Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
British Mandate & British Policy – Hubert_Luns

British Mandate & British Policy – Hubert_Luns

Ratings: (0)|Views: 54|Likes:
Published by Hubert Luns
This is part of the story of how the British sought to strangle the Jewish National Home, incredible as it may seem, but true. The British placed heavy restrictions on Jewish arrivals in Israel while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely, which came in the wake of the rioting by Arab mobs. In handling each riot, the British did everything in their power to prevent Jews from protecting themselves, but made little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking Jews.

In 1947 Milord Ivan Rand explained in his public letter at the UN why the mandate over Palestine could not in good conscience be returned to a bigoted and malicious British administration and why partition was the only reasonable means to dealing with the two conflicting communities. He said: “Britain has betrayed their own solemn commitments, even their own laws to use administrative processes with malice aforethought. We cannot assist or acquiesce in this persecutory discrimination of a people who have just barely survived exterminatory persecution inflicted by Germany and her helpers. It is a travesty that His Majesty’s Government have abused their trust to such a degree of betrayal and corruption. If the Jewish people are denied self determination in their contiguously held ancestral homeland, then no other nation on earth has any rights under international law to their own home other than through the application of the force of arms.”

The British policy of accommodating the militant Arabs to the detriment of the Jewish settlers in Palestine intensified after the important United Nations resolution of establishing the partition of Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, with Jerusalem having an international status. The two parts were bound together by means of an economic union, Jordan already having been separated in 1922. The transition period was to end in May 1948, the official date of the foundation of the State of Israel. All the while, clandestine arms shipments continued, in the knowledge that they would be used for Arab aggression. The British chose to sabotage the plan and made the Arabs believe that partition would be substituted by a federal state, where in view of their numbers the Arabs would call the tune. The British also insisted with the Arabs to chase the Jews out of the country, at least to make their life miserable. The UN resolution for partition was therefore rejected by ‘all’ the Arab states. Ironically this rejection was instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, the very institution it sought to prevent.
This is part of the story of how the British sought to strangle the Jewish National Home, incredible as it may seem, but true. The British placed heavy restrictions on Jewish arrivals in Israel while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely, which came in the wake of the rioting by Arab mobs. In handling each riot, the British did everything in their power to prevent Jews from protecting themselves, but made little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking Jews.

In 1947 Milord Ivan Rand explained in his public letter at the UN why the mandate over Palestine could not in good conscience be returned to a bigoted and malicious British administration and why partition was the only reasonable means to dealing with the two conflicting communities. He said: “Britain has betrayed their own solemn commitments, even their own laws to use administrative processes with malice aforethought. We cannot assist or acquiesce in this persecutory discrimination of a people who have just barely survived exterminatory persecution inflicted by Germany and her helpers. It is a travesty that His Majesty’s Government have abused their trust to such a degree of betrayal and corruption. If the Jewish people are denied self determination in their contiguously held ancestral homeland, then no other nation on earth has any rights under international law to their own home other than through the application of the force of arms.”

The British policy of accommodating the militant Arabs to the detriment of the Jewish settlers in Palestine intensified after the important United Nations resolution of establishing the partition of Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, with Jerusalem having an international status. The two parts were bound together by means of an economic union, Jordan already having been separated in 1922. The transition period was to end in May 1948, the official date of the foundation of the State of Israel. All the while, clandestine arms shipments continued, in the knowledge that they would be used for Arab aggression. The British chose to sabotage the plan and made the Arabs believe that partition would be substituted by a federal state, where in view of their numbers the Arabs would call the tune. The British also insisted with the Arabs to chase the Jews out of the country, at least to make their life miserable. The UN resolution for partition was therefore rejected by ‘all’ the Arab states. Ironically this rejection was instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, the very institution it sought to prevent.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Hubert Luns on May 31, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/13/2015

pdf

text

original

 
- 1 -
THE BRITISH MANDATE
 How the British sought to strangle the Jewish National Home
 
 
- 2 -
Introduction
This is part of the story of how the British sought to strangle the Je-wish National Home, incredible as it may seem, but true. The British placed heavy restrictions on Jewish arrivals in Israel while allowing  Arabs to enter the country freely, which came in the wake of the rio-ting by Arab mobs. In handling each riot, the British did everything in their power to prevent Jews from protecting themselves, but made little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking Jews. In 1947 Milord Ivan Rand explained in his public letter at the UN why the mandate over Palestine could not in good conscience be returned to a bigoted and malicious British administration and why partition was the only reasonable means to dealing with the two conflicting commu-nities. He said: «« Britain has betrayed their own solemn commitments, even their own laws to use administrative processes with malice aforethought. We cannot assist or acquiesce in this persecutory discrimination of a people who have just barely survived exterminatory persecution inflicted by Germany and her helpers. It is a travesty that His Majesty’s Government have abused their trust to such a degree of betrayal and corruption. If the Jewish people are denied self determination in their contiguously held ancestral homeland, then no other nation on earth has any rights under international law to their own home other than through the application of the force of arms. »» By the way, Milord Ivan Rand was a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1943 until ‘59. In 1947, he was Canada’s representative on the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The British policy of accommodating the militant Arabs to the detri-ment of the Jewish settlers in Palestine intensified after the important United Nations resolution of establishing the partition of Palestine be-tween the Jews and Arabs, with Jerusalem having an international status. The two parts were bound together by means of an economic union, Jordan already having been separated in 1922. The transition period was to end in May 1948, the official date of the foundation of the State of Israel. All the while, clandestine arms shipments conti-nued, in the knowledge that they would be used for Arab aggression. The British chose to sabotage the plan and made the Arabs believe that partition would be substituted by a federal state, where in view of their numbers the Arabs would call the tune. The British also insisted with the Arabs to chase the Jews out of the country, at least to make their life miserable. The UN resolution for partition was therefore re- jected by ‘all’ the Arab states. Ironically this rejection was instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, the very institution it sought to prevent.
 
- 3 -
1 - The repartition of the Middle East region
In the course of World War I the fall of the Ottoman Empire was consummated, thereby  paving the way for the creation of the modern Middle East in a setting hitherto unknown. Part of the deal, in April 1920, was that the territory now comprising Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem was awarded to the United Kingdom as its man-datary. In 1922 it was agreed to create within this mandate the semi-autonomous “Arab Emirate of Transjordan”, to be situated east of the river Jordan, that comprised three quar-ters of the mandate, in its entirety originally called Palestine. Henceforth ‘Palestine’ was going to be used only to denote the remainder. This secession has remained a grievance within Zionist circles, who refer to their proposals at the time and like to cite Biblical texts to prove their point, but the issue is not that easy. Maps drawn by the Zionists and presen-ted for consideration during the deliberations regarding the mandate included only a part of Transjordan. In the aftermath of World War I the name Palestine had but a vague mea-ning: there were no Palestinians, only Arabs - and that is how they felt, and the name did not elicit political aspirations. It was a name, based on a Roman practice, applied in diffe-rent circumstances and in a different age. The linking of both areas for the mandate, to the east and west of the River Jordan, was an administrative convenience and there was no suggestion that it was meant to indicate recognition of Zionist claims to parts of Trans- jordan. Under the League Mandate of 1922, the mandate which concerns us most, England retained some control over Transjordan via the High Commissioner appointed for the area west of the River Jordan, called Palestine. The span of control ended in 1946 when the Arab Emirate became the independent “Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”, simply cal-led Jordan after the annexation of the West Bank in 1950.
2 – To the detriment of Jewish settlers
Thus, in 1922 the League of Nations ratified the British Mandate for Palestine. The docu-ment covering the Mandate defined Britain’s responsibilities and powers of administration in the area. It copied and amplified the text of the Balfour Declaration, originally drawn up in 1917, concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland:
“The Government of His Bri-tannic Majesty is in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the  Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might pre- judice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
 Adding to it that recog-nition was given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country. Article 6 stated:
“The Admi-nistration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the  population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable condi-tions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency, close settlement by  Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
 From this text we might infer that there would be a tendency to prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fear proved groundless. The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the
“shortfall of land is… due less to the amount of land acquired by  Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”
 As time went by, the rights of the Arab residents and immigrants were increasingly favoured to the detriment of Jewish settlers. Contradicting the provisions of the Mandate the British placed restrictions on Jewish land  purchases. During the Mandate, that lasted until 1948, the British allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres of it to Jews. At the inception of the State of Israel, Jewish holdings amounted to about 463,000 acres, of which at the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->