. We want to ​see a contiguous west bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of a viable sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders. In 2016, the UK supported UN Security Council resolution 2334, which states that Israeli settlement activity “constitutes a flagrant violation” of international law and “has no legal validity”. This is the long-standing position of the UK Government

On the insulting language and incitement in Palestinian Authority textbooks, he reminded that "we have pressed the EU to publish its interim report on Palestinian textbooks. We want it to be addressed at pace and transparently"

MP Kinnock called it "a rich and multifaceted debate" but noted "the UAE deal has not stopped annexation. The settlements continue". He posited that "the illegal settlements are not Israel. They are illegally occupied territory that should belong to the Palestinians, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) correctly pointed out." and that there is a "need to act against those British companies that are involved in the illegal settlements...It is time for the British Government to step up to the plate. It is time for tangible action...".

Mr. Cleverly should know that England's efforts to thwart Zionism, from the 1921 White Paper to that of 1939 to its post-war diplomatic failures, were not only wrong morally but indefensible legally. All our communities in the land west of the Jordan River are ertainly legal and legitimate. The League of Nations Mandate, which Gt. Britian promoted and voted in favor legislates:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

That is quite clear.

"Palestine" as an independent state never existed and has no claims, not even under Geneva 1949. Jordan's rule over the territory until 1967 was an illegal occupation. The 1967 war won by Israell was one of self-defense against Arab aggression and no rights can accrue as a result of that illegal action.

Mr. Cleverly, review the historical, political and legal material for the next debate in the House. This article would be helpful. There are others.

^

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) 

Mispurposeful Language

UK Secretary of State Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Boris Johnson in Parliament at Question Time yesterday:

We supported it only because it contained new language pointing out the infamy of terrorism that Israel suffers every day, not least on Sunday, when there was an attack in Jerusalem. I was glad that the resolution identified that aspect of the crisis in the middle east, 

For Illustrative purposes only

The actual language:

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons, 

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,  

...Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;  

"New language"?

"Infamy"?

Actually the wording is purposeful ("all"; "acts of violence against civilians") in its intent to allow the Arabs to claim Israel is engaged in terrorism.*

He fools himself.  And the British House of Parliament.

Well, at least there was this exchange:

Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss our grave concerns about resolution 2334, which my constituents believe will make peace in the middle east harder to achieve by imposing a complex set of preconditions that the Palestinians will use to avoid serious engagement in negotiation?

Boris Johnson

I am very grateful for that question, and I am happy to offer exactly such a consultation with colleagues. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has already undertaken to do just that.

*

For those in the dark, the PA considers a "Jewish settler" and a "Jewish settlement" an act of state terror justifying their acts of "resistance" (actually, terror).

The text is quite ambiguous and permits the Arabs to act against Jews.

^

Stupidity in UK Parliament

The idiocy of British parliamentarians:

Sir Alan Duncan

Does my hon. Friend understand the foundations from which he wishes to build that co-existence that we would all like to see? Will he unequivocally confirm that he endorses the Government policy that Israeli settlements on Palestinian land are wholly illegal?

Dr Offord

I can confirm that I think that. Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court says that as well, so there is no misunderstanding about that.

During the debate on  Foreign Aid Expenditure, 13 June 2016.

^

From Gaza to Libya Via Whitehall

Writes Robin Shepherd at The Commentator, inter alia:

Our armed forces owe a huge debt to Israel over the operation in Afghanistan where our strategy against suicide bombing was designed according to advice from the Israeli military and its counter-terrorism experts.

Israel has saved British lives, which is one reason why we really do owe that country such a debt of thanks.

Instead, of course, our public diplomacy is Arabist to the core.

The Foreign Office’s anti-Zionism is so extreme that when Richard Goldstone himself withdraw the key allegation in his United Nations report that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians in the Gaza conflict in December 2008 and January 2009, they issued a statement to The Commentator saying not that they now believed the Goldstone Report should be withdrawn but that they were determined to stand behind it!

...If Israel did more than any other army in history to safeguard civilians and Britain still gives succor to a report (and an agenda behind it) which alleges war crimes charges against the Jewish state over that operation, then logic dictates that war crimes charges would be even more justified against Britain itself.

In its sordid assault on Israel, the British Foreign Office is thus undermining Britain’s own national interests...We could be hoist with our own petard.

Lacking any credible legal, moral or intellectual response, the Foreign Office can only rely on the hope that hostility to the Jewish State is a unique phenomenon. It’s one rule for the Jews, and another for the rest of us...But it’s also reckless in the extreme. We have no idea how the (ridiculously named) “Arab Spring” is going to turn out. We don’t even know what’s going to happen in Libya, or how long we’ll be there...

Read it all.

The Middle East and the Royal Wedding

This is unbelievable (and it is the News of the World) but also ABC:-

Wills and Kate will have a week in Jordan

WILLS and Kate will spend a very private honeymoon in the kingdom of Jordan - at a luxury villa owned by the Middle East country's king. The villa, part of King Abdullah II's lavish personal summer palace, is in Red Sea resort Aqaba. It is surrounded by miles of private beach and protected by the monarch's elite military guard.

A source close to the Jordanian Royal Family told us: "The King has known the British Royal Family all his life and knew he could offer the newlyweds privacy unlike anywhere else in the world. It is completely isolated and hidden from prying eyes. After sharing their wedding with billions of others it will suit William and Kate perfectly.

"The King has made his summer palace impregnable. His father King Hussein suffered 37 assassination attempts on his life and over the years the Aqaba palace has been turned into a fortress."

Recent unrest across the Middle East, including Jordan, has forced royal officials to line up other possible honeymoon locations but Aqaba is top of Wills and Kate's list. Towers manned around the clock by armed guards and palm trees line miles of beach where Wills and Kate will be able to sunbathe unseen and enjoy water-skiing and tennis. The warm, clear waters of the Red Sea will be perfect for Kate, who lived in Jordan for part of her childhood. She was spotted buying bikinis in London this week.

A helicopter pad on the villa's roof will allow the newlyweds to travel to visit some of the wonders Jordan offers tourists, including Petra, the city carved into a mountain in 1200BC.

This is ridiculous. Yes, we know of that "Jordan Is Beautiful" Campaign.

First of all, Eilat is so much a better place.

Second, Jordan is a non-democratic country. Yes, it's a monarchy like Great Britain and yes, the royal family men go to Sandhurst but still, this is not the example to set.

Third, it is dangerous out there:

Jordan unrest: Salafist clash wounds dozens in Zarqa

Dozens of people have been injured as ultra-conservative Salafist Muslims clashed with pro-government supporters in Jordan's northern city of Zarqa.

The police used tear gas to disperse the crowds, a police spokesman said. Six officers were stabbed and 34 others injured in the clashes, he added.

Meanwhile, up to 1,000 people protested in the capital Amman, calling for political and economic reform.

We know Jordan was created out of nothing by England but that debt was finished long ago.

Oh, and watch out for trouble with your credit cards.


^

"Palestine" Was Not Promised to the Arabs

I came across this resource and quickly reading through, realized that it contains a remification on exactly what "country" the Arabs were demanding prior to World War I and before.


First, we have this letter:

Lord Kitchener to Sir Edward Grey.
F.O. 6672/6672/14/44.
(No. 22.) Secret.
Cairo, D. February 6, 1914.
R. February 14, 1914.

The Sherif Abdullah, son of the Sherif of Mecca, is now staying in Cairo on a short visit called upon me yesterday.

He begged me to convey to you his father's compliments, and said that affairs in the Hedjaz not going on as well as could be wished owing to the recent appointment of a new Turkish Vali who combined civil and military functions and who is not in sympathy with the people and does not act harmoniously with his father in the conduct of the internal affairs of the holy places as well as for the comfort and security of the Moslem pilgrims from all parts of the world which his father as Sherif has been so long responsible.

He wished me to ask you whether in case this friction became acute and an attempt was made by the Turkish Government to dismiss his father from the hereditary office of Sherif of the holy places, you would use your good offices with the Sublime Porte to prevent any such attempt. He pointed out that his father had always done his best to assist Indian Moslem pilgrims amongst whom he had many friends. He stated very decidedly that in case the Turkish Government dismissed his father the Arab tribes of the Hedjaz would fight for the Sherif and a state of war against the Turkish troops would ensue. He hoped in such circumstances that the British Government would not allow reinforcements to be sent by sea for the purpose of preventing the Arabs from exercising the rights which they have enjoyed from time immemorial in their own country round the holy places.

He wished his remarks to be kept very secret and on no account to be known in Constantinople, and he also asked me whether you would send his father some message. I said I thought would be improbable that you would do so.

I have, &c.
KITCHENER.

In my reading, the country he desired liberated with British help from the Turkish Ottoman rule did not inlcude "Palestine" but was restricted to the Saudi Arabain Peninsula.

Nevertheless, you might presume that "holy places" still would include Jerusalem, yes?

Well, look at this in context:

Lord Kitchener to Sir Edward Grey.
F.O. 15883/4588/14/44.
(No. 58.) Confidential.
Cairo, D. April 4, 1914.
R. April 11, 1914

Sir,

In the enclosure to Sir Louis Mallet's despatch No. 193(1) of the 18th ultimo of which His Excellency forwarded me a copy, I notice it is stated that the Sherif of Mecca sent his son, Abdullah Bey, to me. This does not, however, quite accurately represent what took place, as Abdullah Bey was actually on a visit to the Khedive and only called on me quite unofficially, and some time after his arrival in Cairo, when he spoke to me as reported in my despatch No. 22 Secret,(2) of the 6th of February last. You will remember that he received no sort of encouragement from me.

I quite agree with Sir Louis Mallet in thinking that great care will have to be taken in dealing with the Arab question, so as not to wound Turkish susceptibilities and arouse their suspicions. At the same time we cannot afford to lose sight of the interests which Great Britain must always take in the Holy Places, owing to the annual pilgrimage which is attended by thousands of Indian Moslems and also by many Egyptians. The welfare and indeed safety of these pilgrims is intimately bound up with the maintenance of order in the districts in question and of a good relationship between Turks and Arabs whose animosity has undoubtedly been roused by the recent Turkish policy of centralization adopted during the last few years and more especially by the proposal to push forward railway communications which would cause great pecuniary loss to the Arabs who live on their camel hire.

I take this opportunity of saying that the suspicions entertained by the Grand Vizier with regard to my interest in the case of Aziz Bey el Masri are quite groundless (see Sir Louis Mallet's Telegram No. 191 of March 27th(3) ). Egyptian public opinion has been genuinely and sincerely aroused by the arrest and trial of this officer, and so far from taking the initiative in pressing the matter at Constantinople I have had some difficulty in calming the resentment caused by the proceedings of the Turkish Government. Nothing is known here of his alleged intrigues with the Arab leaders in Mesopotamia and his arrest is generally attributed to the personal animosity and. jealousy of Enver Pasha.

I have, &c.
KITCHENER.

This correspondence, at the highest levels of British-Arab communications, would at the very least, cast doubt that the British in any way could have presumed that "Palestine" would be under Arab control after the war but rather it was outside any Arab sphere and most definitely could have been promised to the Zionist movement.