Monday, December 26, 2011

Zionism in the Dock

Towards the end of Peter Kosminsky's powerful television drama, The Promise, depicting the final years (1946-1948) of the British Mandate regime in Palestine, Sergeant Len Matthews, leaving behind a land now completely given over to Zionist terror, rapine and plunder, writes in his diary: "The Jews have their precious state, but it has been born in violence and cruelty to its neighbours. I'm not sure how it can hope to survive."

Based primarily on the hitherto largely forgotten testimony of British troops who had served in Palestine at the time, The Promise cannot help but constitute an indictment of the ruthlessness and rapacity of the movement that gave birth to the modern state of Israel. "Overwhelmingly, the veterans [interviewed by Kosminsky] told a similar story," says the Wikipedia entry for the series, "they had started out 'incredibly pro-Jewish'; but, almost to a man, they had shifted their allegiance and by the end of their stay 'were feeling a great deal of sympathy for the Arabs'. A big change came in the final months, as they saw what would happen to the Palestinians, and realised both sides were to be abandoned to a war'."

Len's words, if anything, are understated. While the native Palestinians might be factually described as neighbours to individual Jewish settler communities, with whom some form of coexistence had perforce developed, there is no ignoring the fact that the Jewish community in Palestine, the bulk of whom had arrived from Europe over the previous 30 years in the teeth of opposition from Palestine's indigenous Arab majority, were sponsored and led by an extremist movement that aimed, all rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, at the wholesale dispossession and expulsion of that majority, and its replacement by a Jewish supremacist regime over as much of Mandate Palestine as could be secured by force of arms at the time. Sgt Matthews and his fellow soldiers, leaving behind the train wreck which was British Mandate Palestine in mid-May, 1948, could hardly have been aware of the extent of the ethnic cleansing of Arab Palestine still to come. Had they been so, they may well have concluded, to adapt Len's final diary entry: The Jews have their precious state, but it has been born in such violence and cruelty to Palestine's indigenous majority as to fall into the category of a Crime against Humanity.

Matthews and his colleagues were well-placed to deliver such a verdict on the Zionist movement at the end of the Mandate era, but, as it happens, the British troops who had helped the Arabs wrest Palestine from the Turks in the First World War, many of whom formed the nucleus of the military administration which governed the country from 1918 to 1920, had a verdict of their own on the earliest manifestations of Zionist arrogance and bullying which followed the movement's official insertion into Palestine in the form of a 'Zionist Commission'. While the British military government was bound by the laws of war to maintain the status quo in a newly occupied enemy land, the Zionist Commission, in effect a parallel government with its own cabinet and government departments, immediately set about attempting to implement their aim of reconstituting Palestine as a 'National Home' for 'the Jewish people' under the aegis of the British Government's ill-conceived 1917 Balfour Declaration, despite the opposition to their plans of 90% of the country's population. A clash, both with the British military administration and the Arab population, was inevitable.

Suffice it to say that the behaviour of the Commission was such as to elicit the following extraordinary condemnation from a clearly exasperated Sir Louis Bols, the last British military governor of Palestine:

"I cannot allocate the blame [for the 1920 Jerusalem riots]," wrote Bols, "to any section of the community or to individuals while their case is still sub judice, but I can definitely state that when the strain came the Zionist Commission did not loyally accept the orders of the Administration, but from the commencement adopted a hostile, critical and abusive attitude. It is a regrettable fact that with one or two exceptions it appears impossible to convince a Zionist of British good faith and ordinary honesty. They seek, not justice from the military occupant, but that in every question in which a Jew is interested discrimination shall be shown in his favour. They are exceedingly difficult to deal with. In Jerusalem, being in the majority, they are not satisfied with military protection, but demand to take the law in their own hands. In other places where they are in a minority they clamour for military protection... It will be recognized from the foregoing that my own authority and that of every department of my Administration is claimed or impinged upon by the Zionist Commission, and I am definitely of opinion that this state of affairs cannot continue without grave danger to the public peace and to the prejudice of my Administration. It is no use saying to the Moslem and Christian elements of the population that our declaration as to the maintenance of the status quo on our entry into Jerusalem has been observed. Facts witness otherwise: the introduction of the Hebrew tongue as an official language; the setting up of a Jewish judicature; the whole fabric of Government of the Zionist Commission, of which they are well aware; the special travelling privileges to members of the Zionist Commission; these have firmly and absolutely convinced the non-Jewish elements of our partiality. On the other hand the Zionist Commission accuses me and my officers of anti-Zionism. The situation is intolerable, and in justice to my officers and myself must be fairly faced.

"This Administration has loyally carried out the wishes of His Majesty's Government, and has succeeded in so doing by strict adherence to the laws governing the conduct of the Military Occupant of Enemy Territory, but this has not satisfied the Zionists, who appear bent on committing the temporary military Administration to a partialist policy before the issue of the Mandate. It is manifestly impossible to please partisans who officially claim nothing more than a 'National Home', but in reality will be satisfied with nothing less than a Jewish State and all that it politically implies. I recommend, therefore, in the interests of peace, of development, of the Zionists themselves, that the Zionist Commission in Palestine be abolished." (Cited in Palestine, the Reality, JMN Jeffries, 1939, pp 358-359)

As to the Army as a whole, Jeffries had this to say:

"Various Zionist controversialists, with their usual skill, when dealing with [the] matter [of the British Military Administration of Palestine], do not so much blame or attack the Army as write regretfully of its ignorance and its lack of comprehension. They say that the Army never really grasped the merits of Zionism, or 'only half understood the Balfour Declaration' (Leonard Stein) or did not appreciate the policy of the 'National Home'. The suggestion is that if only the Army had not been quite so dull, it would have perceived the value of all these things, and then would have thrown all its weight upon the Zionist side or at the very least have shown itself entirely sympathetic to Zionist claims.

"Now the truth is that far from not grasping or only half-understanding or not appreciating Zionist policy, the British Army in Palestine grasped and appreciated it and understood it all too well. That is the absolute clue to the Army's attitude.

"Nor was the Army a dull body, drilling unappreciatively through life. It had eyes and ears and used these organs. It was composed of a sound average body of British citizens. Sir Ronald Storrs records that 'apart from a few professional soldiers our administrative and technical staff included a cashier of a Rangoon bank, an actor-manager, two of Messrs. Cook's assistants, a picture-dealer, an Army-coach, a clown, a land-valuer, a boatswain, a distiller, an organist, a cotton-broker, various architects, British civil-servants, a taxi-driver, two schoolmasters and a missionary'. This was the staff of his Governate, inherited from the Army, a sample of the diversity of the whole military body.

"The Army, therefore - and this is what is so important - was the sole large category of average British citizens which had direct access to the facts of the so-called 'Palestine problem', the sole such category which had encountered Zionism in Palestine and had experienced what it meant. It was the sole such category which was aware of the Arabs' true situation, which knew that they were not the fantastically dubbed 'non-Jewish community' which the home politicians called them, but the people of the land of Palestine, whose native rights had been guaranteed and now were about to be betrayed. The humblest of private soldiers possessed a first-hand acquaintance with the realities of the subject which was denied to the united faculties of all the learned societies of the British Isles. Those privates' commanders, the authorities of the military administration, had a knowledge of the subject which the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers of Great Britain had not acquired, and indeed had steadfastly refused to obtain.

"So the undoubted fact that the Army in all its ranks was, with the fewest exceptions, anti-Zionist, that hostile catchwords borrowed from the Arabs, such as 'Yehoudi Mushquais!' ('Jews no good!') were on the lips of the soldiers, that, as the Zionist executive complained, 'jeers and gibes at the Zionists, at the Jewish colonies, at the [Zionist] Commission, were heard in every officers' mess from Dan to Beersheba', is but the most convincing proof that officers and men were alert to what was going on around them. They reacted, more earnestly than politely, against the great wrong planned in the interests of the 'National Home' against the population amidst which they lived. Their estimation of the wrong may be traced in their behaviour. It takes something phenomenal to cause the easy-going British soldier, who never even hates his foes, to turn to gibes and jeers.

"One of the least politically minded units amid all our institutions, our Army when it gives attention to politics must have a very powerful reason to impel it. In Palestine it had one, and the lessons of its espousal of the Arabs' cause is instructive beyond anything. There never will be a better proof of the justice of that cause than this favour shown to it by the one mass of ordinary Britons who came into contact with it and knew more than any other persons about it. As the Army at that time was constituted, its soldiers sprang from every class and were of every type of the British people, and the whole evidence was before them. In a way, they were empanelled by their presence upon the scene, and it was in a great trial by jury that they returned their verdict of 'Guilty' upon Zionism as practised in Palestine." (pp 368-370)

NB: On the experience of our own ex-Tommy, Peter Cundall, see my 7/7/08 post Peter Cundall's Palestine; on Israel lobby misrepresentation of our Light Horse Brigade, see my posts Anzac Day Special: Diggers Die for Israel (25/4/08) and Zionist Myth In-formation (1/5/08).


Anonymous said...

and why is it that the British sided with the Jews after World War 2 in the Mandate territory?

This was the question that Mohammed asked Len

The answer--so simple and complete.

The Palestinian leader at the time was Haj Amin Husseini--the Mufti of Jerusalem.

nice bloke----good defender of Muslim ans Arab values.

Pity though about his SS Nazi identification.

Funny about his handshake meeting with Hitler where he agreed that all Jews9Not zionists) should be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

And did he REALLY put together an entire BRIGADE of Nazi SS troops from Muslim Bosnia to fight and kill British but also to end the existence of Jews in the Middle East.

Perhaps do you think that is why British troops were not overly friendly to the Arabs , Mr Peter Kominsly?

You carry on seem toknow about early Zionist history with names, quotes and events.

The reason you have not done the same with so called Palestinian history of the Muslim Arabs is because you cannot.

There is none.

And there lies the elephant in your entire propaganda room.

No history,
no separate culture,
no separate currency,
no separate religion,
no outstanding writers, philosophers, or politicians.

Nothing....except ofcourse the uncle to Yassir Arafat---Grand Mufti Husseini,Hitler,.
who because of his rabid SS Nazi actions and wish to exterminate Jews as with Hitler, is not mentioned in polite conversation...unless ofcourse you are HAMAS and openly agree.

MERC said...

And your point is?

Peter D said...

The point, obviously, dear Merc, is that one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail. Can you not see?

The idea that some of these fictional "Palestinians" might side with those who sided against those who took it upon themselves to give half of Palestine away to the Jews, is simply abominable.

Abominable, dear Merc.

Anonymous said...

peter D---SS and Nazi alliances obvioiusly is to be kept silent--eh what!!!

Anonymous said...

Meet The Palestinian Muslim Lobby!

Indulge in the very recent actions of their original leaders!

Come one and all.....

whilst dastardly Zionists are accused up hill and down dale of ..?OCCUPATION

we Palestinians NAZIS of SS brand do much much better!

Follow a tour of (May he of blessed name)Grand Mufti Haj Amin Husseini to Aushwitz and Birkenau Death Camps,

where the SS -including Husseinis Bosnian Murderers carried out atrocities not thought possible by man upon man.

That is what proud Palestinians have to boast about in their short but bloody history.

Thank you Merc,

a new line of thought has emerged thanks to you and your propaganda sessions.

You keep watching The Promise.

I promise you i will be invigorating Zionist students at tertiary campuses.

As Haj Amin Husseini said--Heil Hitler........and as Goebels repeated, if you repeat a big lie enough times it is taken as truth.
and the bigger the lie thebetter.

But we Zionists feel the TRUTH works better.

Palestinian recent historical leaders were either rabid NAZIS--ie Husseini,

or didnt even believe in themselves as a people---as Shukeiry head of PLO said in the United Nations in 1957


Go Merc.....................

Anonymous said...

These Zionist comment writers,probably from Tel Aviv, know how to change the subject!

MERC said...

"Invigorating Zionist students"? I'm shocked! Invigoration between consenting adults - fine - but innocent kiddies? - never! Have you no shame?

Anonymous said...

Once again the Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1930's gets a rollout. Every few months in the main stream media and more often in the blogosphere, the Israeli propaganda machine exhumes the spectre of the Grand Mufti in a dishonest and desperate attempt to link the Palestinians of 70 years ago and those of today with the evils of Nazi Germany. Anything and everything, except an honest discussion on the real issues preventing the formation of a Palestinian state.

Anonymous said...

what blown out hypocrisy!!!!

here we read day after day about Herzl from 1890!!!!

then Lord balfour in 1917--and you have the gall to complain about the SS leadership of Husseini not just thru the 1930s but all the 1940s---during and after world war2 as if it were nothing?

get real---this will be reeled out more and more often because the public deserve to know the very scanty history of so called Palestinian Arabs and their predeliction for annhilation.

next to that occupation in west bank with a thriving economy is fairy floss.

But then hamas may truly take the mantle from Husseini....
a Jewless middle east----yep something merc herself would be proud of according to her past statements of ridiculous "decolonisation!"

and if it causes you discomfort---take a quick ease.

MERC said...

Hmm... the Mufti of Jerusalem. Interesting. I had no idea. So how'd he get mixed up with Hitler? Can you explain?

Anonymous said...

The Mufti allied himself with anyone who could stop the increasing immigration to Palestine (as the Irgun was in discussion to ally itself with the same devil in 1941). No one is better than an other. It was a period of strong propagandas and game of power. Every one is guilty.

Secret Memorandum by Bevin and Jones for British War cabinet(5 july 1947) C.P.(47) 194 :

"It was then decided that if he [the mufti] fell into our hands he should not be tried as a war criminal or as a traitor , but should be sent , to the Seychelles for detention as a political prisoner" page 1

A storm of protest would be raised in Zionist circles both in this country and even more in the United States,if the Mufti came into our hands and were allowed to go free. The effect on Jewish opinion in Palestine also would be most disturbing. Although technically he is not a war criminal (being neither an enemy national nor a person who served in the enemy forces) he is commonly so regarded , since his record of treacherous assistance to the Axis had been assiduously publicised..." page 2

and then, 70 years after, you will fight for this subject, like little children for a toy ?

MERC said...

"Faced with chronic unrest in Palestine, the British decided to leave the Grand Mufti in peace. Arrest would only enhance his reputation and they had nothing to gain from his martyrdom. An American agent stationed in Cairo reported that 'it was unlikely that any strong action will now be taken... against former Axis collaborators'. A British observer provided a vivid picture of a very relaxed Grand Mufti: 'His Eminence was in excellent mood, charming, joking. 'Put yourself in the Arabs' place. Remember yourselves in 1940. Did you ever think of offering the Germans part of Britain on condition they let you alone in the rest? Of course not, and you never would. To start with, you would have preferred to die defending it. In the second you know that they would never have kept their word to remain in the one part'." (Hitler's foreign Executioners: Europe's dirty Secret, Christopher Hale, 2011, p 374)


Anonymous said...

I think it's quiet exact yes, from british point of vue. Futhermore, he was not the leader of all palestinians! This Mufti was not very well appreciated by a good part of palestinians at this time, because of some riots and terror acts against everyone, including arabs,(especially Nashashibi's clan)who didn't shared the same plans (useless to make analogies with other groups, right ?) I believe that Al Husseini was indeed a dangerous leader (yes!) used by a non less dirty propaganda for a long term "crystallization" or "stigmatization" of the whole palestinians until now. It's nearly an antisemitic act...

MERC said...

British POV? It's the Mufti's that interests me here.

Whatever dumb/bad/anti-Semitic moves he made along the way, they were made in the context of forging an alliance with his implacable enemy's enemy, a perfectly rational strategy given the circumstances of the day. As he said to the British observer: 'Put yourself in the Arabs' place'. Quite simply, without Britain's sponsorship of the Zionist invasion of Palestine, there'd have been no collaboration with the Nazis.

Anonymous said...

Strong propaganda used against the Mufti because of strategical unholy alliance in 1942-44, in order to create an amalgam between Palestinians and fascism until now, is a kind of antisemitic act...(if we keep in mind the ethnical origin of this word). That's what I said.

MERC said...

Thanks for the clarification.