Speaker unverified: belief

Transcript context

…of context or it’s cherry-picking. Words count, and I agree with Lex, everybody has the right to rescind what they’ve said in the past, but what you cannot claim is that you didn’t say what you said. I’ll stick to the history, not the current propaganda. 1917, the Zionist movement began way before the British supported the Zionist movement for decades. In 1917, the British jumped in and issued the Balfour Declaration supporting the emergence of a Jewish national home in Palestine, which most people understood to mean eventual Jewish statehood in Palestine. Most people understood that in Britain and among the Zionists and among the Arabs, but the British declared the Balfour Declaration or issued the Balfour Declaration, not only because of imperial self-interest, and this is what you’re basically saying, they had the imperial interests, a buffer state which would protect the Suez Canal from the East. The British also were motivated by idealism, and this incidentally is how Balfour described the reasoning behind issuing the declaration. And he said, “The Western world, Western Christendom owes the Jews a great debt,” both for giving the world and the West, if you like, social values as embodied in the Bible, social justice and all sorts of other things. And the Christian world owes the Jews because it persecuted them for 2,000 years. This debt we’re now beginning to repay with the 1917 declaration favoring Zionism, but it’s also worth remembering that the Jews weren’t proxies or attached to the British imperial endeavor. They were happy to receive British support in 1917 and then subsequently when the British ruled Palestine for 20, 30 years, but they weren’t part of the British imperial design or mission. They wanted a state for themselves. The Jews happy to have the British support them, happy to date to have the Americans support Israel, but it’s not because we’re stooges or extensions of American imperial interests. The British incidentally always described in Arab narratives of propaganda as consistent supporters of Zionism, they weren’t. The first British rulers in Palestine, 1917, 1920- Herbert Samuel. erests. The British incidentally always described in Arab narratives of propaganda as consistent supporters of Zionism, they weren’t. The first British rulers in Palestine, 1917, 1920- Herbert Samuel. No, before Herbert Samuel. Samuel came in 1920. The British ruled there for three years previously, and most of the leaders, the British generals and so on who were in Palestine were anti-Zionists. And subsequently, in the ’20s and ’30s, the British occasionally curbed Zionist immigration to Palestine, and in 1939 switched horses and supported the Arab National Movement and not Zionism. They turned anti-Zionist and basically said, “You Arabs will rule Palestine within the next 10 years. This is what we’re giving you by limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine,” but the Arabs didn’t actually understand what they were being given on the silver platter Husseini again, and he said, “No, no, we can’t accept the British White Paper of May 1939, which had given the Arabs everything they wanted basically, self- determination in an Arab majority state. So, what I’m saying is the British at some point did support the Zionist enterprise, but at other points were less consistent in the support. And in 1939 until 1948, when they didn’t vote even for partition for Jewish statehood in Palestine in the UN resolution, they didn’t support Zionism during the last decade of the mandate. It’s worth remembering that. I’d like to respond to that. Speaking of propaganda, I find it simply impossible to accept that Balfour, who as British Prime Minister in 1905, was a chief sponsor of the Aliens Act, which was specifically- He changed his mind. … Which was specifically designed to keep persecuted Eastern European Jews out of the streets of the UK and who was denounced as an antisemite by the entire British Jewish establishment. A decade later, all of a sudden- Changed his mind. People changed their minds, but when the changing of the mind just coincidentally happens to coincide with the British imperial interest, I think perhaps the transformation is a little more superficial than he’s being given credit for. It was clearly a British imperial venture, and if there had been no threat to the Suez Canal during World War I, regardless of what Balfour would’ve thought about the Jews and their contribution to history and their persecution and so on, there would’ve been no Balfour Declaration. May I ask real quick, it’s a question on that, why did the British ever cap immigration then from Jews to that area at all? Well, we’re talking now about 19- 20s and 30s. But I’m saying that if the whole goal was just to be an imperialist project, there were terrorist attacks from Jewish- Yes, but you’re… I’ll answer you. In the ’40s. talking now about 19- 20s and 30s. But I’m saying that if the whole goal was just to be an imperialist project, there were terrorist attacks from Jewish- Yes, but you’re… I’ll answer you. In the ’40s. And we’re talking now about 1917, and as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think the British had a Jewish state in mind. That’s why they used the term Jewish national home. I think what they wanted was a British protectorate, loyal to and dependent upon the British. I think an outstanding review of British policy towards these issues during the mandate has been done by Martin Bunton of the University of Victoria, and he basically makes the argument that once the British realized the mess they were in, certainly by the late ’20s, early ’30s, they recognized the mess they were in, the irreconcilable differences, and basically pursued a policy of just muddling on, and muddling on in the context of British rule in Palestine, whose overall purpose was to serve for the development of Zionist institutions, Yishuv’s economy and so on, meant even if the British were not self-consciously doing this, preparing the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the Jewish state. I don’t know if that answers your question. Except they did turn anti-Zionist in 1939. Yes, of course [inaudible 01:56:30]. And maintained- They were being shot off by [inaudible 01:56:33]- … That Zionist… No, no, before they were being shot off, but maintain that anti-Zionist posture until 1948. Okay. And if I may, just also one point, you mentioned Hajj Amin al-Husseini during World… Entirely legitimate, but what I would also point out is that you had a Zionist organization, the Lehi- 300 people. 300 people, one of whom happened to become an Israeli prime minister, an Israeli foreign minister, a speaker of Israeli parliament- Maybe you should give his name. Yitzhak Shamir proposing an alliance with Nazi Germany in 1941. Shamir proposed a Nazi- Well, no, the Lehi proposed- Some people in the Lehi proposed- Of which Shamir was a prominent leader. This is a red herring also. No, no. Well, if he’s a red herring, Hajj Amin al-Husseini is a red whale, I’m sorry. The Lehi was an unimportant organization in the Yishuv. 300 people versus 30,000 belonged to the Haganah, so it was not a very important organization. It’s true, before the Holocaust actually began, they wanted allies against the British where they could find them and they- We’re talking 1941 here, not 1931. 1940. ’41 from what I recall. 1940, they approached the German emissary in Istanbul or something. And if I may, proposed an alliance with Nazi Germany on what the Lehi described as on the basis of shared ideological principles. They didn’t share ideological- Well, they said they did. They said it. They did revile- Why are you doing these things? Of course, they said that. The Lehi was reviled by the majority- You know the state, but you know the- The Lehi was reviled. You know what the statement said on the basis of a shared ideology. Why do you say no? The Lehi people were Nazi, that you say? I’m saying that they said- No, you’re saying that. Forget statements, you like to quote things, but where they-…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.