Jack Ross takes on Professor Eliav Shuchtman’s belief that Israel should not be a state of all its citizens:
The references to Israel not being “a state of all its citizens” as a principle of international law are clearly alluding to the Balfour Declaration. Though it is probably dubious to take for granted the standing of a 90-year old British imperial declaration, the actual text is worth considering in this connection:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
The second half is what interests us here. The two qualifying principles have obviously been violated in perpetuity since 1948 and probably longer. If the declaration is still binding in international law, and it is far from clear that it is, therefore, whatever the precise meaning of “a national home for the Jewish people” notwithstanding, for Israel/Palestine to not be “a state of all its citizens” is a direct violation of the Balfour Declaration.
Related posts:
- ‘Le Monde’ is revisionist on Balfour Declaration
- Peretz and Goldberg Get Obama to Renew the Balfour Declaration
- Herzl quotation of the day. Anticipated the Balfour Declaration as result of ‘money-givers’
- Obama administration supports equal rights for all Israeli citizens, even in a ‘Jewish state’
- ‘Equal rights for all’ Or, How will American policy, and values, respond to Lieberman?
{ 24 comments }
Jack, in this context one has to acknowledge that all the diverse Israel in a nutshell sites and web data bases almost uniformly only cite one part of the declaration. You are aware of it, I am assuming.
It is also interesting to read the Churchill "White Paper" that attempts to clarify the meaning of the Balfour Declaration. See http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/... From this document it is clear that Britan envisioned a multi-ethnic democracy in Palestine. "Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." HMG regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. "
"the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Please explain exactly what those rights were, what and limits were imposed. Include references, but you can't use StormFront, Zundelsite, or al-jazerra. And remember, Joachim is watching you.
If you think anyone at all would expect to find out what "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" were in 1917 by consulting "StormFront, Zundelsite, or al-jazerra," not even Joachim will watch you, because you are talking absolute nonsense.
That's simple. Balfour wrote the words. They meant what they meant in England at the time. you can't use Al-Jazeera….waaaa You're a profound idiot. That's like saying "you can't use ABC or NBC or Fox News".
How boring. You, Jacobwolfen, expect readers of this blog to conclude that the civil and religious rights of Palestinians have not been suppressed? That's like concluding the wood skeleton of a carvel ship of old didn't exist and yet it somehow sailed anon.
Error 500: Internal Server Error
The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.
The problem is on the server side, not with your browser or the address. Most probably, a certain service (e.g., Tomcat engine) is down. Please contact your webmaster.
All rights reserved