It's been a hundred
years since the British politician, Arthur James Balfour, promised the Jews of
Europe and elsewhere, an enclave in Palestine .
That was bad enough
considering that the Palestinians who lived there since the beginning of time
were not consulted. What made the matter even worse – leading to the current
turmoil in the Middle East and around the
world – were the antics of Winston Churchill. Many articles were written to
commemorate that anniversary, most of them written by Jews, three of which were
chosen for discussion on this page.
They are: (1) “The
100-year-old promise” an article that also came under the title: “The
international community enabled the birth of Israel ,” written by Clifford D. May
and published on October 31, 2017 in The Washington Times. (2) “When Britain
Renewed the Promise to the Jews,” an article that also came under the subtitle:
“'His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
national home,'” written by Ruth R. Wisse and published on November 2, 2017 in
the Wall Street Journal. (3) “Balfour at 100,” an article that also came under
the subtitle: “A century has passed since Britain became the first nation to
recognize a Jewish homeland,” written by Michael Makovsky and published on
November 2, 2017 in The Weekly Standard.
In their haste to
show that the establishment of a so-called home for the Jews in Palestine was a
moral and necessary act for someone to commit, most writers neglected to
obscure, or at least play down, the fact that those who championed the idea in
Britain – did it for politically-motivated crass reasons they did not even
bother being subtle about. In fact, what comes out the writers' presentations
is that it wasn't until Churchill appeared on the scene that the debate in Britain
took on a different tone. But make no mistake about it, Winston Churchill did
not speak the language of morality when discussing this subject; he spoke the
language of exploitation of others in an effort to extend Britain 's
legacy of dominion and colonialism. What follows is a condensed version of what
Makovsky wrote in this regard:
“A Jewish member of
government, Herbert Samuel, in 1915 introduced the idea of a Jewish center that
would house a brilliant civilization, enabling England
to fulfill her part of the civilizer of the backward countries, offer imperial
benefits, and engender the gratitude of Jews throughout the world for Britain , especially in the United States .
These ideas influenced the subsequent debate and were echoed by Churchill. As
Herzl predicted, self-interest was the dominant driver, and not respect,
admiration or recognition of Jews and their right to a state … British
officials believed Jews held important sway in Russia, especially with the
Bolsheviks and that promising them a homeland would help undercut the
Bolsheviks' ascent, keeping Russia in the war … Further, they thought Jews in
America were very influential, and hoped the promise of a homeland would
energize them to press President Woodrow Wilson to intensify the U.S. war
effort”.
At the end of the
Second World War, Churchill realized that as a world power, Britain was
destined to diminish and cede the highest place it had occupied for centuries,
to the United States, the Soviet Union and ultimately to other rising powers.
To prevent Britain
from becoming irrelevant on the world stage, Churchill made use of his skills
to achieve two goals.
One goal was to
scare the Americans into believing that the Soviet Union will dominate the
world if America
does not contain it. He thus sparked a Cold War, the result of which was an
arms race between the two antagonists – the Warsaw Pact and NATO – a race that
multiplied itself when other nations felt the necessity to join the club by
arming themselves not only with conventional weapons but also nuclear weapons.
The other goal of
Churchill was to lobby for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine , the intent of which was to extend Britain 's
legacy of dominion and colonialism. And this too resulted in starting an arms
race in the region; one that came close to threatening the world on several
occasions already – and getting worse.
Despite the fact
that the history telling the rape of Palestine
in ghoulish detail, is there for all to read, people like Clifford May continue
to mutilate it, and people like Ruth Wisse continue to romanticize it. The
intent is to keep the turmoil in the region and the world going because, as
shown in the Makovsky article, it is the only way the Jews know how to make
gains.
Here is how Clifford
May has mutilated history yet again: “Historian Martin Kramer notes that those
who cast the Balfour Declaration as an egregious case of imperial self-dealing
don't know its history or prefer not to know it.” He should tell that to
Michael Makovsky.
And here is how Ruth
Wisse romanticizes the continued military occupation of Palestine :
“In the living room
of our daughter's home hangs a Jewish flag designed by her great-grandfather.
In November 1917, on receiving news that Britain
had given support for the establishment of a home for the Jews in Palestine , he strung the
flag across his storefront and closed for the day. He told his workers: Today
is a holiday”.