From 1939 to 1947 two Jewish terrorist organizations, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Lohamei Herut Israel (known to Jews by its Hebrew acronym, Lehi, and to the British as "The Stern Gang") challenged Britain's rule over Palestine. Those eight years began with the publication of the White Paper in May 1939 and ended in September 1947 with the decision taken by the British Government to surrender its League of Nations Mandate and withdraw from Palestine. This thesis examines the influence that Jewish terrorist activities had on Britain's policy for Palestine and seeks to ascertain the role played by terrorism in that decision. Through an examination of British policy and the strategies employed by the British Army to defeat the terrorists, this study demonstrates why the British failed to reach either a military or a political settlement in Palestine. This failure can.be attributed both to the irreconcilable nature of Arab and Jewish claims to the country and the lack of a clear and consistent policy for Palestine on Britain's part. The situation was further aggravated by the weaknesses of the Palestine Police Force, the futile efforts of the Palestine Government to obtain the cooperation of the Jewish public against the terrorists and the debilitating effect of Jewish terrorist activities on the morale of the British soldier in Palestine. The search for a solution to the Palestine problem after World War II took place amid increasing terrorist violence in the country. As British authority in Palestine deteriorated, Britain's will to remain there dissolved. This thesis concludes that no single factor itself can be considered responsible for the decision to surrender the mandate and leave Palestine. At the same time, however, Jewish terrorist activities played an important--and even a decisive--role in the events that led to the termination of British rule over Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel.

Anglo-American relations throughout the Second World War and the years that followed, were at times coloured by the history of Zionism. This was the result of transfer of the Zionists' main effort from London to Washington in the hope of capitalizing on, and increasing, Zionist pressure there. The Zionists, faced with abandonment of British support for their aspirations in Palestine, due to strategic considerations, hoped that American intervention in British Palestine policy might cause Britain to resume that support. But no serious American attempt was made to prevent the introduction, in May 1939, of the British anti-Zionist White Paper policy. This lack of American pressure continued throughout the war. But as soon as the war ended, active American intervention began. The result, according to the evidence of the British Foreign Minister of the time (Bevin), was Britain's decision to abandon Palestine. This thesis endeavours to show the course of these Anglo-American relations, and to describe the development of the forces that prompted and perpetuated this American intervention. The thesis shows how in a first phase, which lasted until the beginning of 1943, the Government of the United States was reluctant to intervene for virtually the same reasons as governed the change in British policy that dates from 1938, when in face of the Axis threat they abandoned their attempt to impose the partition of Palestine and sought to maintain relations with the Arabs that would be good enough to suit their strategic ends. Consequently, throughout the war, world Jewry was faced with a grim combination of Nazi persecution of the Jews in Europe--later to become their total extermination --and the closing of the asylum of Palestine by the British. This combination had two main effects on the Jews: in America it enhanced the recruitment of the majority of Jews to the ranks of the Zionist movement, while in Palestine it reinforced Jewish determination to fight the White Paper, even by resort to violence. The common characteristic of both developments was the increase in Zionist impatience and Zionist militancy. In the course of that development, American Zionists, inspired by visitors from London and Palestine, pursued a dream that realists considered impossible of fulfilment. Before anyone in America knew the full dimensions of the holocaust and before victory in the war seemed in any way assured, the American Zionists illustrated their belief that "the hour of redemption would soon strike," and produced the "Biltmore" programme. These American Zionists believed that a Jewish State in the whole of Palestine, should be given to them "by the world", at the end of the war, and that this was going to be the true outcome of Jewish suffering. In the second phase, which ran between the beginning of 1943 and the end of the war, their Messianic dream gradually turned into a political programme. 1943 was the year in which the German threat to the Middle East came to an end. As the Allies' victory loomed in sight, not only the Zionists, but both the British and the United States began to consider the future of Palestine. The British Cabinet, largely under the influence of Churchill, saw the final phase of the war as providing it a better chance to tackle the problem than the post-war era was likely to be. Before long, it reached the conclusion that the White Paper must be replaced by a partition and accordingly drew up concrete plans. Significantly, however, the Cabinet decided to make its stand secret, until implementation of its plan was possible. It decided to exclude even the United States from knowledge of it. In consequence, an asymmetric relation developed between the two powers in which the British were told of American schemes and proposals for Palestine (most of which were merely random improvisations) but did not tell the Americans their own. The relationship amounted to a dialogue of the deaf. When, for reasons that this thesis will explain, the chance to implement partition was missed, Britain appeared to the Americans, as well as to the rest of the world, as doggedly adhering to the White Paper policy. This impression both increased Zionist beligerency, helping to make the post-war British position in Palestine impossible, and hardened the attitude of President Truman, causing him to start intervening. After 1943, two conflicting tendencies developed simultaneously in America, both affecting Middle Eastern policy. On the one hand, a scare about oil shortage and about other American interests in the Middle East, awakened an American wish to win Arab goodwill. On the other hand, mounting Zionist and (through Zionist effort) American public pressure on the Administration, brought about growing support for Zionist aspirations, particularly in Congress. This coincidence of pressures became a source of profound embarrassment to United States foreign policy makers. Since the British were at the same time disturbed by the prospects of growing difficulties in Palestine, springing from growing Jewish militancy, the one sense in which the two governments co-operated during the war in regard to Palestine was in an attempt to damp down Zionist agitation. This attempt gave birth to plans for a joint statement, condemning this agitation as impeding the Allied war effort; but the Zionists and their supporters managed to defeat this move. The result of the inner embarrassment caused to Americans was an ambiguous policy, according to which soothing statements were simultaneously made both to Jews and to Arabs only the former received these reassurances publicly; the latter learned of them in secret. This "two-way-talk" policy reached its peak towards the end of the war. Before Roosevelt's death, in April 1945, he had reached the conclusion that a Zionist solution in Palestine was impossible to implement and to maintain without resort to force. This conclusion led him to abandon his earlier support for it and to seek solutions of a different character. He, however, did not have the time or the readiness to develop his ideas much further. In his last year in office, Roosevelt struggled to stem the mounting Zionist pressure on his administration. After his failure to issue the Anglo-American statement, he scored a temporary success by managing to shelve pro-Zionist resolutions in Congress. But he was ail-but completely disarmed during the 1944 election campaign. This campaign was marked by a flood of pro-Zionist utterances, made by both political parties and their candidates for the Presidency, as a result of skilful Zionist tactics; in this election campaign, as they were again to do in the future, the Zionists instead of adhering to one Party, as they had done in the past, put their vote up to auction. Nevertheless, politically, the American Zionists achieved very little during the war. Their only impressive success was the mass recruitment of Jewry itself. All their other seeming achievements, in the form of platforms and statements and promises, seemed, when the war ended, to have vanished into thin air. But the same happened to all the plans and schemes proposed during the war by Britain and the United States. Palestine was not discussed at Yalta and formed no part of mutual post-war arrangements. The secret partition plan of the British Cabinet lay in ruins and all the other alternatives looked just as unpalatable. What remained intact was the White Paper. In the third phase, which ran from the end of the war until early 1947, American intervention began and developed. But it did not take the form for which the American Zionists had hoped; nor did it in the end bring about the results they desired.

Part A traces back the origins of the conflicting claimsto sovereignty over the area now called the West-Bank. The analysis shows that a sovereignty vacuum ensued after Turkey relinquished by treaty its rights and title over Palestine and that subsequently that vacuum remained in the area earmarked for an Arab Palestinian State. Part B peruses the constituent elements for the legality or illegality of the sovereignty claims invoked by the parties concerned: the use of force and the act of selfdefence. Part C demonstrates that Israel has eroded the law of belligerent occupation through a system of military orders, which virtually precludes the West-Bank Palestinians from exercising their valid claim to sovereignty. Part D reviews feasible options for a solution of the conflicting claims to sovereignty over the West-Bank. The last chapter proposes a solution which, taken in consideration the legally correct view, would entitle the Palestinians to fill up the sovereignty vacuum through an internationally guaranteed exercise of self-determination / La partie A retrace les origines des revendications contradictoires de souveraineté sur la région de l'actuelle Rive occidentale. L'analyse démontre qu'il existe un "vide" de souveraineté après l'abandon par la Turquie par traité de ses droits et titres sur la Palestine. Ce vide juridique persiste dans la régiondesignéepourla création d'un EtatPalestinien.LapartieBpasseenrevuelesélémentsconstitutifsdelalégalitéoul'illégalitédesrevendicationsdesouverainetéprésentéesparlespartiesconcernées:lerecoursàla forceetl'acte d'auto-défense.La partie C tend à prouver que Israël a vidé de son sens le régime juridique du droit d'occupation militaire par le truchement d'un système d'ordres militaires empêchant les palestiniens de la Rive occidentale d'exercer leur revendications légitimes de souveraineté. La partie D discute la gamme des solutions se référant aux revendications contradictoires de souveraineté sur la région de la Rive occidentale. Le chapitre final esquisse une proposition, qui autoriserait les Palestiniens, compte tenu de la position juridique correcte, à combler ce vide de souveraineté par l' intermédiaire de l'exercice, garanti au plan international, du droit à l'autodétermination.

No description available.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is examined from its religious aspect, presenting people's experience of religion without passing judgement. Selected concepts are compared and contrasted and interpreted hermeneutically. The roots of the antagonism are traced back historically, showing that it comprises more than a claim to the same geographical territory. Each religion's notion of statehood is described. Internally Jewish-Zionist friction over the ceding of territory arises through divergent interpretations of the same texts; Islam, Nationalism and religious rivalry, being at variance, have engendered Arab tensions. Their respective doctrines on war and peace suggest, broadly speaking, a Jewish-Zionist leaning to shalom, and Islam-Arab Nationalism to jihad (struggle). While the religious perspective does leave an opening for a solution to the conflict, pragmatism may lead to compromise. Finally the suggestion is made that the religious dimension is necessary for a holistic understanding of political issues / Religious Studies and Arabic / M.A. (Religious Studies)

Britain's presence in Palestine coincided with a promise to Zionists to support the establishment of a Jewish national home. For two decades, Britain continued to support Zionist aims in Palestine including immigration and colonization, even in the aftermath of the first phase of an Arab Revolt in 1936 that shook the foundations of British colonial rule and could not be suppressed without intervention from neighboring Arab states. With the Arab Revolt in full force again from 1937 to 1939, in the midst of preparations for war in Europe, British statesmen questioned and reinterpreted promises the British government had made to Zionists two decades earlier. The resulting new policy was published in the White Paper of May 1939. By using the White Paper as a lens it is possible to widen the scope of investigation to examine the end of British rule in Palestine in a broader context than that provided by the years after World War II, 1945 to 1948. The White Paper of 1939 introduced three measures: immigration quotas for Jews arriving in Palestine, restrictions on settlement and land sales to Jews, and constitutional measures that would lead to a single state under Arab majority rule, with provisions to protect the rights of the Jewish minority. The White Paper’s single state was indeed a binational state, where it would be recognized by law that two peoples, two nations, inhabited Palestine. But the provisions of the White Paper were self-contradictory. Constitutional measures and immigration restrictions advanced the idea of a binational state with a permanent Jewish minority, while land restrictions aimed to keep Jews where they had already settled, legislation more in keeping with the idea of partition. The debate between partition and a binational state continued throughout these years. This work examines the motivations for the White Paper, foremost among them to keep the world Jewish problem separate from Britain's Palestine problem and to assure stability throughout the Middle East. An investigation based on the White Paper introduces a number of important debates that took place between 1936 and 1948 and echo into the present. / text

The Arab-Israeli conflict is examined from its religious aspect, presenting people's experience of religion without passing judgement. Selected concepts are compared and contrasted and interpreted hermeneutically. The roots of the antagonism are traced back historically, showing that it comprises more than a claim to the same geographical territory. Each religion's notion of statehood is described. Internally Jewish-Zionist friction over the ceding of territory arises through divergent interpretations of the same texts; Islam, Nationalism and religious rivalry, being at variance, have engendered Arab tensions. Their respective doctrines on war and peace suggest, broadly speaking, a Jewish-Zionist leaning to shalom, and Islam-Arab Nationalism to jihad (struggle). While the religious perspective does leave an opening for a solution to the conflict, pragmatism may lead to compromise. Finally the suggestion is made that the religious dimension is necessary for a holistic understanding of political issues / Religious Studies and Arabic / M.A. (Religious Studies)