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.
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.
Great find, Light.
BTW, wolfie, Light provided your answer: http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/...
It is also interesting to read the correspondence between the British government and the Arab Delegation and the Zionists organizations which gave rise to the Churchill "White Paper" http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/...
Again, thanks Light, for these excellent links. Adam, we should have ONE LINK on the right that goes to a simple html page of historical document links.
Nice of MRW to tell us he is ignorant. Way to go.
Can't answer the question? Didn't think you could.
No, he didn't. Doesn't answer the question at all. Now you appear doubly ignorant. Before you were just stupid, now you appear illiterate.
From PALESTINE Statement of Policy by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom Presented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, October 1930 http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/sourcefiles/... 28. Article 6 of the Mandate directs that the rights and position of the other sections of the population shall not be prejudiced by Jewish immigration. Clearly, if immigration of Jews results in preventing the Arab population from obtaining the work necessary for its maintenance, or if Jewish unemployment unfavourably affects the general labour position, it is the duty of the Mandatory Power under the Mandate to reduce, or, if necessary, to suspend, such immigration until the unemployed portion of the "other sections" is in a position to obtain work.
Appears that the British were imposing racial quotas, forcing Jews to hire Arabs to do menial labor. Seems the Palestinians problems go back to British racist policy which was in favor of Arabs.
A couple more important quotes from the White Paper: "They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded 'in Palestine.' …it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
I like him. He's silly.
Luckily, the law evolves. British contemplation reveals the lack of British higher thinking.
Translation of hasbara as rendered by Jacobwolfen: The Brits were trying to honor the equity in their original Balfour Declaration and the Jews didn't like it, so they continued to terrorize the Brits who had responsibility over the mandate land. Of course the original Balfour Declaration gave land to Jews as way of getting the USA into WW1 via zionists in the USA. The BD was directed to Britain's chief banker, Rothschild; Britain was bankrupt at the time and the Germans were winning.
Actually, it reveals the power of Rothschild over Britain at the time.
Word.
No, only that the Zionists and the British had different interpretations of the Balfour Declaration. The Zionists wanted an independent Jewish State and read it that way. The British view 1922 was that Palestine would remain Palestine and include both Jews and Arabs.
That was 5 years after the declaration.
It doesn't matter how long afterwards the clarification of the Balfour Declaration was written. It is a clarification of the original document in response to misunderstandings (largely by the Zionists) of what the declaration was supposed to mean. Here is the language that is used to show what the original intent of the Balfour Declaration was: "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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." His Majesty's Government 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. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine"