This paper by the Foreign Office planning committee considers the options of either a pro-Arab or a pro-Israel policy. It states:
“Neither…is practicable. A pro-Arab policy would be unacceptable to British public opinion and opposed by the US government. A pro-Israeli policy would destroy all hopes of preserving British economic and political interests in the Arab Middle East… A pro-Arab policy in any thoroughgoing form would… be hard or impossible to adopt: (a) because of British public and political commitment to Israel as an ideal and the political force of support for Israel in the country; (b) because of the pressure which the United States government undoubtedly exert on HMG to keep us in line in any public pronouncements or negotiations on the dispute”.
The paper then considers middle options. The first is “active pursuit of a settlement with disassociation from the US” and, another, “active neutrality”. The first would mean the government doing “all we can to promote a settlement but without running the risk to our world-wide interests that would be involved in actively disassociating ourselves from the US position”. This has advantages and disadvantages but the first disadvantage is that “as long as we are associated with the US government in active policies toward the dispute, we shall confirm the Arab belief that we are pro-Israel”. The second option of “active neutrality” would mean “we should have to say and do things the US government did not like and to be more pro-Arab (or at least less pro-Israeli) than the Americans”. The disadvantages of this are the damage “to our world-wide relationship with the US”, that it would be criticised by some public opinion in the UK, that UK “could not affect the power structure of the conflict” (ie, have much influence) and that “there is no prospect of a European political entity” playing a “third force” role.
Therefore the paper argues for “the low risk policy”, described as “the less continuously active variant” of the last option above. “This policy should mean, in practical terms, that our efforts should first and foremost take the form of private pressure upon the US to do all in their power to bring about a settlement”. This would mean UK would have a “strictly limited role” and “modest contributions and not peace plans should be our aim”, keeping doing business with Arab world, including arms sales, and maintaining links with Israel, especially commercial.
The conclusion was that:
“In terms of the national interest, there would be much to be gained by adopting a thoroughgoing pro-Arab policy… It would, however, be difficult to defend such a policy on grounds of principle and it would be extremely unpopular in this country. The US government would dislike it intensely and oppose it strongly if it entailed (as logically it should) showing sympathy for the Arab point of view in the international effort to help bring about a settlement. It would be incompatible with support for, or even acquiescence in, the US position in the quest for a settlement”.
The paper rules out an openly pro-Israel policy, and considers the option of active pursuit of a settlement in alignment with the US, concluding:
“Our almost total lack of influence on the combatant countries means that our capacity to contribute to progress toward a settlement is very limited. We cannot make even that modest contribution effective (or convince the Arabs we are doing all we can) if we remain closely associated with the US position”.
The paper also objects to the option of dissociating UK policy from that of the US, saying that “relations with the Arabs would be improved, but this would not measure up to the importance of our global relationship with the US”. It concludes, again, in favour of the “low risk” strategy.
Reference: PRO/ FCO 49/295
I haven’t seen any mention of this report: “The UN Report Prepared for Ralphe Bunche”:
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm
also here:
http://www.doublestandards.org/unbunche.html
As the Palestinians are being blamed for making Israelis’ life hell, even as Israel shows the world who really is in charge, perhaps some of us should start discussing the skeletons in Israel’s cupboard – namely, their terrorist campaign against the British in the 1940s – an “endeavour” designed to force the British out of Palestine in order that Jews could move in, evict the Arabs, and create a Jewish state.
I’m not a historian, so I can’t put all this in context, but here is some of what is mentioned in the report:
November 14, 1946, London. …Jewish terrorist groups…threatened to export their terrorism to England.
April 23, 1947, Palestine. The Irgun [Jewish terrorist group] proclaimed its own “military courts” to “try” BRITISH troops and policemen who resisted them.
July 30, 1947, Palestine. Irgun [Jewish] terrorists announced that they have hanged two BRITISH sergeants…whom they had held as hostages since July 12, for “crimes against the Jewish community.” Two more BRITISH soldiers were killed by a land mine near Hadera.
July 31, 1947, Nethanya. The bodies of the two murdered BRITISH sergeants were found hanging from eucalyptus trees one and a half miles from Nethanya about 5:30 AM. A booby trap blew Martin’s body to bits when it was cut down. Enraged British troops stormed into Tel Aviv, wrecked shops, attacked pedestrians and sprayed a bus with gunfire killing five Jews: two men, two women, and a boy.
August 4, 1947, Paris. An Irgun [Jewish terrorist] leader in Paris states that his organization has sentenced high BRITISH military and civilian officials in Palestine TO DEATH “in absentia” and will hang them upon capture.
August 4, 1947, Palestine. Jewish terrorists robbed BARCLAYS’ BANK in Tel Aviv of $5,200.
August 5, 1947, Palestine. Irgunists [Jewish terrorists] blew up the Department of Labor in Jerusalem, killing three BRITISH constables.
On December 30, 1947, after the kidnapping and flogging of a British Major and three sergeants by Jewish terrorists, “the Dollis Hill Synagogue in London was set on fire and 12 sacred scrolls were destroyed by angry British citizens who scrawled on the burned edifice, “You whip – we burn”
Other Jewish terrorist acts included: plots to blow up British military headquarters, kidnapping and hanging British military officials, killing British policemen, tens of letter bombs to British government officials, machine gun attacks on Palestinian cities, bombing hotels, blowing up trains, blowing up oil pipelines, detonating bombs at British embassies, detonating trucks laden with explosives, and bank robbery.
The U.N. report writes: “There appears to be no way to control the Jews or their determinations to drive all of the Arabs out of Jerusalem by force if necessary.
“The initial Arab response to Jewish harassment over the past year has been very slow in coming, but it seems to be quite inevitable, and a terrible civil war is foreseen.
“The Arabs, initially living in peace with the Jewish minority, have been increasingly victimized by the Jews who, now that the British are leaving, are turning their savage behavior against them.”
Over one 15-month period, over 200,000 Jews entered Palestine illegally.
In 1980, the Stern Gang (also known as Lehi) was officially honoured by the Israeli government as “freedom fighters”. The Stern Gang was one of the most active terrorist Jewish groups during the 1940s, whose stated goal was to “forcibly evict the British authorities from Palestine, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state”. A special Lehi ribbon – a military decoration – was designed for the former members.
Finally, the report says: “As many of the Zionists are Russian or Polish in origin, these Communist Russians have been received gladly by the Jewish extremists and quickly blend in with the local populations. Soviet interest in MIDDLE EAST OIL and an overriding interest in obtaining WARM-WATER PORTS are a prime factor in their interest in a Jewish state in Palestine.”