Left Unsaid — a Cardinal Error

” The one rightful , reasonable, simple and compulsive lever we held and , if you will, still hold, was a sincere readiness to resign the mission, to lay our Mandate at the feet of the United Nations Organization, and thereafter to evacuate the country with which we have no connection or tradition— We should now give notice that we will return our Mandate to the United Nations Organization—-” [ Years of Wrath, Days of Glory, P 386].

The above quotation is from Winston Churchill’s speech to the British Parliament following the Irgun’s bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946. The inference of this statement clearly suggests that but for the efforts of the Irgun, Britain world not have departed Palestine.

But in typical fashion of political processes, this well formulated advice was ignored. In consequence thereof, we find Churchill virtually repeating himself as late as 1947. He says then” —–give due notice of our impending evacuation from that country.” [The Siege, P 272].

As reported by Sidney Zion, after Churchill was deposed as prime minister, he showed up at the New York home of financier-statesman Bernard Baruch. Apparently Churchill said to the showman Billy Rose; “Billy, weren’t you part of the Irgun?”

To which, Rose nervously answered; “Well Ben Hecht got me involved, but I didn’t know much about it.” Churchill’s reply, “Don’t apologize Billy, if it wasn’t for those guys, we’d still be in Palestine.” [NY Daily News, April 26, 1988 – Israel’s Real War Story].
]
The year 1922 was a seminal year in that it realized Churchill’s memorable White Paper and also enabled him to demonstrate that Arab economic fears were unjustified. This was due to a decision that had a lasting impact. Winston Churchill approved a concession for hydro-electric schemes in the Auja and Jordan river valleys to Pinhas Rutenberg, a Jewish engineer from Russia. This far reaching plan to provide power and irrigation would make possible the reclamation of the land and its economic development. It was the first giant step of proof of the Zionist claim that Palestine could support a population of millions as opposed to the Arab claim of hundreds of thousands.

With this, Churchill was empowered to inform the House of Commons that only Zionists were willing to undertake such a project. His extraordinary vision was encapsulated in memorable words:
“I am told that the Arabs would have done it for themselves. Who is going to believe that ? Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine, would not in a thousand years have taken effective steps toward the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell – a handful of philosophic people – in the wasted sun-scotched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan continue to flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea.” [A Peace to End all Peace, P523].

Throughout the years, history demonstrates a constant complaint about the British favoring the Jews, when in fact the same history actually reflects the opposite. Consider this statement from Lloyd George; “The Allies redeemed the promises made in the declarations to the full. No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations, and more particularly of Britain and her Empire, the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria and Trans-Jordan, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for the Turkish oppressors.” [A Peace to End all Peace, P401].

As a contrast, a referral to the 1939 British White Paper displays an absolute betrayal by the British against the Jews. Its stated purpose as freely admitted by British officialdom, was to counteract the Axis penetration and to pacify the rebellious Arabs by jettisoning the Jewish national home policy. In other words to turn the 1922 Churchill White Paper on its head.

The White Paper of 1939, provided that , after a 10 year transition period, Palestine would become an independent Arab state with a Jewish minority not exceeding one-third of the population. Jewish immigration was limited to fifteen thousand certificates a year for five years. It purported to kill the hope of Jewish independence for all time. It appeared that Britain then favored a role reversal, one whereby the Arabs would become the ruling party.

The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations declared that this White Paper was not in accordance with the Mandate – but the League had little authority left. The Zionists regarded it as a cynical betrayal at a time of agonizing requirement when the Nazi tide threatened to engulf the Jews of Europe.

What followed was a period of “illegal” immigration with the extraordinary and brutal efforts by the British government of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin blockading ships with Jewish refugees attempting to reach the shores of the Land of Israel. It was accompanied by encampment of “displaced persons” in Cyprus.

The Evian Committee of 1938 was constituted to coordinate assistance for refugees from Nazi Europe. Attended by representatives of 31 governments, all of whom expressing sympathy, but almost all “regretting” that they were unable to take in German Jews. At the insistence of Britain, Palestine was excluded from the agenda.

Who created the PLO? The PLO, was created in 1964 during the Arab League Summit in Cairo, its originally stated goal being the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle while seeking the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle and seeking to destroy the existence of Zionism in the Middle East. By studying the Arab press, listening to the words of Abbas, various Hamas leaders, the ongoing education of Arab youth cast in the mantra of hate towards Israel, refusal to accept absolutely generous offers by Barak and Olmert and refusal to meet Netanyahu, have surely demonstrated that there is “nothing new under the sun.” And the continued efforts by the current Trump administration to pursue thoughts on a variation of the so-called ” two-state solution” is no less a confirmation of this adage.

Indeed, Jews donating money to Arab enemies or attempting to do so is yet a further substantiation of this phenomena. The famed historian Barbara Tuchman talked of Wooden -headedness, the source of self-deception, a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. We have seen this in Israel and now with the Trump’s, and indeed with certain Jewish leftists. Tuchman observes that it is epitomized in a historian’s statement about Philip 11 of Spain, the surpassing wooden-head of all sovereigns; ” No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence.” And so it is in these days.

According to recent dispatches from the media, Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman have announced that “Help is at Hand for Palestinians; it’s all up to Hamas.” This after a 6 day trip to the Middle East from which they concluded that “Hamas was the problem.” In other words they implied that Abbas and the PA are part of the solution. These highly accredited individuals’ wisdom extends to a proffered observation that there is a clear divide between the bad actors looking to cause destruction, violence and human misery and the responsible leaders [Abbas?] trying to create a better and sustainable future for their citizens. More folly.

As understood by Barbara Tuchman, a phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests is an established practice. She considered folly to be the most dangerous act of misgovernment and saw it as a “self-destructive act carried out despite the availability of a recognized and feasible alternative. In Israel’s case several known alternatives excluding consulting Abbas, Arafat in a western suit or Hamas.

The very ideas of trading land for peace or accepting or embracing the enemy’s narrative have shown themselves to be bankrupt time and again. One has only to look at the huge escalation in terrorism following the Oslo Accords.

Yet another factor comes into play when considering Jewish behavior among a segment of Jewry. Professor Kenneth Levin, a notable psychiatrist, has written extensively on what he has described variously as the Psyche of the Abused, The Oslo Syndrome and the Psychology of Populations Under Siege. He explains as follows:

Subject to persecution over many centuries, Jews have inevitably developed, and displayed in their communal life, psychological stigmata of the oppressed. There has been a strong impulse among Jews to blame themselves for communal traumas or to embrace the anti-Jewish indictments of the larger society. We have seen this in retired IDF high ranking officers who develop guilt, sometimes bordering on Jewish self-hatred. Who can forget the Gatekeepers? It required a major exercise in self-deception to perceive Arab intentions as “moderate.”

The Israeli government, at times, has even cast Arafat and Abbas as allies against terror despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Arabs, on the other hand, learnt a great lesson from an ally in Nazi Goebbels who once proclaimed that if a lie is repeated sufficiently, it will be believed. In order to gain lost traction in the war of ideas, Israel needs to repeat the truth by making full use of recoded history. Whereas the Arabs had continually pressed their falsified rights, the Israelis foolishly stressed peace.

Professor Bernard Lewis :” From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule , the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries—-” [ Commentary Magazine, January 1975].

Known as an anonymous figure behind the Balfour Declaration, South African Field Marshal Jan Christian Smuts played a significant role in the promotion of a Jewish state in Palestine. He was highly regarded by Churchill , Balfour and Lloyd Jones for his superior intellect, strategic planning and military skills – a world class leader.Smuts was a strong advocate for a Jewish state in Palestine.

Israel is in a position to demonstrate political rights from “time immemorial” to the present day. In this, they can even utilize Arab voices.
[a] Arab MK Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the 1937 Peal Commission: “There is no such country as ‘Palestine’: ‘Palestine ‘is a term the Zionists invented—-Our country was for centuries part of Syria. ‘Palestine’ is alien to us.”
[b] Ahmed Shuqeiri, first Chairman of the PLO, serving in 1964-67, to the UN Security Council in 1949: “it is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”
[c] Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian to Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”

By the careful creation of a thoroughly researched time line dating back to Temple times through to today, it can be readily shown that only the Jews have title to the Land of Israel. Stated differently, it can be demonstrated that all Arab claims are mythical and false. Only when this is done can peace be possible.

About the Author
Alex Rose was born in South Africa in 1935 and lived there until departing for the US in 1977 where he spent 26 years. He is an engineering consultant. For 18 years he was employed by Westinghouse until age 60 whereupon he became self-employed. He was also formerly on the Executive of Americans for a Safe Israel and a founding member of CAMERA, New York (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and today one of the largest media monitoring organizations concerned with accuracy and balanced reporting on Israel). In 2003 he and his wife made Aliyah to Israel and presently reside in Ashkelon.
Comments