William Tyler
World War II in the Middle East

William Tyler | World War II in the Middle East | 07.08.24

- Welcome, everybody again to this lecture about the Middle East. I realised today, as I sat down preparing it, that I’ve only got three more weeks to go, but this week we’re looking at, three more weeks after this week. This week I’m talking about World War II in the Middle East, 1939 to ‘45. Please remember, I’m trying to do this chronologically so that people who perhaps don’t know as much as other people can follow the storyline. So don’t expect me to go into Israel’s independence because that is the subject for next week. So I’m basically finishing in 1945. So for the second time in just over, what, a very short period of time, 20 years, since the end of the First World War, Germany throws the world, including the Middle East, into another war. And for European Jewry, the war was overshadowed and remains overshadowed by the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust imposed by the Nazis on Jewish populations in the territories that they conquered, as well as in Germany itself.

In the Middle East, for the two mandated powers, that is Britain and France, it led to war in the region between British Forces and Free French Forces, that is to say the forces loyal to de Gaulle, and those French Forces who were of Vichy France, that is the fascist France of General Petain, linked to Nazi Germany. You all remember that during the war France was divided into two for much of the war. Roughly speaking, and very roughly speaking, the north of France was German-occupied and German-ruled, and the southern was ruled by a puppet regime of Vichy France led by the very elderly Marshal Petain. Both Syria and Lebanon, the two French-mandated territories in the Middle East, declared for Vichy France. Jordan stayed firm with Britain, and you remember the story of Glubb Pasha of Jordan, who of course was a British general, but led the Jordanian Army. And then there is Iraq. Iraq sided with Germany, and we’ll come back to the story of Iraq later in this talk. And Palestine as ever was volatile, complex and divided. Turkey remained neutral in this war, unlike the First World War where of course it led to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

So the Middle East became a very important theatre of war between 1939 and 1945. Why? Because of its geographical position. For example, the Suez Canal. For example, the land routes to Russia, allied of course to France and Britain after 1941. And oil. Always oil now. The story of the Middle East from this date on is always around those three letters, O-I-L, oil. Of the two mandated countries in the area, Britain’s objective was similar to its objective during the First World War. That was to safeguard, you’ve got it, oil. Mainly Iranian oil. And then secondly, to protect India from a possible breakthrough into the Middle East by Germany. It was, however, in North Africa rather than in the Middle East that war first came to the wider region. And Italian Forces fought with British and Commonwealth troops in Libya. And for a time it looked as though Italy’s threat would reach Egypt. And in September 1940, indeed, the Italian Army crossed the Egyptian border from Libya and advanced to a place called Sidi Barrani. The British drove them back until the Italians were reinforced by German troops, led by General Rommel. And again advanced to threaten Egypt in April of 1941. The British were very concerned about the possible fall of Egypt to Rommel, because if Egypt had fallen, you can see quite easily, they then had a base from which they could advance into the Middle East, and in all likelihood, a victorious German Army in North Africa would’ve become a victorious German Army in the Middle East as well.

Finally, Churchill replaced the British command in North Africa and put Bernard Montgomery in charge. Under Montgomery, the British won a decisive victory in 1942 over Rommel at the Battle of El Alamein. PS; this is likely, almost certainly to be the last major battle that the British will fight on their own. Simply because Britain no longer has the forces available to launch an attack in a battle such as El Alamein. It remains to this day the last major land battle that the British have fought. And of course, by the end of 1941, America has come into the war. And by November 1942, it has landed its Army in North Africa at the further end of Morocco, and by May of 1943, the Allied Forces, Free French, British, American, overwhelmingly American, have forced the Germans, and the Italians, to surrender in North Africa. So Egypt is saved, the Suez Canal is saved, and a possible German invasion of the Middle East has been averted by May 1943. I think it’s true to say that the Middle East had long been destabilised before war ever came in 1939. And you remember from Palestine alone, the great Arab Revolt in the years immediately preceding war in 1939. That was brought to a close, or I think a better word would be a postponement, due to the war.

In his book, “Middle East,” Craig Davis writes this; “Arabs, Jews, and Iranians wanted their independence from European imperialism. The war’s outbreak opened the way for two diametrically opposed Middle Eastern forces to attempt to secure this independence. One approach was to fight alongside Britain and Free France in hopes, that if victorious, Britain and France would make good on the League of Nations mandate to grant them independence.” And so that meant that there were both Jewish and Arab Forces fighting for the Allies. And Davis goes on to say, “Approximately 27,000 Jewish troops from the Haganah fought on the side of the British in the Middle East.” Later they are going to be incorporated as a British/Jewish Army in the Middle East. The Arabs, there were Arab soldiers in Egypt, in Iraq, and Libya and elsewhere, who served British interests. So although Iraq declared for Germany, there were Arab Iraqis who fought for the Allies. So you had a choice if you were looking for independence, freedom, after the war, to which side you joined. It goes on.

Davis goes on to say, “Of course, Iran.” Also Iran, not Iraq, Iran as well, Persian, not Arab. “Iran also sided with the German/Italian Axis powers.” And that was worrying to Britain. Worrying to Britain because of Iranian oil supplies, the Anglo Iranian Petroleum Company, but also because of its border with Russia, the USSR, through which Britain hoped to supply war material. So Iran is also, as it were, an enemy of Britain and Free France in the Middle East, along with Iraq. There was of course the question first of all of Syria and Lebanon. That was fairly easily dealt with in 1941. German aircraft refuelled, the Luftwaffe, refuelled in Syria on their way to the pro German government of Iraq. British and Free French Forces, Free French/de Gaulle, attacked the two mandated territories of Syria and Lebanon from a base in British-mandated Palestine. It was all over in six weeks, and the Vichy French were defeated, the last time Britain and France had been at war. So Syria and Lebanon had been taken out of the equation early on in 1941. What of Palestine? Well, this is again Davis writing, and Davis writes this of Palestine.

“Palestine, the Stern Gang,” or if you prefer, I’m sure lots of Israelis listening would much prefer me not to use the term Stern Gang. But Stern Gang is the phrase used both by British and American historians. You would know it as Lehi, L-E-H-I, which is an acronym, which we’ll come to in a moment. “The Stern Gang and other Jewish militant organisations attacked the British, Arabs, and even other Jews in the Middle East, and elsewhere. They even attempted to negotiate with Hitler whom they perceived as less threatening than the British.” So there are problems in Palestine. There’s going to be problems with the Arabs anyhow, because their view is the same as Arabs right across the Middle East. If they’re going to get freedom in the way that they want it, they have to show willing to negotiate. Well, in Palestine, they have to show willing to negotiate with the British, whilst the Jews also, well, their view becomes slightly divided. Either they have to rely upon the British or they have to take a view of getting rid of the British. So as I said before, Palestine is very complex. It’s not straightforward. Iran is straightforward, Iraq is straightforward, Jordan is straightforward, Syria and Lebanon have been dealt with, but Palestine is, from a British point of view, a major headache in the region.

In his book, “A Concise History of the Arabs,” John McHugo sums up in this way, just two very short pieces. “The Second World War found the Arab world an intermediate place, somewhere on the way to somewhere else, both literally and metaphorically.” In other words, somewhere on the way to somewhere else means India and Russia. But also it means metaphorically that it’s somewhere between being mandated territories and free independent territories. “If there had been another Arab revolt,” the one in Palestine before, immediately before 1939, “if there had been another Arab revolt during the Second World War, it would’ve been aimed at liberating the area from Britain and France.” That’s clear. But the Jewish question, as I said, is complex and divided. I’ll read on. “The Axis,” that is to say Germany and Italy, “made use of a still relatively new medium of radio to reach the remotest parts of the Arabic-speaking world. Glubb Pasha, the British general who commanded the Jordanian Arab Legion, was disturbed to find illiterate tribesman in Central Arabia learning about events in Palestine from German and Italian radio broadcasts.”

This is the first war in which radio has played a significant part. If we think of Roosevelt or Churchill, to raise the morale of the people. If we think of propaganda, we think of Lord Haw-Haw in Germany broadcasting to Britain, and here in the Middle East, Glubb Pasha reminds us that they were broadcasting to, very importantly, illiterate Arabs. You don’t have to be able to read and write to turn a radio on and listen to what is being said. So the die is cast. Now, there is a really odd situation that arises in Palestine, and that is something I’ve got to look at. And it is this extraordinary person, Amin al Husseini, who is a rather upper crust Arab from Jerusalem, educated in the Ottoman Empire, whose families have been Muftis of Jerusalem for a number of years. He was appointed by the British. In fact, he was appointed by Herbert Samuel, who is the Jewish British, sorry, who is the Jewish British person in charge, a high commissioner in Palestine. Now, hang on, hang on, just take that on board. The British high commissioner appoints a Grand Mufti. What is a Grand Mufti? Well, technically he’s appointed by the state as the head of the Islamic judiciary.

He can issue non-biding, non-binding fatwas on appointed Islamic law, on sharia law. He’s a really important figure. Moreover, al Husseini, because he came from this rather upper-crust family in Jerusalem, has even more power. So what on earth, in the situation as complex as that of Palestine during the war, does Samuel appoint him? And Samuel is Jewish. Well, it was earlier in 1921 that Samuel actually appointed him, but he remained Grand Mufti into the war. What is it about? Some people argue that despite being Jewish, he’s antisemitic. That is clearly nonsense. Remember that he’s British. I said to you before that Samuel is British and not Zionist, in the sense of being committed 100% to a greater Israel. He’s committed to a Jewish homeland, but that means a divided Palestine between Jew and Arab. What Samuel is trying to do is British compromise. He’s trying to ride two horses at once, the Jewish horse and the Arab horse. And maybe that was impossible. I would say it definitely was impossible. So why did he do this? Well. Whoops, I’ve lost myself. Hang on. That, there we are. I can see, I can see myself. I don’t mind if you don’t see me, but I need to see myself. Later he had to give evidence to a commission in Britain of what he was doing. And one report says in the “Times of Israel” report, “Samuel was keen to clarify that his apparently moderate Zionist aspirations did not mean he ruled out an eventual Jewish majority. 'The nature of the Jewish national home must be conditioned by the interests of the inhabitants, the country, generally. I still hold to that, that that condition might permit a Jewish national home with a million inhabitants or possibly two million with a majority or with a minority.’”

Well, that’s really hedging his bets. And he wanted to reassure the Arabs. And he thought that by having Husseini as Grand Mufti, as a leader of the Arabs, he could deal with him. And the British were always seeking, throughout the Empire, to have people they can deal with. In the language of the day, “I say, he’s a jolly good chap, we can do business with him.” That’s what they thought. Wrong though it turned out to be, that’s how they thought about it. They also thought, and Samuel would’ve been in this particular block, that the Jews were, I suppose you could say like us, they regarded the Jews as sort of Europeans. They did not regard the Arabs as such. And anyhow, as a Jew, Herbert Samuel, well, “I understand what they’re doing. I can deal with them, I can argue with them, I can keep them on board.” But the Arabs, he needed someone he could control. Well, of course in the event, it goes badly pear-shaped on both counts. First of all, the Grand Mufti moved further towards Hitler and Nazism, and on the Jewish side, the Jews split into those prepared to wait until the war was over to hopefully negotiate with Britain. But in the meantime, there were Jews who took arms up against the British in what they themselves called acts of terrorism. Not a British term, a Jewish term. And so this was, this was a dreadful situation. Looking at it from a British point of view, a dreadful situation to try and manage whilst a World War is on.

From an Arab position, they are in the majority and they feel that if they can’t gain by negotiation, they will be able to gain by violence as they were trying to do in the Great Arab Revolt before 1939. As for the Jews, if they can’t get what they want by negotiation, there is a proportion of them prepared to take up arms against the British, even though there is a war going on. So it is more than complex. And Britain isn’t, remember, only dealing with Palestine. It’s having to deal with Iran and Iraq. I have to say, as a Briton, the last job I would ever have wanted during World War II was to be placed in the Middle East, with responsibilities for trying to hold the thing together in order that the war against Germany can be won. Then comes a very strange event. A joint British Russian invasion of Iran, a joint invasion, which took place at the end of the summer of 1941. They announced that they would only stay for six months, having defeated the Persians and bent them to the Russian and British point of view. They didn’t actually withdraw. Well, they said they would withdraw six months after the war and they did that. In 1946 the British withdrew first, the Russians second, but only after the newly formed United Nations sort of twisted the Russians’ arms. Why did they go in?

Well, they went in to secure oil supplies for both Britain and Russia, and they went in to protect what was called the Persian Corridor, that is the land route to Russia, so that British and other Allied arms, American, could be put and pushed through to Russia, as they fought Germany on the Eastern Front over in Europe. 80 years ago, just think a moment. 80 years ago, a British and Russian joint invasion. Britain basically came in from the west, the Russians from the north, but it was totally coordinated. 80 years ago, Britons and Russians fought, metaphorically, side-by-side in Iran. Britain, Russia, Iran. But Britain and Russia are united against Iran, not as today. What changes happen in world affairs, in geopolitics, so quickly? 80 years is a drop in the ocean of time. But we did, and we took Persia out of the war, secured the oil, secured the land route to Russia, all positive. Then we fight, that is to say Britain fights, a war against Iraq. Now, Iraq had come out of British mandate, to all intents and purposes, in 1932, with Abdullah on the throne. But Abdullah is, well, he’s one of these good chaps, you understand, that the British always want to put on thrones so they can pull his strings. In fact, giving them independence in 1932 was a result of a Anglo/Iraqi treaty in 1930, so Iraq and Britain are close. Except that in 1941, with help from Nazi Germany and Italy, Abdullah is overthrown and he’s replaced by a man called Gaylani, G-A-Y-L-A-N-I, G-A-Y-L-A-N-I, Gaylani, who is installed as prime minister. He established what is known as cordial relations with both Germany and Italy. And that was obviously too much for Britain. And Britain has to respond.

Why? Because it’s an important land bridge, is Iraq between British Egypt and British India. He was forced out. That is to say this new prime minister, Gaylani, largely by the RAF, he’s forced out. And Britain re-installs Abdullah and peace is then maintained with Iraq. So we’ve got to a position where we know what’s happened in Iran, a British/Soviet success. We know what happens in Iraq, British success. We know what happens in Jordan, it remains loyal to Britain. We know what happens in Syria and Lebanon. The Vichy, fascist rule is beaten in six weeks by the Free French and the British. Egypt has been saved by Montgomery’s victory at El Alamein in ‘42. And so all that’s left, if you like, is Palestine. Palestine and Britain, searching for answers in the 1930s, had not found an answer that satisfied either Jew or Arab. On the other hand, some historians have written that Palestine remained relatively quiet during the war. I’m not entirely happy with that, but maybe I have to just accept that that’s partly what others think. This is, if I can find it. This is Scott-Baumann writing and he writes in this way. This is the book “Palestinians and Israelis,” I used last week. He writes this, “Palestine was relatively quiet during the Second World War. The Arabs were exhausted and leaderless at the end of the Great Arab Revolt, while the establishment of a huge military base and the consequent demand for food and other locally produced goods ushered in a period of relative economic prosperity.” Okay, but neither Jew nor Arab were in a position to challenge the British White Paper of 1939. In his book, “The Israel-Palestine Conflict,” by James Gelvin, on my book list, Gelvin writes this. This is, I think, very interesting 'cause it’s original sources. “Neither the Arab Higher Committee nor the Zionists accepted the British White Paper of 1939. According to the Arab Higher Committee, quote.”

Now this is a quote. “The last word does not rest with white or black papers. It is the will of the nation that will decide its future. The Arab people have expressed their will and said their word in a loud and decisive manner, and they are certain that with God’s assistance, they will reach the desired goal. Palestine shall be independent within an Arab Federation and shall forever remain Arab.” Arab Federation means, this was the idea of pan-Arabism, it would be with Jordan and Syria and everything else. That idea doesn’t exist anymore, but it existed then. That isn’t the important point. “Palestine shall be important and shall, shall be independent and shall forever remain Arab.” Now that view is still a view held today, from the river to the sea. “Palestine shall be independent and shall remain forever Arab.” That was said at the beginning of World War II. The Jewish Agency also rejected the 1939 British White Paper and it declared, quote, this is the Jewish Agency quote. “It is in the darkest hour of Jewish history that the British government proposes to deprive the Jews of their last hope and to close the road back to their homeland. It is a cruel blow.”

That meant the Jewish immigration to Israel-Palestine, that we talked about a few weeks ago. “It is a cruel blow. This blow will not subdue the Jewish people. The historic bond between the people and the land of Israel cannot be broken. The Jews will never accept the closing to them of the gates of Palestine, nor let their national home be converted into a ghetto.” That’s because the White Paper suggested one Palestine, but with a sort of complex relationship between majority Arabs and minority Jews. That is why they refer to, “Will not let their national home be converted into a ghetto. The Jewish pioneers who, during the past three generations have shown their strength in the upbuilding of a derelict country, will from now on display the same strength in defending Jewish immigration, the Jewish home, and,” same word as the Arab Palestinians used, “Jewish freedom.” You couldn’t get a clearer statement of the opposite policies towards Palestine than those two at the outbreak of war, from the Jewish Agency and from the High Council of the Arabs in Palestine. And Britain is now facing this second world war, in which it stood on the very edge of defeat in 1940, and yet is still attempting to hold Palestine together. Now, I accept that lots of you will say, “You’re being very biassed.”

Well, just accept for a moment that I’m British, and it’s helpful sometimes, as objective as I am, or try to be, I’m British. If you’re not British, then you will see things in a different light. But if you can understand some of the things I’m saying from a British point of view, maybe you can just get a glimmer of the difficulties that faced Britain in Palestine, particularly during the war. How could they resolve this? They just basically had to keep a lid on it. It was just too difficult to do otherwise. Now, the Jewish militant group Irgun, and the Stern Gang, which broke away from Irgun, continued to attack British targets during the war. But the Jewish Agency, which had been established now 10 years previously in 1929, didn’t wish to disrupt British war efforts. It declared a truce and the Haganah militia deployed itself alongside British Forces. Ben-Gurion said this, a very, very interesting quotation from Ben-Gurion. Ben-Gurion said, quote, “We shall fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper, and we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war.” Let me just read that again 'cause it’s really important. Ben-Gurion said, “We shall fight the war against Hitler as if there were no White Paper.” So we will remain true to Britain during the course of the war, but we shall fight the White Paper as if there were no war. So don’t think, Britain, because we are supportive of you, it means we agree with your policies, because we do not.

Now that is, I was going to say centrist view in Israel, that is to become Israel and Palestine. Is it the predominant Jewish view? It’s difficult because we don’t have, we don’t have any surveys to suggest, but I think probably we can say that is the, that is the view of the, of the middle ground of Jewish opinion. And the Jews fight for the British. And Ben-Gurion is true to his word. And again, this is Scott-Baumann writing, and he writes this. “Most Jews in Palestine decided to support Britain in the fight against Nazi Germany. Jews fought in the British Army, which enabled them to gain valuable military experience and even weapons. In 1944, Jewish volunteers from Palestine were organised into a specifically Jewish brigade in the British Army.” Let me just read that again. “Which enabled them to gain valuable military experience and even weapons.” Those of you who are American will recognise that very easily. What was Washington before he became general of the Revolutionary Army? A senior officer in the British Army in the Americas. And what did he learn? He learned British tactics. He learned how to command an army. He learned everything from the British. And the Jews are learning from the British.

How they think, how they fight, and they accrue weapons. So at the end of the war, “Oh well, chaps, hand your weapons back in.” “Awfully sorry,” they said, “we don’t know where they are. We’ve lost them.” “No, well, doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter, the war’s over.” But it did matter because they kept the weapons. It was important, of course, for them to keep the weapons. Next week’s story, if you like. So all this is complex, as I said before. Let me pause there and say a major Jewish figure whom I’ve just mentioned, must now take centre stage. That is Ben-Gurion. David Ben-Gurion. I’m sure you all know, I sometimes feel I’m teaching my grandmothers to suck eggs. He was born with the name Gruen, G-R-U-E-N or Green in English. It was a name, it was his family name from Poland. But he adopted the name Gurion from one of the leaders of Bar Kokhba’s revolt against Rome. Important in terms of how he saw himself. He arrived in Palestine from Poland before the First World War in 1906, a month before his 20th birthday. He was from the start committed to a Jewish state in Palestine, hence why he changed his name to Ben-Gurion. He studied law in what was then Ottoman Constantinople. His reaction to the Balfour Declaration in the middle of the First World War in 1917 was this, quote, “England has not returned the land to us. A land is not acquired without tribulations of work and creativity, without the effort of building and settlement. The Hebrew nation itself must change this right to a living and existing fact.”

In other words, don’t wait for the British to deliver Balfour. We must make Palestine a Jewish homeland before they get round to it. In other words, we must encourage immigration to Palestine. It’s a numbers game, if you like, with the Arab Palestinians. In 1935, after the end of the First World War, Ben-Gurion became the chair of both the Jewish Agency, formed in 1929, which I’ve already mentioned, and the World Zionist Organisation. Now this is a missed opportunity. In the story from now on, we have many missed opportunities. This is a missed opportunity. In 1937, Ben-Gurion came out in support of the British Peel Commission’s recommendation. And the British Peel Commission’s recommendation was a recommendation for a two-nation solution to the Palestine question. Not one, as the White Paper of 1939 later said. Not one nation with balances between majority and minority, which never really ever work. If you are British, think of Northern Ireland, it simply doesn’t work. Ben-Gurion accepted the Peel Commission’s two-nation solution. The British, and Herbert Samuel is the case in point, were nervous of Arab reaction. Hence the appointment of Husseini as Grand Mufti. Ben-Gurion opposed, during the war, the violence of Irgun and the Stern Gang.

By 1942, that is to say in the middle of the war, Ben-Gurion changed his position and supported the immediate establishment of a Jewish state. Not to wait till the end of the war, we want it now! It’s like the, it’s like students demonstrating, “When do we want it? We want it now!” The British should have dealt with him better. The Stern Gang. The Stern Gang was the British designation of the group called Lehi, L-E-H-I, which was anachronism for the Hebrew meaning Fighters for the Freedom of Israel. Lehi comes from the, Stern comes from the name of the founder of Lehi, Abraham Stern, the Stern Gang. But sometimes it’s said that this is a provocative use of British propaganda. I think it’s more, to be honest, a British elitism, of the British elite who designate their enemies in such a way as to lower their power. By calling it a gang, they don’t mean to be provocative, it’s just that they mean to say, you know, “I say, old boy, it’s just like we had at school. It’s just a gang. You don’t need to bother about them.” It was a British attitude. It was a Zionist military organisation. It started in 1940, and as I said, as a split from Irgun. It wanted to continue to fight against Britain during the war in order to achieve a Jewish homeland.

The method; to get rid of Britain by force, by terrorist force. This is its own statement about terrorism and force. “Neither Jewish ethics, nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.” “Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world. Ye shall blot them out to the last man.” You can see the similarity of that statement to statements made by Hamas supporters in 2024. I don’t condone either statement, but I’m just saying that we have to see others, we have to see ourselves as others see us. And that’s, that is something that’s difficult when we’re looking at the questions of Jew and Arab, and Israel and Palestine. The statement goes on to say, “But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play. Speaking in a clear voice to the whole world as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier.”

The occupier, Britain. Hamas is saying the occupier is Israel. Do you see the difficulties of anyone trying from outside, for example, the Americans, to bring this conflict together? I don’t suggest for one moment that this Jewish view from 1940 is a predominant view in Israel today, but it is a view. It’s a view you hear when you hear people being interviewed from the West Bank. “We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.” The Arabs? No, the British! “Moral perversion is admitted by all.” The action for which Lehi, the Stern Gang, is either famous in Israel, stamps have been produced in Israel, for example, or infamous in Britain during the war, was the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in November of 1944. Moyne was the British minister resident in the Middle East, the chief of British, the civil chief of British policies throughout the whole Middle East. Britain was outraged. Churchill appeared in the House of Commons and made a statement, and he was dressed in mourning. He had mourning clothes on, mourning suit, black tie, the lot. His statement was received in silence.

He emphasised to the House of Commons that the Jews in Palestine had really lost a better and more well-informed friend. He added that Lord Moyne had devoted himself this year to a solution of the Zionist problem. Not the Palestinian problem, but the Zionist problem. Now, Lord Moyne has become a figure of controversy. Many Israelis, many of you listening to me today will say, “Well, Lord Moyne was anti-Semitic.” The British say, “No, he wasn’t particularly anti-Semitic.” He was just trying, like Samuel, the Jew, to find a way through. And he was castigated for that attempt. You must make your own judgement about that. Lehi had twice sought alliance with Hitler. Now, what is very interesting here is that Stern, who led the movement, died in 1942, and the group moved away from the Nazis towards Soviet Russia, embracing Marxism. That adds a quite different complexion. So all the references to the Torah in the original statement of Lehi are rendered meaningless once they’re Marxist. More of all that next week. All of this says to me, and what I said earlier, the situation in Palestine is complex. It’s difficult and it’s divisive. Jew and Arab, Arab against Jew, Jew against Arab, Jew against Jew, Arab against Arab. And in the middle of this is Britain. Not in a position to solve the problem in the middle of a World War, in which it faced utter defeat in 1940.

Okay, that’s putting a British spin on it. But it doesn’t matter that it was Britain, because as we shall see in a moment, Britain’s role is going to be taken over by the United States. And so if the problem was that easy and Britain had fouled up badly, then surely, surely over the last, what, 80 years, 70 years, America would’ve found an answer. And it hasn’t. And that’s not a criticism of America. It’s a defence of those criticising Britain and the mandate. There is no easy answer. And if we were to bring back from those who passed on, from both Britain and America that attempted to solve the question of Palestine, stroke Israel and Arab and Arab Palestine, they would not be surprised that in 2024 there isn’t an answer. They did pretty well everything. But I said there were some missed opportunities. And certainly the missed opportunity was to home-in by Britain on the Peel Commission with a two-nation solution, and to support Ben-Gurion in that view. But then Ben-Gurion takes a quite different view later on asking for an immediate creation of a Jewish homeland. That is without negotiations with Arab Palestinians. This is very difficult for me as a non-Jew and a non-Israeli to talk about, particularly in the like of the horrendous Israeli-Hamas war.

But we need to try hard to be objective about the facts of history. Because if we are not, then finding a solution which is in everybody’s interests, is going to prove even more difficult, and could last another century before a solution is found. So where does this all leave the Middle East at the end of the war in 1945? Well, really we’re back in the 1930s, with increasing demands from the Arab Middle East for Britain and France to get out, go. And also a world in which the Jews increasingly demand a Jewish state, whilst Palestinian Arabs argue for an Arab Palestine. By 1945, both France and Britain are war weary and more importantly finally broke. The new top dog in the West is unquestionably the United States. And, if I can find it, having thrown it on the floor, if I can find Craig Davis’s book on the Middle East, Davis writes this. “The United States entry into World War II had strong implications for the Middle East. After the war, British and French world supremacy waned and the two countries were forced to relinquish their colonial rule in the region.”

I don’t like the word colonial rule. Davis is an American, so he would use that word. It was mandated rule under the League of Nations. “The United States stepped in to take up the political slack. American foreign policy was to have a huge impact on Israel and Palestine, Iran, Iraq, and other countries in the region,” to which I would add, right through to 2024. So you could say that Britain had failed in its mandate, and we come to the end of the mandate next week, and America has taken up, to use Davis’s words, the slack. But I’m saying that America has found it as equally difficult as Britain. And what that tells me, and tells all of us, is this is a very, very intractable problem. And I cannot see that external countries can do anything other than chair and meetings, eventually conferences, between Israel and Palestine, Arab Palestine. It cannot. We’ll come back at a later date about what solutions there might be, but just let me remind you that the Peel Commission said it would be a two-state solution, which was a British suggestion, a British government suggestion, endorsed by Ben-Gurion. It’s in practise, as Davis said, all over now for Britain and France in the region and indeed in the world.

The days of European empires are numbered, two years after the war, India is independent, or what was British India, now India, and Pakistan are now free and independent countries. I’ve written here, this is me, so not too particularly clever, I wrote, “The complexities in the Middle East are beyond the capabilities, and more importantly in 1945, the will to seek resolutions in the region by France and Britain.” And a final read from Craig Davis’s book on the Middle East is this. “When the war ended in 1945, the steady stream of Jewish immigration to Palestine burst into massive flow beyond British control.” That’s what Ben-Gurion had said during the war. “Violence between Arabs and Jews once again erupted. The British found themselves stuck in the middle, lacking means to stem the increasing cycle of violence.” The increasing cycle of violence could be the story not just of Israel and Palestine, but the story of the Middle East over the last 80 years. Cycles of violence. How do you break cycles of violence? It’s not easy. If you’re a British foreign secretary or an American secretary of state, what can you do to break the cycles of violence? You walk away.

No, you can’t walk away because it’s strategically important, and if you walk away, Russia comes in, or nowadays we might have to say even China. And we can’t walk away because Iran has the bomb. We can’t walk away because its got oil. We are still stuck with the intractable problem of the Middle East. So that sometimes historians throw up their hands in despair and say, “Oh, why didn’t we keep the Ottoman Empire going?” Well, of course we know why, because Turkey lost the war. But on the other hand, had the Ottoman Empire continued, they would not have been in any better position than Britain or America to solve the problem. Remember, Turkey is not an Arab country. It may be an Islamic country, but it is certainly not an Arab country. And it would not have been able to stem demands from independence from the Arabs or from the Jews in Palestine. American supremacy in the West, in the Western Alliance, gave Zionists in Palestine real hope in 1945. Perhaps the first time after what they would describe as the twisting and turning and hypocrisy of British policy. And I finish with a quotation from Scott-Baumann’s “Palestinians and Israelis,” where he writes this. “On the diplomatic front, the Zionists decided that only the United States could put enough pressure on Britain to agree to a separate Jewish state and leave Palestine.

The Zionists had the support of much of the Jewish population in America, who in turn put pressure on the American government. There were four and a half million Jewish Americans, two million of them in New York City alone. By the end of the war, majority were Zionists convinced of the need to establish an independent Jewish state for the Jewish refugees who had survived the Nazi Holocaust in Europe.” And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where my story begins again next week. Thank you very much for listening, and I’m sure there’s lots of people anxious to put me right on everything. Let’s have a look.

Q&A and Comments

Yes, Carol, you’re right. The British weren’t alone at El Alamein there were Commonwealth Forces as well. And Nicholas says, “And some Greek and French troops.” Battle of Imphal. Yes, it’s after El Alamein. Battle of Imphal is where we held the Japanese back in India. Who is this? Ernest Bevin, “In February of '47 whilst,” I think it means while returning, “while returning,” I think, “the mandate on Palestine to the UN wrote, 'It is an irreconcilable conflict. The Jews want a state. The Arabs want that the Jews will not have one.’ In my opinion, the statement is valid today as well.” Yes, exactly. That’s exactly the position that the British were in in the period I’ve been talking about between 1939 and 1945.

Megan, “Shamir and Stern were terrorists, at least by those who supported the Haganah and the moderate Israelis today.” Yes, but Israel took, yeah, but Israel took the bodies back of the two assassins of Lord Moyne in 1975 from Egypt, and as I say, stamps were later issued in their name. It’s confusing. I’ll talk about Begin and Shamir next time, I think next time or time after. “As it’s always been the case, yesterday’s terrorists, tomorrow or today’s statesmen.” Yes, but it’s interesting that they actually describe themselves as terrorists. “You noted that pan-Arabism no longer exists. I challenge that assertion. Isis and the attempt to form a new caliphate are a manifestation of that same goal.” Yes, Jono, or Alfred, yes, you could say that, but politically, in terms of the, of the countries in the Middle East, like the attempts in the past from Syria, Egypt and so on, is not there. But whether pan, it’s, you’d need to make a distinction between pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism.

Ruthie. Ruthie, where are you? I’ve lost you. Here it is. “I’ve two comments. And I respond to a earlier comment, that it is in reconcile that Jews want a state, Arabs wants that, this did not happen. Being reminded of this psychology constantly, how could there possibly be a lasting peace? Also, had it not been for Begin, Shamir, and Stern, and countless others, there would be no Israel today as we know it. It seems that unfortunately every decade or couple of decades, war will be an eventuality. In chess, this would be considered stalemate.” We can’t accept stalemate. We can’t, we can’t. We can’t. We mustn’t. Because that means continuing round this cycle of violence, and more importantly, cycle of death. We have to be more positive than that. We have to find a way through.

Jonathan adds, “Ben-Gurion means son of a lion or lion cub.” Rolf says, “Begin, who eventually assumed authority of the Irgun actually split with the Lehi and for the remainder of the war declared that Irgun will be focused on defeating Hitler.” Absolutely right. Jeff, “Ray, two-nation solution in the Middle East, think Lebanon trying to balance Christians and Muslims within the government, never worked, never will.” Absolutely true. Lebanon was a complete mess because of Christians and Muslims and different types of Muslims and Christians. A complete mess. No, you can’t have, and Jeff says, “Sorry, one-state solution.” I can’t see how you can have a one-state solution. I really can’t. But we’ll come back to that. A one-state solution is what Britain was proposing in the 1939 White Paper. But a one-state solution means living together and sharing power, a power-sharing, as in Northern Ireland. I can’t see that happening.

Q: “Isn’t Lehi more correctly pronounced?” A: Well, I did check on the internet the Hebrew pronunciation, and I pronounced it as they said. So I can’t answer that question. As long as you knew what I was talking about. Somebody else says it should be pronounced Lehee. That’s not what I found on the Hebrew way of saying it on the internet, but I’m liable to be totally wrong.

Q: “Did Ben-Gurion respond to the Peel’s position as the information about the extermination of Jews and how it did? Did Ben-Gurion respond to the Peel’s position as he had the information about the extermination of Jews and how it had succeeded?” A: I can’t answer that. I don’t know the answer, I’m sorry.

Q: “Recently Ireland, one of three countries, has declared that there must be a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Shouldn’t they be aware of the Irish failure during the Troubles?” A: Well, the British, the new British government’s foreign secretary has also come out in the last few days to say there should be a two-nation solution.

“Stern and Irgun never attacked women and children as do Hamas.” I’d have to check on that. “Site your connect.” Oh, I think your, yeah, I’m sorry. Yeah, I’ll leave all that. I’m sorry, I’m not getting involved in pronunciation. I can do my best only by checking and if I checked in a wrong place, I’m sorry. And if I upset people by a wrong pronunciation, I’m sorry, but I don’t speak Hebrew, and foreign names are, the British are dreadful with foreign words. Just think of Churchill and his French. “You draw moral equivalency between the Jewish underground fighting for the survival of Jews being exterminated in Europe and Hamas.” Hang on, Ralph, I didn’t say that. I didn’t mention Jews being exterminated in Europe. What I did say was, if you’re going to understand Hamas, you have to understand what the Stern Gang, as you said, then I can’t get into trouble, were saying about terrorism. They were arguing the same argument about the freedom of the land. I’m not drawing moral equivalency. I’m just saying that that is, you put the two things together, and they’re saying the same thing. That does not indicate. I’m not comparing one form of terrorism against another. And I certainly did not mention, and I’m really upset that you thought I mentioned survival of Jews being exterminated in Europe. I never mentioned that, and I wouldn’t.

“It was a very small minority, and then Haganah did fight with the British.” Absolutely right. “As I said last week,” Carol, “the Jewish Agency was a government in rating. Yes, you can stand up for the British bigots, that limited Jewish immigration at the start of the mandate, and they watched the Hashim Amin al-Husseini incite pogroms, even though Jews had fought with the Brits in World War I. The 1939 White Paper was disastrous. Even after the war, Jews were prevented from entering, they were even put in concentration camps with former a Nazis. Had there been no limitation, there would’ve been no. Had there been no limitation, there would be no Holocaust.” That is a hell of a jump to take. I don’t think that’s logical.

“There were even Brits, like John Globe, who fought against the Jews when they were trying to establish their state.” That’s a different issue again. I knew I would upset some of you. “Although there were some evangelicals who favoured a Jewish entry into the Holy Land, but antisemitism was always prominent in England. No accident the blood libel began in England. But you can rationalise anything.” Well, of course the blood libel began in England, but we’re talking about centuries before, and long abandoned in England, but not long abandoned elsewhere. Antisemitism wasn’t prominent in England. It was in England and it was in certain parts of the establishment in England, but it wasn’t prominent in England. I think that would be wrong to say that.

Q: “There is an answer. Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan. King Hussein said this himself, and the West Bank?” says Robin. A: Exactly. You can’t say that. You can’t say Jordan is Palestine in 2024. You’ve got to hear what other people are saying, and that is not what they’re saying. It’s an easy answer. But what do you do? Simply move all of the Arabs in the West Bank and Arabs in Gaza to Jordan? Jordan wouldn’t be very happy with that. No, that’s not a solution. It may have been a solution in the past, but it’s not a solution today.

“Maybe Ben-Gurion changed his mind,” says Carol, “when he realised what was happening in Europe and the Holocaust. No, Jews were not allowed into Palestine, forced by the British.” Yes, that may be true. Somebody else made the same point. “Peace cannot be made if the opposing parties do not want to make peace,” says Marilyn. Absolutely right. Monty, “Recruits to Haganah had to swear allegiance on a pistol. The pistol was hidden in a clock in the home of an uncle of my late wife.” Oh, Monty, bless you. In all the serious points you’ve made, everyone’s made, that is wonderful piece of historical information. Monty, I am indebted to you. Isn’t that absolutely fantastic! I didn’t know that and I don’t suppose many of you knew that. I think that’s wonderful. Thank you. You’ve made my, you’ve made my evening. “Lord Moyne was believed to have said that the Jewish immigrant ship should earlier be sent back to Europe. He sunk all the immigrants aboard. That is why he was assassinated.” I’m not getting involved with Lord Moyne any further. If you want to talk about Lord Moyne further, the expert is Trudy, and you can ask her and she will have a very balanced view.

Q: Marilyn, “Just a thought. Have you ever touched upon the incontrovertible evidence that Palestine was inhabited by Jews through the many archaeological sites revealed in Israel, referred to in the Bible in history?” A: Well, that’s like saying that the north of England has incontrovertible evidence that it was inhabited by Scandinavians. You can’t go, you can’t go back. You’ve got to be where you are, and where we were at the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is that the Arabs had the majority, Marilyn, in Palestine. It may be uncomfortable, and Britain was trying, having promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine, to reconcile those two irreconcilable things, a majority Arab population and the promise and commitment to a Jewish homeland. But to go back to archaeological evidence, well, if that’s true, we should be Italian. We have 400 years of Roman rule in Britain.

Rodney says, “You acknowledge your British viewpoint, but I find the English electors Anglo-centric, and reluctant to admit to error when it may have occurred.” Okay. “My father,” says Yvonne, “a South African engineer was decorated with an MBE by George VI for his role in the Battle of El Alamein.” Fantastic, Yvonne. Alfred, “Chairing meetings is a worthy role, but can only help if invective and self-serving terminology is excluded. For example, terms colonial and colonialism are already prejudicial. Any writer that uses such terminology is adding fuel to the fire than calming the flames.” 100% agree. “Disagree with your analogy between Lehi and or Stern Gang and Hamas. Lehi was opposed by Haganah and the two actually came to blows in a recent civil war, in a nascent civil war,” sorry. “There’s no Arab majority now fighting Hamas. Instead, Hamas enjoys widespread.” Yeah, yeah. iPhone, I understand your point, but I think your logic is. All I’m saying was that the Stern Gang had a terrorist policy written down. That’s all I’m saying. And I’m saying Hamas has a terrorist policy written down. I hope none of us agree that terrorism is a way forward. “Jaw, jaw, not war, war. Jaw, jaw, not terrorism, terrorism,” said Churchill. And it’s an awful, an awful, awful inheritance that the world has achieved, that the world has inherited in the Middle East. Oh, this is a point in contradiction to someone else’s point.

Q: “The role of the terrorist was minor in the establishment of Israel. Is because of Ben-Gurion?” A: Another viewer earlier said, “Without the terrorists there would’ve been no Israel.”

Noah, sorry, Noah. I, yeah, thanks. I didn’t want to mispronounce your name. Thank you. Thanks very much. Howard, “About 10,000 Jewish South African men enlisted to fight in the British Army. My father fought at El Alamein.” “Scandinavians have three countries and don’t pray to return to Northern England every day, facing Northumberland.” Yeah, well, the point was that you were arguing. No, Israel is there, but the point remains about the, that the British mandate couldn’t ever resolve, is this problem of population size, which is the same problem as in Northern Ireland. And it’s the same, there is another issue, which I’m certainly not going down the road, which bits of society breed more than other bits? In Northern Ireland, Catholic breed more, because they don’t believe in contraception, than Protestants. Therefore, there will be, without a shadow of doubt, a Catholic majority. And when there is a Catholic majority, they will insist on a referendum and vote to join Ireland. In doing so, something has to be done about the minority Protestant community in Northern Ireland. But there are Protestants in Ireland itself with no difference. There’s even been Protestant presidents of Ireland, but because of the history in Northern Ireland, which is not to do with religion, but it’s become, in their DNA, has become so difficult to resolve. So not, and the same is true in Palestine.

How do we resolve this question? It is not easy to resolve. And I’m sorry if I offended some of you, but better that I say what I think, and you challenge it, than me to moderate or change what I see as the reality. Some of you agree with me, some of you disagree with me. And that I find interesting in itself, because if everyone said one thing, we would be in a better place and I would be sat on my own. But that is not what has occurred in the questions and answers this evening. So ponder on the fact that this difficult question also raises, it raises blood pressure in people. And of course, of course I understand that. Of course, it’s obvious it’s going to. And particularly in time of war. But somehow or other, if there’s going to be a solution, we have to rise above that. The world has to rise above that. Arab and Jew have to rise above that. We have to find solutions.

I think I’ll leave it there. Thank you very much for listening. I will be back, gosh, with tin hat firmly in place next week, same time, same place, looking at Israeli independence, and the war that is a consequence of that in the Middle East, and Britain’s withdrawal. Tin hat firmly in place. See you next week.