How the British Fought Arab Terror in Jenin
| ||||
Dr. Rafael Medoff, April 21, 2002
"Demolishing the homes of Arab civilians…" "Shooting handcuffed prisoners…" "Forcing local Arabs to test areas where mines may have been planted…" These sound like the sort of accusations made by British and other European officials concerning Israel´s recent actions in Jenin. In fact, they are descriptions from official British documents concerning the methods used by the British authorities to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in Jenin and elsewhere in 1938.
The documents were declassified by London in 1989. They provide details of the British Mandatory government´s response to the assassination of a British district commissioner by a Palestinian Arab terrorist in Jenin in the summer of 1938. Even after the suspected assassin was captured (and then shot dead while allegedly trying to escape), the British authorities decided that "a large portion of the town should be blown up" as punishment. On August 25 of that year, a British convoy brought 4,200 kilos of explosives to Jenin for that purpose. In the Jenin operation and on other occasions, local Arabs were forced to drive "mine-sweeping taxis" ahead of British vehicles in areas where Palestinian Arab terrorists were believed to have planted mines, in order "to reduce [British] land mine casualties." The British authorities frequently used these and similar methods to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in the late 1930s. British forces responded to the presence of terrorists in the Arab village of Miar, north of Haifa, by blowing up house after house in October 1938. "When the troops left, there was little else remaining of the once busy village except a pile of mangled masonry," the New York Times reported. The declassified documents refer to an incident in Jaffa in which a handcuffed prisoner was shot by the British police. Under Emergency Regulation 19b, the British Mandate government could demolish any house located in a village where terrorists resided, even if that particular house had no direct connection to terrorist activity. Mandate official Hugh Foot later recalled "When we thought that a village was harbouring rebels, we´d go there and mark one of the large houses. Then, if an incident was traced to that village, we´d blow up the house we´d marked." The High Commissioner for Palestine, Harold MacMichael, defended the practice "The provision is drastic, but the situation has demanded drastic powers." MacMichael was furious over what he called the "grossly exaggerated accusations" that England´s critics were circulating concerning British anti-terror tactics in Palestine. Arab allegations that British soldiers gouged out the eyes of Arab prisoners were quoted prominently in the Nazi German press and elsewhere. The declassified documents also record discussions among officials of the Colonial Office concerning the anti-terror methods used in Palestine. Lord Dufferin remarked "British lives are being lost and I don´t think that we, from the security of Whitehall, can protest squeamishly about measures taken by the men in the frontline." Sir John Shuckburgh defended the tactics on the grounds that the British were confronted "not with a chivalrous opponent playing the game according to the rules, but with gangsters and murderers." There were many differences between British policy in the 1930s and Israeli policy today, but two stand out. The first is that the British, faced with a level of Palestinian Arab terrorism considerably less lethal than that which Israel faces today, nevertheless utilized anti-terror methods considerably harsher than those used by Israeli forces. The second is that when the situation became unbearable, the British could go home; the Israelis, by contrast, have no other place to go. Dr. Medoff is Visiting Scholar in the Jewish Studies Program at SUNY-Purchase. His most recent book is Baksheesh Diplomacy Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II (Lexington Books, 2001). Reprinted from Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com -www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=1022 | ||||
Monday, July 27, 2015
How the British Fought Arab Terror in Jenin and Demolishing Homes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
British House Demolitions as Punishment
ReplyDeleteRegulation 119 in Palestine
119 – (1) A Military Commander may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of any house, structure, or land from which he has reason to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or of any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offence against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offence; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military Commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything growing on the land.
(2) Members of His Majesty’s forces or the Police Force, acting under the authority of the Military Commander may seize and occupy, without compensation, any property in any such area, town, village, quarter or street as is referred to in sub-regulation (1), after eviction without compensation of the previous occupiers if any.
The practice of demolishing homes originated under the British Mandate for Palestine, when the British government gave authority to military commanders to confiscate and raze “any house, structure or land... the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed… any offence against these Regulations involving violence.” During the 1936-1946 Arab revolt in Palestine, the British military frequently demolished homes in villages implicated in rebel activity, with entire villages sometimes being destroyed. Some 2,000 Arab homes were demolished during the Arab revolt. In 1945 the authorities passed the Defense (Emergency) Regulations and Regulation 119 made this practice available to the local Military Commander without limit or appeal. During the Jewish insurgency against the British in the 1940s, the British only employed this tactic one time against the Jews. In August 1947, after failing to quell the Jewish insurgency, the British military received clearance from the High Commissioner to demolish Jewish homes. Subsequently, a Jewish home in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Givat Shaul where arms were discovered during a routine search was destroyed.
ReplyDeleteAll the territory west of the Jordan River is Jewish territory and Israel can utilize any action it sees fit. International conventions do not apply.
The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Palestinians comprises only 22 percent of Palestine is obviously invalid. The truth is exactly the reverse. From the above history it is obvious that the territory on both sides of the Jordan was legally designated for the Jewish homeland by the 1920 San Remo Conference, mandated to Britain, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmed in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine in 1925 and confirmed in 1945 by article 80 of the UN. Yet, approximately 80% of this territory was excised from the territory in May 1923 when, in violation of the mandate and the San Remo resolution, Britain gave autonomy to Trans-Jordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn.
Furthermore, as the San Remo resolution of 1920 has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it.
It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.
In essence, when Israel entered the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967 it did not occupy territory to which any other party had title, it liberated its own land. While Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at 1920 San Remo and in the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered territory that legally belonged to it. To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbours, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.
The world seems to refuse to discuss the fact that “Trans-Jordan” was cut off the Jewish state, in order to accommodate the “Palestinian” Arabs.
Given this reality, Obama, Kerry, the EU, even Britain and it’s self-approving liberal MP’s, could not keep slamming Israel as an invader in its own historical homeland. I’m constantly surprised that the world turns a blind eye to this fact every day.
The practice of demolishing homes originated under the British Mandate for Palestine, when the British government gave authority to military commanders to confiscate and raze “any house, structure or land... the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed… any offence against these Regulations involving violence.” During the 1936-1946 Arab revolt in Palestine, the British military frequently demolished homes in villages implicated in rebel activity, with entire villages sometimes being destroyed. Some 2,000 Arab homes were demolished during the Arab revolt. In 1945 the authorities passed the Defense (Emergency) Regulations and Regulation 119 made this practice available to the local Military Commander without limit or appeal. During the Jewish insurgency against the British in the 1940s, the British only employed this tactic one time against the Jews. In August 1947, after failing to quell the Jewish insurgency, the British military received clearance from the High Commissioner to demolish Jewish homes. Subsequently, a Jewish home in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Givat Shaul where arms were discovered during a routine search was destroyed.
ReplyDeleteAll the territory west of the Jordan River is Jewish territory and Israel can utilize any action it sees fit. International conventions do not apply.
The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Palestinians comprises only 22 percent of Palestine is obviously invalid. The truth is exactly the reverse. From the above history it is obvious that the territory on both sides of the Jordan was legally designated for the Jewish homeland by the 1920 San Remo Conference, mandated to Britain, endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmed in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine in 1925 and confirmed in 1945 by article 80 of the UN. Yet, approximately 80% of this territory was excised from the territory in May 1923 when, in violation of the mandate and the San Remo resolution, Britain gave autonomy to Trans-Jordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn.
Furthermore, as the San Remo resolution of 1920 has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it.
It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.
In essence, when Israel entered the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967 it did not occupy territory to which any other party had title, it liberated its own land. While Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at 1920 San Remo and in the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered territory that legally belonged to it. To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbours, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.
The world seems to refuse to discuss the fact that “Trans-Jordan” was cut off the Jewish state, in order to accommodate the “Palestinian” Arabs.
Given this reality, Obama, Kerry, the EU, even Britain and it’s self-approving liberal MP’s, could not keep slamming Israel as an invader in its own historical homeland. I’m constantly surprised that the world turns a blind eye to this fact every day.
British House Demolitions as Punishment
ReplyDeleteRegulation 119 in Palestine
119 – (1) A Military Commander may by order direct the forfeiture to the Government of Palestine of any house, structure, or land from which he has reason to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or of any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offence against these Regulations involving violence or intimidation or any Military Court offence; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military Commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything growing on the land.
(2) Members of His Majesty’s forces or the Police Force, acting under the authority of the Military Commander may seize and occupy, without compensation, any property in any such area, town, village, quarter or street as is referred to in sub-regulation (1), after eviction without compensation of the previous occupiers if any.