Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 24th, 2012, 05:29 AM   #1

Unidentifiedflyingobject's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 10
Britain's role in the creation of Israel


I don't want to hurt any feelings here, I'm just curious. How do you think Britain helped in the establishment of Israel and how big was its role ?
Unidentifiedflyingobject is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 24th, 2012, 04:10 PM   #2

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 4,842

Helped?

We did everything in our power to stop it, mostly on the grounds that millions of poor, traumatised and land hungry jews pouring into a country already prone to religious violence and pogroms would only lead to mass violence and civil war.

Then people started killing our troops in an orchestrated terrorist campaign until we basically said 'blow this for a game of soldiers' and left them to it, after making sure the UN was legally responsible.

Strangely exactly what we'd predicted happened.

But i can't say that we actually helped in any way?
Nemowork is offline  
Old April 24th, 2012, 06:30 PM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,845

The British made the Balfour Declaration in 1917. It was incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestinian.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice 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"

Vague words, what is a national home? what are the civil rights that must not be prejudiced?


Once the Mandate was established

(1) Organizational recognition - The British worked with and recognized various Zionist organization. For example the British issue immigration permits but the Zionist organization decided who got them. No such
recognition for Arab organizations, and the Mandate specific commands the British develop self governing institutions.

(2) Arms - Jewish Militia/Police - At times particularly under Ord Windgate British armed, trained and against the Arab Population. Later Arabs were always much more Harshly than Jews when caught with weapons, technically a hanging offense but only Arabs were ever hung by the British for merely possessing weapons.

(3) Immigration - The British allowed Jewish Immigration. At the start of the mandate the Jews were a small minority at the end they had enough Numbers to prevail. While there was constant pressure from the Zionists to allow more, and some zionists would turn to terrorism in part on this issue, the British allowed Jewish Immigration which overtime built up the Jewish population such that they could contend for control, without this Immigration they could not.


The British maneuvered control of Palestine and the Mandate almost solely on the back of imperialistic motives. Their adminstartion was trying to please everybody. Many Individual British were more sympathetic to the Arabs, and once Jewish Terrorism started (which often targeted the British) there is no doubt many British became anti-Zionist. Many British had racist attitudes against both the Jews and the Arabs.


But in the Big Picture the British Policies strengthened the Jews and Weakened the Arabs.
pugsville is online now  
Old April 24th, 2012, 08:37 PM   #4

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,405

Zionism had been around since the 1870s, Jews had formed the majority of Jerusalem since 1845, and Jews had always remained a presence, however small, in the land of Israel.

Before getting the British to help them, the Zionists asked the Ottomans, whom the Jews in general had very favorable opinions of, for permission to establish a Zionist entity within the Ottoman Empire in the land of Israel. The Ottomans rejected the plan, and the Jews got lucky with the British.

The Jews bought all of the land they moved into right up to the partitioning of Palestine. The Arabs didn't like the new neighbors, which is an understandable response. These were Ashkenazim Jews, often either secular and socialist in nature or Ultra Orthodox conservative; as opposed to the Sephardim and Mizrahim who had been the main Jewish presence in the region for so long. Sephardim and Mizrahim blended in well, but the Ashkenazim acted so differently. When people who are very different show up, people tend not to react well.

Britain said in 1917 that a Jewish state would be created in the Palestinian mandate, which comprised the modern day nations of Israel, Jordan, and the disputed Palestinian territories. Palestine was partitioned in 1922 into an Arab Jordan (some 80% of the mandate), and a (planned to be) Jewish West Palestine.

In 1936, the Jews put forth a proposal where they would get even less land than the 1948 partition, in order to get as many Jews out of Europe before the Nazis did something to them. Britain approved of the plan, but the Arabs didn't. That ended terribly. In 1948 Britain handed the issue over to the UN, who also proposed chopping the remaining territory. The Jews said okay, so long as we got someplace to live. The Arabs said no, you can't have any land.

So the Jews weren't allowed to have 48% of the remaining 20% of Palestine for a country. They weren't allowed 9.6% of the original Mandate, when the Arabs would get 90.4%? Oy vey.

In my opinion, if the Ottomans stayed out of WW1, Jews would have continued sneaking into South Syria (Ottoman term for it) and eventually the Ottomans would have let them stay. Its not as if the Jews were giving the Turks that much trouble, considering how integrated into the empire they were.
WeisSaul is offline  
Old April 25th, 2012, 12:41 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,845

"Britain said in 1917 that a Jewish state would be created in the Palestinian mandate, which comprised the modern day nations of Israel, Jordan, and the disputed Palestinian territories. Palestine was partitioned in 1922 into an Arab Jordan (some 80% of the mandate), and a (planned to be) Jewish West Palestine. "

No. Not correct

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, 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 prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non- Jewish com- munities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country "Jewish National Home - not necessarily an Independent state. And not necessarily encompassing all of the mandate or all of the mandate west of the Jordan. And within the boundaries of respecting the civil rights of others. Vague. NOT clear cut.

"Article 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."

clearly provides for the creation of trans Jordan.

1936 Proposals do you mean the peel commission?

The Arab leadership in Palestine rejected the plan,[6][7] arguing that the Arabs had been promised independence and granting rights to the Jews was a betrayal. The Arabs emphatically rejected the principle of awarding any territory to the Jews.[8] After lobbying by the
Arab_Higher_Committee Arab_Higher_Committee
, hundreds of delegates from across the Arab world convened at the Bloudan Conference in Syria on 8 September and wholly rejected both the partition and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.[9] Jewish opinion remained divided. The Twentieth Zionist Congress in
Zurich Zurich
(3-16 August 1937) announced "that the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission is not to be accepted, [but wished] to carry on negotiations in order to clarify the exact substance of the British government's proposal for the foundation of a Jewish state in Palestine". [10]
At the same Zionist Congress in Zurich, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the executive committee of the
Jewish_Agency_for_Palestine Jewish_Agency_for_Palestine
, told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question ... of giving up any part of the
Land_of_Israel Land_of_Israel
,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."[11]
University_of_Arizona University_of_Arizona
professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future."[11]
Ben-Gurion wrote: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples: [a Galilee almost free of non-Jews]. ... We are being given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imagination. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty---this is a national consolidation in a free homeland. ... if because of our weakness, neglect or negligence, the thing is not done, then we will have lost a chance which we never had before, and may never have again."[12]
Ben-Gurion wrote 20 years later: "Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel".'[13]
The British response was to set up the Woodhead Commission to "examine the Peel Commission plan in detail and to recommend an actual partition plan" [10] This Commission declared the Peel Commission partition unworkable (though suggesting a different scheme under which 5% of the land area of Palestine become Israel). The British Government accompanied the publication of the Woodhead Report by a statement of policy rejecting partition as impracticable.


In that case not a Jewish proposal and not accepted.





pugsville is online now  
Old April 25th, 2012, 05:20 AM   #6
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Bolton, UK
Posts: 1,749

What some people forget is that Jordan was also created from the British Mandate of Palestine (which was never an independent nation but was part of Syria before the British arrived), just as Israel was.

Maybe they "forget" because Jordan is Muslim rather than Jewish.
Brunel is offline  
Old April 25th, 2012, 07:29 AM   #7

WeisSaul's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Amsterdam
Posts: 2,405

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunel View Post
What some people forget is that Jordan was also created from the British Mandate of Palestine (which was never an independent nation but was part of Syria before the British arrived), just as Israel was.

Maybe they "forget" because Jordan is Muslim rather than Jewish.
Yes, Jordan got 80% of Palestine and Israel ended up getting around 14%. 41% of Jordan's population is Palestinians today. Jews form 75% of Israel and Arabs 20%.

The Jordanian King is not Palestinian though. Jordan was given to the Hasemites because they couldn't hold on the Hejaz and Saudi Arabia took it from them. Though Jordan's Queen is Palestinian and the next King will be half Palestinian, so perhaps a greater Palestine is in order? Gaza+Jordan+ parts of the West Bank (a term made up by Jordan) = Palestinian State.

Palestinians formed the vast majority of Jordan before 1967, when Israel took the Sinai, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria from the aggressors. Jordan being an absolute monarchy, Palestinians had no say in how the government of the country that was majority Palestinians was run.
WeisSaul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
britain, creation, israel, role


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Britain's involvement in WW1? colerelm1 History Help 1 November 9th, 2010 08:08 PM
SHOULD THE UN RE-EXAMINE BRITAIN'S CREATION OF THE ARAB STATES? IamJoseph Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 26 August 21st, 2010 06:01 AM
Britain's colonies stay out of WW1 Son of Cathal Speculative History 9 March 1st, 2009 06:10 PM
Britain's Best Strategy Toltec War and Military History 22 January 12th, 2009 05:15 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.