Part three


By Rich Armbach
September 22, 2011
Share

What did the British mean by ” National home for the Jewish people “ ?
Well what they did not mean was a Jewish state in eithe the sense of a state carved out of Palestine with a Jewish majority. The demographics of the time would have made such an idea absurd. The events that subsequently made this possible could not possibly have been foreseen.

What they also did not mean was Jewish sovereignty and hegemony over an Arab population that was hugely in the majority.

When the question of independence for Transjordan arose they used the expressions Arab STATE and Jewish NATIONAL HOME in the same sentence.. a clear indication of them feeling that there was a difference.

When their problems in Palestine were such that the idea of partition finally occurred to them the size of Israel envisaged was about the size of my thumbnail. See the Peel Commission.

In any event they didn’t create a Jewish state, didn’t attempt to and had no intention of attempting to.
When Zionist aspirations had got so far out of sync with British intentions as to be regarded as dangerous, Herbert Samuel wrote a document that Churchill signed. This eschewed the notion of creating a predominantly Jewish state and limited Jewish immigration to “ the economic capacity of the country “ .

It read in part.........Phrases have been used such as Palestine is to become “ as Jewish as England is English”. His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impractical and have no such aim in view.

The State of Israel came about by unilateral declaration and was subsequently recognised by the UN within its then boundaries. The UN couldn’t recognise a borderless state could it ? As we have seen any attempt to claim that the Balfour declaration and/ or the League of Nations Mandate makes lawful Israel’s present lawless behaviour is ridiculous and smacks of extreme desperation

COMMENTS

Advis3r

Thu, 09/22/2011 - 13:52

Rate this:

-1 points

See comment under One only someone as feeble minded as you would post part three before part two before part one - or do you always count backwards?


Chris Tucker (not verified)

Thu, 09/22/2011 - 16:45

Rate this:

1 point

It looks like Advis3r is more than a tad upset


Rich Armbach

Fri, 09/23/2011 - 16:41

Rate this:

2 points

"do you always count backwards?"

No. But ordinarily I read from top to bottom.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS