MEP0010 - Evidence on The UK's policy towards the Middle East Peace Process

Written evidence from Eric Willoughby (MEP0010)

Introduction

Successive British governments are to blame for the endless slaughter and suffering of the Palestinians in their own homeland by the occupying invaders. The horrors derive from the most appalling decisions of British governments.

These are:

1) The Balfour Declaration.

2) The creation of "a Jewish home in Palestine" almost entirely overseen and brokered by Great Britain.

3) The Suez Crisis, which led to the military invasion of the Palestinians in 1967.

4) The ongoing subservience to Israel following 1967 and the manipulation of policies and attitudes to excuse all Israel's crimes (even against Britain) and wherever possible to blame the Palestinians for being invaded and occupied.

5) The refusal to recognise Palestine as a state.

1) The Balfour Declaration

The very existence of the Israel/Palestine problem is only possible because of the British government's

policies that led to UN Res.181, which facilitated the manufacture of the state of Israel.

The origins of those policies lay in the foundations of the World Zionist Congress in 1897, which was based on "The Basle Program":

Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a legally assured home in Palestine. For the attainment of this purpose, the Congress considers the following means serviceable:

(1) the promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists [farmers], artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine;

(2) the federation [unified organisation] of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the various countries;

(3) the strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness [national sentiment and national consciousness];

(4) preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/first-zionist-congress-and-basel-program-1897

In short, the foundation of a Jewish home in Palestine; a home for one people in the land of another.

On November 2nd 1917, foreign secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Baron Rothschild as follows:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/text-of-the-balfour-declaration

The second part of the letter has not been acted upon for 100 years. That is the core of the problem we have today.

The part "views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." is British endorsement of forced colonisation and was acted upon promptly. Ultimately, it led to the manufacture of the state of Israel in 1948, on Palestinian land as envisaged.

Although this was facilitated by UN Res. 181, Great Britain was the driving force, seemingly oblivious to the wishes of those whose land was being traded, and dismissive of the views of the surrounding nations who would become the new state's neighbours. This is the enormity of Britain's betrayal of the Palestinians.

2) Creation of Israel

Even the atrocities by the zionist terrorist groups such as Lehi/Stern Gang against the British - assassination of Lord Moyne, King David Hotel massacre etc. - did not dampen Britain's fervour to create the new state. Not only was Lehi vehemently anti-British it also offered an alliance with Nazi Germany in defeating Britain in WW2 (1). But Britain continued to create a state for these terrorists at the expense of the Palestinians.

Other notable actions of Lehi against Britain were the "world's first" truck bomb attack on a British police station in Haifa (2), killing 4 Britons.

Even the loss of nearly 100 lives in the King David Hotel bombing (3) did nothing to dampen Britain's resolve to create a state of Israel on Palestinian land.

As Israel's founder and first prime minister said: "...politically we are the aggressors and they {Palestinians} defend themselves...the country is theirs because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." (4)

One of the leaders of terrorists Lehi, Russian-born Yitzhak Shamir, later became an Israeli prime minister.

3) Suez crisis and 6-Day War

One of the stated British benefits of creating a new and non-Arab nation in the Arabian Middle East was to form a land bridge between India and Egypt, seemingly without ever consulting either nation.

Even though Britain had solid historical links with Egypt, it sided with Israel.

In 1952 British troops killed 41 Egyptians in a raid on a police station, and 11 British citizens were killed in the ensuing protest riots against British/Israeli actions in Egypt.(5)

In 1956, Britain sided with Israel and France to invade Egypt, ostensibly to protect and control the Suez Canal; Israel took the opportunity to invade Sinai.

Political pressure from the USA at the UN forced the withdrawal of the invading nations and Britain's prime minister resigned over the humiliation. Israel saw that Egypt was ripe for invasion and the 6-Day War started on June 5th 1967 with Israeli air attacks on Egyptian air bases.(6) In the ensuing full thunder Israel invaded Sinai once again, together with Gaza and the West Bank, starting the 50 years' occupation of the Palestinians.

When Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 with the purpose of seizing the remaining Palestinian territory to create a "Greater Israel" its first action was to completely demolish the Moroccan Quarter of Jerusalem (7) as it obstructed access to the Western ("Wailing") Wall. The important Sheikh Eid mosque was also destroyed in the process.

The Palestinians' Arab brethren watched in horror and imposed sanctions on Britain, particularly with regard to oil supplies. These forced Britain to temporarily back down from their unconditional devotion to Israel. Foreign Secretary at the time, George Brown, demanded that Israel return all the land it stole in the invasion and pledged support to the Arabs. The UN later formalised this policy internationally with Resolution 242 - "A just and lasting peace should include the application of two principles:✹ Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and ✹ Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The Resolution was passed unanimously and Israel accepted it.

Not an inch of occupied Palestinian territory was returned. In the "peace" resolution 338, after the Yom Kippur war, the UN reiterated the need to implement 242 and wrote it into 338.

4) Impunity for Israel

The British government has always tried to see no wrong in Israel. Even following the Suez crisis and the events leading up to the 6-day war, Britain was arming Israel. Centurion tanks were Israel's most potent ground weapons.(8)

Even on the day before Israel started the war with dawn air raids on Egyptian air bases (June 5th 1967) the cargo shipMiryam left the British port of Felixstowe crammed with military vehicles, armaments and weaponry for Israel. Armaments supplies were also being airlifted to Israel from RAF Waddington.(9)

But mindful of the probable Arab backlash, prime Minister Harold Wilson made the weapons supply to Israel conditional on secrecy, particularly with regard to the plutonium for Israel's nuclear weapons programme. (10)

The most recent example is the scandalous plot by the Israeli government to "take down" some British MPs, notably the Deputy Foreign Secretary Sir Alan Duncan. When discovered, Israel made a grovelling apology and an Israeli "fixer" was sent packing, but the next day Prime Minister May dismissed the incident as "finished with". (11)

A few days after that, Middle East Minister Tobias Ellman replied to a long debate on the illegal settlements issue with yet another mild rebuke to Israel, saying yet again that HMG has made "strong representations" to Israel. Within days, Israel announced plans for another 1,600+ illegal settlements and the demolition of more Palestinian homes.

Before that, HMG had worked hard to prevent Parliament approving a motion to recognise Palestine in principle, but was defeated. (12)

In 2014 Operation Protective Edge was a 50-day-long bombing raid on Gaza, killing 2,300 people including 600 children and destroying the Mobarat Disability Center (13) among numerous hits on hospitals, schools and shelters. HMG's statements on the campaign went out of their way to blame the Gaza Palestinians.

Throughout this period, the various Parliamentary "Friends of Israel" groups have flourished, invigorated by frequent all-expenses-paid VIP trips to Israel and all the services of BICOM (14).

Israel flouts all international law, has contempt for all the UN resolutions against it, cares nothing for the Geneva Conventions and human rights protocols and responds to criticism by intensifying whatever is being criticised.

And all the while, HMG issues statements about making "strong representations" over crimes against humanity, war crimes and acts of savagery like shooting schoolboys in the back, or gunning them down on the beach, playing football or collecting their birthday cake in one case (for which the officer received a Medal of Honor). (15)

By contrast, HMG condemns fiercely any act of resistance by a generation that has grown up knowing nothing but military occupation, troops on the streets, checkpoints, settlements, bereavement, deprivation and destruction. The resistance group Hamas comes under particular criticism from HMG, despite the fact that it is a result of invasion and occupation, not a cause to be "responded to".

Future historians will look back in disbelief that Israel was given free rein, whilst Iran, which has never attacked anyone and which does not have nuclear weapons, is subject to sanctions. (Israel has a stockpile of at least 100 nuclear warheads according to Jane's Defence Weekly). Other studies put the number either significantly higher or a little lower.(16)

Britain also welcomes the Israeli arms industry to Britain, unflinchingly watching the Israeli company Elbit take over Ferranti Technologies (Group) in 2007 (17). Ferranti has been a supplier of high-tech weaponry to Britain for decades.

In 1975 HMG voted against a UN motion that "Zionism is Racism", once again protecting Israel from criticism; the whole basis of current Israel policy is Zionism.

In 1986, eight forged British passports were discovered in a telephone booth in Germany, destined for the Israeli Embassy in London. HMG's response was to insist that Israel never does it again and there was an end to the matter.

4) Failing to recognise Palestine

Great Britain is in the impossible position of supporting a two-state solution, but refusing to recognise two states.

Since Israel's military invasion of the Palestinian people in 1967, Britain has been obsequious to Israel and in all deliberations emphasised Israel's need for "security" without acknowledging the Palestinians' need to be free of military occupation and need for its own security as a people, if not as a state.

The UN General Assembly recognised the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, in 1974 - the same year as the PLO was granted non-state Observer status at the UN.

Great Britain established its policy of abstaining on Palestinian issues at the UN, in 1974. General Assembly Resolution 3236 "officialised contact" with the PLO. It was passed with 89 votes in favour, 8 against (including the USA of course) and 37 abstentions, including Britain. A week later, Non-observer status was given to the PLO. More recently - November 2012 - when this was upgraded to Non-Member Observer State, the United Kingdom representative was "gravely concerned" at the Assembly's action. The UK again took the cowardly way out and abstained, not even backing its "grave concern" with a vote against, as might have been expected. Three weeks later, the UN formally accepted "State of Palestine" as the official designation.

In October 2014, the UK House of Commons passed a symbolic non-binding motion by a vote of 274 in favour to 12 against which called on the Government to recognise Palestine. Also in October 2014, the devolved government of Scotland called for the recognition of Palestine and the opening of a UK Embassy there.

In December 2016 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which condemned the illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. But for the USA's abstention the vote would have been unanimous, and even the United Kingdom voted to accept the motion.

However on February 9th 2017, the UK House of Commons held a long debate on Occupied Palestinian Territories - Israeli Settlements, in the light of the UNSC resolution. Having voted for that resolution, it might be considered surprising that Britain's Minister for the Middle East had this to say, in replying to the debate on behalf of the government:

" On the recognition of Palestine, we need the Palestinians to do more to prevent the incitement of violence".

As usual, the UK, in the person of the Minister, blamed the Palestinians for the ongoing military occupation of their lands following invasion during the 1967 war waged by Israel on its Arab neighbours. As if military occupation, carpet bombing, killing schoolboys and demolishing homes, is not "incitement" enough.

Israel of course needs no incitement to shoot Palestinian youngsters (18) or the elderly (18A) but HMG never criticises these acts of terrorism or says they negate Israel's statehood.

Conclusion

For no less than a century Britain has turned a blind eye to the gross injustices suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of the beneficiaries of Balfour, and in recent years the adulation of the state of Israel by Britain has become more and more intense.

The double standards applied whenever Israel's crimes are mentioned, are indeed beyond any understanding. A decisive factor is immense pressure from the pro-Israel lobby in Westminster and beyond, but HMG never pays any heed to the pro-Palestinian lobby.

It is this injustice which has led the UK to condemn Hamas "rockets" whilst only waving a finger at the 51-day Israeli carpet bombing of Gaza in 2014, in which 2,300 Palestinians died, including 600 children. (19)

It seems to be forgotten that Hamas emerged 20 years after Israel's military invasion of Gaza and the West Bank, and that all Palestinian actions are resistance to invasion and occupation, legitimised by UN Res. 3103.

UK governments always blame the Palestinians for their own suffering at the hands of Israel, because of the activities of BICOM and all its agencies, the various Friends of Israel groups within Parliament and - more recently - the fear of being labelled (quite wrongly) "anti-semitic". There is nothing "anti-semitic" even using the false interpretation of the term, in referencing history, giving casualty figures, quoting statements or quite simply criticising the government of Israel for its contempt for all international law, dismissal of the Geneva Convention, breaches of all human rights treaties and spiteful over-reaction to criticism.

Indeed there is a more classical definition of "semite" (and therefore "anti-semite") in the Encyclopedia Britannica (20)

When the UN passed (with UK support) Resolution 2334, to stop the settlement building, Israel approved the highest number of recent plans for settlement expansion, plus new settlements. Britain "made representations" to the Israeli government.

That Israeli move was seen by most interested parties as the moment Britain could show its disapproval by officially recognising Palestine. It did not.

As the instigator of the problem, by not implementing the complete Balfour Declaration terms, Britain has the moral and political duty to end the ongoing horrors.

Not only has it failed to do so during the 50 years of military occupation and 100 years since Balfour, it has actively refused to do so for fear of offending Israel, a regime that has had a former prime minister and a former president in jail at the same time, whose former highest religious figure is now in jail for fraud (21) and which has more UN resolutions against it than the rest of the world put together. And Great Britain bends over backwards to protect Israel from criticism.

Requirements and Recommendations

Future historians will ponder with amazement how a British government enabled one country to take the land of another for a sectarian state, and which did nothing by way of remedy for at least 100 years. 2017 is surely the one opportunity for Britain to make some gesture of contrition and thereby stop the slaughter and suffering of the Palestinian people, which Britain alone made possible a century ago.

The British government should urgently;

1) Implement the second part of the Balfour Declaration and end the Palestinians' suffering.

2) Apologise for the British government's adoption of the Declaration in the first place.

3) Take action to force Israel to observe international law, respect the dozens of UN Resolutions against it and ratify the Geneva Convention.

4) Force Israel to compensate the Palestinians who have:

i) seen members of their family past and present slaughtered and maimed; ii) had their homes demolished; iii) been forced into existence in refugee camps; iv) had their farms, orchards, groves and gardens bulldozed and/or destroyed by fire.

Israel must also be made to compensate and rebuild the Gaza hospitals it destroyed by the 3 main bombing campaigns, particularly in 2014.

5) Regulate all Parliamentary lobbying groups by capping the payments, largesse, free trips, donations and benefits.

6) Inaugurate a British Balfour Compensation Fund, available to those Palestinians who have been made destitute, homeless, refugee/stateless, maimed and disabled by actions enabled by the Balfour Declaration.