Archive for November, 2011

November 10, 1975 – Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists’ help) hijack the U.N. and –unfairly– denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

November 6, 2011
November 10, 1975


Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists’ help) hijack the U.N. and –unfairly– denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

The hypocrisy of both forms of exclusiveness; pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism denouncing Israel’s democracy where its Arab-Muslims have equal rights.

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations
As a result of such bias, the UN has lost credibility. … The infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution was passed in 1975
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

Testimony of The Anti-Defamation League on The United Nations..
http://www.adl.org/durban/testimony.asp

Jul 31, 2001 – The infamous “Zionism = racism” resolution was rescinded and the UN
What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel …
[…] The UN General Assembly is still dominated by blocks of third-world countries that are anti-American and anti-Israel. The numerical strength of the Arab states and the Non-Aligned Movement in the General Assembly created the long series of offensive, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western resolutions, capped by the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” Resolution 3379. Except for Resolution 3379 itself, repealed in 1991, these black marks of injustice remain on the General Assembly’s record.

In December 1991, the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” resolution was repealed by the General Ass
embly. The repeal effort, which should have been a self-evident proposition, required an extensive diplomatic lobbying campaign by the United States, Israel and a few others. It included the direct, personal participation of President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and Secretary of State Baker; massive efforts by every regional bureau of the Department of State in Washington, American Ambassadors and their staffs in New York and every UN member capital; and lobbying by private groups around the world. The very difficulty of repealing Resolution 3379 showed just how deeply ingrained in the UN system was its anti-Semitic bias, and why, even after repeal, its effects linger.

The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts, but they were convened to condemn Israelis moving into buildings they own in territory they have a legitimate claim to.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php
… In 1974, when the UN General Assembly invited Yaser Arafat to address the body, and in 1975 granted the PLO “observer status”, the first time any non-nation was give such recognition or standing.

Even with this prelude, it was shocking when on November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion..
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_un_zionism_racism.php

Anti-Semitism Entraps U.N.
Palm Beach Post – Nov 7, 1975
By Abba Eban

The United Nations began its life as an anti-Nazi alliance. Thirty years later it is on the way to becoming the world center of anti-Semitism. There is no other tribunal form which such a torrent of abuse is poured forth every year against values, ideals and articles of faith revered by the Jewish people across the centuries. The horrifying truth that Hitler himself would often have felt at home in a forum which gave applause to a gun-toting Yasir Arafat and an obsequious ovation to the murderous Idi Amin.

There is, of course, no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel’s statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal rights of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people to its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.

Zionism is nothing more — but also nothing less — that the Jewish people’s sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name. It is also the instrument whereby the Jewish nation seeks an authentic fulfillment of itself.

And the drama is enacted in the region in which the Arab nation has realized its sovereignty in 20 states comprising 200 million people in four and a half million square miles, with vast resources.

The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut if advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal right of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace.

There are any ways in which Zionism can be defined. I hold in memory a concise formulation made 28 years ago: When Arab armies has attacked Israel on the day of its birth. Andrei Gromyko said in the Security Council on May 21, 1948, that Arab military operations were “aimed at the suppression of a national liberation movement.” It is as simple as that. Truth does not change just because those who proclaim it get tired of their own veracity.

Recently, a coalition of Moslem and Communist depotisms, reinforced, I hope temporarily, by a few Latin-American governments, produced an innovation. In the past decade it has often been possible for the United Nations to adopt resolutions criticizing the policies of member states — provided only that they are non-Moslem non-Communist states which practice parliamentary democracy and are not in the “third world” There are not very many of these, and these alone are considered fair game.

But never before until recently has the Moslem-Communist coalition sought to deploy its assured majority for the defamation of an ideology, a historic doctrine and a spiritual faith endorsed by the United Nations itself 28 years ago. What the General Assembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee conducted was not so much a debate as a doctrinal Inquisition, as in the Middle Ages.

The Intellectual default is no less spectacular that the moral decline. The charge is, of all things, “racism”! Yet it is just as natural for Arabs to be citizens and members of Parliament in Israel today as it is inconceivable for non-Moslems to be citizens, still less office-holders, in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

The real essence of the draft resolution is to affirm a principle of monolithic exclusiveness for the Middle East, and to iron out all wrinkles of diversity. Thus, Kurdish individualities brutally oppressed in Iraq; the Christian particularity of Lebanon is to be drowned in a bloodbath; and Israel’s specific Jewish vocation is assailed. The purpose of the resolution’s sponsors is that in a region where many nations, tongues and faiths had their birth the monopoly of independence must be for Moslem pan-Arabism alone. The paradox is that Israel is less likely than others to be injured by the fiasco. The strongest of certainties is that Israel will not disappear, or be swallowed up into something else, or renounce its name, its tongue, its faith, its Jewish solidarities or its Zionist vocation…
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7iYvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qs0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3758,2505344
Zionism and the U.N.
New York Times – Nov 3, 1975
By Abba Eban
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20810FE3B5F1B7493C1A9178AD95F418785F9

Out of step: life-story of a politician : politics and religion in a world …‎ – Page 112 Jack Brian Bloom – Antisemitism – 2005 – 391 pages

Arabism is racism” would have been an interesting debating topic. The OIC
countries were very clever in how they deflected the slavery issue that could so easily have been turned on them with a vengeance

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=25&id=Kr2gAAAAMAAJ&dq=arabism+is+racism

Arabism Equals Racism
By: Gerald A. Honigman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 13, 2006

There’s an expression, “The pot calling the kettle black.” It refers to someone claiming a sin in others that is at least as prevalent – if not more so – in the accuser than it is in the accused. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Turn the clock back three decades.

Some things change, others never will – such as the acceptance of anyone else’s political rights in a multi-ethnic region that most Arabs see exclusively as “purely Arab patrimony.” That’s the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell; but it is also the core of the Arab-Berber, Arab-Kurd, Arab-Black African, Arab-Copt, Arab-Assyrian, Arab-non-Arab Lebanese conflicts, as well, among others. The Arabs’ Anfal Campaign against the Kurds and their actions in Darfur and the rest of the southern Sudan are just a few of many examples of Arab genocidal actions against all who might disagree.

To be accepted, and not literally exterminated, one must do what Egypt’s most successful Copt did – consent to this age-old forced subjugation and Arabization. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali became a top official in President Anwar Sadat’s government and went on to become Secretary General of the United Nations, as well.

“Uncle Butros” instead of “Uncle Tom”.

He also instructed that for it to be accepted, Israel, as an entire country, must consent to being Arabized; like those Kurdish kids in Syrian Kurdistan who are forced today to sing songs praising their “Arab identity” and so forth.

Back in the 1970s, I was a consultant for a major organization while trying to finish my own doctoral work. One of my main jobs involved being brought in by dozens of major colleges and universities across a three-state region in the American Midwest to balance anti-Israel spokesmen on campus. One such visit was to Ohio University in Athens, near my small-mouth bass fishing grounds in the Hocking River.

OU was famous for its English language program for foreign students, so there were numerous folks there from all over the Arab and African worlds.

Those were the days of the United Nations’ infamous Zionism Equals Racism resolution. Arab and pro-Arab professors were already hijacking the campus scene, constantly putting Israel under the high-power lens of moral scrutiny in ways that they would never dream of doing to the Jewish State’s surrounding Arab neighbors.

It was arranged for me to come to deliver a lecture to balance one given previously by the other side.

The Arabs and their supporters – often left-wing Jews themselves – were “loaded for game” when they heard of my invitation. But so was I.

I was a card-carrying member of the London-based Anti-Slavery Society, and persistent reports were coming through of slavery (and worse) still being practiced in Arab lands, the lands of some of the same folks screaming about alleged “Zionist racists”. I prepared a small booklet called “Look Who’s Calling the Kettle Black”, which consisted of about a dozen short articles dealing with the hypocrisy of the Arab position. I had numerous copies prepared for distribution.

I had some of my host students in the audience ready for action. They were in the company of hundreds who packed the lecture hall, including college officials, professors and so forth. Unlike some of the Hillel organizations elsewhere, the director at OU was on the ball when it came to these issues. My cadre consisted largely of Hillel members.

After my presentation, I had my usual question-and-answer session. That’s when the proverbial manure hit the fan. I was anticipating a Zionism-equals-racism question from the audience and, sure enough, I was blessed with one.

I calmly replied, “Since you are so concerned about such issues, I believe you’ll be interested in the packet of information you are about to receive.”

I then had my cadre pass out the “Look Who’s Calling The Kettle Black” booklets.

After the commotion and dust settled, and it was time to leave for my hotel, several carloads of Arab students followed me. Some members of my group decided it was best to keep me company that night. Think of the Danish cartoons and the Pope’s comment incidents today. The Arab idea of free speech is the same now as it was back then, and as it has always been.

The next day, before returning to my office in Columbus, I decided to visit the nearby famous boot factory in Nelsonville.

What I’m going to relate next may sound a bit melodramatic, but it was for real.

I was on one of the top floors of the factory outlet looking at brand-name dress boots. There was hardly anyone else there, so I was sort of isolated.

All of a sudden, I spotted a half dozen tall, Black men down the aisle from me. One of them then called out, “Mr. Hooonigmannn!”

After my experience the night before, I figured that my time on Earth was up. There were definitely folks at OU who wanted to kill me that night. I nervously stood my ground as they ran up to me.

And if you offered me a million dollars, I would not have traded it for the subsequent experience.

As they grabbed my hands, they said, “Thank you so much for last night. We had never heard or seen what you shared with us before.”

Should I be ashamed to tell you of the tears in my eyes at that moment?

These were not just any folks. These were students, sent by their countries, who would later go on to become some of those nations’ future professionals and leaders.

As I did on dozens of other campuses, through scores of other platforms, and in dozens of op-eds for leading newspapers all over the region, I tried my best to help change some minds – one at a time.

The struggle is as hard, if not harder, today, but those of us who care have no other choice but to continue in this ever-growing uphill battle for a bit of justice for the Jew of the nations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24912


Canadian Friends ICEJ Spearheaded Successful Campaign To …


INFAMOUS UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3379 DECLARING…
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/anti3379.html



One Against the World

UN resolutions established the State of Israel and through them this country … the notorious resolution equating Zionism with racism, passed in November 1975 …. law became increasingly central to the UN agenda, the Arab lobby has been…

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/one.html



United Nations Anti Israel Arab Lobby

The most repugnant of these anti-Semitic resolutions came in November 1975,..

http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/united_nations.htm


THE UN’S ANTI-ZIONISM RESOLUTION: CHRISTIAN RESPONSES…

by JH Banki

United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism “be counter- balanced ….. than the Arab lobby usually encounters on UN votes…

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/740.PDF


The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East – Page 411 – Mitchell Bard – HarperCollins, 2010 – 412 pages

… Zionism and racism resolution 3379…

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKraRyoXbvoC&pg=PA411

Even anti-Israel ardent critic R. Goldstone admits the “apartheid” slur, is a lie, a slander!

November 6, 2011

Even anti-Israel ardent critic R. Goldstone admits the “apartheid” slur, is a lie, a slander!

Richard J. Goldstone, is a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9. He was quick to “accuse” Israel of “war crimes” in its (2008-9) anti-Terror operation (‘Cast Lead’). But retracted it after learning the facts.[1] In 2011 (Oct.) he wrote an Op Ed in the New York Times: “Israel and the Apartheid Slander.”

The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.

Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.

The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony. [2]

J. B. Pollack explains the context and timely importance of the Op Ed article:

Goldstone’s article anticipates the forthcoming “Russell Tribunal on Palestine,” to be held in South Africa. Named after the hearings held in the 1960s by philosopher Bertrand Russell in the United Kingdom to protest the Vietnam War, the Russell Tribunal will bring the emotive symbolism of apartheid to a make-believe judicial process whose outcome is already predetermined.
The chair of the panel, anti-war activist Terry Crawford-Browne, has already called for international boycotts of Israel. One of the star witnesses is Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, who conducted a reign of terror in South Africa’s black townships in the 1980s. Another is former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, who recently busied herself with propaganda for Muammar Gaddafi.

Despite the panel’s obvious lack of credibility, it will no doubt be touted by western leftists and third world governments as the basis for a renewed push at the United Nations to isolate Israel and promote unilateral Palestinian statehood. Goldstone’s op-ed is a timely rejoinder and the beginning of what appears to be sincere penance for the damage done by his slanderous report on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.[3]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BRITISH PARLIAMENT 1930-1947:

November 2, 2011

BRITISH PARLIAMENT 1930-1947:


  • ON ‘UNCHECKED’ ILLEGAL ARAB IMMIGRATION

  • THE ‘UNFAIR’ “WHITE PAPER” RESTRICTING ONLY JEWISH IMMIGRATION

  • ON JEWISH IMMIGRANTS INHABITING MOSTLY THE DESERTED SWAMPY LAND

  • AND ACTUALLY BENEFITING ARABS IN PALESTINE


_____________


PALESTINE. (Hansard, 17 November 1930)
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE I wish to… This White Paper is a one-sided document. It is biased. Its whole drift is hostile to the spirit of the mandate… Jewish capital has been flowing into that country since the Peace, and Jewish capital has improved Arab conditions. You cannot pour capital into a country and simply confine its benefits to one section of the community…. you cannot restore a land so let down as this without a good deal of loss, and if these people, who have got an historic affection for this land, are prepared to sink their capital there, and to lose it—they are not people who will do It in every land as a rule—but if they are prepared to do it out of natural love and affection for this country, why should we hinder them?…


The Jews are 20 per cent. of the population, and their contribution to the revenue of Palestine is between 40 and 50 per cent. That is what enabled the Palestine Government to raise a loan of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 85 —[Interruption]—£4,500,000 was raised as a development loan, most of which provided labour for the Arabs, it was not spent upon the Jewish settlements there. We are told the Jews are using their wealth for the purpose of driving the poor Arab fellaheen from the soil of their fathers. It is not true. Most of the land cultivated by the Jews is land which they have reclaimed from the wilderness. Here and there, no doubt, upon the fringe of a morass, a little squalid Arab village may have been disturbed, but there have only been 700 taken out in order that it might be possible to drain the land. Half of them have been put back on the land and the others have found some other work. Here is a phrase which I will quote to the House: ‘Most of the land acquired by the Jews was swampy and malarial and required heavy expenditure on drainage before it could be made habitable. Much of the rest was sand dunes.’ What is the result? Not merely can you settle more people on the land, but you have improved the health of the community. Malaria is a very serious disease there, and it was slaughtering these poor people, and by this enormous expenditure of Zion and the other associations, such as the Colonisation Society, great tracts of territory have been drained in these areas and malaria has been eliminated. I would like somebody to take the trouble to read the eloquent description given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) when he was Commissioner of Palestine of this area. Its condition before the Jews went there was a swamp, a morass, created by the famous brook of Kishon. There were just a few miserable Arab villages right up on the hillsides, and not very many people there. The Jews spent £900,000 on draining about 50 square miles, and now there is a population of 2,600—probably it is more now. There are 20 villages, there are schools, there is a little forest in what was a treeless waste—this is very important in Palestine, as T shall point out—there is a training college for women for agriculture, and there are hospitals. That is a description of one valley.


… Surely with such an increase of population there must have been a great increase in the employment available for the Arab population. The large increase of population has been due undoubtedly, apart from a considerable Arab immigration, to the measures we have taken, in which the Jews have helped, to improve the health of the country, …
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1930/nov/17/palestine


PALESTINE (IMMIGRATION). (Hansard, 26 March 1934)
Mr. RHYS DAVIES asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty’s Government’s policy of restricting immigration into Palestine includes measures to control and restrict Arab immigration from Transjordania; and whether any increase in Arab immigration is accepted as a reason for restricting Jewish immigration?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1934/mar/26/palestine-immigration
Your Democracy – Housing
http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/housing/HAN3312744


PALESTINE LOAN [GUARANTEE]. Colonel Josiah Wedgwood Commons — May 11, 1934
Yet I think the worst illustration of all is in the question of immigration. You have these frightfully heavy restrictions upon Jews who go into the so-called Jewish National Home, and at the same time you have Arabs immigrating into that country without any check or restriction and without any possibility of knowing how many are going in except when the census is taken. The census figures have shown a far larger numerical increase of Arabs than of Jews, and that 1369 in the last year when the cry for labour has been so great. It has led to a large immigration of Arab labour. That labour is unskilled and is gradually driving Jewish labour out of all the unskilled trades and the heavy manual trades in the country. When I was in Haifa last I saw Jews, driven from Salonica, six feet high and broad-shouldered men, doing the stevedore work in the port, and their complaint was that they were offered precisely the same wage as the Arabs who came in. There again, you have the same discrimination against Jewish labour. Unless you can get the working class in Palestine Jewish it will never be a Jewish country. If you are to go on allowing the capitalist to go in—the merchant and the middleman—you will have repeated in Palestine what has happened in the rest of the world. One hope of making Palestine a Jewish country is to allow the workers to go in and to see that they are not driven out by inferior labour and paid a sweated wage on which the Jew cannot live free.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1934/may/11/palestine-loan-guarantee
Immigration.: 26 Jul 1939: House of Commons debates – TheyWorkForYou
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1939-07-26a.1454.2


PALESTINE (REFUGEES).Mr Malcolm Macdonald Commons — May 24, 1939
Mr. Herbert Morrison Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the White 2295 Paper it is set out that it is Jewish immigration that will be discounted to the extent of any illegal immigration into Palestine, and that in that connection there is no mention of Arab illegal immigration?


Mr. MacDonald It will clearly be unfair to the Jews to deduct from their immigration quota the number of illegal Arab immigrants. The question, as I understood it, was what was to happen with regard to illegal Arab immigration, and I answered that steps would be taken to prevent it equally with steps to prevent illegal immigration of Jews.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/may/24/palestine-refugees


IMMIGRATION. Sir Geoffrey Mander Commons — July 26, 1939
Mr. Mander asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the extent in numbers during each of the last three years and for the last three months of illegal Arab immigration into Palestine, and what steps are being taken to prevent it?
[…]
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at least the same energy will be shown in preventing illegal Arab immigration into Palestine as in preventing illegal Jewish immigration?
[…]
Miss Rathbone asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the matter of immigration into Palestine, he will consider making a concession on behalf of the elderly dependants of already established Jewish immigrants from the countries of persecution,..
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/jul/26/immigration
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1939-07-26a.1454.2


Illegal Immigration (Hansard, 19 November 1947)
Mr. Janner Can my right hon. Friend give to the House the total number of Arabs residing illegally in Palestine, and can he say whether reductions are made from the monthly quota for Arab immigration on that account?


Mr. Creech Jones That does not arise on this Question.


Mr. Stokes rose


Mr. Speaker It is quite obvious that we could go all over the place if we went on with this Question.


Mr. Stokes On a point of Order. As I have been unable to pursue this matter, Sir, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Janner On a point of Order. With respect, Sir, the main Question referred to illegal immigration into Palestine, and I was referring to illegal immigration over 1121 the borders of Transjordan, Egypt, and so on, by Arabs.


Mr. Stokes Further to that point of Order. As my supplementary question would have dealt with where the money comes from, and representations to the United States, would it be in Order to ask it now, Mr. Speaker?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1947/nov/19/illegal-immigration
19 Nov 1947: House of Commons
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=1947-11-19a.1120.6

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Zionist