0
   

Must Read Book: The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

 
 
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2011 11:37 am
The world is still suffering from Britain's attempts to protect and expand it's empire during World War 1. I thought I knew something about the terrible exploitation taking place during the period. This book reveals the lies and duplicity of several people, the British, the French, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, Turkey, and an international weapons dealer. It may shock you but it will expose what really created the conflict between Israel and the Muslim countries still effecting the entire world. ---BBB

The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
by Jonathan Schneer

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly

According to Schneer (London 1900), an expert in modern British history at Georgia Tech, intrigue and British double-dealing defined the 1917 Balfour Declaration of British support for a Jewish "national home" in Palestine as much as bravery and vision, leading to the disillusionment, distrust, and resentment that still dominate the region today.

British Jewish chemist and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann orchestrated the campaign to persuade powerful men that support for Zionism would benefit Britain's wartime cause and the ensuing peace. Perhaps most shrewdly, Weizmann lobbied former prime minister Arthur James Balfour, then a member of Britain's War Council.

Meanwhile, Grand Sharif Hussein and his sons had won British backing for an Arab kingdom, which would presumably include Palestine, and with British encouragement rebelled against the Ottomans in 1916.

Through British duplicity, the French also believed they had a interest in Palestine. And three months after the Balfour Declaration, British prime minister Lloyd George proposed a separate peace with Turkey, with the Ottomans remaining in Palestine.

This perceptive, complex book will best be appreciated by Middle East historians, analysts, and policy wonks possessing a substantial prior understanding of the intricacies of the region and its players. 16 pages of b&w photos; 7 maps.

From Booklist

In November 1917, the British government stated that it would “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It was, in retrospect, a startlingly brief statement, which received little attention at the time.

Since then, Zionists have regarded it as a declaration of the Jewish right to create an independent Jewish state; for Arabs, it is viewed as an outrageous case of imperialist manipulation and betrayal.

Schneer writes a fascinating and scrupulously balanced account of the events and intense maneuvers that led to the issuance of the declaration. He superbly navigates between the various conflicting interests and lobbying efforts of Zionists, Arabs, and opposing elements within the British government. There are no heroes here; one is left with the impression that the Zionists “won” simply because they were more relentless and ruthless than their opposition, which included many non-Zionist Jews. --Jay Freeman

Review By S. L. Kay "brown bag buddha" (San Diego, CA)

This book, recommended by a local Jewish book club, surprised me in the fair & balanced nature of the research and scholarship involved in this tricky subject; yet, Schneer, a British labour historian employed copious first-hand sources to unravel the bewildering labyrinth that was British Middle East policy during the First World War. He was not defending Zionism, nor British imperialism nor the Arab revolt of the time; rather, he focused on the myriad ways diplomacy, imperialism, nationalism and Zionism intersected through the mechanisms of the "cast of thousands" who people this captivating history.

The Balfour Declaration itself, a short denouement of political hubris on the part of the British Foreign Office to win over the world's dispersed Jews to their side in this "war to end all wars," is anti-climactic when measured against the promises they handed out like candy to the Arabs who fought for them against the Turks, their French & Russian allies and any other group who could assist in the war effort. Nothing describes the last faltering years if the storied British world Empire better than this duplicitous and often arrogant display of the "white man's burden" run amok in its imperial nation-building endeavor.

Schneer clearly posits the fact that the British had no real intentions to meet her postwar obligations as the Paris Peace talks revealed in 1919.

Taking us through this confusing yet essential journey of understanding some of the foundations of Arab-Israeli discontent in a readable manner, he had made this topic available to many who may have found earlier works too broad, to biased or too laden with footnotes to pursue. As a lecturer of Middle East history for the past 35 years, I would strongly endorse this book's inclusion in everyone's course syllabus and private library.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,622 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Feb, 2011 02:20 pm
It's strange that most of the discussions about the Israel/Palestine conflict gravitate around the '67 war, but this fiasco started a whole half century earlier with the Brits and that infamous declaration of theirs.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Feb, 2011 02:25 pm
@InfraBlue,
That's why I was so surprised to learn of the earlier cause.

BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2011 01:00 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I'm not surprised at all that British prime minister Lloyd George was up to no good while thousands of his soldiers were dieing in the trenches during WW1.

It has been revealed this month that the British Brown government did everything it could to get release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who bombed the plane that fell on Lockerbie, killing all passengers and those on the ground. Why? To get a good oil agreement from Lybia, that's why!

Brown accused of hypocrisy over Megrahi release
Herald Scotland, by Michael Settle
8 Feb 2011

The government of Gordon Brown stood accused last night of hypocrisy after official documents revealed that it did “all it could” to facilitate the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

A trawl of more than 150 declassified Whitehall documents showed how officials had spoken privately of a “gameplan” and “discreetly” working behind the scenes to help the Libyans secure the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi while ministers professed publicly that the decision on his future was the Scottish Government’s alone.

Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary who reviewed the papers, concluded a policy was progressively developed to facilitate the Libyan Government in its appeal to the Scottish Government, yet he found no evidence the then UK government “pressured or lobbied” Holyrood for Megrahi’s release.

Furthermore, the files showed that at all times the UK government had been clear that any decision to release Megrahi or transfer him to Libya was a matter solely for the Scottish Government.

However, in the Commons, David Cameron, who described Megrahi’s release as “profoundly wrong”, insisted the previous Labour administration had “not given a complete picture”.

“We were told by the last government what they did not want – the death of Megrahi in a Scottish prison – but we weren’t told by the last government what they did want – which was

the facilitation of his release,” he added, to Tory cries of “shame” and “disgusting”.

The strongest attack came from Tory grandee Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Scottish Secretary at the time of the tragedy in December 1988 when 270 people were killed, who suggested the files showed how the previous government was “up to its neck in this shoddy business” and was “desperate” to see the Libyan released.

He told MPs: “It must, therefore, share responsibility with the Scottish Government for one of the most foolish and shameful decisions in years.”

Later, a source close to the Prime Minister said the previous Labour government had been guilty of misleading people, while a senior Conservative source told The Herald: “Saying one thing in public but doing another thing in private shows Labour’s hypocrisy on Lockerbie.”

Tory HQ released quotations from former Labour ministers, which it claimed showed “Labour’s lack of honesty” about Megrahi’s release.

One from Ed Balls, in September 2009, had him saying: “None of us wanted to see the release of al Megrahi.”

However, Jack Straw, former justice secretary, insisted the Brown government had “acted properly at all times”.

He accused Mr Cameron of putting a gloss on Sir Gus’s report, stressing how the Cabinet Secretary had concluded “nothing in the material” contradicted what either Mr Brown or David Miliband, the then foreign secretary, had said.

Last night, the former PM issued a statement, saying he recognised that any decision on Megrahi’s release was for Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, alone.

Mr Brown said: “When the issue came to me, I took the view – as the report confirms – that the British government should not pressure or attempt to use influence on this quasi-judicial decision of the Scottish minister. At no point did I talk to, write to or contact the First Minister or anyone else.”

In America, families of the victims condemned the previous UK government for telling “a pack of lies” while Senator Robert Menendez, from New Jersey, said: “The UK didn’t just turn a blind eye to Megrahi’s release, they cut deals that set the terrorist free.”

The severest political attack came from Alex Salmond who said that, while Mr Brown was silent on Megrahi’s release, in Scotland his party sharply criticised the SNP Government.

“It seems to me the greatest example of organised political hypocrisy that I’ve ever seen in my time in politics,” he said.

Meantime, in a day of claim and counter-claim, Labour pointed to some of the released papers, saying they showed how the Scottish Government had attempted a “dodgy deal” with Whitehall over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement to avoid paying significant amounts in compensation to prisoners who had to “slop out” and over devolving powers on air gun legislation.

A source close to Mr Salmond denied the allegation, saying references in the documents were down to a “misunderstanding”.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2011 01:53 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I'm not surprised at all that British prime minister Lloyd George was up to no good while thousands of his soldiers were dieing in the trenches during WW1.

It has been revealed this month that the British Brown government did everything it could to get release of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi who bombed the plane that fell on Lockerbie, killing all passengers and those on the ground. Why? To get a good oil agreement from Lybia, that's why!

Yes, I'm sure the actions of Gordon Brown in 2009 can help provide insights into the actions of Lloyd George almost a century earlier.

In any event, all of this is old news. If you want a good examination of the Balfour Declaration and the political deals involved in the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, see David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Must Read Book: The Balfour Declaration: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:30:03