Thursday, November 2, 2017

100 Years of Balfour = 100 Years of Palestinian Dispossession

Exactly 100 years ago today the British war cabinet issued that most heinous of foreign policy documents, the Balfour Declaration. In its name, Britain unleashed wave after wave of European Zionist settlers (protected by British bayonets) on a defenceless Arab Palestine. This led inexorably to the eventual dispossession, in 1948, of Palestine's Arab inhabitants by Zionist terror gangs, bent on the creation of an exclusively Jewish, apartheid state.

The most relevant book on the subject is, of course, J.M.N. Jeffries' 1939 classic, Palestine: The Reality, thankfully reissued this year by Olive Branch Press in the US. It should be read by all serious students of the Palestine problem. Here is the summary/conclusion which follows Jeffries' forensic analysis of this appallingly racist, viciously colonial, document:

"These were its principal characteristics:

 1. Its publication broke our pledged word to the Arab race.

2. Its object was to establish the Jews in a privileged position in Palestine without the assent of the population...

3. It was written in great part by those who were supposed only to have received it, and was deliberately worded so that the truth might be hidden by it, its guarantees to the Arabs be useless and its promises intangible.

4. It was ostensibly a recognition of Zionist aspirations to return to Palestine under the sanction of historic rights, but in reality it was the published clause of a private bargain by which war-spoils were to be given in payment for war-help.

"There is relief in quitting this subject... But it is a pity that it cannot be lost from sight, and a greater pity that it has not yet been removed from our public records. Unlawful in issue, arbitrary in purpose, and deceitful in wording the Balfour Declaration is the most discreditable document to which a British Government has set its hand within memory." (pp 200-01)

Readers should also know that, in London today, when the prime minister of Perfidious Albion, Theresa May, sits down to dinner with her Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, to celebrate 'with pride' the November 2, 1917 issue of this "most discreditable document to which a British Government has set its hand within memory," they and their entourages will be toasting 100 years of Palestinian dispossession.


Anonymous said...

Undoubtedly due to Britain's deceitful dealings in the Middle East, the indigenous population of Palestine were left with nothing but a century of dispossession and misery. Unbridled greed and malicious intent, enabled Britain to get her hands on the vast wealth generated by oil, an outcome rarely acknowledged by the British. She should be apologising, however that would mean reflecting openly and honestly on her legacy as a colonial occupier, not just in the Middle East but also here in Australia. And as long as so many of our polies have dual citizenship, don't hold your breath.

MERC said...

Middle East oil, however, was not a factor in issuing the Balfour Declaration.

Jeffries' 4th point gives the reason why: the Zionists fooled the British into believing that, if only they would back Zionist designs on Palestine, the Zionists could, in return, rally Russian and American Jews, in particular, in support of the Allied war effort. Needless to say, they were bluffing, as most Jews at the time had little or no interest in flocking to Palestine. IOW, they were non- or anti-Zionists. This was the sordid "private bargain" referred to by Jeffries. While the Zionists got Palestine, Britain got SFA, except a Palestine problem.

Anonymous said...

First time poster, long time reader.

All this nonsense about 'citizenship' is ridiculous. That is the second limb of section 44. We should be weeding out those who actively do something in support of a foreign nation. That is the first limb of section 44. I wonder if Michael Danby MP (ALP- Tel Aviv) should be called out on the first limb of section 44 for his 'allegiance, obedience or adherence' to Israel. Certainly that is his focus well over and above his constituents in his seat of Melbourne Ports. This might be just what The Greens need to oust him from the seat.