Whatever floats your boat. I usually avoid these cyclical and pointless "discussions". Have fun running in circles. I've already made my point
Half of Jews don't want to live near Arabs
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
Whatever floats your boat. I usually avoid these cyclical and pointless "discussions". Have fun running in circles. I've already made my point
Whatever floats your boat. I usually avoid these cyclical and pointless "discussions". Have fun running in circles. I've already made my point
Don't worry, Israelis are doing all they can.
Last edited:
i was nearly attacked a week ago by an arab. was it because im a jew? israeli?
who can tell....
Didn't you operate a tank and go into Palestine shooting at children who threw stones?
Was that because you were Jewish or Israeli?
i wonder what over 100 children were doing in that street in the first place. sent by their parents perhaps?
its not new palestinians are using kids in battle.
Let me see.
What would Palestinian children be doing in the streets of Palestine?
VS.
What would Israeli soldiers be doing shooting at Palestinian children in Palestinian streets in Palestine?
and i suppose the fact the street was crowded with only children, who happen to be with rocks, was a coincident was it?
i remember my mother herd a scream once and she rushed down because she thought something had happened to me.
so where are the terrified parents running to save their children from IDF menace?
or were they too busy taking pictures?
Are you saying that under Israeli military occupation, children should not be on the streets in Occupied Palestine?
no, im saying they are used as human weapons, by their own parents.
i think even an antelope can understand that.
Ah so the parents know that Israeli soldiers will shoot at Palestinian children inside Occupied Palestine?
How should they prevent it?
they know that war in the media is photos. what a better photo then a kid against a tank?
here, just look how you are trying to spin it. the lives of those kids? expandable.
Ah of course, kids are expendable when they are Palestinian. Because fully armed, trained Israeli soldiers, carrying machine guns and sitting in jeeps and tanks must defend themselves in Occupied Palestine against children who throw stones at occupation troops. That explains why so many kids die from being shot in the head or have their eyes shot out by "defensive" Israeli troops.
So why are 75% of Israeli Arabs supporting a Jewish democracy in Israel but 50% of Israeli Jews do not want to live with Arabs?
and the gunman who shot 8 israelis kids did it because a rabbi abused him when he was a child right SAM?
if the palestinians are expendable to the cause, the cause is to exterminate jews.
if people would took your word for it, they wouldnt know about the 7000 rockets fired onto israel, or all those suicide bombers, that killed so many children, that no one remember because then its OK.
Israel supporters are so dishonest or deluded on the subject of Israel.See, my analogy reflects reality, and your analogy reflects make believe. You couldn't even follow it properly and got all the characters confused
Anyway, look, feel free to live in a make believe world. Whether you're in tune with reality or not is not really relevant. What's relevant is that you convince the people that are - i.e. Israelis and the population of the world that supports them and takes their analogy over yours - that they should unjustly give up their natural rights and throw away their security and country so that a genocide-loving make-believe "people" that was victimized by someone else could come in and take over their home.
Good luck with that
The UN partition in 1948 was severely unjust to Palestinians. That is just plain the truth.
The idea that Israelis are the defenders and victims while the Arabs are the attackers, is a false idea. Both sided have been attackers and victims. The Palestinians have been the biggest victims in this conflict.
The situation is similar to what happened between my ancestors in New England and the Native Americans living there, accept the Israeli Jews have been much less brutal than my ancestors were and we pay much more lip service to the idea of justice today than humans used to 300 years ago.
Supporting Israel and provoking Islamic people to feel righteous indignation against the USA is a stupid use of my tax dollars. I like and respect Jews and will never fault Jews for supporting Israel even if they lie to themselves about whether an injustice has been done to Palestinians. I don't respect Christian Zionists, they are just nuts.
Last edited:
That is almost precisely how I feel about the situation. I've said before that we should cut off our financial support for Israel. Any Israeli who wanted to come to this country would be welcomed. But I've always thought the idea of a "promised land" was based on nonsensical religious dogma.
This page from Our Dumb Century is a classic:
What were they thinking?
"What were they thinking?"
They were thinking the same thing that always precludes getting along: "Me First".
Back to the OP (I only just skimmed this thread) I don't find the polls describing 50% intolerance very convincing. Within any era of segregationism, along with rampant pain and anger, there is also sizeable herd mentality that readily expresses itself- but it doesn't necessarily reflect more deeply considered opinions, or opinions that hold sway under normal human conditions (the intervals between conflict when people can actually live their lives). It is treacherous to allow any suggestion (deliberate or not) to creep in, that such a poll as this actually measures some valid quotient for tolerance within any human race or creed, or that it reliably measures potential for coexistence.
In the USA of the 1950s, a similar poll sampling white aversions to living among blacks would certainly have produced misleading results, considering what came after. Over the following decades of progress in civil rights and tolerance, perspectives and publicly-expressed opinions have changed considerably. Today in the USA, notions of ethnic incompatibility might actually be underestimated in such polls, because intolerance is less accepted. Our measurement through polls of the virulence of intolerance is heavily influenced by the never-static social acceptability of intolerance. Maybe it takes the temperature of inter-ethnic weather, but it's no barometer.
When circumstances stir up emotions, polls are much more a snapshot of feelings than potentials. Considering how Jews and other ethnicities in the Mideast have coexisted in happier times, I think it is reasonable to infer (with more clarity than a poll) that there is no unusual incompatibility among the inhabitants of the Mideast, as compared with any other ethnic groups. Circumstances similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have consistently similar results anywhere in the world, involving any cultures. Apartheid in South Africa and the USA generated intense ethnic mistrust and hatred.
It is both unreasonable and racist to suggest, or entertain the suggestion that there is some racial flaw within Semites (Jewish and otherwise) that breeds ethnic conflict, or keeps them at each others' throats regardless of circumstance. We might glimpse a better Semitic-harmony-barometer by looking at how these people have lived their lives in every era except times of crisis- wars, invasions, occupations, etc. This requires overcoming another prevalent myth, that the Mideast has always and more frequently been embroiled in conflict than Europe, for example.
The rise of oppressive zionism over the last century has been the definitive irritant, that can be examined in terms of the timeline. Finding first-hand accounts of how Jews in the Mideast lived their lives before the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't easy, and I suspect that's not by accident. But when we do take a look between the broad historic lines of conflict, we can see that there is no unique ethnic incompatibility between Semites. Yosef Chelouche's memoir comes to my mind now, and I wish I could share the whole thing online- Here's an outline in review. There is a wealth of examples of coexistence, but they're often deliberately obscured because hate is an insecurity that desperately wants to spread itself. Even so, there are new examples and initiatives today that refute the assumptions that mistrust is the norm, or that mistrust prevails.
This may seem to suggest a very basic, or even naive understanding of the equivalence of human values across all cultures. But it is the truth born out by human history, and it merits explicit repeating whenever the insidious myth is so often slipped into our consciousness (it's a very common refrain in the USA) suggesting that the people of the Mideast are inherently and particularly hostile toward one another, by nature. We don't need a poll to affirm the basic principle that coexistence is preferable to confrontation, and we shouldn't allow any hasty extrapolation from polls to obscure this truth.
They were thinking the same thing that always precludes getting along: "Me First".
Back to the OP (I only just skimmed this thread) I don't find the polls describing 50% intolerance very convincing. Within any era of segregationism, along with rampant pain and anger, there is also sizeable herd mentality that readily expresses itself- but it doesn't necessarily reflect more deeply considered opinions, or opinions that hold sway under normal human conditions (the intervals between conflict when people can actually live their lives). It is treacherous to allow any suggestion (deliberate or not) to creep in, that such a poll as this actually measures some valid quotient for tolerance within any human race or creed, or that it reliably measures potential for coexistence.
In the USA of the 1950s, a similar poll sampling white aversions to living among blacks would certainly have produced misleading results, considering what came after. Over the following decades of progress in civil rights and tolerance, perspectives and publicly-expressed opinions have changed considerably. Today in the USA, notions of ethnic incompatibility might actually be underestimated in such polls, because intolerance is less accepted. Our measurement through polls of the virulence of intolerance is heavily influenced by the never-static social acceptability of intolerance. Maybe it takes the temperature of inter-ethnic weather, but it's no barometer.
When circumstances stir up emotions, polls are much more a snapshot of feelings than potentials. Considering how Jews and other ethnicities in the Mideast have coexisted in happier times, I think it is reasonable to infer (with more clarity than a poll) that there is no unusual incompatibility among the inhabitants of the Mideast, as compared with any other ethnic groups. Circumstances similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have consistently similar results anywhere in the world, involving any cultures. Apartheid in South Africa and the USA generated intense ethnic mistrust and hatred.
It is both unreasonable and racist to suggest, or entertain the suggestion that there is some racial flaw within Semites (Jewish and otherwise) that breeds ethnic conflict, or keeps them at each others' throats regardless of circumstance. We might glimpse a better Semitic-harmony-barometer by looking at how these people have lived their lives in every era except times of crisis- wars, invasions, occupations, etc. This requires overcoming another prevalent myth, that the Mideast has always and more frequently been embroiled in conflict than Europe, for example.
The rise of oppressive zionism over the last century has been the definitive irritant, that can be examined in terms of the timeline. Finding first-hand accounts of how Jews in the Mideast lived their lives before the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't easy, and I suspect that's not by accident. But when we do take a look between the broad historic lines of conflict, we can see that there is no unique ethnic incompatibility between Semites. Yosef Chelouche's memoir comes to my mind now, and I wish I could share the whole thing online- Here's an outline in review. There is a wealth of examples of coexistence, but they're often deliberately obscured because hate is an insecurity that desperately wants to spread itself. Even so, there are new examples and initiatives today that refute the assumptions that mistrust is the norm, or that mistrust prevails.
This may seem to suggest a very basic, or even naive understanding of the equivalence of human values across all cultures. But it is the truth born out by human history, and it merits explicit repeating whenever the insidious myth is so often slipped into our consciousness (it's a very common refrain in the USA) suggesting that the people of the Mideast are inherently and particularly hostile toward one another, by nature. We don't need a poll to affirm the basic principle that coexistence is preferable to confrontation, and we shouldn't allow any hasty extrapolation from polls to obscure this truth.
and the white book was in their favor, but they refused that also. the white book eliminated any possibility for a jewish state.
but it wasnt what they wanted, they wanted to get rid of us all, so they refused.
From Wikipedia:
White Paper of 1939, content
The White Paper of 1939 was published on May 17 1939, and its main points were:
* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:
"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."
'The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.'
* Section II. Immigration: Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate was to be limited to 75,000 for the first five years, and would later be contingent on Arab consent:
'His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.'
"Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it."
It should be noted that some of the claims made in this section were not true. Jewish migration had resulted in a major economic boom in Palestine and non-Jews (Arabs) were beginning to migrate into the country as a result.[6] Jewish migration was exlusively funded from taxation paid by the Jewish population, whose (ample) taxes were also used to fund the British forces in Palestine and to help improve economic conditions for the Arab population. After 1945, Jewish aid made Palestine the largest single importer of dollars in the entire British Empire (outside of Britain).[7]
* Section III. Land: Previously no restriction had been imposed on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews, while now the White Paper stated:
"The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land.'
The White Paper was passed in the House of Commons by 268 to 179 in favour.
In March 1940 the British High Commissioner for Palestine issued an edict banning Jews from purchasing land in 95% of Palestine.[8]
[edit] Reactions and effects
The policy of restricted Jewish immigration set limits on the ability of those Jews who intended to flee persecution in Europe by immigrating to Palestine. Measures taken to block illegal immigration violating the quotas culminated in several incidents. (See:Struma (ship), Patria disaster, and Exodus (ship).)[citation needed] After the Second World War it led the British Government to detain large numbers of Jews in British camps on Cyprus.
The supervising authority of the League of Nations, the Permanent Mandates Commission abstained unanimously from endorsing the White Paper, though four members thought the new policy was inconsistent with that mandate.[9]
Some supporters of the National Government were opposed to the policy on the grounds that it appeared in their view to contradict the Balfour Declaration. Several government MPs either voted against the proposals or abstained, including Cabinet Ministers such as Leslie Hore-Belisha, as well as Winston Churchill.
The provisions of the White Paper were opposed both by the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine.
The Arab Higher Committee argued that the independence of a future Palestine Government would prove to be illusory, as the Jews could prevent its functioning by withholding participation, and in any case real authority would still be in the hands of British officials. The limitations on Jewish immigration were also held to be insufficient, as there was no guarantee immigration would not resume after five years. In place of the policy enunciated in the White Paper, the Arab Higher Committee called for 'a complete and final prohibition' of Jewish immigration and a repudiation of the Jewish national home policy altogether.
After the outbreak of war in September 1939, the head of the Jewish Agency for Palestine David Ben-Gurion declared: 'We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper.' [10]
By the autumn of 1943, it was discovered that only 44,000 of these certificates had been issued, and the British authorities ruled that the remaining 31,000 passes could be used immediately. By the end of the following year, the whole quota had been exhausted.
At the end of World War II, the British Labour Party manifesto promised to rescind the White Paper and establish a Jewish state in Palestine. In fact, however, the Labour Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin persisted with the policy and it remained in effect.
After the war, the determination of many Holocaust survivors to reach Palestine led to large scale illegal Jewish migration to Palestine. British efforts to block these clandestine operations encountered violent resistance by Jewish terrorist groups operating outside the Zionist mainstream.
From October 1946, the British Government, under the 'severest pressure' from the USA, relented and allowed 1,500 Jewish migrants a month into Palestine, equal to the total amount the United States still imposed on all immigrants from Eastern Europe. [11]. The gesture was in deference to the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.[12] Half of those admitted came from the prison camps for illegal immigrants in Cyprus due to fears that a large Jewish presence in Cyprus would lead to an uprising there. [13]
[edit] Notes and references
1. ^ See Jill Hamilton, God, Guns and Israel: Britain, the First World War and the Jews in the Holy City, Sutton 2004
2. ^ Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (1961) New Viewpoihnts, New York 1973 p.716
3. ^ Manchester Guardian 24/5/39 pages 12 & 14
4. ^ Manchester Guardian 21/5/39 page 8.
5. ^ House of Commons Debates, Volume 347 column 1984
6. ^ Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, A Survey of Palestine (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1945-46), vol. 1, p. 211. "the "boom" conditions in Palestine in the years 1934-36 led to an inward movement in Palestine particularly from Syria. The depression due to the state of public disorder during 1936-39 led to the return of these people and also a substantial outward movement of Palestinian Arabs"
7. ^ The Times 19/12/46 page 3 & 27/2/47 page 5. Britain’s total exports to the USA in 1947 were about three times the amount Palestine was receiving): see Statistical Abstract for the Commonwealth Volume 71, London 1951 page 8.
8. ^ Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Appendix IV see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angap04.htm
9. ^ Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (1961) New Viewpoints, New York 1973 p.717 n.7
10. ^ The Brigade by Howard Blum, p.5. In 1946, a yiddish song written in the Yishuv by Jacob Jacobs ad Isadore Lilian included these lyrics: Tserisn muz vern dos vayse papir, In der fremd viln mir mer nit zayn. Habeyt mishomyim ureey, Groyser got kuk arop un ze, Vi men yogt undz, vi men plot undz, Got, her oys undzer geshrey. "They don't care about Jewish anguish, The White Paper must be torn, We don't want to be away from our home anymore." (As described in "Palestine in Song," YIVO News No. 204, Winter 2008, p.15
11. ^ Raul Hilberg The Destruction of the European Jews, (1971) New Viewpoints ed.New York, 1973 p.729
12. ^ Report of the Anglo-American Committee (1946) Cmd.6808 pp.65-66
13. ^ New York Times 11/08/46 pg 35, UK Foreign Office document 371/52651
* British White Paper of 1939 at Yale University
* J. C. Hurewitz, The Struggle for Palestine, Schoken Books, 1976
White Paper of 1939, content
The White Paper of 1939 was published on May 17 1939, and its main points were:
* Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about "a national home for the Jewish people" had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews:
"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."
'The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.'
* Section II. Immigration: Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate was to be limited to 75,000 for the first five years, and would later be contingent on Arab consent:
'His Majesty's Government do not [..] find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension [...] it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East.'
"Jewish immigration during the next five years will be at a rate which, if economic absorptive capacity permits, will bring the Jewish population up to approximately one third of the total population of the country. Taking into account the expected natural increase of the Arab and Jewish populations, and the number of illegal Jewish immigrants now in the country, this would allow of the admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows: For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits. In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents. The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted. After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it."
It should be noted that some of the claims made in this section were not true. Jewish migration had resulted in a major economic boom in Palestine and non-Jews (Arabs) were beginning to migrate into the country as a result.[6] Jewish migration was exlusively funded from taxation paid by the Jewish population, whose (ample) taxes were also used to fund the British forces in Palestine and to help improve economic conditions for the Arab population. After 1945, Jewish aid made Palestine the largest single importer of dollars in the entire British Empire (outside of Britain).[7]
* Section III. Land: Previously no restriction had been imposed on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews, while now the White Paper stated:
"The Reports of several expert Commissions have indicated that, owing to the natural growth of the Arab population and the steady sale in recent years of Arab land to Jews, there is now in certain areas no room for further transfers of Arab land, whilst in some other areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless Arab population is not soon to be created. In these circumstances, the High Commissioner will be given general powers to prohibit and regulate transfers of land.'
The White Paper was passed in the House of Commons by 268 to 179 in favour.
In March 1940 the British High Commissioner for Palestine issued an edict banning Jews from purchasing land in 95% of Palestine.[8]
[edit] Reactions and effects
The policy of restricted Jewish immigration set limits on the ability of those Jews who intended to flee persecution in Europe by immigrating to Palestine. Measures taken to block illegal immigration violating the quotas culminated in several incidents. (See:Struma (ship), Patria disaster, and Exodus (ship).)[citation needed] After the Second World War it led the British Government to detain large numbers of Jews in British camps on Cyprus.
The supervising authority of the League of Nations, the Permanent Mandates Commission abstained unanimously from endorsing the White Paper, though four members thought the new policy was inconsistent with that mandate.[9]
Some supporters of the National Government were opposed to the policy on the grounds that it appeared in their view to contradict the Balfour Declaration. Several government MPs either voted against the proposals or abstained, including Cabinet Ministers such as Leslie Hore-Belisha, as well as Winston Churchill.
The provisions of the White Paper were opposed both by the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine.
The Arab Higher Committee argued that the independence of a future Palestine Government would prove to be illusory, as the Jews could prevent its functioning by withholding participation, and in any case real authority would still be in the hands of British officials. The limitations on Jewish immigration were also held to be insufficient, as there was no guarantee immigration would not resume after five years. In place of the policy enunciated in the White Paper, the Arab Higher Committee called for 'a complete and final prohibition' of Jewish immigration and a repudiation of the Jewish national home policy altogether.
After the outbreak of war in September 1939, the head of the Jewish Agency for Palestine David Ben-Gurion declared: 'We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper.' [10]
By the autumn of 1943, it was discovered that only 44,000 of these certificates had been issued, and the British authorities ruled that the remaining 31,000 passes could be used immediately. By the end of the following year, the whole quota had been exhausted.
At the end of World War II, the British Labour Party manifesto promised to rescind the White Paper and establish a Jewish state in Palestine. In fact, however, the Labour Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin persisted with the policy and it remained in effect.
After the war, the determination of many Holocaust survivors to reach Palestine led to large scale illegal Jewish migration to Palestine. British efforts to block these clandestine operations encountered violent resistance by Jewish terrorist groups operating outside the Zionist mainstream.
From October 1946, the British Government, under the 'severest pressure' from the USA, relented and allowed 1,500 Jewish migrants a month into Palestine, equal to the total amount the United States still imposed on all immigrants from Eastern Europe. [11]. The gesture was in deference to the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.[12] Half of those admitted came from the prison camps for illegal immigrants in Cyprus due to fears that a large Jewish presence in Cyprus would lead to an uprising there. [13]
[edit] Notes and references
1. ^ See Jill Hamilton, God, Guns and Israel: Britain, the First World War and the Jews in the Holy City, Sutton 2004
2. ^ Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (1961) New Viewpoihnts, New York 1973 p.716
3. ^ Manchester Guardian 24/5/39 pages 12 & 14
4. ^ Manchester Guardian 21/5/39 page 8.
5. ^ House of Commons Debates, Volume 347 column 1984
6. ^ Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, A Survey of Palestine (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1945-46), vol. 1, p. 211. "the "boom" conditions in Palestine in the years 1934-36 led to an inward movement in Palestine particularly from Syria. The depression due to the state of public disorder during 1936-39 led to the return of these people and also a substantial outward movement of Palestinian Arabs"
7. ^ The Times 19/12/46 page 3 & 27/2/47 page 5. Britain’s total exports to the USA in 1947 were about three times the amount Palestine was receiving): see Statistical Abstract for the Commonwealth Volume 71, London 1951 page 8.
8. ^ Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry - Appendix IV see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/anglo/angap04.htm
9. ^ Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (1961) New Viewpoints, New York 1973 p.717 n.7
10. ^ The Brigade by Howard Blum, p.5. In 1946, a yiddish song written in the Yishuv by Jacob Jacobs ad Isadore Lilian included these lyrics: Tserisn muz vern dos vayse papir, In der fremd viln mir mer nit zayn. Habeyt mishomyim ureey, Groyser got kuk arop un ze, Vi men yogt undz, vi men plot undz, Got, her oys undzer geshrey. "They don't care about Jewish anguish, The White Paper must be torn, We don't want to be away from our home anymore." (As described in "Palestine in Song," YIVO News No. 204, Winter 2008, p.15
11. ^ Raul Hilberg The Destruction of the European Jews, (1971) New Viewpoints ed.New York, 1973 p.729
12. ^ Report of the Anglo-American Committee (1946) Cmd.6808 pp.65-66
13. ^ New York Times 11/08/46 pg 35, UK Foreign Office document 371/52651
* British White Paper of 1939 at Yale University
* J. C. Hurewitz, The Struggle for Palestine, Schoken Books, 1976
- Status