The world uses Arab propaganda as moral justification for an anti-Israeli position, which is considered a precondition for receiving Arab oil.
A Palestinian Arab strategist by the name of Heitham al-Ayyubi explained, after the Yom Kippur War; “The nations of Western Europe condemned the Israeli position despite the guarantees they gave for its safety… they understood that European interests… do not allow them to risk Arab wrath” (Page 29).
In the years after Hitler came to power in Germany, Jews became refugees in Europe and elsewhere around the world. The Jews, who were being persecuted by the Germans and their helpers in various countries, were rejected by consulates of countries around the world, who did not want to take them in (1938).
In July 1938 U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt convened an international conference in Evian, France, with 32 countries participating. It was decided at the conference that the countries would not be required to take in more immigrants than their own national laws allowed. The only countries that loosened their laws were Santo Domingo (in the Caribbean), the Netherlands and Denmark. Britain, in turn, announced that limited immigration would be allowed to Palestine, as the country had limited absorption ability and was already full (Page 321).
The Evian conference toughened the British position even more, with British officials already discriminating against Jews in favor of the Arabs. The strict approach derived from the fact that Arab leaders had rejected the recommendation from the Report of the Royal Commission to divide the western part of the country into two: a large Arab country and a smaller Jewish country. As a result, the British Foreign minister at the time, Anthony Eden, the future Prime Minister of the UK, aimed for a plan that “would not give the Jews any land for their own exclusive use.”
In 1931 regulations and legal restrictions on Jewish immigration were formulated, despite being a violation of Section 6 of the Mandate and constitute capitulation to Arab terror in the country. Those who did so were the British, and not all members of the League of Nations, as in 1936 Protestant leaders convening in New York demanded that Britain “Uphold its contractual promise to the Jewish People… to cancel the illegal division… and open the Land of Israel to Jewish settlement…” (Page 332.
It seems as though the injustice the Mandate holder did to the Jews was being recognized, as in addition to the statements by religious leaders, in June 1939 the Permanent Mandate Committee of the League of Nations protested against the British White Book, and ruled that it violates of the terms of the mandate and defacto recognizes Arab impending rule.
Voices objecting to the discrimination against the Jews could also be heard from two other people: Winston Churchill, who defended the Balfour Statement and said that capitulating to Arab demands was a violation of the mandate given his nation, and noted that the British Empire was known for its loyalty; and Herbert Morrison, who emphasized the cooperation between Arab leaders in the Land of Israel and Hitler and Mussolini (Page 335).
At the Bermuda Conference, an Anglo-American conference held in April 1943, the United States assigned a sum of money to save seventy thousand Romanian Jews who had been condemned to death.
The British, as usual, objected, and claimed that they could not find space for this number of Jews in the country, and that there were growing concerns of the Arabs’ response. The British recognized the fact that due to the approaching U.S. elections, it could not risk the possibility that the U.S. Jewish community would criticize its policy in the Land of Israel. To wit, the British Ambassador to Washington reported that “The government would certainly not desire to be identified with a British decision… they would agree to consider it an inhumane act” (Page 364).
Despite the British objections to the action, the Americans prevailed, stating that “The British… are apparently willing to accept the death… of thousands of Jews in enemy territory due to the difficulty in finding a place for so many Jews (said by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Henry Morgenthau).
By the end of the Second World War, it was clear to all that the number of Jews killed was at ease six million (according to Nazi records) – which increased the pressure for Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel. However, the UK claimed that immigration by surviving Jews needed depend on the consent of Arab governments. The United States grew furious. It sent furious and bitter words to the British Foreign Office, after finding out that the UK had halted Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel, and parts of American media accused the British of acting like Nazis (Page 370).
Britain, in turn, continued to claim that the quota of 75,000 had been nearly reached, and repeatedly used the term “illegal immigrants” (Page 367). Its behavior infuriated Zionist organizations in the United States, who claimed that the expression was “invalid… in violation of the Anglo-American treaty… that no change could be made to the Mandate without American consent.”
As the Americans had not ratified the White Book, this treaty revoked its regulations (Page 370).
