by Felix Quigley

November 17, 2008

Last week we published some of the sterling historical work of Joseph Alexander Norland and other principled Jewish historians. Norland covers much ground but the key point in time to me always seems to be the period from 1917 until about 1922.

[begin quote here]


(Transjordania is excluded)


After WW I, the major powers at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris agreed on granting the mandate over Palestine to Britain, along the lines of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 (Martin Gilbert, p. 42). The details were fleshed out in the San Remo Conference, April 1920, where the boundaries of Palestine were outlined to include contemporary Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Jordan and the Golan Heights.


The political events in 1919-1920 that are relevant to this article include the crowning of the Emir Feisal of Hedjaz as King of Syria and his ouster by force at the hands of the French army that occupied Syria and Lebanon in July 1920 (shortly after the San Remo Conference). As a result, Faisal’s younger brother, Abdullah, made his way to contemporary Jordan at the head of a small band of fighters to help Faisal. Contemporaneously, the Palestinian Arabs had become vocal in their

opposition to the Zionist project.


Thus, at the Cairo Conference of March 1921, Churchill took another step in a long series of attempts to appease the Arabs: the east bank of Palestine was delivered to Abdullah as his future kingdom, together with a hefty subsidy (i.e., bribe), and the area was excluded from the Jewish National Home. In return, Abdullah gave up the attempt to reinstall his brother as king of Syria. This exclusion of “Transjordania” from the Jewish National Home was enshrined in the mandate given by the League of Nations to Britain on July 24, 1922.


(Later –  Britain’s useless attempts to appease the Palestinian-Arabs and the consequent emboldening of the Palestinian-Arab terrorists which ultimately backfired on the British



The exclusion of the west bank removed 78% of the total area allocated to the Jewish National Home by the League of Nations at San Remo.




In 1923, the Golan was ceded by Britain to France, the mandatory power over Syria and Lebanon. The circumstances under which this chunk of land was lopped off the Jewish National Home is explained in an article posted by Camera, as follows:


Having discovered the Golan lacks oil but that the Mosul area in northern Syria is rich in oil, the British cede the Golan to France in return for Mosul. Traditionally Mosul was part of Syria while the Golan was part of the Galilee. In return for the Golan, France relinquishes any claim to Palestine.


It is unclear how this act was reconciled with the League of Nations mandate which stipulated quite explicitly in Article 5:


Article 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

(End of quote and I continue my comment)

I feel that we need to make a separate analysis of the British Christian movement which anteceded Balfour because I do not believe that this (The Balfour Declaration) was simply imperial inspired (seeking a point of control in the Middle East)

Place the issue of Jews and antisemitism into its historical context. As Francisco Gil White and others have shown there was not one century since these 2 millenia were ushered in that the Jews have not been persecuted because of antisemitism. An Irish person called Conor Cruise O’Brien stated that antisemitism was a light sleeper. It is also a very long light sleeper.


Some of these sentiments were present in the period following the 1914-18 war in an attempt by the world powers to make up for the dreadful past which they themselves were responsible for. So the idea of giving the Jews a national home in Palestine was seen as doable.


To understand why it is doable consider


1. Palestine itself as laid out in 1920 (The San Remo Conference which was fleshing out the decisions made at the Versailles Treaty) was not considered a huge area to give to the Jews. In that way it seemed doable. To understand this the reader simply has to get the maps in front and understand that the area of Palestine as it was understood then to be was a very small fraction of the total area which was being allotted to the Arabs in general, with whole vast new states being created, drawn up quite artificially. See the maps before you go any further on this.


2. And at San Remo let us deal with the liars and answer what was meant by this land to be given to the Jews as their National Home. It was present day Jordan, present day Israel, Gaza, Golan, and all of that area now known sometimes as the West Bank but whose proper name is Judea and Samarea.


So this brings us to the present position of our Trotskyist movement.


We are incensed not because we are Jews because most of us are not but because another terrible injustice has been done to the Jews.


What happened has been well explained. No 1 agitation by the Islamofascists, yes they certainly did exist at the time, and later, as when in the 1930s Trotsky referred to people like Husseini as “the reactionary Mohammedans”. No 2 was the actual antisemitism in the British capitalist state as Balfour was edged out and these changes in the political state started to link up with antisemitic actions on the ground by the British Army. A student of Irish history will understand this close link between His or Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and reactionary currents inside the body politic itself. No 3 was the manipulator Churchill who did the most damage to the Jewish people that has ever been done because he could not stand up to Islamofascism. The present state of the British state re Islam could well reflect on this early example. Churchill as Norland points out lopped off 78 per cent from the Jewish Homeland of Palestine in one go.


I have always written on this that the Jewish people never really were able to get over this one single action. It is the most significant event in all of this history.


As far as the Jews were concerned the Mandate was a sacred trust, trust which was placed in British Imperialism, perfidious Albion, and it was in the placing of theis trust in such inveterate liars that the project of Herzl began to turn into a Hardian tragedy.


Yet the Jews always fought on. Read the same article please, in which we draw on the analysis which David Singer made on the Peel Commission which was giving the Jews a tiny tiny percentage of that original not that grand 100 per cent. And not even giving the Jews Jerusalem! Yet the Jews were prepared to accept this.


So we had antisemitism being carried on inside new forms. So much so that the pathos of the Jews in Jerusalem as described by Karl Marx in 1954 has not really left their situation, it was present in Peel in the 1930s, which anticipated the Holocaust, carried on into the present.


We will explore this present from this perspective of deep sympathy for the Jewish people.


Make no mistake about it we are Trotskyists, we believe that socialist revolution against decrepid capitalism is the way, and we place the righting of this ancient wrong against this most ancient of peoples as our number one priority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s