Arthur Balfour to "King Arthur".

Bevan and the Zionists..... Arthur Balfour to "King Arthur".

What was awful about Aneurin Bevan's position with Zionism was how he found himself in the Conflict of what some saw as his anti-Israel Stance and how Zionism was used by some to induce American Jewry support for the Allies in WW1. Jewish Opinion in the Interwar Years wasn't assuaged by how the Idea seemed to have been abandoned in the Wake of Sykes-Picot and the end of the War in 1918 generally. There ought to have been an Israel Element in the S.P Equation. If this had happened there would have been no Stern or Irgun Groups in the 1940's, no bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, and no Plot to assassinate him.

There might not have been a Holocaust either - at least nothing on the Scale that did happen, while Jew and Arab would have common cause in defending Israel/Palestine against the Axis in WW2. This would have had obvious implications for the Country. Ernie Bevan's Job as Britain's first Post-war foreign Secretary might have been relieved of the Task he did eventually have to deal with.

After the Holocaust that became impossible, politically and morally - and they obtained Israel in 1948.

Enacting Balfour when it was supposed to be would have resolved many things and makes strategic and political Sense. A unified Jewish-Arab Force fighting WW2 in the region is consistent with William Ormsby-Gore recruiting Jews from New York to fight the Turks in WW1. After that you have a People - a Country - formed in that Process on equal terms, Jewish and Arab, both of whom we could call Allies. While they did that British Troops garrisoned in Palestine and Trans-Jordan might have been deployed elsewhere - bolstering the War Effort in North Africa, the Mediterranean or even Somalialand. The post-War Zionists would have a friendlier disposition to Britain as a result, while their Conflict with the Arabs diminished.

The Moral here is don't make Promises you might not intend to keep. There were some who were sincere about the creation of Israel, but you shouldn't use it as some sort of Bribe which might not have any Substance. I sometimes think this was done 27 years ago with "talked about" jaunts to post-Velvet Revolution Prague. That that didn't happen didn't go un-noticed, while the Paradox behind it was all too apparent.

Arthur/Mr Owen has to give up his Room in the Bruckheimer Movie, Masaryck gives up the Sudeten!

It's also like having to forsake same in 'Camelot' isn't it - while all of it is like a bitter historical Paradox.

Those Knights in "King Arthur" are on the Cusp of Freedom. If 2004-15=1989, so were some of us. That doesn't happen because a Roman Bishop tells them it isn't and attaching that Caveat is rather like someone who has just been subjected to the umpteenth anti-Semitic Beating in the Pale of Settlement - after being told about the Balfour Declaration - also for the Umpteenth time, but nothing happens. Aneurin Bevan was caught in the growing unrest caused by its postponement and heightened expectation. The Jews were used as a Bribe to America - and that is how they started to feel when nothing happened.

Maybe some feel patronised and insulted, betrayed even - like some Zionists might have when Balfour was relegated in the "Things to do list" of the 1920's and 30's. That they felt expendable to Anglo-French Policy after the Armistice. Something I can relate to. Not helped by Insults from Cuckoos in the Nest.



Phew, have I just solved the Arab-Israeli Conflict????