Tag Archives: World War II

The White Paper of 1939

By Mike Konrad

We Americans live in an Anglophile culture. This affects our perception of history.  One of the great tragedies, or crimes – depending on who is asked – of the 20th century, can be laid at the feet of the English.  This is either omitted from our history books or downplayed into insignificance. 


From 1936 to 1939, the Arabs in the Palestinian Mandate revolted against British rule.  The fighting was savage, and the British acted criminally in the revolt’s suppression.  One thing was made clear: the Arabs were not going to acquiesce peaceably to continued Jewish immigration into the land. 


Britain was in a quandary.  While the revolt was seemingly over, the Arabs were seething with rage.  They wanted England, and the Jews, out of Arab territory.  With World War II looming, the last thing the British needed was a wide-ranging Arab revolt.  Egypt’s Suez Canal, Iraq’s oil, and  Palestine’s oil pipeline were vital to the British.  Rankling the Arabs was not wise.


The Arabs had good reason to be angry at British duplicity.  But it would soon become apparent that British duplicity would extend to the Jews.


Britain tried to alleviate the problem in Palestine by setting up the Peel Commission in 1937, which suggested partitioning off an astoundingly small Jewish state in the north of present-day Israel.  The land to be allotted to the Jews would have been less than one half what the U.N. would recommend ten years later in 1947.  Both Arabs and Jews rejected the Peel Commission’s suggestion, though obviously for different reasons.


Of course, the British passed themselves off as disinterested noble guardians stuck between two irreconcilably irrational opponents, but what seems to have been their chief interest was protecting the Iraq-Haifi oil pipline.  The Arabs regularly targeted the pipeline during the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, while British and Jewish forces sought to protect it.  One suspects that if the pipeline had not ended in Haifa, the Jews would have been left on their own to the mercy of the Arabs.


By 1939, with war looming, Britain could not afford to lose that pipeline.  Something had to be done to pacify the area.


It an amazing reversal of prior commitments, England issued the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, which severely limited Jewish immigration to Palestine for another five years, after which immigration would be halted altogether.  This would preserve a two-thirds Arab majority in Palestine.  The policy reversal turned on a loophole in the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Documents which promised to guarantee Arab civil rights.  It was an escape clause — quite legal, but quite despicable.


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.


Needless to say, the Jews were stunned into disbelief.  This could not have come at a worse time.  Jews were scrambling to flee Europe.  No nation would accept them.  Palestine was their only hope, and Britain had just closed the door.


The White Paper then went on to promise an independent Arab Palestinian state within 10 years.  The Zionist dream had been ended, at the stroke of a British bureaucrat’s pen.  All quite legal.


Why?  Because Britain was terrified of another major Arab revolt, which would play into Hitler’s hands.  The Arabs had to be appeased, and the Jews had no other option but to support Britain.  The decision was cold, calculating, and ruthless.


When the war started, Ben Gurion said, “We will fight the war as if there were no White Paper, and we will fight the White Paper as if there were no war.”


These were proud words but of little consequence.  Ben Gurion could do nothing.  One can only imagine what was going through his head near the end of the war, as reports came in of mass murder, while the British were still turning away Jewish refugees.


The policy was ruthlessly efficient.  The Arabs were placated.  There was no major revolt in Palestine during the war despite the mufti’s radio calls for jihad.  Why should there have been?  The British had given the Arabs almost everything thing they wanted.  When the war was over, they were guaranteed an Arab state.  In fact, contrary to popular belief, some Palestinian Arabs actually joined the British Army during the war.  Why not?  They were sitting pretty.


Meanwhile, the British were assiduously turning away Jews.  Early in the war, Hitler tried to deport Jews to Palestine — not out of the goodness of his heart, but to trigger an Arab revolt.  After the SS Patria incident, where Britain refused to allow Jews to land, Hitler took note of British attitudes towards the Jews.


The Holocaust had not been Hitler’s first choice for the Jewish Problem — he had preferred to dump the Jews on his enemies — but since even Palestine was closed, why not kill the Jews?  Britain’s closure had damned the Jews of Europe to the ovens.


By 1944, Jewish terror groups were attacking high British officials over this policy.  In 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated.  There were attempts to go after Harold MacMichael, the commissioner of Palestine, as well.  He narrowly escaped.  The Irgun and Stern Gang wantonly killed innocent civilians; these were terrorists no less than modern-day Islamic thugs, though not as irrational.


But let’s not deny that Britain ruthlessly cut off the Jews of Europe from their only hope of escape, either.  Britain indeed was an accessory to the Holocaust.  The Arabs, who claim innocence in all of this, had made sure the door was shut to Jews in their time of need.  The Arabs are far from innocent, even independent of, and apart from, the mufti’s alliance with the Nazis.


The Arabs claim that there should have been no partition in 1947 because the majority of the population in Palestine were Arabs.  Indeed, that is true, but had the British let the Jews in between 1939 and 1945, there would have been an overwhelming Jewish majority in Palestine in 1947. 


A majority-Jewish Palestine would have suppressed any Arab military response and prevented the creation of the West Bank.  A heavily Jewish Israel would not have needed to take severe actions to ensure their survival during their war of independence.  With a clear Jewish majority, population transfers of Arabs would not have been required.  The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from 1947 to 1949 would not have been necessary. 


Hindsight is always 20/20.   Had the British not written the White Paper in 1939, an extended Arab revolt may have given the Mideast to Hitler.  I doubt it, but one cannot be sure.  More likely, the extra Jewish population could have garrisoned the area.


This is no minor issue.  Though rarely mentioned in our U.S. media, most Israeli Jews consider the British accessories to the Holocaust.  The degree of bitterness I have seen in Israeli Jews towards the British is incomprehensible to most Americans, who have been fed a sanitized version of British actions.  During the  1982 Falklands War, Menachem Begin was so bitter at the British that he armed the Argentines.


When the world tells you about Israeli abuses of Arab Civil Rights — and they do occur — place it in context.  The Jews are determined to never be put in that position again.


We can’t undo the past, but America should not take the path the British did in 1939.


Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, or Arab.  He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America.  He wishes his Spanish were better.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_white_paper_of_1939.html#ixzz2V2amAPkH
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Israel deserves to join the United Nations Security Council

Germany should defer to Jewish state for 2019-2020 term

Israel should take a seat at the Security Council table.


Israel should take a seat at the Security Council table.

No country has been subject to more United Nations Security Council meetings and resolutions than Israel, and no country has a higher claim to a coveted two-year term on the world panel.

But the UN has denied Israel its rightful voice on this elevated global platform. Flush with hostility to the Jewish state, member nations long held to voting procedures that ruled out Israel’s election to the council.

After those were changed more than a dozen years ago under U.S. pressure, Israel gained a shot at winning a term on the panel — provided it could get the backing of a group of Western nations and the endorsement of more than half of the UN’s 193 members.

Difficult as the second step would be, the first should be a no-brainer. So it seemed after Belgium and Israel announced their candidacies for two spots that open in 2019. But now, of all countries, Germany has announced that it will vie for one of the places, severely undermining Israel’s chance for appointment. Chancellor Angela Merkel should come to her senses.

Her government has cast the move as simply a routine effort to seek every advantage for Germany in the halls of diplomacy.

Crediting good faith and ruling out any reflection of the anti-Israel bias that’s abroad in much of Europe, Merkel is still wrong.

Israel’s enemies are working feverishly to undermine the Jewish state’s legitimacy by casting it as immorally oppressing the Palestinians — essentially, by its very existence.

This is the moment when Western nations should go out of their way to affirm the standing of the Mideast’s only democracy, most of all Germany — whose history will go unspoken.

The 15-member council saves five veto-wielding permanent seats for the main victors of World War II: the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France. Ten additional seats rotate and are divided among the UN’s regional blocs. Two seats are reserved for the Western group, which includes Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, since 2000, Israel.

In 2005, Israel began pushing for one of the two spots that will open in 2019, seven decades after the United Nations welcomed it as a member. For comparison purposes, thanks to the war, Germany only won admittance in 1973. Since then, it has served on the Security Council numerous times.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, West Germany was twice a member and East Germany once held a chair. A unified Germany has been elected three times, most recently in 2011.

And while Israel has never been a member, the Security Council has always included an Arab state since the panel first met in 1946. Over the years, 19 Arab nations have served. Next year, the 20th, Saudi Arabia, will take a council seat for the first time.

Perhaps most surprisingly, Germany has been a steadfast Israeli ally. It should act like one now.

Muslim Imam Claims Women Who Don’t Wear Hijabs are “Asking to be Raped”, Arrested for Trying to Rape Woman



Imam Mehdi enjoys the Koran, the Sunnah and long walks in the park

You have to give Imam Shahid Mehdi credit. Unlike a lot of other Muslim clergy who say that women who don’t wear hijabs or burkas or who leave the house deserve to be raped, but then don’t follow up on it, Shahid Mehdi stayed true to his belief that Islamic morality justifies sex crimes by trying to commit a sex crime.

An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Shahid Mehdi, has sparked political outcry from the left-wing Unity List and right-wing Danish People’s Party, after stating in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are “asking for rape.”

Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked,” Imam Shahid Mehdi said.

“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them. ”

“She disobeys her master, there are two places in the Qur’an has ordered her to cover themselves (…) Women make a clean society dirty when they walk around without a Hijab. They are not entitled to respect and are not valuable as those who wear a Hijab. ”

Shahid Mehdi made his remarks in the DR2 programme “Talk to Gode,” and reiterated his stance in daily newspaper B.T. The Danish People’s Party and Unity List agree that Mehdi’s remarks could incite Muslim men to rape Danish women by insinuating that women who did not cover their hair were undeserving of basic respect.

As a mufti, a jurist who interprets Islamic law, Shahi Mehdi is in a special position of authority as a Muslim scholar. Mehdi is the Imam of the Islamic Religious Community mosque in Dortheavej in Copenhagen northwest and the Rector of Muslim private school and former leader of the Islamic Cultural Center in Brønshøj.

“The very idea that this man is authorised to teach young people in the Koran is ludicrous. It’s like letting (Danish Nazi leader) Johnny Hansen teach the history of World War II,” said Rosenkrantz-Theil.

No, actually it’s more like letting Johnny Hansen teach Mein Kampf. But to make a long story horrible, the Mufti followed up his Koranic teaching by doing this...

“A 36-year-old Danish man is the protagonist in a bizarre sex case, which will soon be dealt with in court in Malmö.

Now, however, he is accused of pulling his penis out and chasing a 23-year-old woman around in a park in Malmö in August 2012, according to the court in Malmö.

The woman managed to get away, and she called the police, who arrested the man a few minutes later.

The woman told the police that she lives close to the park, and was out walking her puppy when the man walked towards her, and she began to feel uncomfortable.

She bent down to pick up her dog, when the man asked about her name. She just had time to respond before the man opened his pants and took his penis out, while she was still bent down so that his penis was half a meter from her head.

The woman got up and ran away, and when she looked over her shoulder, she saw that the man followed her, she told police. The man gave up his project, and disappeared into some bushes.

It’s unknown whether or not the woman was wearing a Hijab. Or whether her dog was wearing a Hijab. Either way a Muslim court would have found her guilty. Unfortunately for him all this is taking place in Europe where the lack of a Hijab has not been widely accepted as justification for attempted sexual assault.

Naturally Imam Mehdi is blaming racism.

During the interrogation he refused to plead guilty and believes that the accusation is based on racism because he has Pakistani roots.

Clearly. No Swedish man would have been arrested for exposing himself to a woman and chasing her around the park… after saying that women without Hijabs deserve to be raped.

Finally it was revealed that Imam Mehdi, Hijabi mandator, apparently used to sell women’s lingerie.