Defending the British. Abu Yehudah

Palestine and the Mandate (30 October 2016, 28 Tishrei, 5777)

1. Introduction. Anti-Semitism and the Opposite and Israelite Origins
2. Message to Abu Yehudah
3. The Mandate
4. Need for Objectivity
5. More Positive than Negative
6. The British Enabled the Jewish Victory
7. A Need for Balance. Jewish Zionists Also Killed Jews. The Israeli Atom Bomb is Thanks to Britain!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1. Introduction. Anti-Semitism and the Opposite and Israelite Origins

Quote:
British PM blasts Labour as 'party of anti-Semitism' (October 5, 2016)
http://www.timesofisrael.com/british-pm-blasts-labour-as-party-of-anti-semitism/
# British Prime Minister Theresa May on Wednesday accused the UK's opposition Labour Party of 'tolerating anti-Semitism and supporting voices of hate,' after a string of its members were suspended for making anti-Jewish and anti-Israel comments.
# Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been forced numerous times in recent months to deal with fallout from anti-Semitic rhetoric expressed by some of his closest aides and supporters.
The latest in a string of ill-chosen outbursts came from Corbynite Jackie Walker, who was reportedly suspended five days ago for comments about the national day to honor the victims of the Holocaust.

Anti-Jewish sentiment does exist in Britain.
We identify the British as including different Tribes of Israelite origin especially those of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.
Seven Criteria
1. Bible. Indications of Scripture especially the Blessings but other factors as well.
2. Groundwork: Historical, Archaeological, and Related Proofs.
3. Judah: Affinity with the Jews.
4. Empathy: The Doing of Social Justice.
5. Israelite Self-Identification
6. Family Connection
7. Tribal Affiliation.

One of our Criteria for determining who does, and who does not, belong to Israel is 3. Judah: Affinity with the Jews. This entails a relative lack of anti-Semitism when compared to other countries and when the age and circumstances are considered.

How do we reconcile the existence of anti-Semitism with Israelite Origin?
First of all not all of them descend from Israel. Substantial numbers of non-Israelites may also be found among them. In some circumstances the non-Israelite elements may have gotten control or at least influential.
Also lack of Biblical values, lack of belief, moral breakdown, sexual promiscuity, perversion, etc, all may lead to hatred of Judah even among Jews.
And knowledge.
False information over time derived from the prevailing media would have an effect on anyone.

The way to deal with this problem in our opinion is to spread the truth.

If in the past the British were actually mainly pro-Jewish, and helped the Jews in many ways, and fought wars on their behalf that is history that should be known.
Presented properly it could bring many in Britain who already feel pro-Jewish to asset their philo-Semitism much more strongly than they would otherwise do so.

The British were also in certain situations and at specific times anti-Jewish. Should this be emphasized? Will it help make the British more assertively in favor of the State of Israel? Or have the opposite effect?
In our opinion it is always preferable to emphasize the positive facets that did exist.

We certainly SHOULD NOT present a mainly positive period as a negative one. The truth should be told.

Recently we came across an anti-British posting claiming that the British during the time they ruled Palestine had been much more anti-Jewish than in fact they were.
Consequently we wish to straighten out some of the facts and to create a more balanced picture which is closer to the truth.

The offensive writing we are protesting against was posted to the "blog" of Abu Yehudah to whom we addressed the following message.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2. Message to Abu Yehudah
Shalom,
To Abu Yehudah.
We began following your posts following a mention by Arnold Roth
http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.co.il/
Arnold is acquainted with us.
Why do you call yourself a blog when in effect one is required to go through a whole rigmarole just to submit a comment?
No other blog does that though most have some form of supervising moderation over what comments are published.
In fact I did not see any comments to your articles so I may presume you do not really want them?

Now concerning your recent posting:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3. The Mandate

re
The British betrayal of the Jewish people
http://abuyehuda.com/
Posted on October 28, 2016 by Vic Rosenthal

The article by Vic Rosenthal is one-sided and misleading. There may be some truth in it on some points BUT the lack of perspective and factual counter-points that DO EXIST create a false and pernicious impression.
The British DID NOT receive a Mandate to do anything to the detriment of the Arab population or to overduly favor the Jewish settlers when fiction arose.
They should perhaps have been more assertively pro-Jewish in the nationalist sense and that was their original intention.
Assimilationist Jews in Britain however caused the Mandate to be watered down and be presented as less pro-Jewish.
See
"The Vision Was There. A History of the British Movement for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine" by Franz Kobler, 1956, London .
http://www.britam.org/vision/koblercontents.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
4. Need for Objectivity
The British in effect on the whole interpreted the Mandate they had received in favor of the Jews. There were however painful exceptions to this generality.
The article by Vic Rosenthal seems to be based on a review of a work written in 1938 at the height of the argument where the aim of the writer was to present one side of the debate only.
See:
Were the Arabs Indigenous to Mandatory Palestine? by Sheree Roth
http://www.meforum.org/6275/were-the-arabs-indigenous-to-mandatory-palestine

"The Rape Of Palestine" By William B. Ziff ( 1938)
https://archive.org/stream/TheRapeOfPalestineByWilliamB.Ziff1938withPageLinks
ForTheTableOfContents/The%20Rape%20of%20Palestine%20by%20William%20B.%20Ziff%20
(1938)%20(with%20page%20links%20for%
20the%20table%20of%20contents)_djvu.txt

The review by S. Roth mentions the entry of Arabs immigrants to Palestine during the Mandate. It neglects to say that these illegals were encouraged by Jewish Capitalists and even by Zionist enterprises since they were a source of cheap labor.
We deal with this matter below and show how, to some degree, the Jewish establishment itself was responsible for the said situation.

Concerning the tract by W. B. Ziff a separate article is being prepared.
It may be said that, at the time under the circumstances the attitude of Ziff this may have been a legitimate stand for that particular writer to take BUT it cannot be presented as any kind of objective testimony.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
5. More Positive than Negative
The British often were prejudiced against the Jews. They were also capable of cruelty and tyranny. This may be seen by the behavior of the British in other places such as Ireland and South Africa.
Nevertheless the British attitude towards the Jews in Palestine, on the whole, was not as bad as the article by Rosenthal purports.

Quote:

Rosenthal:
# The British betrayal of the Jewish people must be reckoned as one of the great crimes of the 20th century. Entrusted with the Mandate to ultimately make possible a Jewish National Home, Britain instead fought its realization tooth and nail, ultimately becoming complicit in the Nazi Holocaust. Even after the war, when the evil consequences of its policies should have been clear, when Germany herself began to recognize her obligation to what was left of the Jewish people, Britain continued to fight against the establishment of a Jewish state, battling attempts to resettle Jewish refugees, even arming and providing military advisors to the Arab armies that in 1948 tried to finish the job Hitler started. #

Not true.
The British ENABLED the infrastructure of what became the Jewish State.
There were however elements in the British Establishment and in British Society who were negative.
The whole affair is somewhat analogous to the USA and Israel today.
While the present President (Obama) and members of the US Establishment may not like Israel and may actively support anti-Israel elements and may sometimes take anti-Israel measures the OVERALL US policy supports and enables Israel.
Without US backing and the official US policies the State of Israel might well suffer from many more difficulties than it currently does.
This is despite Israel due to the USA being limited in its ability to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism and insurgency, not being able to freely settle Jews in ALL its own territory, and having to face the genocidal potential of a Nuclear Iran and who knows what else.
In fact if one wanted a whole list and detailed account of actual and potential damage caused by the USA to Israel since 1948 could be drawn up.
It would look frighteningly horrible if we did not take into account the much greater good the USA has in fact done for us.

Quote:
Rosenthal:
# But Ziff explains how, long before 1939, British authorities used every bureaucratic device possible to reduce the number of Jews allowed into the country, while completely overlooking the uncontrolled immigration of Arabs who flocked in to take advantage of the jobs created by the Zionists. 'Illegal' Jews were hunted down and punished. Roth quotes Ziff, #

Partly true at one stage BUT most of the Jewish illegals were allowed to stay. Those who were rejected were interned in Cyprus, maintained and protected at British expense, and later allowed to enter.
Jewish capitalists in Palestine and the Jewish Agency were partly  responsible for the Arabs flocking in from outside regions. They gave them jobs and pressed for their admittance. Within the Jewish community a now-forgotten controversy raged over the policy of "Hebrew Labor." Jewish workers were discriminated against (as they still are within Israel in some sectors, e.g. building). Even on  the Jewish Rght there were people (like Achimeir) who were agaisnt "Hebrew" Labor replacing that of the Arabs!

Also, the situation must be taken into account, at least to some degree. The British had an Empire including what was then India (now India, Pakistan, and Bengla Desh) with hundreds of millions of Muslims. The British Empire was drastically undermanned. It was also restless with movements for independence making themselves felt. Most Muslims, then as now, favored the Arabs over the Jews, and were quite fanatical on this issue. Their presence and sentiments had to be taken into account especially since War with Germany, Italy, and Japan was just around the corner. Pro-German sentiment was quite strong among the "colored" peoples and what they would have considered to be provocations had to be avoided if possible. My father in England on the eve of WW2 saw colored immirgrants marching with the fascist-leader Oswald Mosley!

If the Israeli Army with almost as many soldiers and with a much more sophisticated infrastructure than the British had in India has trouble controlling a million and a half Arabs in Judah and Samaria what chance would the British have had against hundreds of millions like that??

Quote:

Rosenthal:
# The language of instruction is Arabic . Hebrew is not even taught as a foreign tongue. When in 1937 a rumor circulated that the study of Hebrew was to be introduced, it only evoked incredulity and rendered the Government's hasty denial superfluous. Apart from scientific subjects, the Peel Commission acknowledges, the curriculum is almost wholly devoted to the literature, history and tradition of the Arabs; and all the school masters from the humblest village teacher to the head of the Government Arab college, are Arabs. School masters in Palestine appear to have been recruited from the ranks of the most exaggerated pan-Arab agitators. The result, as Lord Peel candidly admits, is to turn the children out as violent 'Arab patriots .' 'The schools,' he tells us, 'have become seminaries of Arab nationalism.' [p. 310] #

Yeah, Yeah. And what did you expect? That the British teach the Arabs to speak Hebrew and sing the "Tikvah"?
And how does the above situation concerning Arab schools under the Mandate having been hotbeds of Arab nationalism differ from what NOW prevails in the State of Israel within the Arab sector???
If anything the situation under the British may have been better, as some Jews have claimed.

The complaints against the British were actually against the Arabs who were the demographic majority and in Arab areas they were in charge. The situation is not that different today within the State of Israel in those areas with an Arab majority.

Quote:
Rosenthal:

# The common understanding is that the British did not want an independent state to arise in Palestine, which sits in a critical position as the gateway to the 'Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire,' India. Possibly they felt that even if they had to accept an independent state, an Arab one like the British client monarchies of Jordan, Iraq and Egypt would be more controllable than a democratic Jewish state. They also wanted to stay on the good side of the Arab oil-producing nations, as oil had become much more important as a strategic commodity after WWI.

# One problem with this theory is that by 1947 there was no longer a need for a gateway to India, now independent. But Britain fought as hard as ever during the last year of the Mandate to prevent Jews from reaching Palestine. Jews were kept in 'internment camps,' some of them on the sites of former Nazi concentration camps, to hold Jewish displaced persons. Although US President Truman wanted to allow them to go to Palestine, the British refused. As mentioned above, they armed and even provided officers to the invading Arab nations despite their clearly genocidall goals during Israel's War of Independence.

The British Mandate for Palestine.
The British occupied Palestine from 1917-1948. During that time there were changes in British Governments in Britain, in the British governing personnel in Palestine, and in the world situation. The British attitude towards the Jews also varied.
It is worth remembering that throughout the Mandate period public opinion in Britain favored the Zionists and the establishment of a Jewish State. This held even when the official policies were against the Jews and hostilities had broken out.
After World War 2 a Labour Government came to power with Clement Atlee as PM and Ernest Bevin as Foreign Secretary. Their attitude towards allowing Jewish refugees to come to the Land was negative.
There were British soldiers and officers who joined the Arabs. There were also those who helped arm the Arabs. There were also they who helped the Jews.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
6. The British Enabled the Jewish Victory

Tom Segev ("One Palestine Complete") has shown how the aid to the Jews was what enabled the Jews to achieve victory.

# The British had found an underdeveloped country when they arrived, and they left behind much progress, especially among the Jews. But they also left behind much backwardness, especially among the Arabs. # Segev, p.9.

# Pollock [a British military administrator in Palestine] and others like him wanted the state administration to continue to function properly, and so they did in fact make a great effort to transfer it to the Jews. Some functions were handed over to the municipalities, others to the Jewish Agency. In addition, the evacuation plan, from south to north, left responsibility for Jewish population centers in British hands, almost to the very last minute, thus impeding Arab war plans. # Segev, p.513.

So too today,
The US arms Arab nations who may use these arms against Israel as they declare they wish to. The US has also trained Palestinian terrorist militias and US personnel are to be found in Arab nations. Nevertheless Israel has received more.
Quote:

Rosenthal:
# Barker favored the death penalty for 'Zionist guerrillas,' and applied it whenever he could. He suggested that the reason there was so much unrest was that previous administrations hadn't hanged enough Jews. After the bombing of the King David Hotel, he issued an order that read in part,

# I am determined that [the Jews] shall suffer punishment and be made aware of the contempt and loathing with which we regard their conduct. .....

# Ziff's book, full of details about the countless humiliations and punishments with which the British military and colonial service afflicted the Jews of the yishuv, suggests that there were many Barkers, large and small, in their ranks. And this, at bottom, is the reason Britain fought so hard against the creation of a Jewish state. Not oil, not access to India. Just Jew-hatred.

# Are things different today, in Britain or anywhere else that irrational anti-Israel expression is found?

What Barker and others are quoted as saying is presumably correct.
We could also quote what Jewish members of resistance groups, the Lehi and Irgun, said about the British.
The overall picture is still in the British favor DESPITE MUCH TO THE CONTRARY.

We agree that the present anti-Israel position adopted by many in the British establishment emanate from hatred of the Jews.
This has to be countered.
Misrepresenting the past however is not the way to go about it.

It is not for nothing that the Arabs still blame Britain for creating the State of Israel.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
7. A Need for Balance. Jewish Zionists Also Killed Jews. The Israeli Atom Bomb is Thanks to Britain

During the Arab Rebellion (1936-39) the British killed or otherwise disposed of thousands of Arabs. This was in their own interests but the Jews benefited since the Arabs in question were rebelling in order to be able to attack the Jews with impunity. This was denied them by the British. The State of Israel may not have done as well under similar conditions. Who knows?

The British were not saints. There were some Jews who were killed or beaten or mistreated by the British.
There were also Jews who suffered in the same way at the hands of Zionist organizations such as the Hagana, Lehi, and Irgun.

Among the Hariedim (non-Zionist Ultrra -Orthodox ) there were some who disliked the British and others, such as Rabbi Arele (Aharon) Roth, 1894-1947, who refered to them as "Merciful Rulers" (cf. 1-Kings 20:31 regarding the Rulers of the Ten Tribes).).

It may however be, in hindsight, that the ideology of the Jewish groups at the time in question was more historically correct than official British policy.
Still we need to see things as they are, or were, as truly as possible.
Most Jews in Palestine under the Mandate supported the British and did not want them to leave! That they did leave in retrospect was for the better but we should not paint a picture that is not justified.

Dusagreements and points of fiction had existed from the beginning. The British at times did discriminate agaisnt the Jews and favor the Arabs but mostly they did not. The main points of fiction occurred due to restictions on immigration in the period from 1939 through to 1945. This deserves a separate article.

It was a mistake on the part of the British not too unreserveldly back the Jews in their time of trouble. Despite this an historian needs tob e fair and not describes matters as having been worse than they were.

See:
The British in Palestine. A New Perspective Extracts and Adaptation from the "Prologue" to "The Tribes" http://hebrewnations.com/articles/16/mandate.html

Not everything is as clear as it seems at first glance.