In ‘Dissent’ debate, Walzer hints that leftists who focus on Israel are anti-Semitic

Israel/Palestine
on 533 Comments
Michael Walzer
Michael Walzer, photo by Peter Valckx

Dissent Magazine has published an excellent exchange over Israel’s future between Berkeley sociologist James B. Rule and the political theorist Michael Walzer. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen such a thoughtful exchange between heavyweight intellectuals. It is excellent for two reasons:

1, Rule makes a compelling case that American liberals are not applying democratic values to Israel; the article is titled “The Great Disconnect,” and is aimed at what we call PEP, Progressive Except Palestine, the exception for Israel that liberals make in pressing “universalistic” US policies on civil rights;

2, The gloves soon come off, the debate becomes heated and angry and personal, and so exposes the basis of Walzer’s support for Israel: he is afraid of what will happen to Jews in America. He states that he was made “uneasy” by the Presbyterian debate last spring about divesting from three companies that serve the Israeli military occupation. 

I think Walzer’s fears are irrational and no basis for Americans to support “ethno-nationalism,” but I am grateful that he expressed them. We can now discuss the evidence of his fears: why churches possibly divesting from three companies that serve an occupation that Walzer says is undermining Israel actually threatens the place of Jews in America. I think this is slightly paranoid; and that younger Jews (Walzer is 77) won’t buy his line.

The “Dissent” pieces are behind a fire wall, but worth buying. Here’s a summary and excerpts:

Rule begins by saying that he went to a wedding at the Park Avenue Synagogue and was put off when the rabbi began by exhorting those present to maintain steadfast support for Israel against its enemies. Had this happened in the Presbyterian church Rule grew up attending, with a minister exhorting the congregation to support Protestants in Northern Ireland, he’d have walked out. He didn’t.

But no one left the synagogue because liberals make a great exception for Israel. Ordinarily we believe that equal rights should be granted to all citizens of a state regardless of the citizens’ ethnic and religious community. But American liberals have respected a state that was created by expelling 2/3 of the Arab population and that grants second-class citizenship at best for Palestinians, a place whose civic test is what is “good for the Jews.”

Liberals bear responsibility:

Israel’s systematic communal inequalities pass under the radar screen both of American policy makers and (more strikingly) of liberals who would be quick to decry them elsewhere.

Rule goes through a litany of civil rights abuses inside Israel against Palestinians and says:

It is hard to imagine that any of these policies could win the support of American liberals if they occurred elsewhere the world.

Rule also addresses the power of the lobby:

In very imperfect and ambivalent ways, this country today provides support to human rights and opposes communal discrimination in many countries around the world. Were it not for the overweening influence of right-wing Israeli interests in Washington—acknowledged by every candid observer, yet rarely challenged—the United States would be in a unique position to uphold these same principles in Israel and Palestine.

Liberals should be crying out for sanctions against Israel: 

American liberals should insist that future support be based on meaningful movement toward universalistic policies and practices for all sectors of Israeli society—in short, toward ending second-class citizenship in that country. And—it should go without saying—they should reject any American support to any regime, in any part of the world, engaged in colonization of territories beyond its borders.

Something else liberals should do is to begin thinking about democracy for all the people inside Israel and Palestine’s borders. Because the two state solution is “problematic;” it has been sacrificed to unending military occupation.

Walzer’s response is angry and accusatory. He says that Rule is emblematic of “leftist circles,” where Israel is singled out for criticism from a large pool of states that grant special status to ethnic and religious communities. And why does Rule single Israel out? Walzer can only imagine. But he hints at anti-Semitism:

The claim to universalism is crucial to the argument, and so Rule refers to many other countries that he is prepared to criticize. But the truth is that this kind of criticism is radically particularist. Israel is its only target; everything else is camouflage.

Rule has been writing about Israel for a long time, Walzer says, but has shown no interest in ethnic discrimination in Egypt or Kosovo or Finland or Norway.

Nor has Rule given any evidence of interest in the dominance of ethnic Chinese in Singapore or in “the state-sanctioned cruelties experienced by Muslims in some parts of officially secular India” or in “pressure” against Tamils in Sri Lanka or against Russians in the new Baltic states. I can only guess at the reason for this disinterest (until now) in all these examples of ethno-national injustice.

Rule seems to believe that when it comes to other states that deny people rights on a communal basis, they can be fixed. That Tibet or Egypt or Finland can be reformed, for instance. But in Israel’s case, its “essence” is corrupted, it cannot be saved. Walzer hints again at anti-Semitism.

But the Jewish state of Israel, so he seems to believe, cannot deliver its Arab citizens from oppression and discrimination without ceasing to be a Jewish state.

There are lots of Israelis who are fighting this discrimination, Walzer says. But

they don’t believe that the policies they oppose are intrinsic to a Jewish state.

Walzer admits that the government of Israel is today the very worst it has ever had:

Israel is a country in need of radical criticism; it currently has the worst government in its history, perhaps the worst government among Western democracies.

But he says it is the duty of liberals to support liberal Zionists in Israel, the old Labor Zionists, so that Israel can be preserved as a communal Jewish state.  And as for the bigoted, chauvinist right and the ultra-orthodox

all this can be overcome, can be defeated, within the Jewish state, by its citizens. I don’t know if they will win in the end; their prospects have looked pretty good at times in the past; they look pretty dismal right now. Still, I am certain that these are the people who should be, who are, our comrades.

Note that Walzer supports “radical criticism,” but heaven forfend that anyone should sanction, divest or boycott Israel. He concludes his rebuttal with his fear over the divestment measure weighed by the Presbyterians, and goes after Rule for feeling discomfort in the Park Avenue synagogue: 

he finds it difficult to imagine being made similarly uneasy among the more familiar Presbyterians. Now, I have been reading recently about the effort, narrowly defeated, to get American Presbyterians to divest from companies doing business in Israel. The debate about divestment was fierce…. I couldn’t find a single item describing Presbyterian engagement with any other contemporary state or society. I Googled “Presbyterians and China,” looking for some protest against the settlement of Han Chinese in Tibet, a project on a far larger scale and much more effective than anything the Israeli Right has been able to do on the West Bank. I could not find a single item. Not a word. Jim Rule probably doesn’t find this “jarring.” But I do; I was uncomfortable reading the Presbyterian debates, while I am, most of the time, at ease in a synagogue.

So he is saying that the Presbyterians went after Israel because they don’t like Jews, and that scares him.

Rule’s response is angry on just this score:

Michael Walzer is a desperate man. When people this smart start making arguments this bad, you know that their worldview is failing, but that they can’t bear to admit it…. Walzer claims a clairvoyant access to my inner motives and attitudes that would be the envy of any psychoanalyst or fortune teller. What he discerns there is so dark that I don’t even want to think about it…my “radically particularist” attitude—meaning, I think, that I criticize Israel not because of its principles and policies, but because of some unstated animus felt only toward that country

He says that Walzer is deluded about what Israel is:

Walzer has made it his mission to promote a vision of a kinder, gentler Israel—egalitarian, tolerant, and peaceful. Despite his best efforts, that Israel increasingly exists only in his imagination.

Politically, this is the heart of the disagreement. Walzer has the liberal Zionist’s belief that Israel was a great and necessary invention, and so despite all the bad stuff going on, let’s not abandon the dream, let’s support the good guys there.

Rule says that dream has been vitiated by discrimination inside Israel and “forceful, militarized expansion.. [and] aggression.” Though he concedes that Israel is better than a lot of other places on earth, he states that this oppression is ours, it is being done in our name. Note that his parallels are to American abuses that liberals have opposed, segregation, Vietnam, the Iraq War.

[M]ore than any other major country, Israel’s conduct and directions depend utterly on American support. We always have the most immediate and urgent responsibilities to challenge destructive actions and policies carried out in our name, with our own resources, by our own government. For historic parallels, consider federal enforcement of segregation, the Vietnam War, American exploitation of the nuclear arms race, the Iraq War, and other American misadventures. Where Israel is concerned, we Americans are implicated in some shockingly bad behavior that could never continue without our support—most urgently, its colonization of neighboring territories. And the public rationale for this invasion-in-slow-motion is—that’s right—a classic manifestation of communal supremacy gone amok. Where else in the world would Washington support forceful, militarized expansion of any country’s boundaries and population into neighboring lands?

Again he returns to the liberal’s duty. He reminds Walzer that one of the Israelis from the camp that he purports to revere, Avraham Burg, in August published a piece in the New York Times describing Israel’s “fading democracy” and looking for ways out that include equal rights for all:

Burg favors “two neighboring states for two peoples,” but failing that, ”the same fair and equal principles should be applied to one state for both peoples.”

Rule then accepts Walzer’s challenge and seeks to imagine ways that Israel might be reformed to be more egalitarian. Here are his “far-reaching changes” that liberals ought to support:

Something like affirmative action would be necessary for groups now saddled with second-class citizenship. Seized properties would have to be restored. “Rights of return” could no longer be restricted to the majority group. Symbols and observances of minority populations would have to enjoy their own place in public life. Constitutional restrictions against political activity by Arab and secular interests would have to be reversed. And all concerned would have to acknowledge that, over time, today’s Jewish majority might not hold that status forever.

In the last line of the dialogue, Rule says that he doesn’t think Walzer would accept a state in which Jews became a minority.

A great debate. Let’s hope it or ones like it are staged at campuses across the country, and that it leads to gloves-off debates about Zionism inside Jewish life.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

533 Responses

  1. Sin Nombre
    December 17, 2012, 9:45 am

    I don’t believe Walzer was or is really scared for jews in America. Instead he’s concerned over just one jew in America, Michael Walzer, whose entire oeuvre has now been destroyed: Not only that of the superior intellectual who is free of gaping hypocrisy and blatant inconsistency, but that of the somehow morally superior demi-god. No more free pass to, say, thunderingly condemn the U.S. for restricting immigration while supporting Israel’s damn near totally closed system, and on and on.

    Total destruction of same too: Given the nature of the sins he so loves condemning the U.S. and the West over, at least our societies have shown an ability to rectify same. With Israel, it simply can’t, and never will. In fact in Israel they aren’t sins at all, they’re foundational tenets.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 11:25 am

      “I don’t believe Walzer was or is really scared for jews in America. Instead he’s concerned over just one jew in America, Michael Walzer, whose entire oeuvre has now been destroyed:”

      Thanks, Sin. It’s early, my fingers are freezing, and it would have taken me hours to say badly what you just said so well.

    • marc b.
      December 17, 2012, 11:31 am

      Instead he’s concerned over just one jew in America, Michael Walzer, whose entire oeuvre has now been destroyed:

      i don’t doubt his narcissism and hypocrisy, but his case isn’t isolated. for every era there are protected intellectuals, whether academics, artists, or whatever, whose schtick goes relatively unchallenged, and who come unhinged when they’re finally exposed. it sounds as if this is waltzer’s case. somehone has the temerity to question his intellectual integrity and the wisdom of giving unqualified support to the only jewish theocracy in the ME, and he instinctively goes into anti-semetic (read holocaust) handwringing mode. frankly, i hope rule and others grind him to dust, rhetorically speaking, the effing fraud. (i seem to remember bloom whining on in a radio interview about the rupture of the ‘judeo-christian’ cultural alliance fairly recently as well.)

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2012, 5:51 pm

        it sounds as if this is waltzer’s case

        It’s the case of every liberal Zionist, including the likes of Peter Beinart. In many ways, their overtures to criticize Israel are attempts to get in front of the debate so that they can act a gatekeepers and continue to set the boundaries of what is permissible to discuss.

        That is why they love to heap the blame for Israel’s crimes on Netenayahu, because they are so desperate to avoid admitting the problems are intrinsic to Israel’s DNA.

      • peeesss
        December 18, 2012, 3:11 am

        Shingo , you are right on the mark. “Gatekeepers” to set the “boundaries of what is permissable to discuss.” Israel’s crimes are intrinsic to its DNA. Peres has more blood on his hands than Netanyahu yet he is perceived as that grandfatherly “peace” advocate. Mr. Rule is certainly a breath of fresh air. May others join him in finally bringing an end to the dominance of the neo con, Zionist, Israeli firsters in our national discourse.

  2. Krauss
    December 17, 2012, 9:48 am

    A great debate. Let’s hope it or ones like it are staged at campuses across the country, and that it leads to gloves-off debates about Zionism inside Jewish life.

    I agree that it’s a great debate. But as far as I know, Mr. Rule is a Gentile. And isn’t the debate great in no small part because Mr. Rule isn’t as emotionally invested? And because Israel and its lobby has such influence, not only over I/P but over the broad Middle Eastern policy, this isn’t only an intra-Jewish debate. It’s an American debate.

    While I agree that there needs to be much more debate inside the Jewish community, the take-away from this debate is that it becomes at its best when it is moved outside the strict confines of the intra-Jewish parameters(where it is easily devolved into a bizarre discussion of “who’s more Jewish”, e.g., who gives his or her children the best education, who is intermarried and who is not etc).

    We need more debate on this, and more Gentile-Jewish debate is crucial in my opinion because this is now an American issue. AIPAC has made it so.

    • Krauss
      December 17, 2012, 11:47 am

      Addendum:

      I’ve now purchased and read through the article(and not just read the specific parts that Phil highlighted).

      I’m particularly pained at the level of fearfulness that Mr. Rule has before Mr. Walzer. And specifically this sickening need to somehow couch all his opinions behind a firewall of liberal Zionism. Therefore, his criticism has to be first channeled through the likes of Avraham Burg. Nothing wrong with Mr. Burg, but this is a sympton on a larger disease, the fact that liberals like him are still not contending with the major issue here. Racism in the Jewish-Zionist community. They either delude themselves, or are simply disingenous, when they continually state that the so-called “good guys” must be supported.

      Mind you, the “good guys” were the ones who started the entire settlement enterprise. This is one of the key points to make, in order to call the bluff of the ‘liberal’ Zionists who pine to a country that never was. The two major ethnic cleansing campaigns in Israel were both undertaken by the ‘left’. This should never be forgotten. It was the ‘left’ that began the occupation – and even more crucially – deepened it further. When Ariel was announced, in 1978, Labor did nothing to try to halt it, even when it came back to power.

      And as everyone should remind each other, it was during Ehud Barak that the settlements doubled. It was the ‘peacemaker’ Yitzak Rabin who openly mused that he wished that Gaza would “fall into the sea” and who, in his last speech before his death, vowed to the Knesset that the Palestinians under his plan would receive “something less than a state”, in other words, Bantustans.

      Yet Mr. Rule never goes there, weirdly. He lets Walzer get away so utterly cheap.

      Walzer has written much about nationalism, and it’s completely unthinkable that he’d agonize as much as he does over the violent ethnic nationalisms of, say, the Serbs as he does for Israeli Jews. He should be called out.

      But Mr. Rule fears going there, instead he is kept at defence. Walzers ‘attacks’ are pathetic as they are desperate, but as long as Mr. Rule keeps content with mere defence the heart of the matter will never be resolved. What is happening in Israel is beyond anything imagineable that a liberal – a true liberal – can support.

      The actual liberal Jews who are not so-called “PEP” have already made their voices heard. Max Blumenthal, Noam Chomsky, Noami Klein and so on.

      But note that they are under vicious attack from the Jewish establishment, an establishment that Mr. Walzer is closer in his bigotries and his underbelly of soft racism, than he’d like to let on. Israel forces his hand. Yet Mr. Rule continually evades the issue, letting Mr. Walzer get off the hook scottfree.

      Finally, what Mr. Walzer wants is a blank check for Israel – and only Israel – and this is probably why he always projects his own obsession with Israel onto everyone else. For merely pointing out the hypocrisy and Mr. Walzer’s own filthy racism(his passive and implicit acceptance of Apartheid, under the false guise of “supporting change” which is really supporting the same team), Mr Walzer goes hyperbolic. Let him. But expose him too, and Mr. Rule, like so many Gentile liberals, backs off, fearful. It does seem like a Jew has to finish this job because Mr. Rule and Gentiles like him don’t have the backbone. Time and again they shrink when it counts. It’s becomming very annoying.

      • J. Otto Pohl
        December 17, 2012, 1:37 pm

        Walzer is a lot more typical of American “progressives” particularly those in academia than Chomsky who is an anarchist not a “liberal” or a “progressive” or Klein who is Canadian. Had South Africa had the support of “Left wing” academics in the US like Israel does among Walzer and others apartheid would still be hanging around the bottom of the continent. This is because Walzer and his ilk provide the intellectual infrastructure for “progressive” hard core Zionists in the Democratic Party like Alan Grayson, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others. These people have always given unconditional support to Israel and it is not because of the influence of the evangelical Christian Right. It is, however, in large part because of the justification provided by “liberal” intellectuals like Walzer that Israel is a “progressive” cause. The leftist base of Israeli support in the US is what distinguishes it and just about the only thing that distinguishes it from regimes like apartheid South Africa and White ruled Rhodesia. This distinction, however, has allowed it to outlive the other colonial settler regimes by decades.

      • RoHa
        December 17, 2012, 6:48 pm

        “what Mr. Walzer wants is a blank check for Israel – and only Israel ”

        If you read his work on Just War Theory, you will see that he bends over backwards to clear Israel from any blame.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 11:48 am

      “And isn’t the debate great in no small part because Mr. Rule isn’t as emotionally invested?”

      How right you are, Krauss, as usual. After all, no sane person, even a Gentile (thanks for not using the “g” word, Krauss) would ever become “emotionally invested” in the suffering of the Palestinians, or the potential for disaster posed by Israel’s intransigence.
      And of course, no Gentile is ever, ever “emotionally invested” in the fate of the Jews, because they are emotionally invested in the good of mankind generally.
      Can’t happen, nope we Jews have got to watch out for ourselves, and haven’t we done a good job of that!

    • seanmcbride
      December 17, 2012, 1:12 pm

      Krauss,

      But expose him too, and Mr. Rule, like so many Gentile liberals, backs off, fearful. It does seem like a Jew has to finish this job because Mr. Rule and Gentiles like him don’t have the backbone. Time and again they shrink when it counts. It’s becomming very annoying.

      Thoughtful Gentiles are worried about stirring up antisemitism by attacking Jewish Zionists too forcefully — as well they should be. They are still struggling to find the best approach to challenge the absurdities in the thinking of many Jewish Zionists. But they are gradually escalating their level of rhetorical force in response to the increasing extremism of the Israeli government and American pro-Israel activists.

      How far this process will go in terms of harsh confrontations, I don’t know. It could go very far, depending on the behavior of the Israeli government and the Israel lobby — possibly even no holds barred and with no effort to maintain a facade of diplomacy and respect. At what point might we find ourselves in a classical situation that has occurred repeatedly throughout history?

      • American
        December 17, 2012, 2:20 pm

        Thoughtful Gentiles are worried about stirring up antisemitism by attacking Jewish Zionists too forcefully — as well they should be. They are still struggling to find the best approach to challenge the absurdities in the thinking of many Jewish Zionists. But they are gradually escalating their level of rhetorical force in response to the increasing extremism of the Israeli government and American pro-Israel activists”……..Sean

        This is our ( yours and my..lol) on going debate about attacking Jewish Zionist. Recognizing there’s right and wrong way to do it, I think we can and should do it. Not only on Israel and it’s crimes but also regarding this group’s influence on US government. I think ‘specific’ people and orgs can be called out and vilified, particularly by naming the non Jews involved also, and made examples of. Basically they have to be ‘exposed’ on their wrongs and deceptions to have them shunned politically and their influence destroyed.
        I don’t see that we can wait around for some ethics or morality to overcome out political class and make them do the right thing for either I/P and the US.
        You’re saying if we go after them, after anything touching on Jews, even if it’s just with truths and nothing but, there is the danger of some kind of violent blowback on Jews in the US. Personally I think that’s is so improbable it’s not a risk worth considering. But let’s say there were to be even some social or political damage to group Jewish reputation or status by doing this….so what do we do? Do we just let I/P and US-Isr keep going to where ever it ends up because of it?
        If we at some point had to choose, had to absolutely throw someone to the wolves, by doing something or by doing nothing, who would it be?…the Palestines or the Jews?….the US or Israel?
        The only place in that scenario I see that Americans have a right to choose one or the other is in the US-Isr one….we shouldn’t be forced to have to choose between the Jews and the Palestines. But based on what has happened for 60 years and is happening, this is the position Israel could force us into…they’ve already made us choose them in everything except a ‘final solution’ for the Palestines.
        So yea I think we have to do it now before it goes any further.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2012, 4:17 pm

        “They are still struggling to find the best approach to challenge the absurdities in the thinking of many Jewish Zionists.”

        Isn’t it awful the way anti-Zionists have to do double work? They’ve got to find the different ways to challenge the absurdities in the thinking of Jewish Zionists, the absurdities in the thinking of Christian Zionists, and then there’s your secular and atheist Zionists, too.
        It’s a big job, and very few of the things which work with one will work with the others. If only they had something in common.

  3. Sibiriak
    December 17, 2012, 9:53 am

    He says that Rule is emblematic of “leftist circles,” where Israel is singled out for criticism from a large pool of states that grant special status to ethnic and religious communities. And why does Rule single Israel out? Walzer can only imagine. But he hints at anti-Semitism:

    This “singling out Israel” argument is utterly spurious– just a cowardly way to fraudulently accuse someone of anti-Semitism.

    Walzer:

    Israel is its only target; everything else is camouflage.

    Utterly false.

    • marc b.
      December 17, 2012, 11:39 am

      This “singling out Israel” argument is utterly spurious– just a cowardly way to fraudulently accuse someone of anti-Semitism.

      i’d put it slightly differently. there is special attention being paid to israel, but why wouldn’t there be? does any other country receive the unqualified financial, logistical and political support that we give israel? the fraud, or more accurately the psychosis, is the expectation that it is our absolute duty to protect, to praise, to ceaselessly express our undying gratitude for our bestest friend israel, none of these behaviors, of course, qualifying as psychologically suspicious, but that any critical examination of the ‘relationship’ is automatically suspect as unhealthy, obsessive, and anti-semetic. it’s an adolescent’s world view.

      • Shingo
        December 17, 2012, 5:55 pm

        i’d put it slightly differently. there is special attention being paid to israel, but why wouldn’t there be?

        That’s exactly what I was thinking too. Israeli supporters don’t seem to mind when the special attention being paid to Israel is of the fawning and sycophantic variety, but when it turns to criticism, they complain about Israel being singles out.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 11:53 am

      “Utterly false.”

      Judaism! Now serving as Zionism’s human sheild. But don’t worry, after this job I think it’s going to retire.

      There is nothing more disgusting than using religion to take the hit for your criminal state.

      Yes sir, this article seems to be bringing out a lot of not-a-Zionism.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2012, 4:25 pm

        Poor Judaism. First it had to serve as the human shield and human material for Zionism, and now, everybody is pressing it into service for the moral and ethical huevos to defeat Zionism. The old girl never gets a rest. Her work is never done.

        Just musing, and probably not amusing, too.

    • Shingo
      December 17, 2012, 5:53 pm

      This “singling out Israel” argument is utterly spurious– just a cowardly way to fraudulently accuse someone of anti-Semitism.

      Exactly and most of all, it’s utterly dishonest. Walzer does not deny Israel’s crimes, he just wants to shift the attention away from them, and what Rule does so effectively, is deny him that luxury,

    • Mooser
      December 19, 2012, 11:28 am

      “He says that Rule is emblematic of “leftist circles,” where Israel is singled out for criticism from a large pool of states that grant special status to ethnic and religious communities.”

      But, but, didn’t J. Otto Pohl just tell us that the “leftists” are a bunch of Zionists? They no sooner got done supporting Stalin when they switched over to Israel!
      But you know how it goes, scratch a Commie and you’ll find a Jew, every time, and vice-versa!

      So, which is it?

  4. Citizen
    December 17, 2012, 10:02 am

    It’s clear Walzer is not concerned with America’s good name, or what is done with American dollars and lives when it comes to the lone superpower’s singular rubber-stamping and funding of Israel. Is it good for the Americans? This question, he does not ask.

    • seanmcbride
      December 17, 2012, 1:16 pm

      Citizen,

      It’s clear Walzer is not concerned with America’s good name, or what is done with American dollars and lives when it comes to the lone superpower’s singular rubber-stamping and funding of Israel. Is it good for the Americans? This question, he does not ask.

      People like Michael Walzer are so ethnocentric that they don’t realize how ethnocentric they are — ethnic outsiders don’t exist for them as real people with distinct interests of their own. They live inside a weird cult bubble.

      Eventually most Americans will grow weary of humoring their idiosyncratic behavior — the costs are simply too high for Americans as a whole.

  5. amigo
    December 17, 2012, 10:24 am

    “Nor has Rule given any evidence of interest in the dominance of ethnic Chinese in Singapore” Waltzer

    I don,t recall China claiming to be Democratic or to be the Light unto the Nations.

    Maybe Mr Waltzer, it is the Zionist arrogance that draws attention to the actions of Israel.

    • RoHa
      December 17, 2012, 6:34 pm

      “I don,t recall China claiming to be Democratic or to be the Light unto the Nations.”

      What has China got to do with it?

      Walzer was talking about Singapore.

  6. amigo
    December 17, 2012, 10:30 am

    “and so despite all the bad stuff going on, let’s not abandon the dream, let’s support the good guys there.” Waltzer

    What good guys is he referring to???.

    Those stealing land.Those murdering Palestinians.Those bulldozing Palestinian homes.Those busy transferring Illegal settlers to that stolen Land.

    GMAB.

    • RoHa
      December 17, 2012, 6:35 pm

      I’m sure there is a good guy somewhere in Israel.

      Well, fairly sure.

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 12:47 pm

        “I’m sure there is a good guy somewhere in Israel.”

        There are a lot of good people in Israel. There are a lot of good people everywhere. Probably quite a few deluded ones, if their circumstances allow it, just like everywhere.
        Unfortunately, in Israel the good people are being used as hostages. Even if I was every bit as Islamophobic as the US media hopes, I would still hate Zionism for what it makes one Jew do to another. And that is how Zionism will kill Judaism.

  7. amigo
    December 17, 2012, 10:32 am

    “Israel is a country in need of radical criticism; it currently has the worst government in its history, perhaps the worst government among Western democracies.”

    And there was I thinking Israel is in the ME.

    • Dutch
      December 17, 2012, 2:40 pm

      No, no, no, Israel is in Europe. I haven’t found it on the map yet, but the country is hosting the European Soccer Championships below 21 soon, and they participate in the European song contest. So, is Israel in Europe, or what?

      • JennieS
        December 19, 2012, 4:29 pm

        Get an i-phone 5 – I’m sure Apple can relocate Israel to a more salubrious neighbourhood :)

  8. freespeechlover
    December 17, 2012, 10:38 am

    If Michael Walzer is jarred, well he might have to just get over it. Maybe he really is afraid for Jews in America, or maybe he’s afraid that the monopoly his position has enjoyed in liberal American intellectual life has been broken. The difference matters.

  9. Gryfin
    December 17, 2012, 10:40 am

    I’m frequently challenged by supporters of Israel along similar lines – why is Israel singled out?

    I usually answer this way:

    I know there other injustices in the world, but I don’t find any of my fellow citizens defending them in any way. But I do find some of my fellow citizens stridently defending the indefensible when inflicted by Israel.

    I don’t drive down the streets of my city and find churches or mosques sporting billboards asking me to contribute to a foreign country that constantly commits human rights abuse but I see almost every synagogue festooned with Israel Bonds or JNF billboards.

    I’ve never seen a religious school in my city flying the flag of another country, whether it is a church, mosque, or a mandir. Yet, I drive by Jewish schools in town and I see the flag of Israel flying side by side with the flag of Canada.

    And finally, while all my fellow citizens who support Israel also strongly support the separation of religion and state in Canada, they seem to suffer amnesia when asked to support such a principle in Israel.

    Frankly, asking me to turn a blind eye to all of this insults my intelligence.

    • American
      December 17, 2012, 12:21 pm

      Good answer.

    • Dutch
      December 17, 2012, 2:53 pm

      A variation is the question if these folks would like us to stop ‘singling out’ Israel. If the answer is yes they’d better start up a new ‘coalition of the willing’ to invade the place. I’m pretty sure Israel is hiding WMD’s, and in breach with a whole list of UN resolutions.

    • GilGamesh
      December 17, 2012, 7:55 pm

      Hmmm. do they ever ask you why as a Canadian a country that has Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state you aren’t spending an equal if not greater amount of time criticizing the UK which has killed multiple time more civilians in the past decade in their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have you spent any time asking about your own countries involvement in these wars against countries that never attacked them and were zero threat to them. Do they have Greek Orthodox Churches in Canada ? link to flickr.com

      now please show me a picture of a synagogue festooned with Israel Bonds or JNF billboards.

  10. pabelmont
    December 17, 2012, 10:48 am

    “an occupation that Walzer says is undermining Israel” — but this announcement by Walzer does not (?) — “actually threaten[s] the place of Jews in America.”

    As Weiss puts it: “Note that Walzer supports “radical criticism,” but heaven forfend that anyone should sanction, divest or boycott Israel”.

    Why does BDS action threaten Jews in America when Christians denounce the occupation, the settlements, or whatever, BUT it’s not threatening for Walzer to say that the occupation undermines Israel” ? Perhaps the answer is that Walzer is not about to make even the token gesture of BDS and instead leaves it to Israel to choose its own undermining (if such it is) or to continue AS IS until the cows come home.

    But — MORE DARKLY — perhaps Walzer’s reason to fear for American Jews is that Jews in America have been perceived (largely correctly) as supporting [or not criticizing] Israel and vigorous criticism of Israel (here, via Christian BDS) is implicitly criticizing those who knee-jerk-ily (or otherwise) support Israel.

    And that’s not all. Walzer not only criticizes criticism of Israel as particularist (and therefore anti-semitic) but also demands further support for Israel — including occupation, settlements, war-crimes, and all! USA neither to criticize not to withdraw support. WOW.

  11. Shmuel
    December 17, 2012, 10:56 am

    The best defence is a good offence. The real question is not why Rule “singles Israel out for criticism”, but why Walzer defends a system in Israel that he would not defend anywhere else. The moral inconsistency is Walzer’s and he knows it.

    • Citizen
      December 18, 2012, 6:29 am

      @ Shmuel,
      Cue the Coasters, singing “Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown, he’s a clown–why’s everybody always pickin’ on me!”

  12. seafoid
    December 17, 2012, 11:08 am

    So focusing on Israel is antisemitic.
    By the same logic anyone opposed to the carpet bombing of Gaza hates Jews and wants them wiped off the face of the earth.

    Surely Walzer is a tad hysterical.

  13. Les
    December 17, 2012, 11:13 am

    Zionists by self-definition are part-time Americans. Walzer is uncertain because he requires himself to be in two different camps at once. That would be a difficult juggling act for anyone.

  14. Cliff
    December 17, 2012, 11:14 am

    This isn’t about fear for the safety of American Jews.

    This is about the racism fueled insecurity of Zionist Jews.

    I remember Kevin MacDonald (popular academic with White nationalists) saying it is entirely natural for a nation to want to control it’s borders and national character.

    I partially agree – I think with large influxes of immigrants, comes large influxes of change. And these are substantial changes in culture, economics, politics, etc. for the current citizenry.

    Look at the period of large-scale immigration proceeding the American Civil War. We already had a lot of problems (territorial expansion and slave States/territories vs. free territories and the resultant political sectionalism). When the immigrants came (political losers [squashed by the status quo and looking for a liberal work environment], Irish escaping ecological disaster, etc.), it was in the burgeoning era of industrialization.

    Railroads and factories and wage labor/slavery versus slavery in the South.

    So while I think Zionist Jews are ALL racists (insofar as they want to preserve their Jewish national character) – there are also understandable political, cultural, and economic fears.

    To truly reform Israel would be to seek a 1SS. Transforming it from a racist, Jewish democracy with institutional racism and discrimination for Israeli Arabs (Palestinians who weren’t terrorized into fleeing during the 48′ War or directly ethnically cleansed) and apartheid in the OT, towards a State for it’s citizens – whether they be Jewish, Palestinian Arab, Bedouin, or whatever else.

    That kind of a change requires personal human growth and reformation. Confronting one’s own faults and insecurities and biases and prejudices.

    When do we have to look at ourselves like that? Do people just SPONTANEOUSLY engage in such meaningful introspection? Especially, when to do so (and to act on the results, if such results were humanistic) would be to lose positions of power and authority and to move towards equality?

    FAT CHANCE.

    It is not going to happen by the virtue of some phantom Israeli Jewish conscience. Or American Zionist Jewish conscience.

    You have to be realistic and look at the power differential and the way the other side (Zionists) are propagandizing themselves (mobilization against reforming and confronting themselves; but this ‘themselves’ identity is really just the reflection of the Palestinians).

    Is there ANY EVIDENCE in the discourse on MW between anti-Zionists and Zionists of such potential introspection? No.

    Additionally, read the Haaretz comment sections. YNet, etc. Read the ‘general Israeli’ reaction to the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Etc.

    There is no conscience. There is only narcissism and self-delusion.

    Israel has enough ‘quiet’ that it has a de facto settlement to the conflict (PUN INTENDED).

    Without anything to bargain – whether it be substantial terrorism (and not Zionist hyperbole and theatrics meant for the racist Christian fanatics or American nationalist Army-worshipping meatheads) or substantial non-violence – the Palestinians cannot compel Israel to release them and dismantle the Jewish colonies.

    So we’ll see more of the same. Israelis kill Palestinian civilians and children. Palestinian militants fire shitty rockets that kill 1 or 2 Israelis every 5 years or something. Western media plays up the 1 or 2 dead Israelis as a Holocaust and the 100s of dead Palestinians as ‘suck on this’ (thanks Thomas Friedman).

    More worthless discussions about antisemitism and accusations of antisemitism and other Zionist narcissism and sociopathy.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 12:00 pm

      “Railroads and factories and wage labor/slavery versus slavery in the South.”

      Sorry, Cliff, there was no dichotomy, the chattel slavery, (with its kidnapping and Middle Passage) wage slavery and indenture slavery (based on fraud and misinformation and denial of human rights) all worked together.

      • Cliff
        December 17, 2012, 3:25 pm

        My point is that one of the major tensions between North and South was the advent of industrialization.

        The South was not industrialized. The North was.

        Immigrants went to the North – not the South. The South had no need for skilled labor.

        This doesn’t absolve the North of anything. I’m just talking about the economic differences. The reason the North won the war was because they were capable of sustaining losses. The Civil War was the 2nd (after the Crimean War), but one if not THE most influential industrialized war/total war.

        Sherman wasn’t taking cities. No one was taking cities. They were steam-rolling through, looting and sometimes pillaging.

        The South had no chance of winning unless it was in the first couple years before the North had mobilized for total war. Additionally, the South could have successfully gained the support of international actors who were interested in the outcome. They couldn’t though – alienating prospective allies by their self-imposed embargo on Cotton (in order to show the world, the power of ‘King Cotton’ – this backfired).

        The dichotomy wasn’t a moral dichotomy – where the North was ‘good’ and absolutely free. There was the New York Conspiracy Trials. The draft riots (again New York).

        And the issue of territorial expansion demonstrates how politically sectional the country was. People talking about ‘Slave Power’ as an economic and political threat, not as a moral conundrum. Reconstruction was largely abandoned by the Northerners before 1877 (which is unique in history, insofar as we generally think things taper out – Reconstruction ENDED in 1877 with the withdrawal of troops from the South).

        But on that note, is there any example in history where slaves were ‘freed’ and then immediately given consideration of/right to vote?

        It’s true that we disenfranchised them through loopholes as well as outright institutional racism though.

  15. W.Jones
    December 17, 2012, 11:21 am

    The first thing you must do is consider the reasons those leftists give for focusing on Israel and ask are they real reasons or stereotypical ones. Christian leaders focus on the Holy Land for the same reason the Zionists and C.Z.s do: because that’s the place their religious community centers on: it’s where Christianity started and many of the people there are the descendants of the first Christians.

    Second, there is the huge responsibility American leftists in generally feel morally on issues. They feel responsible for the acts their government does, and the IP conflict is a special and major longstanding one, because of the billions given to the State system, much more than to any other state.

    In my mind, the importance of the Holy Land and its communities to American Christians and leftists’ feelings of moral responsibility, which is particularly strong in this conflict, are good reasons that do not come from racism.

    A third good reason could be that the silence on the issue, unlike typical dissent by the mainstream left on issues like the Iraq war and possible Iran one, cries out for it especially to be heard. This is a major thing that motivates Allison Weir, she has said.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 12:02 pm

      “Christian leaders focus on the Holy Land for the same reason the Zionists and C.Z.s do: because that’s the place their religious community centers on:”

      And I thought God was everywhere. I guess I bdetter start turning east when I pray, it’s the least I can do for now.

  16. Betsy
    December 17, 2012, 11:24 am

    I think most Presbyterians will welcome open dialog. Like Phil, I am grateful that Walzer expressed his fears. It’s been an awful decade for us Presbyterians, with so much implied, but not on the table for open give & take.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 11:41 am

      Betsy, do you think he is expressing his “fears” or just saying, as his kind of person does, what he thinks will be most effective?
      Anotherwords, do you think that Zionism makes a person incapable of honest debate? You can make up your mind for yourself, but (and I know this is a strange and not very acceptable thing to say) but as a Jew, I can assure you that it does. Do you think I don’t know?

      • Scott
        December 17, 2012, 12:22 pm

        Big fan of this comment. Something I wonder a lot about–the extent to which hasbara speakers believe in what they’re saying.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        December 19, 2012, 1:52 pm

        I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with “hasbara speakers.” I feel that most of that time was wasted. In my experience there is a spectrum, with naive ones who believe everything they are saying (parroting) at one end and cynical ones who believe hardly anything of what they are saying at the other. The Israeli ones are much more likely to be cynical, because if you live in Israel it’s hard to avoid some knowledge of what is really going on.

        The cynical Hasbarist is trying to achieve a goal — to make you more sympathetic to Israel (or at least less unsympathetic). S/he will grope around for whatever line of argument seems to work on you. If you are strongly resistant to one line of argument, s/he will switch to a second line. The second line may be logically inconsistent with the first, but to the hasbarist it doesn’t matter. They are means to an end.

        This explains the incoherence of the “dialogue.” A point is emphasized and elaborated, then suddenly abandoned and forgotten. If you make a telling point yourself, the hasbarist will ignore it and perhaps change the subject completely rather than try to respond to it. This is not a joint search for truth. It is ideological battle.

        None of the “lines” reflects inner belief. The hasbarist does not want to reveal that inner belief because s/he understands that you have very different values and that inner belief will be totally unacceptable to you. Using it will only confirm you in your hostility. But occasionally the cynical hasbarist, inadvertently or out of frustration, will let down his/her defenses and express the inner belief. Then you may learn something interesting after all that boring propaganda.

      • Sibiriak
        December 20, 2012, 4:14 am

        Stephen Shenfield

        I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with “hasbara speakers.” I feel that most of that time was wasted.

        I too have been in many debates with hasbara folks. The point was, though, not to persuade the “hasbara speaker”, put to persuade open-minded folks who were following the debate.

      • Rusty Pipes
        December 17, 2012, 3:39 pm

        I am getting to the point to where when I hear Zionists talk about their feelings and fears to responding that there are professionals who are paid by the hour to listen to such concerns and I am not one of them. On the other hand, I am a big supporter of universal health coverage, including mental health coverage, which would be a much better use of American tax dollars for Zionist fears than sending millions of dollars in weapons every year to Israel.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 12:05 pm

      “I think most Presbyterians will welcome open dialog.”

      I do, so why don’t we settle it right now, Betsy? Under discussion: should we fight Zionism, or give in to it, and give it a free hand? You got a third alternative? I’d like to hear it. AFter all we’ve got all the time in the world, just ask the UN commission on Gaza.

      • Betsy
        December 17, 2012, 1:43 pm

        We are fighting. We been fighting. And, how much have we accomplished? Precious little. That’s why I think we need to think very carefully about what we are up against, to understand what it is, what it’s sources of power are, and how to build broader alliances for a counter movement. I feel that, on Mondoweiss, there is not always enough attention to the concrete, grassroots challenges of this… Just to speak re/ PC(USA) — we’ve been at this for decades…what have we accomplished? I don’t mind being called names. I would like to figure out how to make a difference. I’m still going to keep trying to talk to folks of Zionist persuasion at grassroots level, because that’s where I think change comes from first…but that’s just me. Need other levels of strategy also.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2012, 4:32 pm

        “I’m still going to keep trying to talk to folks of Zionist persuasion at grassroots level, because that’s where I think change comes from first…”

        Oh yes, Zionist policy is always made from facts on the ground up.

      • Rusty Pipes
        December 18, 2012, 4:26 pm

        It depends on which “folks of Zionist persuasion at grassroots level” you are dealing with and how much of your time and energy you want to invest in talking to them. Your Jewish friends who have been persuaded to various levels of Zionism have been fed a constant stream of fear and guilt about Israel from many different Major Jewish Organizations (including key people within their local synagogue, if they have one). As long as they choose to tap that stream uncritically (and open the fundraising appeals), there is nothing you can say or do to alleviate their fears or assuage their guilt. Love your friends as individuals and work for justice anyway. The information is out there if they choose to learn about it.

        Your Christian and secular friends who have been influenced by Zionist propaganda are mostly like low information voters — they have so many other things on their plate that they haven’t taken much time to think about the subject beyond what they have heard in the MSM. If you can get their attention, education can make a difference in their understanding of the issues.

        On the other hand, local Zionist leaders who want to engage in endless dialogue are a waste of your time.

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 11:37 am

        Doers anybody want to tell me how changes at the synagogue level (as welcome as those would be) will effect Israel’s policies? By what mechanism?
        Shall we introduce a resolution at the next General Meeting?

  17. Mooser
    December 17, 2012, 11:28 am

    Why shouldn’t Walzer be afraid, what with all those efforts and laws to discourage Jewish voting. I’ve heard the electoral franchise will be restricted to Presbyterians when they’re done.

    • Mooser
      December 19, 2012, 12:56 pm

      Oy vey That’s me all over! I thought I made a joke about the “voter ID law” efforts at vote suppression (hardly directed at Jews, don’t worry, Walzer) and I read it today and it looks like I took a swipe at Presbyrtarians. Fine work that, not.

  18. Mooser
    December 17, 2012, 11:31 am

    “Walzer has the liberal Zionist’s belief that Israel was a great and necessary invention”

    I hate to say this, the more I leafrn about how Zionism was actually accomplished, the more I am confirmed in my belief the Zionists invented nothing at all. You do have to admire their use of common, but ready-to-be-discarded beliefs and methods, which they picked up wholesale.

  19. Mooser
    December 17, 2012, 11:37 am

    “and that it leads to gloves-off debates about Zionism inside Jewish life.”

    And when those blue boxes stop coming back full, Israel will fall to the ground like it’s been pole-axed?
    My prediction is that Phil will get out of this business before he ever admits that he knows that Zionism must be fought not discussed, like it was a matter of flares or pegged pants. Mondo may come to an end, but he’ll never come to a conclusion.
    Personally, I think that would be fine for a Presbyterian, but really, not so good for a Jew, but my opinions are purely personal.

    • American
      December 17, 2012, 12:04 pm

      “Zionism must be fought not discussed,”…Mooser

      That is true. Of one thing I am convinced, certainly about the uber Zionist and even the liberal zionist, their defense, their belief, all comes down to “the right of the Jews” to support Israel or justify in varying degrees what Israel does or even imagine they can ‘tweak it’ a bit to keep it as the oxymoron of a Jewish ruled ‘democracy”. I don’t think they can ever be disabused of this belief.
      All that is left is trying to stop Israel from what it’s doing.
      Stopping Israel, the epicenter of zionism is the only way I see to beat zionism back.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2012, 1:28 pm

        Sure, American, like it’s your fight. Whatever you say, buddy. But they told me to pick on people my own size, and I’ve always found that good advice. (But then, thinking about that, I’ve never actually won a fight, have I? Or even an argument. More bad advice.)
        Oh well, do what you think best.

      • American
        December 17, 2012, 11:20 pm

        Mooser says:

        Sure, American, like it’s your fight.
        >>>>>>>>

        It is my fight.
        For all your complaining on here about what zionism is doing to Judaism and how Jews have no control over it……when is the last time you wrote or called your politicians to complain about what the zios and Israel are doing to the Jews…or to the Palestines?
        Don’t tell us, we know already, tell them.
        Here you go—-Congress 1 877 762 8762
        Go ahead, call and say that you as a Jew object to everything the zionist are doing because it puts Jews and Judaism in a bad light…you can also mention you don’t like Israelis stealing land and killing people either.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2012, 6:56 am

        @ American
        In this thread (scroll way up), Mooser has defended Mr Rule, as essentially having emotional (/empathetic/sympathetic/objective) skin in the game, which is not necessarily less emotional skin than Walzer’s; yet at this point in this thread, Mooser glibly disses American: “Sure, American, like it’s your fight.”
        Why?

      • American
        December 18, 2012, 6:30 pm

        Citizen

        yet at this point in this thread, Mooser glibly disses American: “Sure, American, like it’s your fight.”
        Why?”>>>>>>>>

        Who knows…I don’t even try to figure it out…or care…..I just want to know if he ever complains about the zios to his Rabbi or AIPAC or congress………lol

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 1:00 pm

        “It is my fight.”

        That’s the response I was hoping for, thanks. Made my day. My personal feeling (‘personal feeling’, can’t argue about it, it’s subjective) is that Judaism, or even Jews (as such) do not have what it takes to effect Zionism. And I am sure Zionism made every effort to see to that.
        We is gonna need a lotta help.

      • sardelapasti
        December 19, 2012, 1:51 pm

        “if he ever complains about the zios to his Rabbi or AIPAC or congress…”

        Yeah, I bet every time someone threatens to burn your shop if you don’t pay for protection, you complain to the local Mafia boss.

      • American
        December 19, 2012, 6:24 pm

        “We is gonna need a lotta help.”…Mooser

        No the Jews cant do it , not alone.
        That’s why you/ they have to trust that the non Jews in this fight, attacking Israel, zionist, the Lobby et al are doing for the right reasons– for everyone’s benefit—- no matter how loud or angry the fight gets.
        Trust.

    • American
      December 17, 2012, 1:15 pm

      I cite this article as another example of where/why so called Liberal Zionism is so ineffectual on actually changing Israel or US-Isr enablement.

      link to thedailybeast.com

      ”Was Hagel The “Buzz” At The White House Chanukah Party?”

      Basically it’s refuting a buzzfeed article about Jews at the WH Chanukah party attacking Hagel…..or…….a sort of covering for Israel supporters by saying some Jews did attack and hear attacks on Hagel at the party and …..some didn’t ‘hear anything said about it’.

      How do they think this does anything?……what good do they think it does to tell us that not all the Jews attacked Hagel? And how many non Jews even read Open Zion….I don’t usually, if I do it’s only because I picked it up from friendfeed like this one, so who are they talking to…..themselves? This is not fighting for change.
      To everything the Uber Zios do, the libs response is ….”well it wasn’t all of us Jews”. When will they get or even want to get that this doesn’t matter, that all that matters is the Ubers are calling the shots and they are wasting their time doing the ‘it’s not all of us” instead of ‘attacking the ubers”.
      It’s like they have some Uber-Lib Pact where the Libs tell us or themselves who isn’t doing the dirty deeds while not attacking or condemning the Ubers who are doing it.
      What is it?…it is that the Libs realize the Ubers are necessary for Israel because they keep the aid and support flowing?…. so they don’t dare attack them or take them down for Israel’s sake.
      I think that is it and why Lib zios are totally useless.

  20. David Samel
    December 17, 2012, 11:38 am

    Walzer claims that before Rule can publicly criticize Israel, he must first familiarize himself with every other human rights situation on the planet, rank them in order of seriousness, and address each one on the list until he finally gets down to Israel. No other defender of human rights violations make this insane demand. Can you imagine China protesting that its critics are anti-Chinese racists because China is not the world’s worst?

    It is Walzer, not Rule, who is inconsistent on this issue to the point that racism or its equivalent must be suspected. Presumably Walzer is opposed to every other instance of government-imposed discrimination on ethnic-ancestral lines, those he identifies and those he does not. But in Israel, he supports it. And Israel’s discrimination just happens to favor Walzer’s own ethnic group. Walzer not only gets to enjoy guarantees of equal, first-class citizenship here, he also has in his hip pocket the “right” to the same in Israel where he can deny that right to Palestinians. No wonder he lashes out at his opponents by smearing them with the taint of antisemitism; it’s easier than defending his own position.

    Walzer may be more respected as an intellectual than Alan Dershowitz, but on this issue, their views are identical.

    • tokyobk
      December 17, 2012, 1:55 pm

      Yes, because this is exactly how China deflects criticism from the West and the rest of Asia: Anti-Chinese, racist, double standard, hidden agendas, not the worst in fact better in Africa for example.

      • David Samel
        December 17, 2012, 2:16 pm

        tokyobk, I have never seen this from China, but assuming that you have, it is just as absurd a defense as Walzer’s of Israel. Perhaps the Chinese borrowed a page from Israel’s defenders. You do not say whether you find this reasoning persuasive, only that China makes the same excuses.

      • seafoid
        December 17, 2012, 4:26 pm

        The West needs China and its cheap workers. It doesn’t need Zionism. Life is a b#tch. You need a moral code to deal with it. But Erez Israel was more beautiful than anything. So the morals went out the window. In the end there won’t be anything to cling to.

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 1:15 pm

        “So the morals went out the window. In the end there won’t be anything to cling to.”

        Maybe that’s true for you, but one of my relatives sent me a bottle of Sinai sand from a long-ago trip to visit the Zionist regime.

      • seafoid
        December 20, 2012, 4:13 am

        I guess the people can always return to latkes made with lashings of schmaltz and start over.

      • Mooser
        December 26, 2012, 3:13 pm

        “I guess the people can always return to latkes made with lashings of schmaltz and start over.”

        This is like, the third time you’ve derided schmaltz, Seafoid, and I’m getting concerned. What’s wrong with schmaltz? There’s a lot of extra fat on a good chicken, and it can be rendered, strained and stored for use in frying or flavoring. Made some two weeks ago. And chicken stock from the carcass. I have a high MDR for schmaltz.

    • Shingo
      December 17, 2012, 9:27 pm

      Walzer claims that before Rule can publicly criticize Israel, he must first familiarize himself with every other human rights situation on the planet, rank them in order of seriousness, and address each one on the list until he finally gets down to Israel.

      I believe someone refers to this as the obligatory sandwich protocol for criticising Israel. Before one criticizes Israel, one must list all the other states who are as bad or worse, and then when you’re finished with that criticism, you must retrace your steps and re-iterate all the other states that are as bad or worse.

  21. American
    December 17, 2012, 11:41 am

    ‘So he is saying that the Presbyterians went after Israel because they don’t like Jews, and that scares him’

    Whether he actually believes this or not I don’t care….. .let him and others like him be ‘scared’ if he or they are.
    The world, every civilized country, society, operates partially by making wrongdoers and potential wrongdoers ‘fear’ the consequences of their actions …….from local jails all the way to the ICC, it’s the way the world is forced to work. Since you can’t rely on all individuals own morals to prevent them from doing wrong then you have to have another deterrent.
    So let Israel and the Walzers feel some fear…….obviously nothing else the world has ever tried for 70 years has worked on them. All the catering to, the reassurances, the indulgences, the special treatment, has done nothing but make Israel and them worse and worse.

  22. David Doppler
    December 17, 2012, 11:48 am

    The singular fascination with Israel among its critics in America is in large part because, among all the nations in the world doing bad things to their neighbors, Israel alone has such strong influence in US media, culture and politics, where, we have become aware since the Iraq War debacle, Neocons and Zionists use fear and intimidation, built on a campaign of mendacity, to disguise nakedly aggressive colonization as defense in a war on terror, and to avoid accountability for those who lie, spy and murder. Yitzhak Rabin was prepared to make peace in 1995, when Netanyahu called for his assassination, which promptly occurred under highly suspicious circumstances, and since then the idiotic ideologies in the Clean Break and Project for a New American Century have driven US and Israeli policy agendas in highly destructive directions, with little to no ability to hold those responsible accountable. This is not to say that there isn’t Anti-Semitism in the world, and that it won’t be manifested by some in piling on criticism of Israel. But the heart of the problem is fundamental corruption in the policies in Israel sold as if it were the highest good in America. Those Presbyterians may have voted down BDS by a narrow margin, but there is no longer any hiding of the fact that Israel’s Emperor has no clothes. Why is Israel singled out, because it alone is parading itself around naked in front of the American public.

    • Sibiriak
      December 17, 2012, 12:22 pm

      David Doppler:

      Why is Israel singled out…

      I don’t even accept the thesis that Israeli IS being “singled out”. Most of the critics of Israeli policy that I know are also critics of various other oppressive regimes. Yes, some people do spend a lot of time on Israel’s misdeeds for reasons that have already been pointed out (including the fact that an Israeli attack on Iran would have vast *global* consquences)—but even there, the phrase “singling out” is hyperbolic.

      • GilGamesh
        December 17, 2012, 10:05 pm

        Really ? how much criticism of Hamas have you seen on this web site ? I haven’t done a through search but all I’ve seen excuses for Hamas on this web site by those who criticize Israel.

        When I see any of the groups that vehemently criticize Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians criticize Lebanon and Syria for their treatment of the Palestinians in the refugee camps there I might believe you.

      • FreddyV
        December 18, 2012, 5:44 am

        @GilGamesh:

        Hamas wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Israel fostering them as a divide and conquer tactic against Fatah.

        No, a lot of people don’t like what they do, but they are the only effective resistance to Israel as the ceasefire proved by getting Israel to the table. It’s more shame Israel needs an opponent like Hamas to negotiate with instead of a partner for peace.

      • Cliff
        December 18, 2012, 5:57 am

        Palestinians are the indigenous population and they are being ethnically cleansed while you colonize their land.

        The Palestinian cause is in Historic Palestine not in Lebanon and Syria and just because an anti-Zionist does not ‘balance’ (Zionist-speak for shifting 100% attention away from Israeli criminality) his or her condemnation of Israeli behavior with that of the blah blah blah blah, does not mean he or she does not CARE about Palestinians elsewhere.

        This is your own straw-man.

        You don’t care about Palestinians anywhere. No Israeli or Zionist Jew who uses this ABSURD argument about ‘balance’ cares about Palestinians or their cause. They use this argument of yours to SHIFT THE FOCUS from the main conflict – the colonization of Historic Palestine.

        This is a colonial conflict, with one primary culprit – Israel. This conflict matters to us – which is why we focus on Israel. Focusing on Syria would be nonsensical. Focusing on Lebanon would be nonsensical.

        The Palestinian cause is where their homes were/are.

        And you can support the Palestinian cause against Jewish nationalism and colonialism while also condemning the way Palestinians are treated elsewhere.

        But the latter should never be the focus since it isn’t the origin of the conflict. Israel and Zionism are the origin.

        Lastly, no one cares about your rhetorical sensibilities. So continue deluding yourself into thinking that this conflict (and other conflicts, past and present) only exist on-line as a matter of rhetorical give and take wherein we have to be equal in every regard.

        We are not. Reality is not equal or fair. You stole their land and their homes and pushed them into the sea. You’re continuing to do it. And instead of focusing on that, you want to focus on how the Lebanese or the Syrians or other issues entirely like Darfur or China or Mars are doing X, Y, and Z.

        This is our issue. This is our cause. GET USED TO IT.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2012, 7:12 am

        @ GilGamesh

        Yeah, we’re all drowning in American mainstream media and US governmental and congressional support for Hamas, and why oh why doesn’t anybody in those most influential channels ever, ever equate Palestinians with born evil terrorists?

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2012, 7:29 am

        I haven’t done a through search but all I’ve seen excuses for Hamas on this web site by those who criticize Israel.

        No you haven’t done a very thorough search. I’ve cited the accusations that Hamas and the other Palestinian militias committed war crimes and crimes against humanity from the report of the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza and the UN Special Rapporteurs for Human Rights in the OPT. I’ve also pointed out that Palestine’s declaration with the International Criminal Court served to accept the Court’s jurisdiction for all crimes (i.e. Israeli, Palestinian, & etc.) that have been committed on the territory of Palestine since July of 2002.

        I always point out that attacks on Israeli civilians on their side of the Green Line are undoubtedly war crimes or crimes against humanity that are prohibited at all times.

      • GilGamesh
        December 18, 2012, 9:19 am

        @FreddyV
        Because at their beginning Israel fostered Hamas they get a pass for any crimes they commit ? Sorry that only proves my point. That no better than claiming Israel gets a pass because they are the only democracy in the ME.

        Israel had been to the table with the PA many times before Hamas took over Gaza. They haven’t been there once since. Saying that Israel agreed to a cease fire with Hamas is proof of Hamas’ value is is proof of nothing. They are no closer to a peace agreement then they were before the last conflict.

      • GilGamesh
        December 18, 2012, 9:43 am

        If you have stated that the rockets fired into Israel are war crimes than that’s fair but certainly one poster is not the whole board. As you can see by the other two responses to my post there are excuses. Did you see any blogs concerning Palestinians that were dragged to death by Hamas for supposedly being collaborators ? Did you see a blog the HRW condemnation of Hamas this past October ? Is the purpose of this site to only report Israel’s crimes ? If it is than clearly Israel is being singled out. If it is not than where are the reports on the incidents I named ?

      • eljay
        December 18, 2012, 12:41 pm

        >> how much criticism of Hamas have you seen on this web site ?

        You want more criticism of Hamas? Get Israel to halt its occupation, to withdraw to within its declared borders, and to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        I guarantee you that if Israel does that, and Hamas continues to behave as it currently does, you will see criticism of Israel plummet and criticism of Hamas skyrocket.

        But, yeah, I know: Israel would have to halt its occupation, forego the territory it has stolen, and sincerely negotiate for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        And that’s just too much for Zio-supremacists to stomach.

      • Donald
        December 18, 2012, 12:48 pm

        ” I haven’t done a through search but all I’ve seen excuses for Hamas on this web site by those who criticize Israel.”

        Hostage replied and I’ll reply. I’ve always condemned Hamas rocket attacks and suicide terrorism. They are immoral. I’d also argue that they don’t work, though the rocket fire recently seemed to force Israel to give up its practice of shooting at Palestinian farmers and fishermen. However, they’re doing it again, so it didn’t work there either.

        “When I see any of the groups that vehemently criticize Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians criticize Lebanon and Syria for their treatment of the Palestinians i”

        First, there are groups–they’re called human rights organizations–which make it their business to investigate and report human rights violations all around the world to the best of their ability and when you bother to look, you’ll find that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do criticize both Israel and numerous Arab countries for their human rights abuses. I haven’t looked to see what either has said about the recent Syrian attacks on the Palestinian camp, but have no doubt they’d condemn it as they have condemned the Syrian regime all along.

        Second, Americans who focus on Israel’s human rights violations are not in the same position as AI or HRW–it’s our duty to focus first on the sins of our country and those of its closest allies. Not that many Americans line up with Assad–nobody says we need to give Assad weapons. The debate is over whether we should be giving his opponents weapons. What’s funny in a sick way is that many of those opponents are ruthless, at least as much as any Palestinian terror group, and it’s not so easy to separate out those who are from those who aren’t, but nobody ever suggests that we arm Palestinians, except for the purpose of shooting their own people. And of course we do arm Israel, which has used some of those weapons to attack civilians.

      • talknic
        December 18, 2012, 1:06 pm

        Because at their beginning Israel fostered Hamas they get a pass for any crimes they commit ? Sorry that only proves my point.

        It doesn’t appear to be what FreddyV said or implied. It proves only that you’re not honest

        Funny how so many idiots for Israel’s illegal activities bring straw to the table.

      • sardelapasti
        December 18, 2012, 1:14 pm

        “Because at their beginning Israel fostered Hamas they get a pass for any crimes they commit ?”

        If I understand your language correctly, you are asking if Hamas gets a free pass because fundamentalist Islamic organizations have been started by the Zionist entity.
        No, it doesn’t.
        But the Zionist entity carries the full responsibility of every consequence of every act of occupation, aggression and war crimes and all their corollaries, starting with the end of the British mandate. Everything including internal Palestinian troubles and sectarism. Everything including every crime and every red cent of damage.

        As for Hamas, any acts of resistance are not crimes. Neither are acts of war, really, because in the war started by the Zionist entity in November 1947 and never called off, the full responsibility of damage to either side is entirely on the Zionists’ shoulders. The Palestinian people has a right to defend itself.

      • Shingo
        December 18, 2012, 5:11 pm

        They haven’t been there once since. Saying that Israel agreed to a cease fire with Hamas is proof of Hamas’ value is is proof of nothing. They are no closer to a peace agreement then they were before the last conflict.

        And they were no closer a peace agreement then than the one before that.

        Israel simply doesn’t stick to ceasefires because it doesn’t want to.

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2012, 6:32 pm

        Saying that Israel agreed to a cease fire with Hamas is proof of Hamas’ value is is proof of nothing.

        Actually it does. The PLO has pursued membership in the UN, the ICJ, and the ICC. Those are organizations that operate according to civilized norms and provide parties with all the protections that are recognized by all civilized peoples. Israel, the US, and many members of the EU have responded by threatening the Palestinians if they pursue criminal charges against Israeli officials in the ICC and denying Palestine the protections available for the territorial integrity of states under the UN Charter.

        That behavior simply proves the point of those who say that Palestinians have been left with no other alternative, except taking the law into their own hands. It’s rather obvious that Israel and the US don’t really support “liberty and justice for all”, the basic right of self-determination of peoples, and enforcement of universally ratified international laws and safeguards.

      • GilGamesh
        December 18, 2012, 7:07 pm

        I have stolen nothing, at least not from any Palestinians. I’m not sure why you get off on making silly and unfounded accusations. You’re right I’m not overly concerned for the Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria any more than I would for any people suffering but I don’t pretend to be supporter of the Palestinian “cause”, you do. Please give me any evidence at all that you or any pro-Palestinian group has spoken out about the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanon or Syria as you claim. You cloak yourself in a disguise of being interested of human rights for Palestinians but your words rip off this disguise and reveal the true nature of your “cause” . I have an opinion as well, get use to it. If you disagree I’m happy to debate. If you just want to make claims about me that aren’t true than go ahead continue to make false accusations about me because I don’t hold the same views as you. I like it because it only confirms what I already suspected.

      • Hostage
        December 18, 2012, 7:11 pm

        Second, Americans who focus on Israel’s human rights violations are not in the same position as AI or HRW

        It isn’t necessarily a case of either AI & HRW, or Mondo. I’m retired, but still manage to make small donations to AI, HRW, JVP, Mondo, and the ICJ (International Commission of Jurists).

      • GilGamesh
        December 18, 2012, 7:30 pm

        @ Donald I think yours is a fair reply. Might I ask where you do this condemning of Hamas? I take no issue with what you say, but if indeed the the criticism is related to the financial support given by the US how do you account for the comments from the non U.S. citizens. Also how do you account for the abject hatred of anything related to Israel that many posters on this board express.

      • GilGamesh
        December 18, 2012, 10:28 pm

        sorry but in order to say Hamas has value you have to show what value they have. what has Hamas gained for the Palestinian people. saying Hamas exists because that is the only way Palestinians can get justice is not only wrong but in no way makes your case that they have value.

      • Sibiriak
        December 19, 2012, 12:14 am

        GilGamesh:

        … your words rip off this disguise and reveal the true nature of your “cause”.

        Which is?

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 2:46 pm

        “Also how do you account for the abject hatred of anything related to Israel that many posters on this board express.”

        Why does it have to be accounted for? I can account for mine pretty simply, and I’m Jewish: I can’t stand anything related to a supremacist state, and knowledge of Israel’s actions destroys any possibility of esthetic, spiritual or cultural enjoyment. And “expressing hatred” may sting, but it doesn’t burn like white phosporus.

        Ach, there I go again. I ain’t got no empathy! I should know that one of the scars of generations of persecution is the feeling you have the right to hector people about their emotional attitude toward you, and demand that it be what you want. You can almost feel the Cossack horseman coming into the Shtetl every time it happens!

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 4:37 pm

        “Really ? how much criticism of Hamas have you seen on this web site ?”

        Gil, you put the ‘ick’ in pathetic, you really do. And if Mondo criticised Hamas, that would ameliorate Israel’s intransigence and criminality, how, exactly?
        Of course, if you are trying to say that the nakba was just a preemptive form of terrorism prevention, go right ahead. That should be an easy sell.

        Like I say, if for nothing else, I hate Zionism for what it makes Jews do to each other. My God, look what they did to this GilGamesh. I’m supposed to feel good about that?

      • Ellen
        December 19, 2012, 5:32 pm

        GilGamesh,

        Israel funded and promoted Hamas back in the day. It is an Israeli creation.

        The whole time saying they could not negotiate with Fatah. Then with the failures of Fatah, Hamas got support. The US pushed for elections and Hamas won, which was expected. Now Israel pretends to want to deal with Fatah. And while doing that repeating the decades old meme that there is no one to negotiate with.

        Well….duh! That is the point. Israel does not want to negotiate with anyone.

      • Donald
        December 19, 2012, 6:16 pm

        “Might I ask where you do this condemning of Hamas?”

        In these comments on occasion, when it comes up. I agree with Hostage that the rocket fire against Israel is a war crime. The suicide bombing attacks from several years ago were obvious war crimes, acts of mass murder. I talk about the I/P conflict at other blogs and say the same.

        I also don’t like Hamas in general, because it’s a rightwing religious organization that wants to have political power and those are bad news, whether we’re talking about Jews, Christians or Muslims. I think Hamas has to be part of any solution, just as rightwing Israelis have to be part of any solution. It’s not for non-Palestinians to dictate to Palestinians who their leaders should be. Personally if I were a Palestinian I’d vote for Mustafa Barghouti, who favors non-violent resistance and criticizes Fatah for corruption, but I’m not and he’s not the guy in charge either on the WB or in Gaza.

      • GilGamesh
        December 19, 2012, 7:26 pm

        demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

      • GilGamesh
        December 19, 2012, 7:53 pm

        @Mooser
        no one does anything to GilGamesh, I think for myself. I more concerned that you can’t seem to reply to me with anything that resembles a cogent argument, all you seem to be capable of is making is name calling.
        But I want to thank you for that Mooser when I am expressing my views and people who disagree can only reply by ad-hominem I know that in reality they are upset and uncomfortable because they are beginning to realize things they convinced themselves are truths are not.

        Oh and look at my name I’m Babylonian for Christ sakes.

      • GilGamesh
        December 19, 2012, 8:14 pm

        Ellen,

        Hamas is not an Israeli creation it’s a off shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel welcomed it as a counterweight to Fatah during the first infatada. They weren’t close negotiating with Fatah which was still calling for the destruction of Israel at the time. Fatah btw is a faction of the PLO. So Israel would negotiate with Fatah anyway. They have negotiated with the PLO at Oslo which lead to the organization of the PA then they negotiated with the PA and Camp David and later at Taba. Even Bibi Netenyahu has been calling for negotiations, while I question his sincerity, its the PA who is refusing saying the settlements need to stop first. if there is an old meme being postured here its yours.

      • Hostage
        December 19, 2012, 11:08 pm

        Hamas is not an Israeli creation it’s a off shoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel welcomed it as a counterweight to Fatah during the first infatada.

        Yes, if by welcomed Hamas you mean Israel got out its own checkbook and helped underwrite the costs of the organization. A number of reliable sources, including several U.S. state department and intelligence officials told the UPI correspondent on terrorism that beginning in the late 1970s, the Israeli government gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas in order to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO.
        –See Richard Sale, UPI Terrorism Correspondent, “Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel”, Published 6/18/2002 8:13 PM
        link to web.archive.org

      • Hostage
        December 19, 2012, 11:42 pm

        demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

        How do you delegitimize a myth about a usurper who used deceit to obtain an inheritance and blessing? You know: “The voice is Jacob’s, but the hands are Esau’s.”

        The Zionists used the same sort of deceit when they supposedly agreed to do nothing that would violate the existing rights and position of the non-Jewish communities of Palestine, while taking-on the mantle of “Israel” and deliberately violating the terms of that agreement and nearly all of the laws recognized by civilized nations in the process.

        It’s Zionists who are making the rest of us look bad.

      • Obsidian
        December 20, 2012, 12:32 am

        Hamas is ‘political Islam’, an idea, and you can’t write a check to an idea.

        Israel did, for a very short time, help the charitable organization Hamas, but very soon withdrew support after Hamas started to buy weapons for itself.

      • Cliff
        December 20, 2012, 2:04 am

        GilGamesh

        Substantiate you claims. Support your thesis that Hamas is an off-shoot of the MB and not a creation (in part or in whole) of Israel.

        Support your claim that Hamas was created ‘by the MB.’

        Lets see your sources.

      • Sibiriak
        December 20, 2012, 3:49 am

        GilGamesh says:

        demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

        Demonizing and delegitimizing Zionist Israel (and Zionism in general) –not Jews or Judaism, per se.

        Okay, that’s basically true, putting aside the loaded “demonizing” term.

      • Ellen
        December 20, 2012, 4:08 am

        GGamesh, Talk Muslim Brotherhood-bogey-man stuff all you want.

        Without Israel’s logistical and financial backing, Hamas never ever would have come into existence. Ergo, it’s Israel’s creation.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2012, 5:16 am

        Israel did, for a very short time, help the charitable organization Hamas

        LOL! The Muslim Brotherhood was already buying weapons and assassinating people in the late 1940s and early 1950s when it was banned in countries like Egypt and Syria. It’s paramilitary wings were notorious for assassinating their political opponents. So we’re supposed to ignore the reports from the US officials in the UPI report and believe you when you say that the government of Israel was writing checks to a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970s, and that Israeli officials thought it was only a charity?

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 5:33 am

        Please, Jews in Israel had as much right to self determination as every other group there. and more so than others, the Heshimites for example. Has Israel lied or ended up not doing what they said they would in all cases ? sure they have. are they different from almost all other gov’t in this respect. not in the least.
        if you are concerned with looking bad Hostage then refrain from rhetorical bs like “How do you delegitimize a myth about a usurper who used deceit to obtain an inheritance and blessing?”

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 5:41 am

        @ Cliff first you substantiate your claim that I stole Palestinian land. Lets see your sources. Then I will be glad to provide mine.

      • Sibiriak
        December 20, 2012, 5:43 am

        Ellen:

        Without Israel’s logistical and financial backing, Hamas never ever would have come into existence. Ergo, it’s Israel’s creation.

        Israel aided Hamas in the past, but Hamas was an independent organization in its own right. It wasn’t *simply* a creation of Israel.

        The rise of Hamas took place in the wider context of the failures, defeats, and deligitimization of secular Arab/ Palestinian nationalism as well as the rise of a government-backed violent Jewish fundamentalist settler movement in the form of Gush Emunim.

        See:
        link to mondoweiss.net

        Stephen C. Pelletiere : “A Theory Of Fundamentalism: An Inquiry Into The Origin And Development Of The Movement” — 1995–

        link to au.af.mil

        One area in particular has been neglected; Hamas’s relationship with the Jewish fundamentalist movement. It can be argued that the latter turned Hamas into its course of violent activity.

        The author considers the Jewish fundamentalists briefly, then shows how the two groups are related. ETC.

        In 1974, the Arab League, meeting in Rabat, settled the question of Palestinian representation in Arafat’s favor. This meant that King Hussein lost his claim to the territories, a loss he felt bitterly. Although the King seemed to accept the League decision, his subsequent actions cast doubt on this. Most interesting was his decision–taken just after Rabat–to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to go into the territories, to administer a social welfare program there.

        This was not the same Brotherhood that fought against the
        regimes in Egypt. It was, rather, a branch of that organization, one that had been formed in Amman, and subsequently had grown to be quite powerful. Moreover, the Jordanian branch of the Brotherhood reckoned itself among the King’s staunchest supporters.63 Thus, when the Brothers went into the territories– in the mid-1970s–many assumed that this was an attempt by King Hussein to reassert his claim, by having the Brotherhood become
        his agent among the Palestinians.

        The PLO leadership certainly drew this conclusion and they
        seriously were alarmed by the move. In Black September, the Brothers had taken to the streets to fight against Arafat’s forces alongside the bedouin units. They could thus be expected to oppose the PLO inside the territories. Unfortunately for the PLO, since it had no infrastructure on the West Bank and in Gaza, there was not much it could do about it.

        Once inside the territories the Brotherhood created two
        institutions, an Islamic Center and Islamic University.64 These became bases from which to proselytize the Palestinian youth, who until then had been only nominally involved in political matters.

        The Brotherhood’s role was a lot like that of Tammany Hall in New York City politics in the late 1800s. It awarded material aid, arbitrated neighborhood disputes, and acted as mediator between the local community and the Israeli authorities.

        And, in the process of carrying out these functions, the Brotherhood made enemies. Not only PLO supporters but numerous Palestinian leftists opposed the spread of the fundamentalist doctrines.

        Then, in December 1987, the intifadah exploded into a
        veritable firestorm, with rioting that went on for weeks.65 The previously docile, noninvolved community of Palestinians was passive no longer. This was the beginning of a great popular revolt, caused in part by confrontations between settlers and natives.

        Now the need of the Palestinians for a defense force was
        urgent. The Brotherhood was the logical candidate for this, but it held back. The idea of such a force went against everything that the organization stood for. The Brothers’ idea was to proceed slowly, to educate the masses, and then ultimately to take power by peaceful means, but never to succumb to the lure of violence.66

        Now, as the fighting raged, more and more of the
        younger members of the group began to break away from the parent organization and join the street fighters. Finally, to stanch the defections, the Brotherhood leaders agreed to the formation of Hamas, a completely separate organization. Hamas advertized itself as the Brotherhood’s fighting arm.

        For a time, the IDF made no move to curb Hamas. Indeed, it seemed actually to encourage its activities. The reason for this was that–even in the early days of the intifadah–Hamas fought the PLO and the “leftists”; it spent as much time fighting them as it did the occupation authorities.

      • Cliff
        December 20, 2012, 7:05 am

        One has nothing to do with the other, Zionist.

        I will take your non-response response as typical Zionist intellectual cowardice.

        That being said, if you’re an Israeli Jew – you are a colonist living on the ruins of Palestinian society.

        Israel has no right to exist because States have no inherent right to exist.

        People have rights though. And to make a Jewish majority, Jewish terrorists (like those you admire and emulate) rid the land of the Arab majority.

        If you live in Israel – you are a colonist living on stolen land. The end.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2012, 7:13 am

        Please, Jews in Israel had as much right to self determination as every other group there. and more so than others, the Heshimites for example.

        The Hashemites trace their ancestry from Sayed Hashim ibn Abd Manaf who died and was buried in Gaza around 510 AD. FYI, his descendants included Haj Amin al-Husseini and Yasser Arafat, not just the members of the royal family of Transjordan.

        Self-determination only applies to the indigenous people within the boundaries of the actual territory that they inhabit. There were no Jews “in Israel” when Herzl started his political movement to establish a national home in Palestine “secured by public law”. There were hardly enough indigenous Jews there to require anything more than couple of micro-states like San Marino, Nauru and Palau. The Jewish communities of the four holy cities were obviously not entitled to govern the entire region.

        Prior to WWI there were no boundaries that prevented Arabs from taking-up residence anywhere in Arabia, i.e. “Arabistan”, the land of the Arabs as the Ottoman’s called it. The geographical end points of the Arab homeland (bilad al-Arab) lay between the Sinai and bilad al-Yaman (the Land of the South) to bilad al Sham (Syria) and Bilad al-Iraq (the Land of the River Banks). The jurisdiction of the “Arabistan Ordusu”, or the Provincial Ottoman Army for Arabia, included Cilicia, Syria, Mount Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and the southern Arabian Peninsula. It did NOT contain Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Prussia, & etc.

        See for example the account written by William Perry Fogg about his travels in Palestine in the book “Travels and adventures in Arabistan”; Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, page 85; and Caesar E. Farah, The Politics of Interventionism in Ottoman Lebanon, 1830-1861, I.B.Tauris, 2000, page 417.

      • RoHa
        December 20, 2012, 7:40 am

        “Jews in Israel had as much right to self determination as every other group there.”

        Jews in Palestine had as much right to take part in the self-determination of Palestine residents as non-Jews, but Jews as a group did not have a right of self-determination. The right is for residents of a territory, not for religious or ethnic groups.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2012, 7:45 am

        Has Israel lied or ended up not doing what they said they would in all cases ? sure they have. are they different from almost all other gov’t in this respect. not in the least.

        If you really think that’s the case, then you should stop shreying about the delegitimization of Israel. I’ve never claimed that it should receive a worse fate than the apartheid regime suffered when the Union of South Africa was liquidated.

        Everyone here knows perfectly well that no other State came into existence by asking for international assistance, including an enormous armed force under the control of a third party mandatory power, to establish its “national home” on an occupied foreign territory. The Zionist dreamed of an unconditional international charter to that effect, but were never granted one. In the process of establishing their state, the Zionists have violated more international laws, UN resolutions, and solemn agreements than any other state you can mention.

        Adam Keller wrote an article which summed-up the situation:

        And thus, to go back to the question posed at the beginning of this article: Is Israel singled out, by international civil society if not (yet?) by international diplomacy? Yes, it is. Is it unfair and biased? To my view, it is not. It is but a quite fair demand upon Israel to pay at least part of a long-overdue debt, and keep their part of a contract which Israel’s Founding Fathers solemnly signed.

        Yes, there are many countries whose conduct fully deserves condemnation – but none was given such a unique privilege as the Zionist movement was given, none had made such a binding obligation in return for being given such a privilege, and which it failed to keep.

        In recent years the State of Israel has been vociferously criticized for planting settlers in the occupied territories – which it can be argued that China is also doing in Tibet; and for killing civilians in the bombings of Gaza, which it can shown that Americans and Europeans are also doing in Iraq and Afghanistan; and for lethally raiding the Gaza Aid Flotilla, for which some apologists also tried to find various precedents and parallels. Yet Israel is singled out because it, and it alone, is in obvious default of a fundamental obligation, an obligation which was the condition for Israel coming into being in the first place.

        The plan which is now on offer – and had been on offer for quite a long time – gives Israel the possibility of settling this debt on quite comfortable conditions. The West Bank and Gaza Strip, which are to be given up and become the State of Palestine, are after all little more than 22% of what was Mandatory Palestine, and by giving them up Israel would be intentionally recognized as having at last discharged its debt and kept its obligation. But continued persistence in refusing to pay the debt – continuing it until the international balance of power has fundamentally changed, some years or decades from now – might put Israel at the risk of what happens to those who fail to pay their debts: going into liquidation.

        link to israeli-occupation.org

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2012, 8:40 am

        if you are concerned with looking bad Hostage then refrain from rhetorical bs like “How do you delegitimize a myth about a usurper who used deceit to obtain an inheritance and blessing?”

        You may think its rhetorical bs, but the settlers with the knitted kippahs don’t, and the point is inescapable. How many times can spiritual “Israel” usurp the lands and inheritance of another people on the bases of its own myths and legends, while protesting about its tarnished self-image? Jewish settlers blithely claim that God promised “The Land” to the children of the mythical patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but NOT to the Palestinians. link to youtube.com

        But we know there is considerable scientific evidence that many Palestinians and Jews share descent from common ancestors who lived long after the age of the Patriarchs. On the other hand, the only “historical connection” that modern Zionists could possibly claim to much of the territory, is that during the era of the first or second commonwealths, the ancient Jews ignored the prohibitions in the Torah against taking so much as one foot step from the inheritance God had given to Esau as a consolation. Today that territory comprises about 60 percent of the State of Israel. See Deuteronomy 2:1-8. That same chapter lays down a similar prohibition regarding the Land of Moab and Ammon east of the Jordan and says that not one foot step of those territories will be part of the inheritance of the children of Israel.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2012, 9:09 am

        Israel aided Hamas in the past, but Hamas was an independent organization in its own right. It wasn’t *simply* a creation of Israel.

        That misses the point entirely. Private organizations in the occupied territories had to be registered with the Israeli authorities. The UPI report that I cited explained that: “Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement’s spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma al Islami, which widened its base of supporters and sympathizers by religious propaganda and social work.”

        That same report also noted that Israel was providing direct and indirect financial support to the organization at that same time. There’s no doubt at all that the co-founders of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi were members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Rantissi had even joined the Egyptian branch while he was residing there.

      • Sibiriak
        December 20, 2012, 9:46 am

        Hostage,

        The UPI report that I cited explained that…

        You seem to have missed my point entirely.

        I don’t take issue with anything in that report. In fact, I cited it myself some time ago as evidence of Israel’s support of Hamas.

        Nothing in that report, however, supports the notion that Hamas was “Israel’s creation”, plain and simple.

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 9:54 am

        @ Cliff
        but I’m not an Israeli Jew, yet you accused me of living on stolen land. I will take the fact that you made accusations about me without knowing the facts as typical of people who are angry and need to rant but lack the intellectual curiosity to actually find out the facts.

        Now for my proof about Hamas. It’s in their founding charter
        article two states:
        “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam.”
        you’re welcome

      • Sibiriak
        December 20, 2012, 10:08 am

        Hostage,

        Israel was providing direct and indirect financial support to the organization.

        Which is exactly the point I’ve made in a number of posts.

        For example, see:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Sibiriak (Dec. 10) :

        And let us not forget that Israel supported Hamas in its formative stages:

        link to upi.com

        Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

        Israel ‘aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),’ said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. Israel’s support for Hamas ‘was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,’ said a former senior CIA official.”

        After 1967, a great part of the success of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood was due to their activities among the refugees of the Gaza Strip. The cornerstone of the Islamic movements success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da’wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge.

        “Social influence grew into political influence,” first in the Gaza Strip, then on the West Bank, said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

        …According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel.

        So, tell me– what point it is you think I missed?

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 10:12 am

        @ Ellen, nonsense by your logic the only militant Palestinian groups fighting Israel would have to have been created by Israel. ergo since there are many militant Palestinian groups that Israel never supported that are in existence today you are wrong.

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 10:16 am

        @ Ellen
        where did I “Talk Muslim Brotherhood-bogey-man stuff” and why did you accuse me of such instead of actually addressing what I wrote in my response to you?

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 10:19 am

        so then you would agree with me that the Heshimites, who hadn’t even lived in Jordan had no right to that country RoHa ?

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 10:23 am

        @ Cliff and one more thing where did I claim that Hamas was “created” by the MB. Being an offshoot and being created by are two very separate things. Clearly you need to change what I write in order to provide even the weakest of rebuttals.

      • Ellen
        December 20, 2012, 1:12 pm

        Sibiriak, correct. Hamas already existed. Rather, it never would have survived and flourished without Israel’s extensive financial and logistical support in the early days.

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 2:08 pm

        @Hostage “Self-determination only applies to the indigenous people within the boundaries of the actual territory that they inhabit.”
        The Ottomans called it Arabistan but it was not part of the Ottoman Empire. the territory that became Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and the WB and Gaza was known as Suriye and contained many Jews.
        link to waitmeturkey.com

      • eljay
        December 20, 2012, 2:37 pm

        >> The Ottomans called it Arabistan but it was not part of the Ottoman Empire. the territory that became Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and the WB and Gaza was known as Suriye

        According to the map you linked to, the Levant was called “Filistin”.

        >> … and contained many Jews.

        And those Filistinian Jews, along with all non-Jewish Filistinians, were entitled to self-determination – and equal rights – as Filistinians (or whatever other nationality they self-determined themselves into).

        People of the Jewish faith residing in other parts of the world were not entitled to migrate to Filistin and set up an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • RoHa
        December 20, 2012, 7:47 pm

        “the territory that became Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and the WB and Gaza was known as Suriye and contained many Jews.”

        And no-one would object to them taking part in self-determination processes as residents of Suriye, along with Christian, Mulsim, and Baha’i residents.

      • Hostage
        December 20, 2012, 8:43 pm

        The Ottomans called it Arabistan but it was not part of the Ottoman Empire. the territory that became Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and the WB and Gaza was known as Suriye and contained many Jews.

        Experts on the subject of the Jews of the Ottoman Empire, like Avigdor Levy, estimate there may have been as few as 30,000 Jews scattered in the entire region of Suriye, from Damascus to Hebron at the beginning of the 16th century. Certainly not enough to justify a separate Jewish state in all of the region of Palestine based on the principle self-determination. They certain did exist as small semi-autonomous communities that could be considered as entities comparable to micro-states or city states.

        You provided a link to a map of modern-day origin. But in 1884, a member of the Sultan’s entourage in the Yildiz Palace, Ahmed Hamdi, complained that the Ottomans didn’t even possess a map of the southern deserts of Palestine (bilad al Sham or Syria). See the discussion on pages 53 & 54 of Johann Büssow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872-1908 link to books.google.com

        BTW, the Ottoman’s had a military empire. According to historians who specialize in the Ottoman period, like the Shaws, the entire region composed of Cilicia, Syria, Mount Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and the southern Arabian Peninsula were under the jurisdiction of the “Arabistan Ordusu”, i.e. the Provincial Ottoman Army of Arabia. A number of sources attest to the fact that the inhabitants called the region “the Land of the Arabs” (bilad al-Arab) and that its major divisions were bilad al Sham (Syria), bilad al-Yaman (the Land of the southern Peninsula), and Bilad al-Iraq (the Land of the River Banks). Eventually, the peninsula was called jazirat al-Arab, after the term bilad al-Yaman became more closely connected with the southwestern part of the peninsula. See for example Kamal Suleiman Salibi, “A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered”, University of California Press, 1988, ISBN 0520071964, pages 60-61; and George Antonius, The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement, Hamish Hamilton, 1938.

        The British had trucial agreements that established protectorates in coastal areas of the Gulf states like Yemen, Kuwait, & etc., but even those regimes deferred to the Ottoman Caliphate in many areas of governance.

        The claim that Syria or Arabistan were not part of the Ottoman Empire is unhistorical. The Sultan appointed the Sharif of Mecca and the inhabitants of the entire region, including Hashemites like the Shaif Hussein and the Emir Abdullah were represented or served on the Ottoman council of state or in the Ottoman Parliament.

        Here are a few other sources, in addition to the books mentioned above, which illustrate that Palestine was considered an integral part of Turkish Arabistan (bilad al Arab):
        *Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries “Palestine: the reality”, Hyperion Press, 1939, page 4
        *Jane Degras, The Communist International 1919-1943, Taylor & Francis Group, page 79

      • sardelapasti
        December 21, 2012, 12:49 am

        “… Zionist Israel (and Zionism in general)”
        You’re being redundant. There are no other sorts. Nor can there be. “Israel” is the fake name of the colonial abscess, based at a minimum on racial segregation; if it weren’t Zionist it could not exist.

      • GilGamesh
        December 21, 2012, 6:23 am

        You have all objected. Read Hostages original post on the matter. He set up a rule in which he thought Jews were not eligible but Hashimites were. Turns out my map proved he had it exactly backwards and according to his own rules Jews had the right to self determination in the land of the former Ottoman empire that was being split up, but Hashimites never even lived there.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2012, 6:23 am

        so then you would agree with me that the Heshimites, who hadn’t even lived in Jordan had no right to that country RoHa ?

        The first problem with that claim is that the districts of Aqaba and Ma’an were annexed to Transjordan from Hedjaz in 1925. So, both Transjordan and Saudi Arabia were successor states. Representatives of Hedjaz were signatories of the post war treaties. Abdullah acquired Transjordanian citizenship in exactly the same way that the other bedouin living in the Arab homeland did. They became citizens of the newly created states that acquired territory that had been separated from Turkey. In that case, by operation of the 1928 Citizenship Law. Any persons habitually residing in the territory acquired from the former Ottoman Empire under the terms of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne were considered citizens retroactively (as of the date the Mandate entered into force):

        “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”

        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

      • RoHa
        December 22, 2012, 8:59 pm

        “according to his own rules Jews had the right to self determination in the land of the former Ottoman empire”

        Hostage can defend his own rules, but the Jews of the former Ottoman empire did not have a right to self determination qua Jews, but as residents in the land. This means that they had equal rights to non-Jews to take part in the process of deciding what was to be done with the territory. They did not have the right to decide unilaterally to carve off a piece of the territory and set up a Jewish state there. Partition can only be morally acceptable if it is by mutual agreement between all parties. Since the majority of the population clearly did not want any sort of partition, no partition would be morally legitimate.

        Foreign Jews, of course, had no rights to self-determination there at all.

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2012, 2:54 am

        You have all objected. Read Hostages original post on the matter. He set up a rule in which he thought Jews were not eligible but Hashimites were.

        Your original post contained rubbish about “Jews in Israel” – as if such a place existed when Herzl founded his movement – and tried to portray Arabs living in Arabia as foreigners. That’s a propaganda failure.

        Now you are back making false claims about what I said about the Jews living in the region. I actually compared them to several UN member States, which are self-determining entities. But I noted they did not inhabit the entire region or have a right to govern all of Palestine – just themselves and the territory they actually inhabited:
        1) Self-determination only applies to the indigenous people within the boundaries of the actual territory that they inhabit . . . There were hardly enough indigenous Jews there to require anything more than couple of micro-states like San Marino, Nauru and Palau. The Jewish communities of the four holy cities were obviously not entitled to govern the entire region (December 20, 2012 at 7:13 am);
        2) There were not enough Jews to justify a separate Jewish state in all of the region of Palestine based on the principle self-determination (December 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm); and
        3) They certain did exist as small semi-autonomous communities that could be considered as entities comparable to micro-states or city states (December 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm);

      • Hostage
        December 23, 2012, 3:50 am

        but the Jews of the former Ottoman empire did not have a right to self determination qua Jews, but as residents in the land. This means that they had equal rights to non-Jews to take part in the process of deciding what was to be done with the territory. They did not have the right to decide unilaterally to carve off a piece of the territory and set up a Jewish state there.

        No, but I’ve commented here in the past that the Ottoman’s had a multinational state and that Jewish communities were granted local autonomy. They were largely exempt from military conscription; had their own religious and secular councils and courts; owned communal properties; and operated their own schools. Their religious leaders were authorized to collect state and communal taxes and a Jewish religious leader, the Hakham Bashi in Istanbul, served as the liaison between them and the Sublime Porte. You can read about that in works edited by Avigdor Levy or in the contemporary editions of the Jewish Encyclopedia.

      • GilGamesh
        December 23, 2012, 2:43 pm

        @Hostage your wrote “Your original post contained rubbish about “Jews in Israel” – as if such a place existed when Herzl founded his movement – and tried to portray Arabs living in Arabia as foreigners.”

        There were indigenous Jews living in what became Israel and way more in the Ottoman territory called Suriye.

        I didn’t say all Arabs were foreigners I said Hashimites were. You can’t on one hand say the Palestinians were a distinct people and so were entitled to a separate country, but when it suits your purpose claim Hashimites were Arabs, and therefore entitled to a country carved out of the Ottoman Empire even though they had never lived there before. That they annexed part of there original territory has no baring on your original rule which you are now reneging on.

        Remember you wrote”Self-determination only applies to the indigenous people within the boundaries of the actual territory that they inhabit .”

        face it you were hoisted by you own petard Hostage.

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2012, 5:33 pm

        There were indigenous Jews living in what became Israel and way more in the Ottoman territory called Suriye.

        But Israel did not exist at the time.

        You can’t on one hand say the Palestinians were a distinct people and so were entitled to a separate country, but when it suits your purpose claim Hashimites were Arabs, and therefore entitled to a country carved out of the Ottoman Empire

        Why not? One can be European and still be distinct from Germans or Italians or French,

      • RoHa
        December 23, 2012, 7:04 pm

        Hostage, of course I am talking about moral rights, not legal rights. I leave the legal stuff to you.

        “Jewish communities were granted local autonomy. … the liaison between them and the Sublime Porte.”

        But they were still terribly oppressed and persecuted, weren’t they? After all, Turks are just as inherently anti-Semitic as the rest of us.

      • Hostage
        December 24, 2012, 6:52 am

        There were indigenous Jews living in what became Israel and way more in the Ottoman territory called Suriye.

        1) The stated aim of Herzl’s movement, according to the Basel program, was to establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine, not Suriye;
        2) The Zionists always try to make a demographic mountain out of a molehill by including the Jewish population scattered throughout Syria. But they never cite a shred of evidence that those communities ever wanted or proposed a political union with the communities in Palestine.

        I didn’t say all Arabs were foreigners I said Hashimites were.

        And I pointed out that was factually incorrect. The Allied powers granted the British full powers of administration “within such boundaries as may be fixed by them”. In 1925, the British High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, ordered the annexation of Ma’an and Aqaba to Transjordan. They were formerly integral parts of the homeland of the Hashemite Kingdom of Hejaz. Transjordan was one of the newly created states which was included in the British Mandate for Palestine. Syria was not. In addition, I pointed out that the patriarch of the Hashemites is buried in Gaza, Palestine and that many of his descendants were indigenous to the regions that were eventually included within the boundaries laid down by the mandatory power, e.g. Abdullah of Transjordan and Haj Amin al-Husseini of Palestine.

        You can’t on one hand say the Palestinians were a distinct people and so were entitled to a separate country, but when it suits your purpose claim Hashimites were Arabs, and therefore entitled to a country carved out of the Ottoman Empire even though they had never lived there before.

        You’ve got that backwards. The Hashemites were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and large parts of the new Palestine Mandate were heavily populated territories that were carved out of their Hashemite Kingdom of the Hedjaz.

        I have always commented that it is a totally mistaken view to assume that the “right of self-determination” can only be exercised by establishing an independent state. When the mandate was terminated, the emancipated peoples of Arab Palestine and Transjordan had every right according to the applicable customary international law to form a new political union of their own – and they did. The Jewish communities of the Ottoman Empire never expressed any such desire. The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations makes it perfectly clear that self-determination includes unions between two or more peoples:

        The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

        Remember you wrote”Self-determination only applies to the indigenous people within the boundaries of the actual territory that they inhabit .”

        face it you were hoisted by you own petard Hostage.

        In fact, all of the peoples I’ve been talking about were habitual residents and considered indigenous to the territories that were included within the boundaries of the Palestine mandate. Once again, Prussia, Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, Moldavia, the Ukraine, and Russia were not. It’s absurd to argue that one of the Emirs of the Hashemite districts of Maan and Aqaba was somehow a foreigner in the successor state which acquired those territories.

      • GilGamesh
        December 24, 2012, 11:28 am

        what about the word “became” as in became Israel don’t you understand?

        yes but you can’t say the Spanish aren’t entitled to rights in France because they are not French, but then say the French are entitled to rights in Spain because they are European. That’s what Hostage was trying to do with Arabs and Hashemites by saying even though Hashemites had never lived in what became Jordan because they were Arabs.

      • GilGamesh
        December 24, 2012, 12:46 pm

        oh so the allied powers can annex areas to the former Ottoman empire and that makes it legitimate for the Hashemites to claim a whole area way bigger than that for a country. But when the discussion of Jews getting land based on British promises and area larger than their population would seem to be entitled to then there are different rules Hostage?

        You wrote “I pointed out that the patriarch of the Hashemites is buried in Gaza, ” Yes and the patriarch of the Jewish people are buried in Hebron are you willing to say that means all Jews are indigenous to the area? or is this another example of you making rules for one side that don’t apply to the other?
        Are you seriously trying to claim that the Israel the indigenous community was against the self determination that came with independence. The Yemenite Association for example was part of the first Zionist Assembly in Palestine in 1920. Now show me evidence that the Palestinian community express a desire for a separate Palestinian nation before Israeli independence.

        You wrote:”It’s absurd to argue that one of the Emirs of the Hashemite districts of Maan and Aqaba was somehow a foreigner in the successor state which acquired those territories.”
        it was you who argued that only groups that lived in a territory had the right to claim a piece of it for their aspirations of self determination. Now your saying that land annexed after the fact that is outside that territory gives them the same right? That’s really whats absurd.

      • Hostage
        December 25, 2012, 8:04 am

        That’s what Hostage was trying to do with Arabs and Hashemites by saying even though Hashemites had never lived in what became Jordan because they were Arabs.

        Of course, you are being completely dishonest when you try to claim the Hashemites had never lived in Maan or Aqaba. That territory from their Hashemite Kingdom of Hedjaz did become Jordan.

      • Hostage
        December 25, 2012, 9:19 am

        oh so the allied powers can annex areas to the former Ottoman empire and that makes it legitimate for the Hashemites to claim a whole area way bigger than that for a country.

        Prior to the Arab revolt, the Hashemites were among the local Ottoman religious and secular officials who helped govern the territory in question in the region of Aqaba and Maan. In addition, the Emir Feisal commanded the forces that liberated Aqaba (1917) and Amman (1918) from the Turkish forces during the Arab war of independence.

        it was you who argued that only groups that lived in a territory had the right to claim a piece of it for their aspirations of self determination. Now your saying that land annexed after the fact that is outside that territory gives them the same right? That’s really whats absurd.

        Using your tortured logic, George Washington had no business in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania or crossing the Delaware river to attack Trenton, New Jersey. I don’t suppose that his role as President of a union between Virginia and 12 other colonies was a legal fiction, just because some territories were annexed afterward. That has nothing to do with whether or not it was a valid example of self-determination.

        Once again the Arabs were indigenous and had migrated freely in the region between Aleppo and Yemen for centuries. The Hashemites were a notable family and were not considered foreign interlopers anywhere in those parts of the Arabian homeland. Even after the French Mandate ended, there was still a broad base of support in places like Aleppo for a political and economic union or federation with the Hashemites, e.g. link to books.google.com

      • GilGamesh
        December 25, 2012, 10:48 am

        I said Hashemites never lived in the part of Jordan that was part of the original mandate and only annexed their other territories which were not part of the mandate after they took over the area that was part of the mandate. Now tell me about your honesty when you originally claimed the Hashamites as part of the territory that was the Ottoman empire had a right to a country when the area was being divided up and than tried to say that land annexed from outside the territory after the fact made it permissible. You may have gotten me on semantics but I got you on changing your rules for morality after you were proved wrong.

      • talknic
        December 25, 2012, 11:02 am

        GilGamesh

        “oh so the allied powers can annex areas to the former Ottoman empire”

        The allied powers didn’t annex anything to or from the former Ottoman empire. The people of the territory that became TransJordan wanted independence. Abdullah al-Hussein lived in the region, serving in the Ottoman legislature in 1909. Transjordan was a British protectorate ruled by the Hashemite dynasty from April 1921.

        The British fostered independence and TransJordan was declared and finally recognized as independent in 1946.

        “But when the discussion of Jews getting land based on British promises and area larger than their population would seem to be entitled to then there are different rules”

        The British promised a homeland. Which Jews would have got under the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

        Instead of the British being able to foster independence per the Mandate for Palestine, which would have given the right of Jews to live anywhere in Palestine, the Zionist Federation did everything in its power to prevent it. The people of the territory of Palestine were not consulted about partition under UNGA res 181

        Palestine was eventually partitioned by default of Israel being declared and recognized as independent. Now Israelis are prohibited from settling anywhere in Palestine.

        “.. show me evidence that the Palestinian community express a desire for a separate Palestinian nation before Israeli independence”

        2. The Arabs have always asked for their freedom and independence. On the outbreak of the First World War, and when the Allies declared that they were fighting for the liberation of peoples, the Arabs joined them and fought on their side with a view to realising their national aspirations and obtaining their independence. England pledged herself to recognise the independence of the Arab countries in Asia, including Palestine. The Arabs played a remarkable part in the achievement of final victory and the Allies have admitted this.

      • Sibiriak
        December 25, 2012, 12:49 pm

        Talknic:

        Instead of the British being able to foster independence per the Mandate for Palestine, which would have given the right of Jews to live anywhere in Palestine.

        The mandate envisioned a Jewish homeland, but not equally Palestinian self-determination.

        The Mandate for Palestine included the entire text of the Balfour Declaration, named for the British foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, notably its provisions relating to the establishment in Palestine of a “national home” for the Jewish people. It included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 22) relating to the obligations of the mandatory power to foster and support this endeavor. In both documents, the Palestinians were never once cited by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arabs, and were referred to only as “non-Jewish communities,” possessing solely civil and religious rights; their national and political rights were mentioned in neither.

        By contrast, national rights were ascribed to the “Jewish people,” and the League of Nations Mandate made it a solemn responsibility of Great Britain to help the Jews create national institutions. The mandatory power was specifically called upon to extend all possible assistance to the growth and development of this national entity, notably by encouraging Jewish immigration and “close settlement on the land.” The tiny Jewish community of Palestine, composing about 10 percent of the country’s population at the time, was thereby placed in a distinctly privileged position.

        By contrast, the Arab majority, constituting 90 percent of Palestine’s population, was effectively ignored as a national or political entity.

        Rashid Khalidi, “The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood”

        “.. show me evidence that the Palestinian community express a desire for a separate Palestinian nation before Israeli independence”

        Palestinian nationalism emerged long before Israeli independence, but was continuously impeded and suppressed by the British:

        From the beginning of the Mandate and until the end of the 1930s, the British obstinately rejected the principle of majority rule, or any measure that would have given a Palestinian Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.

        This seemed to change with the White Paper of 1939, whereby, facing the 1936–39 revolt and the looming clouds of World War II, Britain finally accepted that it was simply not possible to suppress the Arab majority in order to make possible the growth of a Jewish majority, such that a “Jewish national home” would mean Zionist domination of Palestine.

        However, even when the British appeared to grant the form of a concession on this point in the 1939 White Paper, which envisaged an INDEPENDENT PALESTINE after ten years, the cabinet discussions at which this initiative was decided upon reveal the government of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to have been fully intent on withholding the substance of any such concession to the Palestinians.

        Rashid Khalidi

      • Sibiriak
        December 25, 2012, 12:56 pm

        GilGamesh,

        You may have a point about the Hashemites, but I really don’t think that helps you with your argument about Jewish rights to a state in Palestine. Those seem like too separate issues. (And two wrongs don’t make a right.)

      • Hostage
        December 25, 2012, 2:51 pm

        I said Hashemites never lived in the part of Jordan that was part of the original mandate and only annexed their other territories which were not part of the mandate after they took over the area that was part of the mandate.

        As usual, you have your facts backwards. The Emir Feisal had travelled to Damascus in 1914 and met with the leaders of al-Fatat and Al-‘Ahd. They backed the negotiations between the Hashemites and the Allied powers regarding a future independent Arab state or confederation of Arab States and outlined their position in the Damascus Protocol. The Sykes-Picot agreement included Transjordan in the region designated for the new Arab State.

        All of the territory of Transjordan was annexed to the British Mandate after the Syrian General Congress had declared Feisal their King. He was already residing in Damascus at that time, and had been governing OETA East as part of a written agreement that cited the Sykes-Picot line and the “Arab State”. It included all of the territory Feisal had liberated in what later became the new state of Transjordan. Palestine was strictly limited to the area under actual British occupation after Allenby’s forces withdrew from Syria. See the terms of the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″ that was handed by Mr. Lloyd George to M. Clemenceau and placed before the Versailles Conference.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Feisal was also the leader of the Palestinian national movement. He had the backing of the notable families of Palestine too. In fact, the future Mufti, Hajj Amin Al-Husseni, worked as the liaison official in Damascus between the Arab nationalist supporters of Faisal who were preparing for the General Syrian Congress (June and July 1919) and the Palestinian delegation who eventually named Faisal their King. See Philp Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem:
        Al-Hajj Amin Al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement, Columbia University Press, 1992, page 15
        link to books.google.com

        The Allies were still negotiating the territory that would be included in the mandates after the overthrow of Faisal’s Syrian Kingdom in July of 1920. That was several months after the San Remo Conference (April 1920). Historian Mary Wilson wrote that immediately after Faisal was overthrown:

        The British suddenly wanted to know “what is the “Syria” for which the French received a mandate at San Remo? and does it include Transjordania?” Hubert Young to Ambassador Hardinge (Paris), 27 July 1920, FO 371/5254

        — cited in Mary Christina Wilson, “King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan”, Cambridge, 1988, page 44

        In fact, the British did not add the territory liberated by Feisal to their Palestine Mandate, until after the Emir Abdullah had taken-up residence in the territory liberated by his brother and had threatened to evict the French from Damascus. Churchill negotiated a compromise during the Cairo Conference.

        On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Palestine Mandate for the first time. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate, including the territory of Transjordan, was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922. See Aaron S. Klieman, “Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921″, Johns Hopkins, 1970, ISBN 0-8018-1125-2, pages 228–234

        So the Hashemites, had the support of Arabs living throughout Syria and Palestine and were actually living in the territories that they had helped liberate before they were added to the Palestine Mandate.

      • Hostage
        December 25, 2012, 3:42 pm

        You may have gotten me on semantics but I got you on changing your rules for morality after you were proved wrong.

        Then you have a fairly bizarre outlook on “morality”. Even Zionist historians agree that the Hashemites were fully engaged in regional and provincial politics – and that they were chosen by the Arab societies of Syria and Mesopotamia to negotiate with the great powers in order to obtain support for Arab independence, in line with the Damascus Protocol of 1914. The aim of the Arabs was to establish a new Arab state or confederation of Arab states.

        Palestinians, like Hajj Amin Al-Husseni supported the appointment of the Hashemites to govern the new states. The Palestinian delegation to the General Syrian Congress, which backed the selection of Faisal to be King of Syria and Palestine, reserved seats for representatives of the Christian and Jewish minority communities too. The future Mufti even served as the liaison official. There was nothing “immoral” about the Arab people of an Ottoman province selecting fellow Arab inhabitants, like the Hashemites, to serve as the leaders of a new regional Arab state or confederation of states. In fact, it was a classic example of peoples exercising their right of self-determination. Your contention that inhabitants of Ottoman era Hedjaz were foreigners in the rest of Arabia is anachronistic Zionist propaganda.

      • YoungMassJew
        December 25, 2012, 4:19 pm

        @ Mooser,
        Great Comment!

      • eljay
        December 25, 2012, 8:23 pm

        >> GilGamesh @ December 25, 2012 at 10:48 am

        So…you’re saying “everyone back to within Partition borders”, yes? If so, I agree with you. If not, why not?

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2012, 3:39 am

        The mandate envisioned a Jewish homeland

        When will these jobs stop with the homeland BS? The word “homeland” appears nowhere in the mandate , LON, San Remo or Balfour.

        Secondly, Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nations said that

        “The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, & that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 4:44 am

        Shingo,

        When will these jobs stop with the homeland BS? The word “homeland” appears nowhere in the mandate , LON, San Remo or Balfour

        The term used is “national home for the Jewish People”. Perhaps that has some meaning in contradiction to a “a Jewish homeland”, but I didn’t for me in the sentence I wrote. If you prefer “national home for the Jewish People”, fine, but it doesn’t change my point one iota—that point being the one spelled out by Rashid Khalidi:

        The Mandate for Palestine included the entire text of the Balfour Declaration, named for the British foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, notably its provisions relating to the establishment in Palestine of a “national home” for the Jewish people. It included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 22) relating to the obligations of the mandatory power to foster and support this endeavor.

        [...] national rights were ascribed to the “Jewish people,” and the League of Nations Mandate made it a solemn responsibility of Great Britain to help the Jews create national institutions. The mandatory power was specifically called upon to extend all possible assistance to the growth and development of this national entity, notably by encouraging Jewish immigration and “close settlement on the land.” ETC.

        In Khalidi’s view, the Mandate was effectively an “Iron Cage” impeding Palestinians’ national aspirations and right to self-determination, while assisting Jewish aspirations.

        there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity

        No doubt. And within that entity, the British actively helped Jews construct a “national home for the Jewish people,” as the Mandate prescribed.

        By contrast, the Arab majority, constituting 90 percent of Palestine’s population, was effectively ignored as a national or political entity.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 5:34 am

        In both documents, the Palestinians were never once cited by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arabs, and were referred to only as “non-Jewish communities,” possessing solely civil and religious rights; their national and political rights were mentioned in neither.

        Rashid Khalidi is really only repeating Zionist propaganda about the failure of the Mandate to mention political rights of the non-Jewish population. The Allied Powers were justifiably concerned about the weasel wording of the Balfour Declaration. So they addressed its defects in the text of the San Remo Resolution (that Zionists prattle-on so much about). It stipulated that:

        It was agreed –

        (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

        link to cfr.org

        The ICJ noted in its advisory opinion that the rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time”. The Court cited Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as one of the more recent examples:

        In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

        So, the exercise of both civil and political rights, free from any discrimination on religious grounds, was one of the rights “hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

        In 1906, the Young Turks had acknowledged that the free exercise of religion had been accorded to the various nationalities under the millet system:

        10. The free exercise of the religious privileges which have been accorded to different nationalities will remain intact.

        link to fordham.edu

        The Court specifically noted that those “existing rights” were the subject of safeguarding clauses regarding freedom of movement and management of the Holy sites (contained in Article 13 of the Mandate) and that an entire Chapter of the UN Partition Plan had been devoted to the subject of protections for religious and minority groups “in conformity with existing rights”.
        See:
        *The text of Article LXII link to fordham.edu
        *Para. 129 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion
        link to icj-cij.org
        *Article 13 of The Palestine Mandate
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        It is also a mistaken view to suppose that Palestinians were not mentioned as such in the “Mandate for Palestine”. In fact, all of the communities were identified as Palestinian ones. Article 7 established the requirement for a new Palestinian nationality law in line with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne:

        NATIONALITY.
        ARTICLE 30.
        Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.

        See
        Article 7 of the Palestine Mandate
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne
        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 6:15 am

        Hostage,

        Rashid Khalidi is really only repeating Zionist propaganda about the failure of the Mandate to mention political rights of the non-Jewish population.

        So Khalidi is “only” repeating Zionist propaganda? That seems rather far-fetched, to put it mildly. I don’t see how his argument that the British fundamentally favored Jewish aspirations and suppressed valid Palestinian aspirations is in any way pro-Zionist.

        More importantly, Khalidi’s whole “Iron Cage” argument is based on actual British interpretations, goals and *actions*, not simply on what is or is not mentioned in various political/legal texts, and how those texts could or should be interpreted.

        Khalidi:

        While the Mandate’s twenty-eight articles included nine on antiquities, not one related to the Palestinian people per se: they were variously and vaguely defined as a “section of the population,” “natives,” or “peoples and communities.” As far as Great Britain and the League of Nations were concerned, they were definitely not a people.4

        In consequence of the imposition of this peculiar constitutional structure, the Palestinian people and their leaders faced a cruel dilemma throughout the Mandate period. Starting soon after the British occupation, they repeatedly pressed Great Britain to grant them the national rights, notably self-determination, and the political rights, notably representative government, they justifiably considered were their due. They claimed these rights on the basis of the American president Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points,5 Article 4 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,6 Allied promises to support Arab independence during World War I,7 and their natural rights as a people. Each time they did so, however, they were told that they were obliged to accept the terms of the Mandate as a

        But these terms denied the Palestinians any of these rights, or at best subordinated them completely to the national rights of the Jewish people. Acceptance of the Mandate by the Palestinians would thus have meant their recognition of the privileged national rights of the Jewish community in what they saw as their own country, and formal acceptance of their own legally subordinate position, indeed of their nonexistence as a people.

        This was something that the Palestinians felt they could not do without denying their own rights, their own national narrative, and the evidence of their own eyes, which told them that Palestine was an Arab country and belonged to them, and to them alone.

        Perfectly illustrating the situation the Palestinians faced, the British colonial secretary, Lord Passfield, meeting with a Palestinian delegation visiting London in May 1930, responded to its demand for a parliament “elected by the people in proportion to their numbers, irrespective of race or creed” as follows:

        ” Of course, this Parliament as you call it that you ask for, would have to have as its duty the carrying out of the Mandate…. the Mandatory power, that is the British government, could not create any council except within the terms of the Mandate and for the purpose of carrying out the Mandate. That is the limit of our power…. Would you mind considering our difficulty that we cannot create a Parliament which would not be responsible and feel itself responsible for carrying out the Mandate?8″

        [...] Passfield’s response is most interesting for showing in the starkest terms the almost inescapable dilemma produced for the Palestinians by the Mandate system fashioned by the British, and the difficulties that the Palestinian leadership of the day faced in trying to cut this formidable Gordian knot.

        As with comparisons in the social and economic spheres, it is all too easy for historians who mistakenly start from the false assumption that the two sides were on an equal footing vis-à-vis the British (or even worse, that the British favored the Arabs) to underestimate the extent of these legal and constitutional obstacles to the realization of Palestinian aspirations, and the difficulty of overcoming them. They may also fail to appreciate the tenaciousness and sheer doggedness of British governments throughout most of the Mandate period in resisting the principle of responsible, representative government in Palestine, and any constitutional modification that would have made this possible.

        From the beginning of the Mandate and until the end of the 1930s, the British obstinately rejected the principle of majority rule, or any measure that would have given a Palestinian Arab majority control over successive British governments simply were not prepared to countenance any progress toward Palestinian self-determination, or toward the linked principle of representative government, that would enable the country’s overwhelming Arab majority to place meaningful obstacles in the way of the Zionist project. They were committed to holding fast to such a position at least until immigration brought about a Jewish majority, at which stage it would become a moot point and perhaps democracy could be admitted.

        [...]In order to protect the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine against the opposition of the majority of the population, the British were obliged to keep the reins of central state power in the mandatory administration entirely in their hands, even as they allowed the yishuv virtually total internal autonomy. This autonomy included full-fledged representative institutions, internationally recognized diplomatic representation abroad via the Jewish Agency, and control of most of the other apparatuses of internal self-government, amounting to a para-state within, dependent upon, but separate from, the mandatory state.

        Palestine thus represented a striking anomaly among the Class A League of Nations mandates.

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2012, 6:44 am

        If you prefer “national home for the Jewish People”, fine, but it doesn’t change my point one iota—that point being the one spelled out by Rashid Khalidi:

        Actually it does, because as Hostage has pointed out, Balfour himself stated clearly that “national home” was not meant to be interpreted as a Jewish state.

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2012, 6:50 am

        I don’t see how his argument that the British fundamentally favored Jewish aspirations and suppressed valid Palestinian aspirations is in any way pro-Zionist.

        Read again what Hostage wrote. He stated that the Allied Powers were justifiably concerned about the weasel wording of the Balfour Declaration and made amendments to protect the rights “hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

        So while Bafour was clearly a claous racist, the Allied Powers saw right through it.

        As far as Great Britain and the League of Nations were concerned, they were definitely not a people.4

        Clearly he is wrong.

        Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nation stated that:

        The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, & that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labor the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”

      • talknic
        December 26, 2012, 7:34 am

        Sibiriak LOL

        Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

        Guess it’s not in your brief to read such things, it tugs at another of the easily unraveled strings of the holey old Hasbara, all of which are BS.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 7:43 am

        You may have a point about the Hashemites, but I really don’t think that helps you with your argument about Jewish rights to a state in Palestine.

        No he doesn’t have a point. George Washington didn’t limit his military or political ambitions to the Virginia colony, any more than Simon Bolivar limited his military or political ambitions to Venezuela. The exercise of the right of self-determination of peoples has always included the right to create new regional confederations of states or federal unions between other peoples. But that is not what the Zionists proposed for the persecuted inhabitants of Eastern Europe. They never even considered a new Jewish state on the continent that they inhabited. The goal of Zionist propaganda is to make it appear sinister when Arabs behave in exactly the same fashion as other nationalists, like Washington and Bolivar. Both of those men allied themselves with the other great powers of their day and the peoples of neighboring states. They utilized thousands of foreign mercenaries to obtain the independence of like-minded peoples living hundreds of miles beyond the existing colonial or administrative boundaries of their day and age.

        Why don’t you address the paragraphs in the “Resolution of the General Syrian Congress” of July 1919 about the Hashemite Emir Feisal: i.e. the feeling of the Syrians and Palestinians about his role in leading the Arab forces in their war of independence, and the intent of the Congress to establish a completely new Arab State, which included territory south of the existing Syrian-Hedjazi line? The official report of the Allied (King-Crane) Commission, that was sent to inquire about the wishes of the inhabitants, concluded that was a valid expression of the will of the Syrian and Palestinian peoples.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        William Cleveland notes that in “The Arab Awakening”, George Antonius had raised the subject of the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Damascus Protocol of 1915. Cleveland goes on to make several points: 1) the area of desired Arab independence corresponded exactly with the natural boundaries of the eastern Arab world, not just Syria and Palestine; 2) these demands were drawn up in Damascus, not Mecca, by members of Al Fatat and Al ‘Ahd; 3) the Hashemites were chosen to covey the territorial demands to the British, but the frontiers of “the Arab Nation” that inhabited the proposed state or confederation of states were determined by the Arab leadership as a whole; and 4) from their very first note that the Hashemites passed along to the British, they always requested the independence of precisely the same territories as those described in the Damascus Protocol.
        link to books.google.com

        You surely can’t challenge the legal standing of the Arab Muslim, Christian, and Jewish representatives of the Syrian General Congress to exercise their right of self-determination and chose an Arab who liberated them as the leader of their new nation. So Zionists have to pretend that the Hashemites were foreigners, with fewer rights in the Arabian subcontinent of Asia than the Eastern European-born leaders of the Zionist Executive. That idea doesn’t even pass the giggle test.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 8:01 am

        Shingo:

        “national home” was not meant to be interpreted as a Jewish state.

        I never said it was.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 8:06 am

        Shingo,

        Your missing the point. The British by their *actions* as well as words favored Jewish national aspirations, and resisted Palestinian aspirations. Repeating the same quote regarding Palestine being a “separate political entity” does not change that fact.

        Khalidi:

        From the beginning of the Mandate and until the end of the 1930s, the British obstinately rejected the principle of majority rule, or any measure that would have given a Palestinian Arab majority control over successive British governments simply were not prepared to countenance any progress toward Palestinian self-determination, or toward the linked principle of representative government, that would enable the country’s overwhelming Arab majority to place meaningful obstacles in the way of the Zionist project.

        What evidence do you have that that statement is not accurate?

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 8:08 am

        So Khalidi is “only” repeating Zionist propaganda? That seems rather far-fetched, to put it mildly.

        No, “Rashid Khalidi is really only repeating Zionist propaganda about the failure of the Mandate to mention political rights of the non-Jewish population.”

        I don’t see how his argument that the British fundamentally favored Jewish aspirations and suppressed valid Palestinian aspirations is in any way pro-Zionist.

        That’s a straw man you can go argue with, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this statement: “Rashid Khalidi is really only repeating Zionist propaganda about the failure of the Mandate to mention political rights of the non-Jewish population.”

        If you check the sources that Shingo and I provided, it is an undeniable fact that the Allied powers took positive measures to insure that the mandatory was bound by a legal undertaking to preserve the enjoyment of the existing political and civil rights of the non-Jewish communities and that the Mandate and post-war treaties did create a new “Palestinian” nationality that was specifically mentioned in the mandate instrument itself.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 8:13 am

        talknic,

        You seem confused. I am an anti-Zionist. I’ve quoted Khalidi to the effect that the British suppressed Palestinian rights. The British assisted Jews in creating a “national home” in Palestine, discriminating against the 90% majority non-Jewish population. That’s historical reality. If you wish to deny that, that is your right, of course.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 8:27 am

        Shingo,

        Clearly he is wrong.

        Khalidi may be wrong, but you’ve shown no evidence that he is.

        Khalidi:

        There was a fully fleshed out, subtly racist rationale behind this British policy, one that certainly operated for the first part of the Mandate, and perhaps throughout it. It was that the Jews were important, were a people with significance, while the Arabs of Palestine were insignificant, could be ignored, and indeed were not even thought of as a people per se.

        This was put most clearly by Foreign Secretary Balfour, in a damningly frank confidential 1919 memo that deserves to be far better known: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”15

        Note that, in Balfour’s view, the “ancient” land of Palestine did not belong to the Arabs who constituted the majority of its population: these Arabs just happened to inhabit the country at that moment in time; and they did not have lofty “traditions,” “needs,” or “hopes” like the Jews; by contrast, they had the far baser “desires and prejudices.”

        Above all, they were not a people. In view of these revealing words, one can easily identify the source of the discriminatory language of the famous declaration that bears Balfour’s name, and of the Mandate document that he helped to negotiate.

        Perhaps many people “saw right through this”, as you claim, but the fact remains that a discriminatory, racist policy was *actually carried out* by the British during at least part of the Mandatory period.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 8:34 am

        Shingo,

        Your missing the point. The British by their *actions* as well as words favored Jewish national aspirations, and resisted Palestinian aspirations.

        No you are missing the point. Khalidi said that the mandate included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 22) that never once cited Palestinians by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arabs. So that of course begs the question about the meaning of the citizenship law and Palestinian nationality that are specifically mentioned in Article 7.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 8:35 am

        Hostage,

        the Allied powers took positive measures to insure that the mandatory was bound by a legal undertaking to preserve the enjoyment of the existing political and civil rights of the non-Jewish communities and that the Mandate and post-war treaties did create a new “Palestinian” nationality that was specifically mentioned in the mandate instrument itself.

        Speaking of strawmen…. when did I ever deny that?

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2012, 8:39 am

        Perhaps many people “saw right through this”, as you claim, but the fact remains that a discriminatory, racist policy was *actually carried out* by the British during at least part of the Mandatory period.

        I think you’re confusing the difference between what the British did and what the mandate stipulated.

        No one would argue that the British were acting under discriminatory, racist policies, but they were not asked to do so by the LON.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 8:51 am

        I’ve quoted Khalidi to the effect that the British suppressed Palestinian rights.

        True enough, but he’s completely incorrect when he claims the mandate provided a basis for any such discrimination.

        The British took steps to immediately develop self-governing institutions in the territory east of the Jordan river, but never took similar steps in the territory west of the river. That was a violation of both the intent and content of the terms of the mandate. The Permanent Mandates Commission repeatedly advised the British that they were under the same legal obligation to aid in the development of “self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion”.

        For example, in 1932 the Chairman of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission said that, “Although he had assisted in the supervision of the mandatory administration of Palestine for eleven years, he had always found it extremely difficult to ascertain whether, as was required by Article 2 of the mandate, the development of self-governing institutions was assured for all the inhabitants, seeing that, under the terms of the same article, the mandatory Power had long since set up the Jewish National Home”. — link to unispal.un.org

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 9:02 am

        Hostage,

        the Allied powers took positive measures to insure that the mandatory was bound by a legal undertaking to preserve the enjoyment of the existing political and civil rights of the non-Jewish communities

        The legality and reality are two different things.

        In the case of Mandatory Palestine, the reality was a discriminatory regime that favored Jewish interests over Palestinian interests.

        Khalidi:

        To carry out this policy of rank discrimination against the Palestinian Arab majority, it was necessary for the British to resort to means that were unusual even for the leading colonial power of the day, which ruled over a huge area of the globe via a broad range of systems of direct and indirect rule, and had vast experience in thwarting the will of majorities in different countries.

        In order to protect the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine against the opposition of the majority of the population, the British were obliged to keep the reins of central state power in the mandatory administration entirely in their hands, even as they allowed the yishuv virtually total internal autonomy. This autonomy included full-fledged representative institutions, internationally recognized diplomatic representation abroad via the Jewish Agency, and control of most of the other apparatuses of internal self-government, amounting to a para-state within, dependent upon, but separate from, the mandatory state.

        Clearly, the “positive measures” you refer to did not prevent such a discriminatory regime— or do you deny such discrimination existed?

        Khalidi:

        [Palestinians] and their representatives had no access whatsoever to any of the levers of state power. In fact, access to those levers was systematically denied to anyone of Arab background.

        The low ceiling that Arab functionaries came up against is best illustrated by the case of George Antonius, an urbane, articulate Cambridge-educated (but Lebanese-born) official of the mandatory government, who performed ably in the positions he held in the Education Department, but was repeatedly passed over for responsible posts, as mediocre British subordinates were promoted over his head, until he finally resigned in disgust.16

        Similar limitations did not apply to Jewish officials, if they were British by origin rather than Palestinian: among them were the first high commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, and Norman Bentwich, attorney general of Palestine until 1930, both deeply committed Zionists. By way of contrast, although a few senior British officials might well be considered anti-Zionist, pro-Arab, or even anti-Semitic, from the beginning of the British occupation of Palestine in 1917 until its bitter end in 1948, none of the top appointees of the mandatory administration outside the judiciary were Arabs.

        Did the “positive measures” you refer to have any effect on such discriminatory actions?

        Khalidi:

        At the May 1930 London meetings with a delegation of Palestinian leaders, both Lord Passfield and British prime minister Ramsay MacDonald brushed aside as irrelevant Palestinian arguments based on Article 4 of the Covenant. When Passfield went on to stress the unfavorable position of the Palestinians, saying, “Your position is inferior to that of a colony and it is our duty under the Mandate to endeavor that you should rise to the point of a Colony,” some of his Arab interlocutors were shocked. “Do you mean that we are below the Negroes of Africa?” expostulated the mufti. Passfield reassured him that they were not, but that they were “less than” some other colonies like Australia and Canada.

        To that, another delegate, Raghib Bey al-Nashashibi, responded, lamenting that “we had a government of our own in which we participated. We had Parliaments.” He was referring of course to the Ottoman Parliament before the British occupation, in which, incidentally, al-Nashashibi himself had been an elected deputy for Jerusalem. Passfield answered by bringing the discussion back once again to the grim necessity of his interlocutors accepting the terms of the Mandate, which the Palestinian leaders present simply could not do.19 Get back into the iron cage, they were being told.

        In consequence of this unyielding British position, the Palestinian Arabs were allowed neither access to control of the Mandate government, nor the right to build up their own powerful, autonomous, internationally recognized para-state structure, as the Zionists were with the Jewish Agency.

        It sure seems like the “positive measures” you mention did not prevent Palestinian rights from being suppressed by the British–which is the point I have been making in these posts.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 9:19 am

        Speaking of strawmen…. when did I ever deny that?

        You quoted Khalidi who said that Palestinians were not mentioned as such and that the Mandate didn’t protect their political rights. He is incorrect on both counts. We’ve provided a number of sources, including the interpretation of the mandate contained in: 1) the ICJ advisory opinion, 2) the minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission; 3) the text of the San Remo resolution regarding the Palestine mandate article, & 4) links to the text of Articles 2, 7, and 13 of the mandate to demonstrate that fact.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 9:24 am

        Hostage,

        No you are missing the point. Khalidi said that the mandate included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 22) that never once cited Palestinians by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arabs

        That’s not my point. That’s your point. Doesn’t undercut at all Khalidi’s argument that the Mandatory regime was in reality an “Iron Cage” limiting Palestinian rights.

        With all due respect, your missing the forest for the trees.

      • Hostage
        December 26, 2012, 10:02 am

        With all due respect, your missing the forest for the trees.

        I’m not missing the forest for the trees. Khalidi is misrepresenting the legal intent of the Mandate, which remained relevant factor in the ICJ legal analysis of the status of the territory and its people. None of the sources that I cited is open to his private interpretation. Khalidi is still running around shreying about the non-existent role of the PLO in securing equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

        It was the Government of the State of Israel that accepted the terms of the UN minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II). That’s still a binding treaty obligation which protects the rights of Palestinians in Israel and Palestine consistent with the international guarantees contained in the Treaty of Berlin (1878). The UN placed those rights under its own protection and called them “inalienable”. The General Assembly said they were part of its “permanent responsibility toward the question of Palestine” and created a subsidiary organ to facilitate their realization.

        The report of The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People on that particular subject doesn’t even mention the PLO:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        link to un.org

        If there is another comparable case where the international community has gone out of its way to repeatedly adopt safeguards to protect historical political and civil rights, I’ve never heard of it.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 10:07 am

        Hostage,

        True enough, but he’s completely incorrect when he claims the mandate provided a basis for any such discrimination.

        Okay, you may be correct on that point. I’m not completely convinced though that the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the Mandate, with call for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, did not provide a practical basis for discriminatory policy, other provisos notwithstanding.

        Perhaps the Mandate *shouldn’t* have provided the basis for discrimination against the Palestinians, but Khalidi provides a lot of evidence that it in fact *did*.

        The Permanent Mandates Commission repeatedly advised the British that they were under the same legal obligation to aid in the development of “self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion”.

        I notice that “civil and religious rights” are mentioned, but not political rights, or the right of self-determination. That advice, for what its worth, doesn’t seem to me to adequately counterbalance the positive obligation to establish in Palestine a national home for *the Jewish people* —the Jewish people referring not simply to Jewish inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine at the time.

        From your link:

        Count DE PENHA GARCIA noted that the mandate laid down that the two main duties of
        the mandatory Power were the development of self-governing institutions and the establishment of a Jewish national home.

        The “development of self-governing institutions” for Arab inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine is NOT on par with “the establishment of a Jewish national home” for ALL the Jewish people. There is an inherent disparity there.

        According to Khalidi:

        The mandatory power was specifically called upon to extend all possible assistance to the growth and development of this national entity, notably by encouraging Jewish immigration and “close settlement on the land.”

        And if the British were indeed called upon by the Mandate to assist the growth and development of a Jewish national home for ALL Jews, but were NOT called upon in any similar way to assist the growth and development of a Palestinian national home, then it seems to me there was a deeply discriminatory element inherent in the Mandate.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 10:45 am

        Hostage,

        You quoted Khalidi who said that Palestinians were not mentioned as such and that the Mandate didn’t protect their political rights. He is incorrect on both counts. We’ve provided a number of sources, including the interpretation of the mandate contained in: 1) the ICJ advisory opinion, 2) the minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission; 3) the text of the San Remo resolution regarding the Palestine mandate article, & 4) links to the text of Articles 2, 7, and 13 of the mandate to demonstrate that fact.

        None of the quotes you’ve provided contradicts Khalid’s statement:

        In both documents, the Palestinians were never once cited by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arabs, and were referred to only as “non-Jewish communities,” possessing solely civil and religious rights; their national and political rights were mentioned in neither.

        That’s the exact Khalidi quote. It stands.

        Hostage:

        It is also a mistaken view to suppose that Palestinians were not mentioned as such in the “Mandate for Palestine”. In fact, all of the communities were identified as Palestinian ones

        The Palestinians were never recognized as a people or a nation or a political grouping *as such*. The Jews, in contrast, were recognized as a people with rights to a “national home” in Palestine.

        To argue that the Palestine Mandate considered Jews to be “Palestinians” –i.e. inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine– misses Khalidi’s point entirely–and certainly does not refute it.

        Article 2 reads:

        The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

        That’s just as Khalidi describes it: no mention of Palestinian national rights or political rights–only “civil and religious rights” of the “inhabitants of Palestine”. The same holds true for article 7 and 13. They do NOT contradict Khalidi at all.

        Hostage, quoting the San Remo Resolution:

        (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine;

        Again, exactly as Khalidi describes–Palestinians were not mentioned as such, only as “non-Jewish communities”. How does that quote in any way refute Khalidi’s contention?

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 11:08 am

        Hostage,

        Khalidi said that the mandate included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 22) that never once cited Palestinians by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arabs.

        Khalidi is correct: in the Mandate, including those six articles “the Palestinians were never once cited by name, whether as Palestinians or as Arab.”

        So that of course begs the question about the meaning of the citizenship law and Palestinian nationality that are specifically mentioned in Article 7.

        Article 7 reads:

        The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

        Jews taking up “permanent residents” are NOT “the Palestinians” Khalidi refers to–obviously!

        Reference to Jews–including new immigrants– becoming citizens of Palestine is NOT equivalent to a reference to the Palestinian people in Palestine, let alone a recognition of Palestinian national rights on par with Jewish national rights.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 11:27 am

        Shingo,

        I think you’re confusing the difference between what the British did and what the mandate stipulated.

        That’s an important distinction, to be sure. But upon reviewing your and Hostage’s posts, I am convinced more than ever that Khalidi is correct on both counts: The Mandate privileged Jewish national rights over Palestinian national rights, and the British carried out discriminatory and racist policies.

      • Sibiriak
        December 26, 2012, 12:17 pm

        Shingo, quoting Pierre Orts, chairman of Mandate Commission of the League Of Nation stated that:

        The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation,

        It showed that “Palestinians”, inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine–present residents and newly arriving Jewish immigrants —formed the citizenship of Mandatory Palestine. It did NOT show that *the Palestinians* as a nation or people in Palestine had a right to a Palestinian “national home” as the Jews *from all around the world* had a right to a Jewish National Home.

        It showed that Mandatory Palestine was separate political entity, but WITHIN that entity a separate Jewish National home was to be established with the full and direct aid of the British, including assisting immigration, land settlement etc.

        Since this Jewish nation home was to be a home for ALL Jews, the British were thus committed by the Mandate to a colonial project; aiding the inflow of immigrants inevitably meant the loss of Palestinian land control and a weakening of their majority status.

        Khalid writes”: As far as Great Britain and the League of Nations were concerned, [Palestinians] were definitely not a people.”

        You have provided no evidence to the contrary. References to general civil and religious rights for “all inhabitants” is NOT a recognition of the Palestinians *as a separate people* with rights to self-determiniation. Jews, on the other hand, where explicitly recognized as a people with rights to immigrate to a national home in Palestine. There is an unmistakeable asymmetry there between Jewish and Palestinian national rights–written right into the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate which incorporated it.

      • AlGhorear
        December 26, 2012, 1:06 pm

        Hostage, I marvel at your debating skills. Time and time again, you combine historical fact and applicable law with concise and clear writing to absolutely demolish the hasbarists’ false assertions and misleading nonsense. When someone challenges you, it’s like watching a mosquito buzzing around you and I know the splat is coming. I don’t know if GilGamesh thinks he’s fooling others or only fooling himself with the “gotcha” comments he makes that you subsequently destroy. It’s fascinating to read.

        I think I (or better yet you!) could put together a great book just by copying and pasting your comments.

      • Cliff
        December 26, 2012, 2:44 pm

        I suspect Palestinians cheer and join Hamas because they view it as a conduit to fight Israel.

        You and your fellow religious zealots, cult members and war criminals all support and worship the State.

        There are so many more Zionists who justify and excuse and whitewash Israeli war crimes while also donating to the IDF (Friends of the IDF) or to Zionist causes.

        So I couldn’t care less about the Hamas charter or your vacuous and hypocritical emphasis on the words of Palestinian militancy.

        The Palestinian cause is legitimate. Zionism is illegitimate and colonialist.

        While I don’t condone terrorism – you do. In fact, you and your fellow colonists justify terrorism based on Palestinian words! All the while, your Jewish colony steals and dispossess the Palestinians and their land and property.

        Your Jewish colony kills more children and civilians and justifies it by the usual colonial sophistry in our era (human shields/mean words!).

      • Mooser
        December 26, 2012, 3:16 pm

        “Oh and look at my name I’m Babylonian for Christ sakes.”

        Yeah, Babylon, Long Island. That’s where the Babylonians say “for Christ sakes”.

      • seanmcbride
        December 26, 2012, 3:28 pm

        I would love to see Hostage organize all his documentary material in a Wikipedia-style format.

      • GilGamesh
        December 26, 2012, 3:40 pm

        @ hostage, quit trying to add a bunch of unrelated facts to the original argument in order to obscure the point. the fact remains the Hashemites did not live in in the part of the Palestinian mandate that became TransJordan. Of course the please show me where the people residing in the Palestinian mandate chose the Hashamites to lead them. As for your claim that “Hashemites were fully engaged in regional and provincial politics ” big deal they still did not live there which was the original point. The US was and still is very involved in politics in that region it doesn’t allow them to morally appoint a king in the area. Abdullah’s interest in the Damascus protocol was to see to it that the British would support him against the Turks if they decided to attack Hejaz, which his father controlled, and ended up becoming part of Saudi Arabia with British support, not not TransJordan. If the Hashamites had a claim on any land it was Hejaz
        I sure I don’t have to tell you about Hajj Amin Al-Husseni connection to Nazi Germany. Interesting you claim he speaks for the Palestinian people in this case. Do you think he spoke for them in other matters as well.

      • GilGamesh
        December 26, 2012, 3:47 pm

        @Sibirak my point has to do with why Israel is considered illegitimate and to be on “stolen land” by many on this board but no one, including the Palestinians feel the same way about Jordan. As you can see Hostage is bending over backwards albeit unsuccessfully to prove the Hashemites were indeed entitled to rule over that area even though they never lived in any part of it except the area they annexed after the fact.

      • GilGamesh
        December 26, 2012, 3:59 pm

        @AlGhoraer. Actually I have got him. He has changed his argument a couple of times. First he claimed that the land called Arabia where the Hashamite’s lived
        was part of the Ottoman Empire and that’s what gave them rights to TransJordan he at first tried to claim the map I provided was wrong but gave that up and then claimed that because Aqaba and Maan were Hashamite areas that were part of TransJordan that that gave them the right to TransJordan but then I point out that those areas were only annexed by Abudulla after the fact and were not part of the original mandate. Now he is looking for new further fetched reasons and still has come up short. He has actually demolished nothing. Name one of the claims above that isn’t true and that he has proven isn’t true. If anything what this conversation shows is how reluctant some are to admit they are wrong even when its been proven so.

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2012, 4:33 pm

        I think I (or better yet you!) could put together a great book just by copying and pasting your comments

        Here here. I have compiled my own catalogue of them. ;-)

      • Keith
        December 26, 2012, 6:15 pm

        SIBERIAK- “In the case of Mandatory Palestine, the reality was a discriminatory regime that favored Jewish interests over Palestinian interests.”

        Absolutely correct! Furthermore, it is difficult to account for Zionist “success” without being aware of the significant British favoritism which provided the Zionists with incalculable advantage over the rival Palestinians. Indeed, I suspect that Israel would not have come into being as a Jewish state without significant imperial support, the necessity of which Zionists were aware of right from the beginning.

      • Shmuel
        December 27, 2012, 2:58 am

        I am convinced more than ever that Khalidi is correct on both counts: The Mandate privileged Jewish national rights over Palestinian national rights, and the British carried out discriminatory and racist policies.

        I agree. Khalidi’s argument is very convincing, both with regard to the mandate itself (recognising only Jewish national rights), and with regard to the practices of the British mandatory authorities – e.g. putting the Jewish Agency in charge of all immigration to Palestine.

        Despite later attempts to limit Jewish immigration, it is ironic that Zionist historiography, for the most part, ignores the period between the establishment of the mandate and the Arab revolt, and the tremendous efforts the British made to further their cause – presenting the Zionist struggle both as a civil war against the local Arab population and a war of liberation from hostile foreign (British) domination.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 4:57 am

        Hostage,

        None of the sources that I cited is open to his private interpretation.

        None of the sources you cited contradicts Khalidi’s comments on the Mandate and Balfour Declaration.

        Khalidi is still running around shreying about the non-existent role of the PLO in securing equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

        Khalidi “shreying”? LOL!

        In any case, I never quoted Khalidi regarding the PLO. You are really going off on a tangent here.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 7:21 am

        I notice that “civil and religious rights” are mentioned, but not political rights

        You’re intentionally ignoring the explicit object of the mandate and the requirement in the very same sentence about the obligation for the mandatory to develop self-governing institutions while safeguarding civil and religious rights irrespective of race or religion. The stated objective was laid out in the preamble: “to give effect to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations”, which had nothing to do with communities of Jews living in eastern Europe. But that article does contain a number of legal safeguards regarding the development and tutelage of the former communities of the Turkish Empire. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The “development of self-governing institutions” for Arab inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine is NOT on par with “the establishment of a Jewish national home” for ALL the Jewish people.

        I’ve already explained that’s propaganda. The existing religious and civil rights of the non-Jewish communities included a prohibition against any such discrimination in political matters. In addition Article 2 said ” the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble” – which stipulated that it was clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice 1) the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine; or 2) the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

        The mandate made it quite clear that Palestine was not the national home of ALL the Jewish peoples. The Allied Powers had used the Versailles Peace Conference to create the League of Nations and to place the rights and position of national ethnic minority groups in the newly created states of Europe under the League’s protection. The right of communities of Jewish people to exist, as such, in several other countries was explicitly affirmed in the preamble of the British mandate; in separate minority treaty instruments; and in several landmark cases on the subject that were decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice. Here is a link to one such case involving violations of the “Treaty with regard to the protection of minorities, etc., concluded on June 28th, 1919, between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan of the one part, and Poland of the other part”. link to worldcourts.com

        The British administration publicly acknowledged that the dual obligations were on legal par with one another. In the end it simply declared they were incompatible and unworkable. By the way, there’s no shortage of declassified British cabinet files which illustrate that, in many cases, and for many years, the top British government officials deliberately lied and knowingly violated: their treaties with other the European Allies; the rights of the Palestinian Arabs; and the rights of other non-Jewish communities of Ottoman Asia. Here are some examples which illustrate that the British government lied and violated its agreements regarding Palestine:

        *The minutes of the Eastern Committee of the War Cabinet for December 5, 1918. Balfour himself had personally circulated the detailed memorandum and maps in advance. They stated that Great Britain had pledged to the Sharif of Mecca that Palestine itself would be Arab and independent. See the reference to the attendees and the distribution of E.C. 2201 in “E.C. 41st Minutes” (CAB 27/24, C372213 ).

        During the first portion of the meeting on the subject of Syria Lord Curzon, the Chairman, said:
        “First, as regards the facts of the case. The various pledges are given in the Foreign Office paper* [E.C. 2201] which has been circulated, and I need only refer to them in the briefest possible words. In their bearing on Syria they are the following: First there was the letter to King Hussein from Sir Henry McMahon of the 24th October 1915, in which we gave him the assurance that the Hedjaz, the red area which we commonly call Mesopotamia, the brown area or Palestine, the Acre-Haifa enclave, the big Arab areas (A) and (B), and the whole of the Arabian peninsula down to Aden should be Arab and independent.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 6).

        In the second half of the meeting on the subject of Palestine he said:
        “The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . the United Kingdom and France – Italy subsequently agreeing – committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done – and this, of course, was a most important proviso – to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 16)

        During the same meeting, Curzon noted that Great Britain’s agreement with France regarding the latter’s interests in Syria violated British commitments to the other members of the Concert of Europe under the terms of the Reglement Organique Agreements of June 1861 and September 1864.

        E.C. 2201 contained two documents:
        Former Reference: GT 6506A
        Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
        Former Reference: GT 6506
        Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        *Lord Balfour wrote an infamous memo from the Paris Peace Conference in which he explained that the British had repeatedly given the Arabs formal assurances regarding their independence and that the Allies had no intention of honoring those commitments, especially those regarding Arab independence in Palestine.
        — See Nº. 242 Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia’ [132187/2117/44A], August 11, 1919 link to scribd.com

        *A briefing paper authored by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax in preparation for the British Commission that had been tasked with conducting an inquiry into the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence admitted that the British government had adopted a completely dishonest and untenable interpretation of the geographic boundaries described in the letters. At one and the same time, the Foreign Secretary said there was no reason that the government should abandon those arguments:

        :
        (i) the fact that the word “district” is applied not only to Damascus, &c., where the reading of vilayet is at least arguable, but also immediately previously to Mersina and Alexandretta. No vilayets of these names exist…and it would be difficult to argue that the word “districts” can have two completely different meanings in the space of a few lines.
        (ii) the fact that Homs and Hama were not the capitals of vilayets, but were both within the Vilayet of Syria.
        (iii) the fact that the real title of the “Vilayet of Damascus” was “Vilayet of Syria.”
        (iv) the fact that there is no land lying west of the Vilayet of Aleppo.

        It may be possible to produce arguments designed to explain away some of these difficulties individually (although even this does not apply in the case of (iv)), but it is hardly possible to explain them away collectively. His Majesty’s Government need not on this account abjure altogether the counter-argument based on the meaning of the word “district,” which have been used publicly for many years, and the more obvious defects in which do not seem to have been noticed as yet by Arab critics.”

        — See the declassified Memo “Palestine: Legal Arguments Likely to be Advanced by Arab Representatives”, Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Halifax), January 1939, UK National Archives, CAB 24/282, CP 19 (39)
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 7:56 am

        The Palestinians were never recognized as a people or a nation or a political grouping *as such*.

        That’s incorrect. The ICJ cited the application of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and its application to the communities of Palestine as an example of that very thing. See paragraph 70 et seq of the ICJ Advisory Opinion.

        FYI, every country that ratified the Treaty of Lausanne took on an explicit legal obligation to recognize the new state and Palestinian nationality. The United States Code still requires our government to recognize the Mandated State of Palestine as a separate country of origin for those individuals who were born there, and who subsequently immigrated to this country. The Justice Department has prosecuted several cases of Palestinian country of origin employment discrimination, e.g.
        * link to www1.eeoc.gov
        * link to eeoc.gov

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 8:27 am

        Reference to Jews–including new immigrants– becoming citizens of Palestine is NOT equivalent to a reference to the Palestinian people in Palestine, let alone a recognition of Palestinian national rights on par with Jewish national rights.

        The requirement for the Palestine administration to enact a nationality law applied to the people of Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provided for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects that took up permanent residence.

        This resolution of the Council of the League of Nations was entered in the official Journal as “The British Mandate for Palestine”. It requires a strained and untenable reading to conclude that only the Jewish communities were Palestinian ones.

        You can fixate on the inclusion of Jews who take up residence, but neither the scope of the “Palestine administration” nor its “nationality law” were intended to be limited in any way to the act of conferring “Palestinian citizenship” on only those Jews to the exclusion of any other group.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 8:34 am

        I am convinced more than ever that Khalidi is correct on both counts: The Mandate privileged Jewish national rights over Palestinian national rights, and the British carried out discriminatory and racist policies.

        Then perhaps Khalidi should have been Israel’s lawyer in the Wall case and the advocate for the Regional Council, Coast of Gaza in its case against the Knesset of Israel (H.C.J. 1661/05). In both of those cases the Courts held that proposition was completely invalid and that the mandate didn’t create any national privilege for the Jews at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people.

      • MHughes976
        December 27, 2012, 10:18 am

        Margaret Macmillan’s ‘Peacemakers’ (2001) has a very interesting account of the Balfour Declaration, which set the tone for so much else. Formally, the rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine were carefully marked for preservation. Really, that element was not sincerely meant and the Press was immediately briefed accordingly. Perfidious Albion and all that. Macmillan presents Balfour as a man plagued by doubts about everything, settling on Christian Zionism as a point of moral certainty. Nothing so dangerous as a religious fanatic who looks like something else, perhaps an aristocratic dilettante or (thinking of Lloyd George) a cynic and hedonist.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 10:30 am

        You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

        Correction: I cited the ICJ’s legal analysis of the rights and standing of the Palestinian people under the terms of the Class A mandate and Article 22 of the Convenant of the LoN. That analysis had nothing to do with privileges for the Jews or the Jewish national home. In 1947, the UNSCOP report to the General Assembly cited the conclusion of a British Commission which stated that the term National Home was undefined and had no agreed upon scope or meaning:

        “The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. See paragraph 141, of the UNSCOP Report to the General Assembly,

        A/364, 3 September 1947 link to unispal.un.org

        In fact, the week before the Balfour Declaration was released, Privy Council President Lord Curzon, War Cabinet Secretary Hankey, and Secretary of State for India Montagu wrote memorandums explaining that the term “Jewish National Home” had no agreed upon meaning or scope to either the Jews or supporters of the Zionist movement. So the “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” in favor of “the establishment in Palestine of a [not the] national home for the Jewish people” had no definite legal meaning.
        See CAB 24/30, “The Future of Palestine” (Former Reference: GT 2406), 26 October 1917; CAB 24/4, “The Zionist Movement”(Former Reference: G 164), 17 October 1917; and CAB 24/28 (Former Reference: GT 2263) “Zionism, 9 October 1917.

        The resolution of the Supreme Allied Powers at San Remo and the Palestine Mandate resolution of the Council of the League of Nations simply left the task of interpreting and giving the Balfour Declaration effect to the British mandatory. It was under no obligation whatever to fulfill any specific aspiration of the Zionists regarding European Jews in that connection or to give a wider meaning to the term National Home than the symbolic one held by many members of the War Cabinet who adopted the Declaration in the first place.

        Many of them limited the term to the centuries-old Jewish communities of the four holy cities and any adjacent state lands and waste lands that might be made available under “suitable conditions” to accommodate Jews from the other communities mentioned in Article 22 of the Covenant, i.e. those “formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire” in Syria, Iraq, & etc. that had been liberated as a consequence of the war.

        Even after Churchill’s 1922 White Paper had attempted to limit the scope of the national home and quiet objections over its possible meanings, a resolution was introduced and adopted in the House of Lords which rejected any Palestine Mandate incorporating the terms of the Balfour Declaration on the grounds that it would violate the assurances given to the Sharif of Mecca as well as those made by General Allenby in his declaration to the Palestinian people of 1918. So the Parliament most certainly did recognize the Palestinian people and the fact that its officials had given legal assurances to them about their future government.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 10:46 am

        I think I (or better yet you!) could put together a great book just by copying and pasting your comments. . . . I would love to see Hostage organize all his documentary material in a Wikipedia-style format.

        Thanks for the kind words, but I’ll stick to commenting and leave the real writing to Phil and Adam.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 11:55 am

        @ hostage, quit trying to add a bunch of unrelated facts to the original argument in order to obscure the point. the fact remains the Hashemites did not live in in the part of the Palestinian mandate that became TransJordan.

        I went out of my way to established the fact that Abdullah had taken up habitual residence there before it was ever annexed to the Palestine Mandate.

        To make it perfectly clear: in November of 1920, when historians say that Abdullah went to “Transjordan”, in response to requests that he lead a campaign to recover Syria from the French, he really only took up residence with his fellow tribesmen in the southern oasis town of Maan. That was part of the Hashemite Kingdom at that time – and it most certainly did become part of Transjordan. He remained there for more than three months before the British responded with a proposal to annex the region to their Palestine mandate. In March 1921 Abdullah moved north to Amman, months before the draft mandate was adopted by the Council of the League of Nations. See the article on the “Creation of Transjordan” at the Chronicle of the Middle East & North Africa link to fanack.com

        “Hashemites were fully engaged in regional and provincial politics ” big deal they still did not live there which was the original point.

        Prior to November of 1920, the Hashemites were residing well within the boundaries of the Arab nation defined by the Al Fatat and Al ‘Ahd parties in the Damascus Protocol. More to the point, they were also living well within the jurisdiction of the Ottoman “Arabistan Ordusu” (Provincial Ottoman Army of Arabia) which was also headquartered at Damascus. So please define the province or region before you claim that they were not living in it.

        Abdullah’s interest in the Damascus protocol was to see to it that the British would support him against the Turks if they decided to attack Hejaz, which his father controlled, and ended up becoming part of Saudi Arabia with British support, not not TransJordan. If the Hashamites had a claim on any land it was Hejaz

        Once again, you have it backwards. Transjordan and Saudi Arabia were both successor states created on the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Hedjaz. But more to the point, the territory governed by Feisal and included within the boundaries of the new Arab state acknowledged in the Allied aide-mémoire on the boundaries pending a decision on the mandates and declared by the resolution of the Syrian General Congress included territory south of the Syrian-Hedjazi line. The status of that Hedjazi territory was completely uncertain after the French overthrew Feisal’s government in Damascus. I noted that the British government didn’t even know for certain whether or not the region of Transjordan was included in the French mandate for Syria.

        I sure I don’t have to tell you about Hajj Amin Al-Husseni connection to Nazi Germany. Interesting you claim he speaks for the Palestinian people in this case. Do you think he spoke for them in other matters as well.

        I noted: 1) Hajj Amin Al-Husseni was also a Hashemite; and 2) that he served as the liaison official between Feisal’s supporters in Damascus and the Palestinian delegation to the Syrian General Congress that had eventually named the Hashemite Emir Feisal as their King. So it was the Palestinian and Syrian Muslims, Christians, and Jews who served as delegates to the Congress that spoke for the people.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 1:01 pm

        @Sibirak my point has to do with why Israel is considered illegitimate and to be on “stolen land” by many on this board but no one, including the Palestinians feel the same way about Jordan.

        The Zionists were colonists from another continent who committed wrongful acts against others, like expropriating the lands of the Arab inhabitants and giving them to the JNF. Zionist leaders like Nahum Sokolow and Chaim Weizmann denied that the Jews wanted to establish their own State in Palestine or that the Jews would attempt to establish Jewish minority rule over the Arab inhabitants. They gave assurances that the rights and position of the Arabs wouldn’t be prejudiced in any way, but ended-up violating all of those assurances. See Nahum Sokolow, “History of Zionism (1600–1918) Volume I”, Longmans, Green, and Company pages xxiv–xxv; and Weizmann’s explanation about the meaning of the Jewish National Home to US Secretary of State Lansing during the Paris Peace Conference in the FRUS. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Other Arab parties had asked the Hashemites to negotiate support for their independence from the great powers. Transjordan was always part of the territory lying to the east of the McMahon-Hussein line (Damascus, Homs, Hamma, and Allepo. So there was never in any question that the Allies had included it in the territory that was pledged for the establishment of a new Arab state or confederation of Arab states in that region.

        The Hashemites didn’t drive three quarters of a million people into permanent exile before they held their first elections. They didn’t colonize the territory that they governed. They contributed territory to the new Arab State. After Abdullah received letters from nearly every town and village in Palestine asking for his protection in the event of a British withdrawal, the people of Palestine came together in a regional Congress and declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine. The Hashemites reserved half the seats in lower house of Parliament for Palestinian representatives from the West Bank and appointed Palestinians to serve as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, and Prime Ministers of the new state of Jordan. When the two peoples dissolved the union between the river banks, the Hashemites ceded back all of the territory that had been annexed and recognized the successor state.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 1:06 pm

        Hostage,

        The mandate made it quite clear that Palestine was not the national home of ALL the Jewish peoples.

        How many Jewish peoples exist/existed, according to your theory?

        The national home in Palestine was intended for which of these peoples??

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 1:16 pm

        Hostage,

        Correction: I cited the ICJ’s legal analysis of the rights and standing of the Palestinian people under the terms of the Class A mandate and Article 22

        But you have not shown how that legal analysis contradicts the specific statement by Khalidi which I cited.

        In fact, the week before the Balfour Declaration was released, Privy Council President Lord Curzon, War Cabinet Secretary Hankey, and Secretary of State for India Montagu wrote memorandums explaining that the term “Jewish National Home” had no agreed upon meaning or scope to either the Jews or supporters of the Zionist movement.

        And, in fact, Khalidi has said pretty much the same thing regarding the ambiguity of the phrase “Jewish National Home”:

        From November 2, 1917, the date that the Balfour Declaration was issued, over four years before the Mandate for Palestine was granted, Britain was fully committed to the creation of a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, whatever that term meant precisely.

        The Jewish national home in fact meant quite different things to different British officials at different times…

        So, far from contradicting Khalidi’s argument, your assertions actually lend it further support.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 1:28 pm

        Hostage,

        the Courts held that proposition was completely invalid and that the mandate didn’t create any national privilege for the Jews at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people.

        The Mandate created a right for a Jewish national home in Palestine in *addition* to any existing rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants.

        Obviously, that meant the Palestinian Arab majority then had NO right to reject a Jewish National home in Palestine.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 1:39 pm

        @AlGhoraer. Actually I have got him. He has changed his argument a couple of times. First he claimed that the land called Arabia where the Hashamite’s lived was part of the Ottoman Empire and that’s what gave them rights to TransJordan he at first tried to claim the map I provided was wrong but gave that up and then claimed that because Aqaba and Maan were Hashamite areas that were part of TransJordan that that gave them the right to TransJordan but then I point out that those areas were only annexed by Abudulla after the fact and were not part of the original mandate.

        Correction. I haven’t changed my mind about any of those arguments. They simply add-up to a mountain of legal evidence. I’m fairly certain that AlGhoraer already knows that.

        I see you have a problem with reading comprehension. If you had checked the sources that I cited, you would know that the headquarters of the Ottoman Provincial Army of Arabistan was located in Damascus, Syria and that it had jurisdiction over the territory laying between the mountains of southern Turkey over to the Land of the river banks in Mesopotamia and down through the subcontinent to the southern Peninsula. That territory included Palestine, Transjordan, and the Hedjaz. See Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, “History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey”, Cambridge University Press, 1977, page 85.

        You’d also know that Palestine and Transjordan were part of the Arab homeland, Arabia or Arabistan, which lay within those same natural boundaries. See:
        *William Perry Fogg, “Travels and adventures in Arabistan”, Chapters VI-VIII, Ward, Lock, & Co, 1875 link to books.google.pn
        *George Antonius, The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement, Hamish Hamilton, 1938.
        *Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries “Palestine: the reality”, Hyperion Press, 1939, page 4
        *Jane Degras, The Communist International 1919-1943, Taylor & Francis Group, page 79

        You’d know that Abdullah lived in Maan and Amman before they became part of the new state of Transjordan and that the new state was one of the two successor states established on the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Hedjaz, i.e. the districts of Aqaba and Maan. You’d know that the Syrian General Congress included territory south of the Syrian-Hedjazi line in the region of Aqaba within the boundaries of their new Arab State and named a Hashemite that liberated Amman and Aqaba as their King.

        You’d know that incorporation in or confederation with another state is one of the customary modes of exercising the right of self-determination and that the boundaries of the Arab nation in the Damascus Protocol and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence always contained Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Transjordan, and the Hedjaz.

        It did not include Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, or Russia – and nothing you are ever going to say will give people living in those countries the right of self-determination as a new nation in the midst of Arabia.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 1:42 pm

        Hostage:

        FYI, every country that ratified the Treaty of Lausanne took on an explicit legal obligation to recognize the new state and Palestinian nationality.

        You are missing the point entirely. Khalidi is not denying that a new state was created, and thus a new “nationality”. What he is saying is that the Mandate didn’t explicitly recognize the Palestinians as a people, while it did explicitly call for a Jewish national home.

        To say that a Palestinian state/nationality was created by the Mandate does not contradict that at all, since in that phrase, “Palestinian” refers to the territory and its ALL its inhabitants–including both Palestinians and Jews and others groups– not to the “Palestinian people” as such.

        In short, you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 1:53 pm

        Hostage:

        Even after Churchill’s 1922 White Paper had attempted to limit the scope of the national home and quiet objections over its possible meanings, a resolution was introduced and adopted in the House of Lords which rejected any Palestine Mandate incorporating the terms of the Balfour Declaration on the grounds that it would violate the assurances given to the Sharif of Mecca as well as those made by General Allenby in his declaration to the Palestinian people of 1918.

        But the fact remains that the Palestine Mandate DID incorporate the terms of the Balfour Declaration.

        The fact that various assurances were indeed violated only further reinforces Khalidi’s argument.

        So the Parliament most certainly did recognize the Palestinian people and the fact that its officials had given legal assurances to them about their future government.

        Again, the Khalidi statement which you object to referred only to the Mandate and the Balfour Declaration, not to various other British positions and assurances which turned out to be largely worthless.

      • Obsidian
        December 27, 2012, 2:01 pm

        Hostage.

        Are you comparing the Muslim Brotherhood of the 40’s and 50’s with the Muslim Brotherhood of the 1980’s?

        Please.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 2:06 pm

        Hostage,

        The ICJ noted in its advisory opinion that the rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time”. The Court cited Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as one of the more recent examples.

        But that doesn’t contradict Khalidi’s statement in any way.
        Just citing as many legal documents as you can come up with may impress some folks, but it doesn’t lend any actual support to your assertions.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 2:24 pm

        I am convinced more than ever that Khalidi is correct on both counts: The Mandate privileged Jewish national rights over Palestinian national rights, and the British carried out discriminatory and racist policies. . . . I agree.

        Once again, you can go argue against that straw man, but Khalidi was wrong and repeating shopworn Zionist propaganda when he claimed that the mandate only protected the civil and religious rights of Palestinians, but not their political rights. In fact, Curzon and many other cabinet officials had always questioned the redundant reference to political rights, since they were included in the accepted legal meaning of civil and religious rights.

        It’s also a very mistaken view to think of the Mandate served as some sort of Constitution for Palestine. The mandate had little or no legal effects prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention in 1925. Even then the Courts held that it was not enforceable, unless it’s provisions were incorporated in enabling legislation and definitely not in cases where it conflicted with the some specific provision of municipal law, e.g. the 1940 Palestine Land Transfer Ordinance. See the case of Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) vs. the Registar of Lands, Haifa ; Director of Land Registration, Jerusalem; Edmond N. Levy (respondents) (High court case no. 19/47): in the Supreme court sitting as a High Court of Justice ; before the chief justice Sir William Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice de Comarmond; hearings on 9th May, 1947 and 12th May, 1947.

      • Obsidian
        December 27, 2012, 2:48 pm

        @shingo

        I quote from David Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace, page. 520,

        ‘In a private conversation at Balfour’s House in the summer of 1921, both Balfour and the Prime Minister contradicted him [Churchill] and told Churchill that “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”
        Fromkin cited to Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Companion Volume, Vol. 4, Part3: April 1921-November 1922, p. 1559.(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975)

        It was clear at the time that the term “national home” really meant a state. Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state.” See,Ronald Sanders book, High Walls of Jerusalem, p.652.
        As far as the United States interpretation of “national home”, a U.S. intelligence recommendations drafted for President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference reported that: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” See, J.C. Hurewitz (ed.),The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Vol.2, British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979, p. 132-36.

      • Hostage
        December 27, 2012, 2:53 pm

        None of the sources you cited contradicts Khalidi’s comments on the Mandate and Balfour Declaration.

        In fact the Judges in their ICJ advisory opinions cited the effects of the Class A Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations as being instrumental in recognizing the members of the Palestinian communities and preserving their political rights to their territory and to a state of their own.

        Khalidi “shreying”? LOL! . . . You are really going off on a tangent here.

        No I’m not. I’m discussing the continuity of international guarantees for the protection of Palestinian political rights that flows from the Treaty of Berlin through the San Remo resolution and the Mandate and on to the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II). The UN and its subsidiary organs describe those rights as inalienable and say that Israel has a continuing legal obligation to implement them. While you and Khalidi say that they were not included in the mandate at all.

        The ICJ noted that the international community has a legal obligation toward all of the Palestinian people that has nothing to do with the PLO or the achievement of statehood in part of the territory of Palestine. That obligation includes the rights of Palestinians living in Israel or in refugee camps in the region.

      • GilGamesh
        December 27, 2012, 4:53 pm

        Abdullah moving to the area that became TransJordan does in no way make the indigenous residents of that area Hashemites, and the areas that were Hashemite that were annexed were annexed after it had been decided Abdullah would be King of TransJordan. The fact remains that the land that became TransJordan was part of the Ottoman province of Syria. No matter how many times you say it or change the wording the fact remains the area that would become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan less the two areas that were annexed were not populated by Hashemites.

        As for Hajj Amin Al-Husseni, I asked you did he speak for the Palestinian people? Rather than try and obfuscate why not give me a direct answer. Oh and while we are at it the Syrian General Congress also stated that the the area that was split off and became the Palestinian mandate should remain part of Syria.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 9:32 pm

        Hostage,

        It requires a strained and untenable reading to conclude that only the Jewish communities were Palestinian ones.

        It requires a strained imagination to concoct such a strawman.

        Please cite where Khalidi or any one else in this debate asserted that “only the Jewish communities were Palestinian ones”.

        neither the scope of the “Palestine administration” nor its “nationality law” were intended to be limited in any way to the act of conferring “Palestinian citizenship” on only those Jews to the exclusion of any other group.

        Another strawman. Khalidi never made such an assertion.

        It surprises me that you would want to spend so much of your time writing voluminous posts to refute assertions of your own making.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 10:14 pm

        Hostage,

        You’re intentionally ignoring the explicit object of the mandate and the requirement in the very same sentence about the obligation for the mandatory to develop self-governing institutions while safeguarding civil and religious rights irrespective of race or religion.

        No, just the opposite. Far from ignoring that obligation, what I’ve been doing is *contrasting* that obligation with the obligation to assist in the creation and development of a Jewish national in Palestine.

        Those two obligations are NOT of the same type; they are qualitatively different. Your argument that they were both legally binding in no way changes that fact.

        And the very ambiguity of the phrase “Jewish national home” in the Mandate itself tilted the document in favor of Jewish interests. The inclusion of such a phrase–the inclusion of entire Balfour Declaration–allowed for British-assisted development of a Jewish proto-state in Palestine, while the ambiguity allowed various figures to deny that such a “Jewish national home” was actually a potential state in the making.

        Thus, Khalidi writes about the *real historical effects of the wording of the Mandate*, not legal interpretations made decades later, long after the damage had been done, such as the very recent ICJ analysis you cite (which, in any case, doesn’t contradict Khalidi.)

        Khalidi:

        A further problem facing the Palestinians is well summarized by the political scientist Issa Khalaf:

        “More fundamentally than self-governing institutions, the lack of effective power over the State meant that the Palestinian Arab notability which headed the national movement would be unable to use the resources of the state to centralize power in its hands and thereby develop into a cohesive stratum.”25

        This lack of even a minimal level of cohesion by comparison with other Arab elites, resulting in some part from the systematic British denial of access to power over a state mechanism, would long continue to plague the Palestinian leadership, even after the catastrophe of 1948.

        Nor did the Palestinians even have a para-state structure like the Jewish Agency, since the British would only recognize an Arab Agency, as Passfield suggested they might in 1930, on condition that they accepted the terms of the Mandate.

        We have seen that THE PALESTINIANS CONSIDERED THE MANDATE TO CONSTITUTE THE NEGATION OF THEIR NATIONAL EXISTENCE AS A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE IN ALL OF THEIR COUNTRY. (emphasis added)

        A “national existence as a sovereign people in all their country” is NOT compatible with the British drive to assist the development of a “Jewish national home” in that country. That’s the fundmental problem with the Mandate that Khalidi explains in “The Iron Cage”.

        An earlier British proposal, made in 1923, for an Arab Agency to be appointed by the high commissioner (rather than elected as in the Jewish case) was, in the words of Ann Mosely Lesch, “a pale reflection of the Jewish Agency,” without most of its power and functions, WITHOUT SANCTION IN THE MANDATE, without independence, and without international standing.26

        This latter point is extremely important, for BY THE TERMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.” The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, in London, and elsewhere. By contrast, the Palestinians had no international standing whatsoever, and indeed were often dependent on the hostile and unsympathetic British for such unsatisfactory diplomatic representation as they could obtain in Geneva and elsewhere.

        Once again, Khalidi demonstrates how the Mandate privileged Jewish interests over Palestinian interests.

        As ‘Auni ‘Abd al-Hadi, a member of the 1930 Palestinian delegation, complained to Passfield when the latter suggested that the delegation take their grievances to the Permanent Mandates Commission in Geneva, rather than addressing them to the British: “When we submit a petition to the League of Nations it is carried by His Majesty’s Government who is there our antagonist, we are not represented there, and our case is being made by our opponents.”27

        The significance of the quasi-official diplomatic status ACCORDED TO THE JEWISH AGENCY BY BRITAIN AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS THROUGH THE MANDATE thus cannot be overemphasized. It gave the Zionist movement an international legitimacy and guaranteed it invaluable access in world capitals, besides providing the framework within which the Zionist para-state that ultimately became Israel could be constructed without hindrance, and indeed with ample British and international support.28

        Palestinian politics were thus condemned to an even higher level of frustration than politics in the other Arab countries.

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 11:40 pm

        Hostage:

        Sibriak: None of the sources you cited contradicts Khalidi’s comments on the Mandate and Balfour Declaration.

        Hostage: In fact the Judges in their ICJ advisory opinions cited the effects of the Class A Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations as being instrumental in recognizing the members of the Palestinian communities and preserving their political rights to their territory and to a state of their own.

        Again, you fail to show how that contradicts Khalidi.

        Preserving the rights of “Palestinian communities”–i.e. various groups—Arabs, Jews et al.– is NOT equivalent to recognition of the Palestinians as a separate people with national rights, a right to self-determination etc. A “state of their own” does NOT refer to a national state for the Palestinian *people*. (Here again, we see your fallacy of equivocation–playing on two different meanings of the phrase “Palestinian state”).

        On the other hand, the Mandate, incorporating the Balfour Declaration, DID recognize separate rights for “the Jewish people”, NOT just equal citizenship right for Jewish inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine.

        In other words, the Mandate did NOT recognize a Palestinian right to a national existence as a *sovereign people in all of their country.*

      • Sibiriak
        December 27, 2012, 11:51 pm

        Hostage,

        Khalidi was wrong and repeating shopworn Zionist propaganda when he claimed that the mandate only protected the civil and religious rights of Palestinians, but not their political rights.

        Corrections: 1)You are misconstruing what Khalidi has said to create a strawman.

        Khalidi:

        While the Mandate’s twenty-eight articles included nine on antiquities, not one related to the Palestinian people per se: they were variously and vaguely defined as a “section of the population,” “natives,” or “peoples and communities.”

        So, Khalidi’s point is NOT to say that rights were not accorded to various individuals/groups, but that national political rights were not recognized for a *Palestinian people* per se, as they explicitly were for a “Jewish People” per se.

        Going on about:

        recognizing the members of the Palestinian communities

        does not in any way undercut Khalidi’s argument about recognition of a Palestinian *people* per se.

        2) Khalidi is not “repeating Zionist propaganda”. He is making a highly detailed anti-Zionist argument demonstrating the systematic suppression of Palestinian rights during the Mandatory period, and a partial basis for that suppression in the wording of Mandate itself.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 12:17 am

        Sibiriak: And the very ambiguity of the phrase “Jewish national home”

        Correction: the phrase was “national home for the Jewish people.”

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 12:33 am

        It did NOT show that *the Palestinians* as a nation or people in Palestine had a right to a Palestinian “national home” as the Jews *from all around the world* had a right to a Jewish National Home.

        Clearly that is because they already had one thus it did not need to be created. Palestine was already their home and their rights were being guaranteed and protected under the Mandate.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 12:37 am

        Hostage,

        I’m discussing the continuity of international guarantees for the protection of Palestinian political rights that flows from the Treaty of Berlin through the San Remo resolution and the Mandate and on to the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II)

        But the point you are missing is: those particular rights flowing from the Mandate etc. did NOT include a recognition of the rights of a *Palestinian people* per se, or the right of a *Palestinian people* to self-determination. On the other hand, the Mandate DID recognize the right of the *Jewish People* to a national home in Palestine.

        There is a fundamental asymmetry there which had a major impact on subsequent historical developments, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

        you and Khalidi say that they were not included in the mandate at all.

        Strawman: Khalidi does not say that. What he does say is:

        The tiny Jewish community of Palestine, composing about 10 percent of the country’s population at the time, was thereby placed in a distinctly privileged position.

        By contrast, the Arab majority, constituting 90 percent of Palestine’s population, was effectively ignored as a national or political entity.

        That’s a far different proposition than the strawman you put forward.

        The ICJ noted that the international community has a legal obligation toward all of the Palestinian people that has nothing to do with the PLO or the achievement of statehood in part of the territory of Palestine. That obligation includes the rights of Palestinians living in Israel or in refugee camps in the region.

        Another strawman. Where does Khalidi ever deny that?

        Hostage: Khalidi is still running around shreying about the non-existent role of the PLO in securing equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel.

        THAT is where you are really going off on a tangent. That has nothing to do with the argument about Mandatory Palestine.

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 12:44 am

        “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”

        Irrelevant, because in spite of what some claim Balfour hoped it meant is not what was agreed upon. Iin public, which is actually pert of the record, Balfour clearly states that national home did not mean Jewish state.
        On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration came before the War Cabinet, Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it DID NOT MEAN the establishment of an independent Jewish state.
        See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

        The oldest US publication devoted exclusively to world affairs, Current History was founded by The New York Times in 1914 to provide detailed coverage of what was then known as the Great War.
        link to currenthistory.com
        Current History, Volume 13, 1921 reported:
        The publication on Feb. 4 of the mandate over Palestine allotted to Great Britain by the Supreme Council of the Allies at San Remo threw a flood of light upon a hitherto dark spot of diplomacy and straightened out a question which was rapidly becoming involved in serious complications. The text embodies, aside from the articles of procedure, the famous San Remo resolution and the no less famous Balfourdeclaration. Although approved by the Supreme Council at San Remo it has yet to be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. It makes it clear that while the mandatary is expected to establish “a national home for the Jewish people” it is not the intention to create a “Jewish State,” as had been charged in certain quarters.

        Even the General Secretary and future President of the Zionist Organization rejected the suggestion. In 1919 the General Secretary and future President of the Zionist Organization, Nahum Sokolow represented the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference. That same year Longmans, Green, and Company published his “History of Zionism (1600–1918) Volume I”. On pages xxiv–xxv he explained:
        The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” . . . It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. . The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.

        And if that’s not enough, the British Government issued and even more emphatic rejection:

        “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.’ His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. 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 (Balfour) 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.

        But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.”
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        There is no argument.

        President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference reported that: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”

        What Wilson wanted is also irrelevant, seeing as the US was not even a member of the LON.

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 12:57 am

        What he is saying is that the Mandate didn’t explicitly recognize the Palestinians as a people, while it did explicitly call for a Jewish national home.

        What don’t you get about “‘The mandate, in Article 7, obliged Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed Palestinians formed a nation, & that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”?

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 12:59 am

        Just citing as many legal documents as you can come up with may impress some folks, but it doesn’t lend any actual support to your assertions.

        I guess it is intended to impress those that an actually read. If the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time” , then surely the Mandate was obliged top respect those guarantees .

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 1:05 am

        @Obsidian

        ‘In a private conversation at Balfour’s House in the summer of 1921, both Balfour and the Prime Minister contradicted him [Churchill] and told Churchill that “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”

        This raises another point which has become a standard talking point among hasbrats that doesn’t hold water. As with the 1939 White Paper, there is a claim that the British buckled to Arab pressure because they were afraid of making enemies of them, therefore they allegedly stepped back from their intention to create a Jewish state to avoid this confrontation.

        But if the British were at all concerned about the concerns of the Arab, they would never have allowed Balfour to write his letter to begin with. So why did Balfour say one this in private and another in public? Why did the British not say that they were going to create a Jewish state from the beginning?

        If they were so afraid of the fallout, what convinced them to to pursue a policy that would lead to such a conflict anyway once it became underniable?

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 2:14 am

        It surprises me that you would want to spend so much of your time writing voluminous posts to refute assertions of your own making.

        It surprises me that you would repeat shopworn Zionist propaganda here of all places and spend so much time defending it. When these questions were finally placed before an international Court, all of this old Zionist hasbara was thoroughly discredited.

        There never really was any such thing as an agreed upon legal category of political rights that were considered separate and distinct from the civil rights or religious rights of the “communities” (a legal term of art) that were mentioned in all of the mandates and post-WWI treaties of peace. The Permanent Court of International Justice dealt with the political or civil and religious rights of these “national” entities in a number of landmark cases, including the Greco-Bulgarian Communities (Opinion No. 17) and Minority Schools in Albania (Opinion A/B 64).

        The political rights of ethnic minority and religious groups were under the protection of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice. the “Summary of the work of the League of Nations, January 1920-March 1922″ noted that the Court would be competent to adjudicate any dispute on that or other subjects:

        There are also, in all the treaties of peace, clauses for the protection of minorities, and disputes regarding the carrying into effect of these clauses are to be referred to the Court. In the draft mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine, the Court’s decision is to be evoked in any dispute.

        – See page 4 link to archive.org

        Any dispute over the rights of non-Jewish communities under the mandate was subject to the jurisdiction of the Court under the terms of Article 26 of the Mandate:

        The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

        –http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

        So other countries, like Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, and India, which were members of the League of Nations, had the necessary legal standing to dispute any abuse of the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine – and they frequently did so. In fact the record shows that the President of the Zionist Organization and others ignored Article 26 and employed Zionist hasbara to complain that the Arab members of the League had no standing to interfere with the administration of the Mandate, e.g. Dr. Chaim Weizmann wrote an article in his capacity as head of the Jewish Agency, “Palestine’s Role in the Solution of the Jewish Problem, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1942), pp. 324-338 which claimed that:

        Arab states like ‘Iraq and Egypt, which had no locus standi in Palestinian affairs, were first allowed, and later encouraged, to exercise a powerful influence, and the Arabs were lined up in a united front against the Jewish National Home.

        I’ve supplied examples where the ICJ still cites the applicability of the international guarantees, like the ones contained in Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin and Article 26 of the Mandate and claims, inter alia that these safeguards were also reflected in Article 13 too. The treaty stipulated:

        In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever.

        So please explain how 1) the statement in the Mandate: “it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” could possibly prejudice the rights that where hitherto protected by Article 62 in light of 2) the stipulation contained in the San Remo resolution of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers which only agreed to accept the terms of the mandate “on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine?

        The ICJ held that the Class A Mandate implemented in pursuance of Article 22 of the Covenant was part of the basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the General Assembly and the Court itself. It also concluded that it constituted provisional recognition of an independent nation and the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 3:57 am

        Abdullah moving to the area that became TransJordan does in no way make the indigenous residents of that area Hashemites

        You’re beating a dead horse. Once again you need to define your term “area”. Maan and Aqaba were part of Arabia, and more specifically, the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Hedjaz.

        Abdullah certainly was indigenous to Arabia and a resident of that area. He represented Hedjaz in the Ottoman parliament. I’ve also explained that Hedjaz was in the same Ottoman Provincial Army jurisdiction and region as Amman and that the Ottoman government called it all Arabistan or Arabia. He lived there before it became part of the new state of Transjordan.

        the areas that were Hashemite that were annexed were annexed after it had been decided Abdullah would be King of TransJordan. The fact remains that the land that became TransJordan was part of the Ottoman province of Syria.

        The territory had ceased to be under Ottoman control and its disposition was a matter for other parties to decide under the terms of the post war treaties. Hedjaz was one of the signatories of the Treaty of Versailles and Sèvres. The Syrian General Congress had declared Feisal King of Syria shortly before the San Remo Conference was convened. Transjordan was supposed to be included in his new Arab state under the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. The latter cited and employed the Sykes-Picot line and mentioned the Arab State. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Syria had only been a vilayet. It did NOT include the districts of Maan or Aqaba. The Shaw’s book explained that Damascus, Syria served as the headquarters for the provincial army of Arabistan which exercised jurisdiction over all the vilayets in the region, not just the one.

        The fact is that the Sharif Hussein and the Emir Abdullah had both taken part in the negotiations years earlier with British High Commissioner McMahon to establish a new Arab state in the region of Transjordan. It was not part of the brown region on the Sykes-Picot map which included the international condominium of Palestine. Sykes and Picot had travel to the Hedjaz to conclude the negotiations that began with the McMahon correspondence. FYI, the 3rd paragraph of the Sykes-Picot Agreement obligated the Allies to consult with the Sharif of Mecca on the form of government in the brown area of international administration in Palestine too. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The legal standard we are discussing only called for persons to be habitual residents, not indigenous. The Jews living in Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, and Russia failed to satisfy either of those criteria.

        and the areas that were Hashemite that were annexed were annexed after it had been decided Abdullah would be King of TransJordan.

        In fact, I’ve gone out of my way to provide you with a citation and link which established that the General Syrian Congress included Hedjazi territory south of the Ottoman Hedjazi-Syrian line within the boundaries of their state in July of 1919 when they named a Hashemite as their King. So it was no longer “Ottoman Syria” that was under discussion.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 4:27 am

        @shingo

        I quote from David Fromkin’s A Peace to End All Peace, page. 520,

        ‘In a private conversation at Balfour’s House in the summer of 1921, both Balfour and the Prime Minister contradicted him [Churchill] and told Churchill that “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”

        That only proves Balfour was a liar. Shingo cited what Balfour said for the official record on the momentous occasion when he was trying to persuade the War Cabinet to endorse his proposed Declaration regarding the national home. In Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, “Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East”, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009, the authors cited the minutes of the Cabinet meeting. They explain that when the Balfour Declaration came before the War Cabinet, on the 31st of October 1917, Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state.

        The authors specifically noted that at other times Balfour had said that it did mean the establishment of a state. But that was not the official basis upon which the Cabinet had agreed to endorse the declaration.
        See page 120 link to books.google.com

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 4:50 am

        Hostage,

        The ICJ noted in its advisory opinion that the rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time”. The Court cited Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) as one of the more recent examples.

        But that doesn’t contradict Khalidi’s statement in any way.

        The political rights mentioned there were either prejudiced by the Mandate, as Khalidi claimed, or they were not, as the Court claimed.

        The Court said the “existing rights” were the subject of a safe guard clause in Article 13 of the Mandate. The Court’s point of departure for the legal analysis of the Palestinian’s political right of self-determination was based upon the key piece of evidence: that the League of Nations had entrusted Great Britain with a Class A Mandate pursuant to Article 22 paragraph 4 of the Covenant and had provisionally recognized the communities as an independent nations. See para. 70 et seq. All of that was spelled out in the preamble of the mandate too. You can argue that the mandate somehow ignored the national or political rights of the Palestinians, but the Court concluded that it did not.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 4:54 am

        Are you comparing the Muslim Brotherhood of the 40′s and 50′s with the Muslim Brotherhood of the 1980′s?

        Of course. Are you saying that Israel assassinated the co-founders of Hamas by mistake?

        Please.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 5:02 am

        But the fact remains that the Palestine Mandate DID incorporate the terms of the Balfour Declaration

        It was actually rewritten so that it merely cited the declaration and the fact that Great Britain was responsible for giving it legal effect. The authors also deleted the reference to a historical claim and replaced it with the circumlocution “historical connection”.

        I pointed out that the Balfour declaration was not included in any enabling legislation and that even the Israel Supreme Court had dismissed the idea that it had given the Jews the right to settle in Gaza. There’s no right without a legal remedy, and that’s why the Israeli Gaza Coast Council is history.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 5:05 am

        You are missing the point entirely. Khalidi is not denying that a new state was created, and thus a new “nationality”. What he is saying is that the Mandate didn’t explicitly recognize the Palestinians as a people, while it did explicitly call for a Jewish national home.

        Then have him read paragraph 70 of the ICJ advisory opinion and get right back to us with his comments about the term “communities” in Article 22 para 4 of the Covenant and the preamble of the Mandate.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 5:18 am

        Shingo,

        Palestine was already their home and their rights were being guaranteed and protected under the Mandate.

        False. Palestinian rights to self-determination and sovereignty over all their country were neither guaranteed nor protected under the Mandate.

        As Keith wrote:

        it is difficult to account for Zionist “success” without being aware of the significant British favoritism which provided the Zionists with incalculable advantage over the rival Palestinians. Indeed, I suspect that Israel would not have come into being as a Jewish state without significant imperial support, the necessity of which Zionists were aware of right from the beginning.

      • Obsidian
        December 28, 2012, 5:53 am

        Who had Balfour lied to? He hadn’t lied to Churchill. He’d told Churchill the truth, that he (Balfour) and the Prime Minister had promised the Zionists an eventual Jewish State.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 5:56 am

        Shingo:

        If the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time” , then surely the Mandate was obliged top respect those guarantees .

        The point you are missing: the Mandate never recognized any guarantees to the Palestinian people regarding a right to self-determination as a people nor to any right to a national existence as a sovereign people in all of their country. In contrast, the Mandate did recognize the Jewish people’s right to a “national home” in Palestine.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 6:14 am

        The Mandate created a right for a Jewish national home in Palestine in *addition* to any existing rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants.

        No it didn’t. The Courts and the government of Israel dismissed the idea in the Gaza Coastal Council case. In any event, there were already existing Jewish communities in the four holy cities which had been there for centuries. They had already been granted national religious rights and limited autonomy by the Ottoman government.

        The mandate was written with plenty of qualified legalese that allowed the mandatory to impose “suitable conditions” on any foreign immigration or colonial settlement – and it took steps to end immigration and prohibit Jewish settlement in 2/3rds of the country under the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance.

        More to the point, I’ve provided links to the British Cabinet papers about the Balfour Declaration and the UNSCOP report. They stated that the term “national home” had no known legal connotation and that there were no precedents in international law for its interpretation. Many of the Zionists quoted in those sources thought the term only implied a shrine or national cultural center, like the university on Mount Scopus. link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve commented many times in the past about the fact that there was no agreed upon definition for the rest of Balfour’s formula either: “a Jewish” national home. The UNSCOP testimony of Weizmann, Shertok, and the Chief Rabbi of Palestine revealed that they disagreed over the meaning of the term “Jewish” and who exactly could be considered a “Jew”. Weizmann noted that lengthy explanations were always necessary, and that the results were always suspect or doubtful at best.
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 6:17 am

        Hostage,

        The political rights mentioned there were either prejudiced by the Mandate, as Khalidi claimed, or they were not, as the Court claimed.

        Strawman: Khalidi never claimed THOSE “rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back ‘far in time'” were prejudiced by the Mandate.

        This gets to your fundamental misunderstanding of Khalidi’s argument.

        To repeat, he is NOT talking about rights dated back “far in time”, he is talking about *newly emergent* rights, never previously specified or guaranteed by any Western power et al.

        It is these NEW rights, concomitant with the recent emergence of the Palestinians as a people with national aspirations, that Khalid says were prejudiced by the Mandate.

        Khalidi writes:

        The Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations in July 1922 was an internationally recognized document representing the consensus of the great powers of the day as to the disposition of the former Ottoman territory of Palestine. By this time, many of the Arabs of Palestine were already COMING TO THINK OF THEMSELVES IN NATIONAL TERMS AS A PEOPLE.

        As I have shown elsewhere, this was only one of their overlapping senses of identity, which included being part of the larger Arab people and of Greater Syria, as well as having other religious, local, and familial identities.3 [emphasis added].

        The reality of Palestinians as a *people with a national identity and aspirations* was an emergent phenomenon, and thus the rights associated with that newly emerging reality were also NEW.

        Consequently, rights dating back “far in time” –no matter how protected by the Mandate– couldn’t possibly involve these newly emergent rights of the Palestinian people.

        Your whole argument fails because it mistakenly conflates qualitatively and historically disparate rights.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 6:19 am

        But you have not shown how that legal analysis contradicts the specific statement by Khalidi which I cited.

        The Court said that amounted to national recognition of the communities, but Khalidi claims that it did not.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 6:38 am

        Shingo:

        If the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time” , then surely the Mandate was obliged top respect those guarantees .

        To be even clearer: yes, the Mandate was obliged to respect guarantees that dated back “far in time”.

        But as I explained in a reply to Hostage, Khalidi is NOT referring to rights and guarantees dating back “far in time”. He is referring to newly emerging rights of the Palestinians *as a people with national aspirations”. Those emerging rights could not exist far back in time, since that Palestinian national consciousness itself did not exist until relatively recently.

        Khalidi:

        Palestinian identity [...]emerged during approximately the same period as did modern Zionism

        And that Palestinian identity was still in a state of formation in the early 2oth century.

        [The emergent Palestinian identity] included elements of Ottoman, Arab, Islamic and Christian, local Palestinian, and European ideologies and thought.60 While a certain synthesis of these elements eventually emerged to constitute modern Palestinian nationalist political consciousness, Palestinian politics nevertheless remained considerably less homogeneous ideologically than politics within the yishuv.

        Be that as it may, the central fact is that the Mandate privileged Jewish national aspirations over these *equally valid* Palestinian national aspirations: among other things, it specifically called for a “national home” for the “Jewish people” but made no references to the rights or aspirations or even the existence of a Palestinian people.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 6:48 am

        How many Jewish peoples exist/existed, according to your theory?

        The national home in Palestine was intended for which of these peoples??

        If you’re going to talk about cultural uniqueness, the national right of self-determination, and national homes, is there really only one White Anglo-Saxon people in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States, Great Britain, & etc.?

        The British and Israeli governments couldn’t even get the Palestinian Jews to agree upon a single Chief Rabbi. The Ethiopian Jews had their own religious practices that the government of Israel has prohibited. Neither the mandate, nor the UN minority protection plan would have permitted the government to practice any such religious discrimination.

        I can supply you with links to treaties that recognized the national rights of different Jewish communities in all of the new states created by the Concert of Europe, the League of Nations, or the UN after 1878. It just so happens that minority treaties became a customary part of recognition and grants of territory beginning with the Treaty of Berlin and the establishment of the new states of Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. Palestine was no exception. The national home in Palestine was only a Palestinian one. That’s why the Jews who took-up residence there became Palestinians.

      • Obsidian
        December 28, 2012, 7:01 am

        @Hostage.

        Incorrect.
        The ICJ erred in classifying the Mandate for Palestine as ‘Class A”.
        See below from the Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II.

        “(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis.
        Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”1

        The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences between the Mandates:

        “Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.
        “… Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency ‘as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration’ on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.2
        “… But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic national home of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or Iraq.”3

        1)Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, p. 38.
        2) Ibid. p. 39.
        3 Ibid. p. 40

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 7:16 am

        Hostage,

        I have to admit, I find some validity to Sibiriak’s argument:

        And the very ambiguity of the phrase “Jewish national home” in the Mandate itself tilted the document in favor of Jewish interests. The inclusion of such a phrase–the inclusion of entire Balfour Declaration–allowed for British-assisted development of a Jewish proto-state in Palestine, while the ambiguity allowed various figures to deny that such a “Jewish national home” was actually a potential state in the making.

        After all, even if you argue that the mandate protected Palestinian rights, you would have to agree that the exception made in the case of Palestine really did compromise it, if not undermine it altogether.

        I would love to her your thoughts about whether creating a Jewish National home in Palestine was contrary to the intent of the Mandates ie. that they should facilitate the transition of existing states towards statehood. I recall you commenting that the British had concluded (after the LON issue the mandate) that the whole business of creating a national home for the Jews was illegal because it was carried out without the prior consent of the local population in Palestine.

        I also have to agree that the ambiguity of the definition of “national home” did indeed play into the Zionist hands, as it allowed them to pursue their goal of statehood while affording them plausible deniability until it was too late.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 7:23 am

        If the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back “far in time” , then surely the Mandate was obliged to respect those guarantees.

        We are only discussing a clause which mentions that nothing should be done that would prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities.

        Customary international law rules-out the possibility that other rights could be suspended in the case of an agreement where there is a total absence of any explicit provision regarding suspension of rights. That’s why I keep asking how the terms of the Mandate worked this feat of magic.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 7:54 am

        But the point you are missing is: those particular rights flowing from the Mandate etc. did NOT include a recognition of the rights of a *Palestinian people* per se, or the right of a *Palestinian people* to self-determination.

        Of course it did. Only the communities mentioned in Article 22(4) of the covenant were included in Class A mandates. They were provisionally recognized as independent nations and automatically included in the category of peoples entitled to exercise the right of self-determination.

        So while the ICJ argues that this is the prime example of evidence that a sacred trust to that effect still exists, you are reading between the lines and arguing from silence that the mandate didn’t somehow recognize the non-Jewish Palestinian communities, although they were explicitly mentioned throughout the text of the mandate instrument.

        The fact is that Article 13 said the mandatory was responsible for preserving the existing rights of the religious communities + securing free access to the Holy Places. In the case of the Muslim wafqs and sacred shrines the mandatory was prohibited from interfering in their “fabric or management, the immunities of which are guaranteed”. Legal immunity is always an aspect of sovereign jurisdiction.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 8:10 am

        Corrections: 1)You are misconstruing what Khalidi has said to create a strawman.

        Khalidi:

        While the Mandate’s twenty-eight articles included nine on antiquities, not one related to the Palestinian people per se: they were variously and vaguely defined as a “section of the population,” “natives,” or “peoples and communities.”

        The “communities” in question were well defined legal entities under the Ottoman millet system and they had their own courts which governed each member’s personal legal status. The Permanent Court of International Justice cleared-up any dispute over the meaning of the term of art “community” in the cases on the minority treaties that I cited earlier.

        In the Greco-Bulgarian Communities (Opinion No. 17) and Minority Schools in Albania (Opinion A/B 64), the World Court said that a community is:” … a group of persons living in a given country or locality, having a race, religion, language and traditions of their own and united by this identity of race, religion, language and traditions in a sentiment of solidarity, with a view to preserving their traditions, maintaining their form of worship, ensuring the instruction and upbringing of their children in accordance with the spirit and traditions of their race and rendering mutual assistance to each other.”

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 8:31 am

        Preserving the rights of “Palestinian communities”–i.e. various groups—Arabs, Jews et al.– is NOT equivalent to recognition of the Palestinians as a separate people with national rights, a right to self-determination etc.

        Please provide a reliable source for that remarkable claim. “Communities” and “peoples” mentioned in the Covenant of the LoN; the Class A Mandates; and the UN minority protection plan for Palestine were legally recognized entities under public international law. They were the subjects of numerous treaties authored by the members of the Concert of Europe, the League of Nations, and the UN.

        They had the right to form and dissolve political unions, confederations, independent states, or to choose any other political status for the territory that they inhabited.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 9:09 am

        Shingo,

        [the Palestinians' ] rights were being guaranteed and protected under the Mandate.

        Let’s get down to brass tacks here.

        The Mandate obligated the British to put into effect the Balfour Declaration and create a “national home for the Jewish people”.

        The Mandate also states:

        Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.

        And:

        The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home

        And:

        An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine

        And:

        The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

        Taken together, these provisions in the Mandate amount to the *imposition* of a Jewish “national home” of unspecified nature and size on the Palestinians.

        It is not enough to point out provisions that recognize pre-existing rights, such as:

        nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

        Neither is it sufficient to point out that the phrase “national home” is ambiguous and did not necessarily mean a state.

        The fact remains that the Jewish people– not just Jews living in Palestine at the time–were given rights to immigrate into Palestine and set up a national home–and the Palestinians had NO RIGHT to object to this imposition.

        Furthermore, even though rights were recognized for various “non-Jewish” communities, the Palestinians were NOT recognized as a people with national rights and aspirations as the Jewish people were. A Palestinian national identity had just recently come into being, so all references to previously existing rights did NOT amount to a recognition of a Palestinian people with *national* rights.

        Neither you nor Hostage has responded to the fact that the Mandate obligated the British to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestinian–without the Palestinians having any say in the matter.
        This being the case even though Palestinians made up some 90% of the territory in question.

        Since this Jewish national home was to be a home for the “Jewish people”, with their supposed “historical connection” to Palestine–not just Jews living there at the time— the British were committed by the Mandate to a COLONIAL PROJECT.

        Facilitating the inflow of an unspecified number of Jewish immigrants inevitably meant the loss of Palestinian land control and a weakening of their majority status. Pace Hostage, the Mandate has no clear provisions limiting the size of this immigration nor putting limitations on the term “the Jewish people”.

        Furthermore, neither you nor Hostage has responded to the fact that:

        …by the terms of the League of Nations Mandate, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.” The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, in London, and elsewhere. By contrast, the Palestinians had no international standing whatsoever, and indeed were often dependent on the hostile and unsympathetic British for such unsatisfactory diplomatic representation as they could obtain in Geneva and elsewhere.

        If setting up a national home for all the Jewish People, recognizing the Jewish peoples’ –not just specific Jews’—“historical connection” to Palestine, facilitating immigration into that national home, empowering the Jewish Agency and giving it international standing, without giving the Palestinian people ANY SAY in the matter and all the while failing to recognize the Palestinians as a people with *national* rights (not just pre-existing rights)–if all that doesn’t constitute a privileging of Jewish interests over Palestinian interests, then you must be interpreting those terms in an extremely abnormal fashion.

      • Obsidian
        December 28, 2012, 9:12 am

        @Hostage

        Wrong.

        The Mandate’s drafters did not have the self determination rights of the Arabs in mind at the drafting of the British Mandate at the San Remo Conference.

        “Lord Curzon said that he did not yet quite understand the precise significace of ‘political rights’ according to French law. In the British language all ordinary rights were included in ‘civil rights’. He was anxious to avoid introducing in the Treaty a word which might have a different meaning for the French and for the British [and might revive the religious rights which had just been disposed of]“. See, Lloyd George, ‘The Truth About the Peace Treaties’ at Page 1174.

        (brackets added by me for emphasis)

        Hostage. The subject discussion between Lord Curzon, Lloyd George and the French representative Mssr. Millerand on the preceeding pages of ‘The Truth'(1170-74) concerned Britain’s successful, diplomatic paring down of French demands for a protectorate of Palestine’s Catholics under the British Mandate, not in securing ‘political rights’ for Arab Palestinians

      • Citizen
        December 28, 2012, 9:21 am

        @ Hostage
        I am curious if you agree with what is stated in the following article about the history of the Balfour Declaration. If not what do you disagree with? link to ihr.org

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 9:41 am

        Hostage,

        The fact is that Article 13 said the mandatory was responsible for preserving the existing rights of the religious communities + securing free access to the Holy Places.

        With all due respect, that is a far cry from constituting a recognition of the Palestinian people and their *national* rights, including the right to self-determination in a specific territory.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 10:07 am

        Hostage,

        Hostage,

        Please provide a reliable source for that remarkable claim.

        The claim is entirely unremarkable. You are basing your objection on your assertion that:

        The Permanent Court of International Justice cleared-up any dispute over the meaning of the term of art “community” in the cases on the minority treaties that I cited earlier.

        1) Please provide quotations from that Court that assert that the Mandate recognized the Palestinian people as a people with national rights and the right to self-determination, since that is the issue under discussion.

        2) Please explain how a Court ruling made just recently could possibly have had any impact on the way the Mandate was interpreted during the time Mandatory Palestine existed. That is the issue Khalidi was dealing with, as you well know.

        They had the right to form and dissolve political unions, confederations, independent states, or to choose any other political status for the territory that they inhabited.

        The point you are failing to address is this:

        The Mandate *imposed* a Jewish “national home” of unspecified nature and size on the Palestinians. The Palestinian people had NO RIGHT to reject this imposition even though they made up some 90% of the people in mandatory Palestine.

        The Mandate obligated the British to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine and “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands”–without the Palestinians having any say in the matter.

        How could the Palestinians have an effective right to self-determination and national sovereignty over all their territory, if the British were facilitating Jewish immigration and Jewish settlement into a “national home” in Palestine?

        How could this British-facilitated immigration and settlement of Jewish people not be a colonialist project?

        Hostage: The mandate made it quite clear that Palestine was not the national home of ALL the Jewish peoples.

        You’ve yet to explain that remarkable statement. Which Jewish peoples were not supposed to immigrate to the “national home for the Jewish people”? Please provide evidence.

      • GilGamesh
        December 28, 2012, 10:25 am

        I’m not beating a dead horse I am only abiding by the rules you laid out for who gets to declare a state in a given area.

        “Maan and Aqaba were part of Arabia, and more specifically, the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Hedjaz.” no Maan was part of the province of Syria and Abdullah didn’t get there until 1920.
        “The Hashemite emir Abdullah I arrived in Ma’an in 1920 with several hundred fighters in his attempt to restore the Sharifian throne in Damascus following its overthrow by France.[17] He addressed the French colonization of Syria by stating to Ma’an’s residents “The colonialist has come to you to rob you of the three graces: faith, freedom and masculinity.”[18] Following the British capture of the area during World War I, the British Mandate of Palestine was established in 1922 and included Transjordan which was semi-autonomous from British administration in Palestine. Ma’an was annexed to the Transjordanian state in 1925. ” Joseph Andoni Massad Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan.

        Aqaba didn’t become part of Hedjaz until 1917 when TE Laurence captured it from the Ottomans.

        As for Syria “only” being a “vilayet” so what ?

        Lets go this way how many Hashemites lived in Amman before it became the capital of TransJordan? What percentage of the population was Hashemite before it was declared so.

        That the emir’s decided to divide up the region among themselves with the help and blessing of the British is meaningless if you are trying to build a case that somehow the Hashemites had more rights to a Kingdom there then the indigenous Jews. You can’t decide what constitutes a region when it suits your purpose to say that the Hashemites live in part of the Ottoman Empire so that gave them a rights to a country of their own in a place none of them had lived while at the same time say the only Jews that lived in the Ottoman Empire that counted toward the amount of land allocated to Israel had to have lived in the exact spot where Israel was declared.

        I also noticed you avoided my question about the Hajj Amin Al-Husseni. Any particular reason?

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 10:25 am

        Shingo:

        I would love to her your thoughts about whether creating a Jewish National home in Palestine was contrary to the intent of the Mandates ie. that they should facilitate the transition of existing states towards statehood.

        That’s a excellent point. Khalidi, btw, has a long section showing how Mandates for other states where not compromised in the same was as the Palestine Mandate.

        that the whole business of creating a national home for the Jews was illegal because it was carried out without the prior consent of the local population in Palestine.

        That’s a succinct way of putting it.

        In any case, it’s getting late where I live, and I will have to bow out of this discussion, for a while at least.

        Hostage can have the last word, as always.

        I really do appreciate his amazingly informative posts, even if I disagree on certain points of interpretation.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 10:49 am

        No, just the opposite. Far from ignoring that obligation, what I’ve been doing is *contrasting* that obligation with the obligation to assist in the creation and development of a Jewish national in Palestine.

        Those two obligations are NOT of the same type; they are qualitatively different. Your argument that they were both legally binding in no way changes that fact.

        Once again, many Zionists and members of the War Cabinet thought that establishing a national home would amount to little more than a symbolic shrine or cultural center. You’re reading much more into an undefined term than the existing public law on civil and religious rights would have ever allowed.

        The only way that you can get into the situation that occurred in Palestine is for the mandatory to knowingly and willingly lie about the assurances that were given to the Arabs and violate the terms of the mandate regarding its obligations to protect the rights of the non-Jewish communities.

        Churchill’s 1922 White Paper is an example of both those things, but it still had to formally recognize the right of the Palestinian Arabs to participate in elections for the Legislative Council that was supposed to take over the Executive power within a couple of years. It also provided that “any religious community or considerable section of the population of Palestine will have a general right to appeal, through the High Commissioner and the Secretary of State, to the League of Nations on any matter on which they may consider that the terms of the Mandate are not being fulfilled by the Government of Palestine.” The Palestinian leadership simply refused to acknowledge the mandate at all, even the parts that protected their own civil rights.

        This latter point is extremely important, for BY THE TERMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.”

        Oh Please. Now you’re adding insult to injury by repeating more propaganda. The British used that same clause to remind the Jewish Agency that it had no role in the actual decision making process or in governing Palestine.

        We have seen that THE PALESTINIANS CONSIDERED THE MANDATE TO CONSTITUTE THE NEGATION OF THEIR NATIONAL EXISTENCE AS A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE IN ALL OF THEIR COUNTRY. (emphasis added)

        A “national existence as a sovereign people in all their country” is NOT compatible with the British drive to assist the development of a “Jewish national home” in that country.

        No, we have witnessed a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to what should have been a temporary political setback. The Palestinian leadership managed to turn the situation into a decades-long fiasco. Oceans of ink have been spilled detailing the foolish desire to exercise sovereignty over “all or nothing” and the intransigence, ineptitude, and corruption that stymied the efforts of cooler heads to find an acceptable alternative, like the Legislative Council or the Arab Agency.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 12:09 pm

        I would love to her your thoughts about whether creating a Jewish National home in Palestine was contrary to the intent of the Mandates ie. that they should facilitate the transition of existing states towards statehood. I recall you commenting that the British had concluded (after the LON issue the mandate) that the whole business of creating a national home for the Jews was illegal because it was carried out without the prior consent of the local population in Palestine.

        The Mandate left it up to the British mandatory to decide how it would give legal effect to the Balfour Declaration. That was not the case with respect to Article 22(4) of the Covenant. There were a combination of factors that combined to prevent the establishment of a popularly elected lawmaking body, like the one envisioned in Churchill’s 1922 White Paper, that could have taken over the Executive functions of government. When that didn’t happen, the British elected to press ahead and give effect to the Balfour Declaration by methods which violated both the intent and content of the Mandate with respect to the civil rights of the non-Jewish communities. In some respects the Palestinian leadership shot itself in the foot. But the Jewish national home wasn’t necessarily illegal or an inseparable part of the problem of giving the other communities the same right of self-determination.

        Demographers, like U.O. Schmelz highlighted the fact, that after studying the census records, there was no indigenous Jewish demographic threat:

        The salient finding was the enormous mortality among the Jews of Jerusalem at that time, which caused a marked deficit in their natural rate of increase notwithstanding high nuptiality and, apparently, great fertility. Under these circumstances, the maintenance and gradual increase of the numbers of Jews in Jerusalem were entirely due to migratory reinforcements, i.e. to ‘aliya.

        — See U.O. Schmelz Demographic Research of the Jerusalem
        and Hebron Regions Towards the End of the Ottoman Period, in David Kushner, Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, BRILL, 1986, page 363.

        So immigration was necessary just to maintain the relative Jewish fraction of the growing population as a whole. When Churchill described the Jewish national home in 1922 he was talking about the existing one that was already in place and its growth alongside the other sectors, not some new institution:

        During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact “national” characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

        This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty’s Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

        For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions.

        UNSCOP and other reliable sources reported that in the early years, like 1927, Palestine experienced net Jewish emigration. Of course, the Zionists eventually adopted the “conquest of labor” policy and the British imposed taxes on the Palestinian Arabs which were used to employ a surplus of Jewish immigrants on make-work public projects. So the Jews did become an undesirable burden on the majority and they did displace indigenous cultivators and workers – all of which occurred without the consent of the other communities.

      • Talkback
        December 28, 2012, 12:36 pm

        Please stop Hostage!!!

        Khalidi is talking only about the ARAB or NONJEWISH Palestinians when he says “Palestinian people”. Your are talking about all fromer Ottomans in Palestine including indigenous or during the mandate naturalized Jews, e.g. the “Palestinian Nation” or all citizens of Palestine.

        And it is correct to say that the Balfour Declaration was contradicting the right to self determination either of the Palestinian people (Khalidi) or of the Palestinian nation (ICJ, etc.), which means in any case majority rule. The immediate implementation of this right has to be delayed to implement the establishment of the national home for Jews. Otherwise an independant Palestine would have cancelled this project immediately.

      • Obsidian
        December 28, 2012, 12:42 pm

        “So why did Balfour say one this in private and another in public? Why did the British not say that they were going to create a Jewish state from the beginning?”

        Easy.
        Great Britain said whatever she needed to say to further her own interests.

        When the outcome of World War I was not clear she made many promises to many different parties. When the War ended in her favor, and her fortunes improved, she reneged on her promises.

        Perfidious Albion

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 1:50 pm

        Please stop Hostage!!!

        Khalidi is talking only about the ARAB or NONJEWISH Palestinians when he says “Palestinian people”.

        That’s his problem. In 1922 the British government White Paper said the Jewish national home was the existing Jewish community that had already been in Palestine for 2 or 3 generations. It already had its own government organs, courts, and other recognized national characteristics. None of that violated the rights of the other communities. The right of self-determination of peoples applied to all of the Palestinian communities. Majority rule doesn’t mean that the Palestinian Arab ones could veto the right of the indigenous Jewish community to determine its own political status. The ICJ explained in the Kosovo case that nothing in international law prohibits secession. The argument that Palestinian Arabs had to exercise sovereignty over all or nothing is a complete non-starter.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 2:02 pm

        The Mandate obligated the British to put into effect the Balfour Declaration and create a “national home for the Jewish people”.

        Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.

        You are overlooking the fact that the 1922 White Paper said that during the last two or three generations the Jews had already recreated their community in Palestine before the British had ever arrived on the scene. That community was described as the Jewish national home.

        The mandatory said it was only necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, not that it should be created, become a burden on others, or deprive any section of the existing population. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 2:30 pm

        @Hostage.

        Incorrect.
        The ICJ erred in classifying the Mandate for Palestine as ‘Class A”.

        You’ve got that backwards. In the course of twenty five years Great Britain used every excuse in the book, but its interpretations of the nature of the class A mandates were never legally binding on the other powers that ratified those instruments.

        The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) contains the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions taken by the post-World War I Peace Conferences. The Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Volume XIII, Annotations to the treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919 explains:
        “The mandates under which the various territories have been administered were submitted by the mandatory governments to the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with paragraph 8 of article 22. The terms were reviewed by the Council, in some cases revised on its recommendation, and finally approved by it. The following table gives the pertinent data for each territory:
        “A” Mandates
        *Palestine
        *Trans-Jordan
        *Syria and Lebanon’
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        The FRUS also records that on November 22, 1947, Mr. Johnson, the representative of United States, expressed agreement with the statement made by the Chairman of the UN General Assembly Ad Hoc Sub-Committee 1 on the Question of Palestine that the plan presented by the Sub-Committee was legal under the Charter. There was nothing in the Charter which prevented an immediate transition from a Class A mandate to independence. Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V, 1278 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        FYI, the classes of the various mandates were established by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers, the drafts were prepared by the mandatories, and then submitted for any modifications and ratification by the Council of the League of Nations. Duncan Hall noted that each mandate was in the nature of a treaty, and that being treaties, the mandates could not be amended unilaterally by the mandatory power. See Mandates, Dependencies and Trusteeship, by H. Duncan Hall, Carnegie Endowment, 1948, pages 91-112.

        That opinion was confirmed by the ICJ in the International Status of South West Africa case (1949), which the ICJ cited in paragraph 70 of its advisory opinion about the nature of the Palestine Class A mandate.
        *link to icj-cij.org
        * link to icj-cij.org

        Article 26 of the Mandate stipulated that any dispute about the interpretation of the Mandate would be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Article 37 of the Statute of the ICJ explains that:

        Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to a tribunal to have been instituted by the League of Nations, or to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall, as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice.

        So the opinion of the ICJ on the subject is dispositive.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 2:47 pm

        But as I explained in a reply to Hostage, Khalidi is NOT referring to rights and guarantees dating back “far in time”. He is referring to newly emerging rights of the Palestinians *as a people with national aspirations”. Those emerging rights could not exist far back in time, since that Palestinian national consciousness itself did not exist until relatively recently.

        The only question is if they had the necessary political or civil right to participate in a representative lawmaking organ of the former government. The idea that they had the right to govern other communities based upon their “national aspirations as a people” is still a non-starter. Self-determination means the right of a people to determine their own political status, not that of others.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 3:10 pm

        Hostage,

        The political rights mentioned there were either prejudiced by the Mandate, as Khalidi claimed, or they were not, as the Court claimed.

        Strawman: Khalidi never claimed THOSE “rights and privileges of the Palestinian communities had been under international guarantees that dated back ‘far in time’” were prejudiced by the Mandate.

        This gets to your fundamental misunderstanding of Khalidi’s argument.

        (Sigh) Here is a link to the debate in the Ottoman Parliament in 1911 in which the two representatives from Jerusalem, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. The two men were very careful to explain that they were not anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Zionist because the Jews in the Parliament were also members of their political party (the CUP) See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq
        link to books.google.com

        I’ve already provided a link in other comments here which explained that there were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish delegates to the Syrian General Congress of 1919.

        Now then, did the British have an obligation to protect the “existing rights” of Palestinian Arabs and Jews to participate in the representative lawmaking organs of the new mandatory government of Palestine, or not? This is not a trick question.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 3:39 pm

        the Mandate never recognized any guarantees to the Palestinian people regarding a right to self-determination as a people nor to any right to a national existence as a sovereign people in all of their country.

        Article 3 was not limited in any way to the Jews:

        The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

        Article 6 said that the Jews were denied settlement on any state lands or waste lands that were required for public purposes. IOW the public interest trumped the interest in establishing the Jewish national home.

        Here are some more obligations:
        The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.

        Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.

        The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

        All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

        The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.

        English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 3:47 pm

        Who had Balfour lied to?

        If he was being honest when he told the War Cabinet that the term national home did not mean a Jewish state, then he was lying to Churchill.

        Otherwise he must have lied to the War Cabinet. In any event, the adoption of the Declaration did not mean the Cabinet supported a Jewish state in Palestine.

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2012, 4:34 pm

        Who had Balfour lied to?

        Curzon and the entire war cabinet, when he denied that national home meant Jewish State.

        He’d told Churchill the truth, that he (Balfour) and the Prime Minister had promised the Zionists an eventual Jewish State.

        As has been proven, the British government empathetical denied this in 1922 and 1939. So Balfour was a liar, and likely so was Lloyd George.

        If the Balfour Declaration was intended to create a Jewish State, then it would have been clearly stated in the document. It didn’t and the British government made a number of official statements denying this.

        So clearly, Balfour was making promises he had no right or authority to make.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 4:43 pm

        False. Palestinian rights to self-determination and sovereignty over all their country were neither guaranteed nor protected under the Mandate.

        As Keith wrote:

        it is difficult to account for Zionist “success” without being aware of the significant British favoritism which provided the Zionists with incalculable advantage over the rival Palestinians. Indeed, I suspect that Israel would not have come into being as a Jewish state without significant imperial support, the necessity of which Zionists were aware of right from the beginning.

        Yeah, but that just relocates the original problem from Khalidi to Keith, neither one bases their argument on the explicit provisions of the Mandate.

        The preamble guaranteed nothing would prejudice the existing civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities. I’ve pointed out that al Khalidi’s relatives served in the Ottoman Parliament. They debated and voted on the laws that governed Jewish immigration.

        Article 3 obliged the Mandatory to permit and encourage local autonomy for all the communities too. Churchill’s White Paper described the Jewish national home as the existing autonomous Jewish community that had been recreated during the previous two or three generations. The Ottomans had permitted the Jews to have their own government organs, Courts, religious officials, languages, schools, & etc. Why did the other Palestinian people suddenly need to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over those other inhabitants and localities?

        Article 9 required the judicial system established in Palestine to assure all of the natives a complete guarantee of their rights. It also required the Mandatory to fully guarantee respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests. In particular, the control and administration of Waqfs was to be exercised in accordance with Muslim religious law and the dispositions of the original founders. Article 11 required the mandatory to take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country. Article 13 made the mandatory responsible for preserving the existing rights of the communities and for securing free access to the Holy Sites. It also guaranteed the immunity of the fabric and management of Muslim shrines from any interference. Article 15 required the Mandatory to see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship were ensured to all, free from discrimination of any kind, including race, religion, or language. It also provided that the Administration could not deny each community the right to operate its owns schools in its own language. Articles 22 and 23 required the Administration to officially recognize the holidays and languages of each community.

        That pretty much conforms to the norms in the state where I live. We don’t sign treaties with other countries or engage in direct foreign relations, determine the federal tax rates, control the military, or exercise sovereign jurisdiction over the territory of the Indian nations.

      • AlGhorear
        December 28, 2012, 5:18 pm

        @Hostage Some people either can’t or won’t make the distinction between laws and behavior that flaunts them. Others are oblivious to facts. While it’s great entertainment to watch you spell it out forwards and backwards and every which way, you’re never going to make any headway with some of the commentators here who have a real problem with reading comprehension or else are being intentionally misleading. At least it’s a great education for the rest of us.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 7:28 pm

        Talkback says:

        Please stop Hostage!!!

        Khalidi is talking only about the ARAB or NONJEWISH Palestinians when he says “Palestinian people”.

        Yes, that is patently obvious, yet Hostage continues with his fallacious conflating of different meanings. Don’t expect him to stop, though.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 7:44 pm

        Hostage,

        The Court said that amounted to national recognition of the communities, but Khalidi claims that it did not.

        1) Please define “national recognition” and “communities” and the “self-determination” of “peoples” in the modern sense—and provide quotation(s) for the court’s position on the connection between those terms.

        2) “National recognition of the communities” is NOT equivalent to a recognition of a people as a people with national rights and a right of self-determination. “Communities” often revered to religious communities, and as you well know, religious communities were not necessarily peoples with rights to self-determination in given territory.

        3) The Mandate refers to “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” . These rights had a long history, and dealt with various groups, including religious communities. In contrast, the right of self-determination was a relatively new right, solidifying legally after WWI, and applying only to certain peoples. Therefore, references to long-standing rights of various “communities” does NOT necessarily equate to a modern right of a qualifying people to self-determination.

        4) No matter what, a very recent ruling of a court couldn’t possibly have any impact on the interpretation of the Mandate during the time it was in effect. It is that historical interpretation that Khalidi is dealt with as you know.

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 7:53 pm

        Hostage,

        Sibiriak: What he is saying is that the Mandate didn’t EXPLICITLY recognize the Palestinians as a people, while it did explicitly call for a Jewish national home

        Hostage:….have him read paragraph 70 of the ICJ advisory opinion and get right back

        Hostage, I assume you know what “explicitly” means. If the Mandate explicitly recognized the Palestinians as a people with clear rights to self-determination in the modern sense, please quote the section that makes that explicit recognition.

        A court interpretation (which you still haven’t quoted) coming some what? 80+ years after the fact can hardly prove explicit recognition occurred when the Mandate was formulated!

      • Sibiriak
        December 28, 2012, 8:04 pm

        Hostage,

        White Paper said the Jewish national home was the existing Jewish community that had already been in Palestine for 2 or 3 generations

        1) Please provide a quote for that. In any case, that statement makes no sense. A community is a group of people; a home is place and/or polity for those people. Two different concepts.

        2) Show where the 1922 White Paper limited the “Jewish People” mentioned in the Mandate to the Jewish people that had already been in Palestine for several generations.

        3) Show evidence for any statements of restriction on Jewish immigration and/or settlement in the terms of the Mandate, immigration/settlement which the British were obligated to facilitate.

        ….the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may

        That statement flatly contradicts your remarkable claim that the “national home for the Jewish people” was somehow limited by the Mandate to the existing Jewish community.

        And if there is ambiguity on that issue, I would argue that once again, it only played into Zionist hands, making the wording of the Mandate further prejudiced toward Jewish interests over Palestinian interests.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 9:00 pm

        The Mandate’s drafters did not have the self determination rights of the Arabs in mind at the drafting of the British Mandate at the San Remo Conference.

        They didn’t draft the Mandate at the San Remo Conference. They merely adopted a draft article on the subject of the Mandates which quoted the clauses from the Balfour Declaration and said that it was only acceptable with the understanding that there was inserted in the resolution a legal undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. link to cfr.org

        FYI, it is a matter of public record that the issue of self-determination prevented the Council of Four from resolving the question of the Mandates before the Treaty of Versailles was finalized.

        President Wilson signed all of the minority treaties at Versailles in line with his 14 Points Speech regarding the right of all the nationalities freed from Ottoman rule to security, an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the right of self-determination of peoples:
        “National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril. ”
        —Woodrow Wilson’s address to a joint session of Congress, on 11 February 1918 link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        The ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m. was attended by Prime Ministers Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando. President Wilson, Lord Balfour, and General Allenby also attended. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu That meeting resulted in the dispatch of the King-Crane Commission to determine the wishes of the inhabitants. There was a discussion regarding the McMahon letters to King Hussein. Lloyd George argued a) they were the basis of the Sykes-Picot agreement; b) they were a binding treaty commitment; c) the French had recognized Arab independence in 1916; and d) that the League of Nations mandate (and the Balfour Declaration) could not be used to put aside the bargain with King Hussein. Lloyd George also said Arab help had been essential and General Allenby claimed it had been invaluable.

        Wilson said the point of view of the United States of America was, however, indifferent to the claims both of Great Britain and France over peoples unless those peoples wanted them. One of the fundamental principles to which the United States of America adhered was the consent of the governed. This was in-grained in the United States of America thought. Hence, the only idea from the United States of America point of view was as to whether France would be agreeable to the Syrians. The same applied as to whether Great Britain would be agreeable to the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. It might not be his business, but if the question was made his business, owing to the fact that it was brought before the Conference, the only way to deal with it was to discover the desires of the population of these regions.

        Prime Minister Clemenceau said that he adhered in principle to an inquiry, but it was necessary to have certain guarantees. The inquiry must not confine itself to Syria. Mandates were required for Palestine, Mesopotamia,
        and Armenia, and other parts of the Turkish Empire as well as Syria.

        So that inquiry was one of the principle reason of the delay that necessitated a separate Peace Conference at San Remo.

      • Hostage
        December 28, 2012, 9:05 pm

        “Lord Curzon said that he did not yet quite understand the precise significace of ‘political rights’ according to French law. . . . . The subject discussion between Lord Curzon, Lloyd George and the French representative Mssr. Millerand on the preceeding pages of ‘The Truth’(1170-74) concerned Britain’s successful, diplomatic paring down of French demands for a protectorate of Palestine’s Catholics under the British Mandate, not in securing ‘political rights’ for Arab Palestinians

        That whole line of argument is irrelevant. The Balfour Declaration was authored by the government of Great Britain and written in English. Its references to civil and religious rights were not disposed of, they were incorporated verbatim in paragraph b) of the San Remo resolution. Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo resolution said a single word about “political rights”. The lone reference to “rights and political status” was the safeguarding clause regarding Jews living in third states, other than Palestine.

        It should be obvious that the rights and political status of persons living in other jurisdictions did not originate or depend upon the French or English meaning of the Palestine Mandate or the Balfour Declaration. So these disclaimers were only meant to indicate that neither of those instruments or the entities that they created were intended to become an adverse controlling legal authority with respect to the rights or status of Jews living in other countries.

        The only religious rights that were disposed by the resolution were the ones in paragraph a) regarding the end of the French Protectorate. Paragraph b) of the resolution and Article 14 of the final version of the Mandate required the British to appoint in the shortest time a special commission to study any subject and any queries concerning the different religious communities and regulations. The composition of the Commission was supposed to reflect the religious interests at stake. The President of the Commission was supposed to be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. But Great Britain never carried out that undertaking.

      • Talkback
        December 28, 2012, 9:48 pm

        Hostage says: “That’s his [Khalidi's] problem.”

        No Hostage, it’s not his problem if you base your pseudo counter arguments on a different meaning of the term “Palestinian”.

        He means the Arabs of Palestine. You mean the (Jewish, Arab, etc.) citizens of Palestine in mandate times. He critizes that the Jews in Palestine were treated as people/nation of their own [instead of being treated as Palestinan citizens/nationals] while the (Arab) Palestinians were not treated the same way [but only as being a non-Jewish community within a nation/people].

        “Majority rule doesn’t mean that the Palestinian Arab ones could veto the right of the indigenous Jewish community to determine its own political status.”

        Majority rules means that the majority has the right to decide the future of the country, including immigration politics and also the question of partition and secession. But neither were the citizens of Palestine asked in 1917 or 1947, nor did the General Assembly or the Security Council support several proposals to let the ICJ handle the case.

        On the one side you argue Palestinans (as a nation including Jews and Nonjews) were granted the right to self determination. On the other side you make a special case for a minority group. But you don’t make the same case (and that’s what Khalidi critizes) for the majority group. It’s you who is reiterating Zionist propaganda that a certain minority group would have the implicit right to destroy the territorial integrity of Palestine.

        “The ICJ explained in the Kosovo case that nothing in international law prohibits secession.”

        You’re utterly wrong about its explanation. It didn’t even touch secession or its legality. And to think that secession (offensive right to self determination of a minority) would outweigh the defensive right of the majority is equally wrong. Maybe except in cases of remedial secession (as one could argue in favour for the Kosovarians), which is not based on any entitlement, only on recognition.

        But for the sake of argument. On how many % of Palestine do you think did the Jewish community have the right to ‘determine its own political status’ on the day of proclamation? And please explain your number.

        Because it was not the case that the inhabitants of a distinct – let’s say – region or district of the country wanted to seperate from the rest of it and all the Nonjewish inhibitants became automatically members of this group, which means Jews. Are we talking about the 6% Jewish owned and scattered land for – well – how many Jews actually? Immigrants who haven’t acquired citizenship yet don’t have any political rights. Given (iirc) three years of naturalization in Palestine this would exclude any immigrant or refugee trying to apply citizenship later than one week after the capitulation of Germany.

        And if we are in fact talking about 25% of Jewish Palestinians or even less – do the 25% or less non-Jews in Israel have a right to secession, too? Let’s say 78% of Israel which seems to be a reasonable and peaceful solution number. And if the Jewish Israelis try to prevent this violently we just tell everyone that they rejected partition and chose war instead.

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2012, 10:42 pm

        Hostage, I’m not convinced that the term “lie” can properly be applied to the pronouncements of politicians. It implies a deliberate promulgation of untrue claims, or a deliberate suppression of true claims. But to be deliberate, this implies an understanding of the concepts of “true” and “false”, and I seriously doubt that politicians have any such understanding. As far as they are concerned, statements are to garner political support, and have no other function.

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2012, 10:48 pm

        “the distinction between laws and behavior that flaunts them.”

        How do you flaunt a law? Do you mean “flout”?

        It is very clear to me that Zionists cannot make the distinction between law and morality. They persist in trying to justify blatantly immoral behaviour by arguing that it is, technically, legal. Often this requires them to appeal to laws made by Zionists.

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 1:09 am

        Hostage,

        The mandatory said it was only necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, not that it should be created…

        1) According to the 1922 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.” [emphasis added]

        Note the term “founded”. “Founding” a national home for the Jewish people is not simply “internationally guaranteeing” such a home, as you suggest.

        2) The Mandate itself states:

        Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the ESTABLISHMENT in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people… [emphasis added].

        Like the term “founded”, the term “establishment” goes far beyond simply “international guarantees”.

        3) Article 4 of the Mandate states:

        An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the ESTABLISMENT of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine…

        Again we fine the term “establishment”. Note also that it is clear that the meaning of the term “Jewish national home” is not coterminous with the “Jewish population in Palestine”.

        4)Article 6 of the Mandate states:

        The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

        The obligation to “facilitate” Jewish immigration and settlement far exceeds any simple requirement for international guarantees.

        Your interpretation that the “national home for the Jewish home” refers only the Jewish community that had *already* been “recreated” in Palestine simply does not accord with the texts of the Mandate, the Balfour Declaration, the 1922 White Paper etc. It was not interpreted that way by either the British, the Palestinians, the Jews.

        The Mandate clearly called for the *establishment* of a national home for *the Jewish people*, not simply Jews that were already living there, and it called for the British-assisted growth and development of that national home through immigration, settlement of the land etc..

        That community was described as the Jewish national home.

        Again, that is nonsensical. A “community” cannot be a “national home”. A “national home” is a territory/polity FOR a people with national aspirations.

        Since the small community of Jews in Palestine at the time were only a small portion of the Jewish people as a whole, it is simply illogical and conceptually incoherent to say that that a small Jewish community WAS the national home for *the Jewish people.*

        The obligation for the British to facilitate the immigration/settlement of Jews from any where in the world into this newly established national home for the Jewish people would make no sense if that home was only the existing Jewish community itself.

      • talknic
        December 29, 2012, 2:41 am

        AlGhorear Odd the propagandistas haven’t worked it out. They come back time after time and afford us another opportunity to show how the holey olde Hasbara is full of straw

        And when you meet them elsewhere, they’re still at it link to forward.com

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 6:36 am

        Hostage:

        Article 3 obliged the Mandatory to permit and encourage local autonomy for all the communities too.

        “Local autonomy” for “all the communities” —except the Jewish *people* who get a “national home”. Can’t you see the disparity there?

        You are attempting to show that a “national home” was nothing more than “local autonomy” for the existing Jewish community in Palestine. That is utterly fallacious. If it was, there would have been no need to spell out the obligation to establish a “national home for the Jewish people”, the requirements for immigration and settlement of the land, a special status for a Jewish agency etc. The Mandate could just have recognized a requirement for local autonomy for all the communities. It explicitly and decidedly did NOT do that.

        I’ve already quoted from the Mandate’s various provisions that show that the “national home” for the Jewish *people* involved much than local autonomy for the existing Jewish community.

        Churchill’s White Paper described the Jewish national home as the existing autonomous Jewish community that had been recreated during the previous two or three generations.

        That is false— as the quotes from that White Paper which I cited prove.

        Repeating a falsehood several times doesn’t make any less false.

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 7:02 am

        Hostage,

        Article 6 said that the Jews were denied settlement on any state lands or waste lands that were required for public purposes. IOW the public interest trumped the interest in establishing the Jewish national home.

        Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The public interest in the premise only refers to state lands.

        Let’s take a look at Article 6:

        The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

        In your selective and distortionary representation of that article, you make it sound as if it were a restriction on Jewish Zionist interests.

        In fact, it is just the opposite. The reference to State lands and waste lands required for public use is an *exception* to the main intention, which is to obligate the British to facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement of the land. It positively calls for Jewish settlement in State lands, with that exception.

        These obligations to facilitate immigration and settlement refer to only ONE group–the Jewish people–not to any other “community” in Palestine.

        Furthermore, these obligations involve assistance to Jews coming from OUTSIDE Palestine–members of the Jewish people as a whole–not simply assistance to the local, pre-existing Jewish population.

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 7:41 am

        Hostage:

        Khalidi: …BY THE TERMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.”

        Hostage: Oh Please. Now you’re adding insult to injury by repeating more propaganda.

        That is not propaganda, that is a simple fact–a direct quotation from the text of the Mandate. See Article 4.

        Hostage: The British used that same clause to remind the Jewish Agency that it had no role in the actual decision making process or in governing Palestine.

        You’ve missed (or deliberately ignored) Khalidi’s point. He never claimed that the Jewish agency wasn’t a consultative and advisory body to the Administration in Palestine and to the British government.

        What Khalidi DID point out was that:

        The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, in London, and elsewhere.

        By contrast, the Palestinians had no international standing whatsoever, and indeed were often dependent on the hostile and unsympathetic British for such unsatisfactory diplomatic representation as they could obtain in Geneva and elsewhere.

        [...]The significance of the quasi-official diplomatic status accorded to the Jewish Agency by Britain and the League of Nations through the Mandate thus cannot be overemphasized.

        It gave the Zionist movement an international legitimacy and guaranteed it invaluable access in world capitals, besides providing the framework within which the Zionist para-state that ultimately became Israel could be constructed without hindrance, and indeed with ample British and international support.28

        Khalidi, thus, described one more critical example of how the Mandate privileged Jewish interests over those of the Palestinians.

        Your response ignored that entirely.

      • Obsidian
        December 29, 2012, 7:51 am

        A Sibirian Tiger!

      • Talkback
        December 29, 2012, 8:51 am

        @ Sibiriak

        I second your comments.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 9:07 am

        Hostage says: “That’s his [Khalidi's] problem.”

        No Hostage, it’s not his problem if you base your pseudo counter arguments on a different meaning of the term “Palestinian”.

        I don’t, all of the communities mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine” were Palestinian ones. In the Wall case, the ICJ was performing a brief analysis of the legal status of the Palestinian people and their territory. The Court’s point of departure was the non-Jewish communities and their rights and position as a result of Article 22(4) and the Class A mandate. It had no trouble finding that they were entitled to exercise the right of self-determination and that all states had a legal interest in the matter as a sacred trust of civilization. It also had no trouble finding Israeli interference in the exercise of that right; the construction of the wall; the military administrative regime; and the Jewish settlements on their territory were illegal.

        He means the Arabs of Palestine.

        He is smart enough to read an ICJ opinion and the terms of the mandate. He should know that the content and intent of the mandate, so far as the League of Nations and the Supreme Allied Council were concerned, was meant to preserve the pre-existing rights of the Palestinian Arabs and other non-Jewish communities, while insuring the establishment of self-governing institutions and promoting local autonomy, respect for personal status, and respect for the laws of the founders and the immunity of Muslim holy sites. The British government and the Zionist Organization simply violated their obligations toward the other communities and the League of Nations in nearly every respect according to the terms of their own undertakings.

        He critizes that the Jews in Palestine were treated as people/nation of their own [instead of being treated as Palestinan citizens/nationals] while the (Arab) Palestinians were not treated the same way [but only as being a non-Jewish community within a nation/people].

        We’ve already shown that Article 7 of the Mandate required Jews to be treated as Palestinian citizens and nationals. Article 3 encouraged local autonomy for each of the communities. Article 6 required the establishment of self-governing institutions. I’ve already explained that the term “communities” itself was a well defined legal one that was employed to identify entities with national characteristics of their own and that they were entitled to protection under public international law, and ultimately, according to the ICJ, to exercise their right of self-determination.

        Hostage: “The ICJ explained in the Kosovo case that nothing in international law prohibits secession.”

        Talkback: You’re utterly wrong about its explanation. It didn’t even touch secession or its legality.

        More than 30 interested state parties filed written submissions with the Court. link to icj-cij.org

        It was admitted by one and all that the Kosovar Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was an attempted act of secession. The Court said (paragraph 56-83) that it hadn’t been asked by the General Assembly if the right of self-determination created a corollary right of remedial secession or if secession was some other sort of affirmative right. But it did say in paragraph 83 that it needed to ascertain if Kosovo had violated a prohibition of general international law in order to determine if the Kosovar UDI was illegal on that account. In paragraph 84 it concluded that there was no prohibition in general international law against unilateral declarations of independence. link to icj-cij.org

        FYI, the State of Israel adopted the position that it had been created through its own act, when the UN failed to implement its plan of partition. Most experts agree that Israel was established by secession and not as a result of orderly transfer of sovereignty from one government or state to the governments of its successors as envisioned in Article 28 of the Mandate. James Crawford devoted Chapter 9 of the 2nd Edition of The Creation of States in International Law to the subject of Israel as a case of secession. See also D.P. O’Connell author “The Law of State Succession”, Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178; and CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) link to elyon1.court.gov.il

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 10:47 am

        That is not propaganda, that is a simple fact–a direct quotation from the text of the Mandate. See Article 4.

        Nothing in Article 4 mentions diplomatic recognition in Geneva.

        The Jewish Agency was only recognized for the explicit and limited purpose of advising and cooperating with the British administration of Palestine in areas that effected the interests of the Jewish community.

        It was a one-way relationship. Great Britain retained the full powers of administration mentioned in the preamble and was not required to obtain the Agency’s consent on any matter. Although the Agency could offer advice, it was nonetheless required to cooperate with any measures adopted by the Administration – even in those cases where it disagreed. Article 4 of the mandate certainly did NOT grant the Jewish Agency any diplomatic recognition. In fact it made it clear that any public recognition of the Zionist Organization as “The Jewish Agency” was completely conditional and would last only “so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate”. It’s a matter of public record that when it stopped cooperating with Great Britain, its offices were raided, its executives were rounded-up and jailed, and Great Britain and the US both threatened to impose an embargo that would freeze its assets and prohibit contributions to its subsidiaries and agents. See
        *The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and especially “IX : Public Security”
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        * Jewish Agency Political Department Chief Shertok’s remarks from the verbatim minutes of the People’s Council.
        link to books.google.com

        That hardly compares with the almost boundless legal authority and discretion that were conferred on Muslim public bodies under the terms of the Mandate articles that effected their particular interests or status.

        It’s hard to believe that Khalidi, who’s uncle served as a Justice in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Palestine, is not aware of the fact that the terms of the Mandate were not even considered legally enforceable, unless they also happened to be incorporated into some enabling Privy Council Order, municipal statute, or ordinance. It appears that he is blowing the legal effects of hortatory boilerplate completely out of proportion. When the British offered the Palestinians their own publicly recognized statutory Agency, the Palestinians were being extended the same courtesy as the other community. Khalidi certainly must be aware of the fact that even when the Arab Higher Committee was granted diplomatic recognition in Geneva, London, and Lake Success it frequently issued ultimatums and wasted the opportunity to reach compromises that look very attractive in hindsight.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 11:07 am

        White Paper said the Jewish national home was the existing Jewish community that had already been in Palestine for 2 or 3 generations

        1) Please provide a quote for that.

        I already cut and pasted the text and supplied the link to the White Paper here: link to mondoweiss.net.

        In any case, that statement makes no sense. A community is a group of people; a home is place and/or polity for those people. Two different concepts.

        You can go argue with His Majesty’s Government over its understanding of the terms “national home” or “communities”, but the latter always included entities with national characteristics of their own including local autonomy and courts or government councils with jurisdiction over personal status of the members, communal lands, schools, and other immoveable assets.

        It’s undeniable that the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian communities of the Ottoman Empire had all of those attributes in accordance with the terms of the regime of Capitulations or the Millet system.

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 11:37 am

        Hostage,

        Sibiriak: That is not propaganda, that is a simple fact–a direct quotation from the text of the Mandate. See Article 4.

        Hostage: Nothing in Article 4 mentions diplomatic recognition in Geneva.

        Nobody said it did!

        Please recall it is THIS exact statement which you called “propaganda”:

        [Khalidi] This latter point is extremely important, for BY THE TERMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.

        That statement is true, and the phrase in quotation marks IS a direct quote from the text in the Mandate. It is NOT propaganda. My statement stands.

        Note: Khalidi never said that article 4 directly mentioned diplomatic status–that is another strawman of your own invention.

        He said: “The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva.” Note the word “resulting”. And he called this a ” quasi-official diplomatic status”. To repeat, he never said it was an official status mentioned in article 4, as you falsely assert.

        It doesn’t go without notice that you routinely distort Khalidi’s positions in order to easily refute your distortions.

        We’ve already shown that Article 7 of the Mandate required Jews to be treated as Palestinian citizens and nationals.

        You distort the intent of Article 7, once again making it seem like a restriction on Jewish Zionist interests when in fact it was intended to *serve* those interests.

        Let’s look at Article 7:

        The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

        This provision is not simply a requirement that Jews *living in Palestine* be treated as “Palestinian citizens and nationals”. Far more importantly, it obligates Britain to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship in Palestine for *new Jewish immigrants* coming from outside Palestine. Britain, thus, was clearly obligated to serve Zionist interests.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 11:38 am

        But for the sake of argument.

        That’s all you guys seem to be aiming at, while trying to conflate state rights with national rights.

        Prior to 1932, the Zionist Organization expressly denied that it was seeking the establishment of an independent state. It expressly demanded that the Jewish community and its national home be incorporated in the new state of Palestine. Incorporation in, or confederation with, another existing state happens to be one of the recognized modes of exercising the national right of self determination.

        Your own comment archive has entries that say you have no problem with bi-national Zionism. link to mondoweiss.net

        On how many % of Palestine do you think did the Jewish community have the right to ‘determine its own political status’ on the day of proclamation? And please explain your number.

        The Jewish community had already enjoyed local autonomy under the Ottomans for centuries. They had their own government organs, courts, schools, communal lands, & etc. If you accept the customary obligation to resolve international disputes by peaceful means and observe the prohibition against the threat or use of force, then life goes on when your neighbors declare their independence and the fact that nations are sometimes intertwined becomes almost irrelevant. You can easily travel through the various European Communities today and it was just as easy to travel from one end of the Ottoman Empire to the other.

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 12:07 pm

        Hostage,

        1) Please provide a quote for that.

        I already cut and pasted the text and supplied the link to the White Paper here: link to mondoweiss.net

        Hostage, I’m asking for a specific quote from the White Paper. I’ve read it. I don’t need a link to it. It does not say what you claim it says, i.e., the “Jewish national home was the existing Jewish community.”

        You can go argue with His Majesty’s Government over its understanding of the terms “national home” or “communities”

        My problem is not with the British government’s interpretation of those terms, it is with YOUR idiosyncratic interpretation.

        You conflate those two terms. You make the nonsensical claim that a “national home for the Jewish People” = just the existing Jewish
        “community.”

        By doing so, you are in effect saying that the obligation to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” was meaningless, since that “national home” was the already-existing Jewish community. How can there be a mandate to establish something that already exists?

        Likewise, when the Mandate states:

        …recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

        you are in effect saying that is meaningless, since the Jewish national home is simply the existing Jewish “community” there could be nothing to reconstitute. (Clearly, the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” refers to Jews all over the world–not just the Jewish “community” in Palestine– and “their” refers that Jewish people.)

        Your whole argument is sophistry intended to make it seem like the Mandate never mandated a “national home for the Jewish people” –and only the Jewish people– and all the concomitant obligations of the British government to facilitate that colonialist enterprise.

      • Talkback
        December 29, 2012, 12:12 pm

        Hostage says: “I don’t,”

        Do you understand, that Khalidi’s arguments are based on a different meaning of the term “Palestinian” than the meaning your counter arguments are based on, no matter whose definition is legitimate or not?

        You say: “We’ve already shown that Article 7 of the Mandate required Jews to be treated as Palestinian citizens and nationals.”

        Do you understand, that Khalidi didn’t criticize if Jews required to be treated as Palestinian citizens and nationals by the Mandate, but that he claims that they were granted privileges which weren’t granted to other communities, especially not the one representing about 90% of the citizens of Palestine (see Siberiak’s abundant quotes form the mandate or Khalidi) no matter if his claims are right or wrong?

        You say: “In paragraph 84 it concluded that there was no prohibition in general international law against unilateral declarations of independence.”

        Glad, you found your mistake. The ICJ didn’t conclude that there’s no prohibition against SECESSION in international law, but that there’s no prohibition against the ACT of making a DECLARATION of independancy in INTERNATIONAL law, because “only domestic constitutional
        law governs the act of making such a declaration”.

        Now about secession, Judge Koroma in the same case:
        “4. … International law does not confer a right on ethnic, linguistic or religious groups to break away from the territory of a State of which they form part, without that State’s consent, merely by expressing their wish to do so. …

        21. … The principle of respect for territorial integrity is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments. …

        22. Not even the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as precepts of international law allow for the dismemberment of an existing State without its concent. …”

        That should be enough to find, that Israel’s secession wasn’t in accordance with international law, because the Goverment of Palestine did never consent. The citizens of Palestine were never asked to decide on this domestic, internal issue. The General Assembly even declined the idea of a referendum. The secession was nothing else than a coup d’état carried out by paramilitary and terrorist organisations of the Zionist Junta and only by violence and expulsion, not by consent.

        And even the mere act of declaring independence itself violated S/RES/46, 14. April 1948:
        “1. Calls … upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately … the following measures: …

        (d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims or position of either community;”
        link to unispal.un.org

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 12:22 pm

        2) Show where the 1922 White Paper limited the “Jewish People” mentioned in the Mandate to the Jewish people that had already been in Palestine for several generations.

        I already supplied the direct quote and a link which said that was the understanding of the British government when it made the Balfour declaration. link to mondoweiss.net

        3) Show evidence for any statements of restriction on Jewish immigration and/or settlement in the terms of the Mandate, immigration/settlement which the British were obligated to facilitate.

        The Mandate did not limit immigration and/or settlement by members of any ethnic group. I’ve already noted that the Mandate only permitted Jewish immigration under “suitable conditions” and only allowed them to settle on lands that weren’t needed for public purposes. No explicit restrictions applied to Arab immigration. Churchill’s White Paper explicitly limited any increase from Jewish immigration to only the amount that would not become burdensome to the people of Palestine or displace any section from their employment.

        More to the point, the Mandate and San Remo resolution explicitly preserved the right to self-governing institutions which could debate and adopt legislation dealing with the subject of any necessary limits on Jewish immigration. I provided a link to one such debate between Jews, Palestinians, and other lawmakers in the Ottoman Parliament of 1911. Please answer my question: Did the British have an obligation to preserve the rights hitherto enjoyed by the Palestinians to participate in representative lawmaking bodies that debated and adopted laws regulating Jewish immigration?

        That statement flatly contradicts your remarkable claim that the “national home for the Jewish people” was somehow limited by the Mandate to the existing Jewish community.

        I said that the “White Paper said the Jewish national home was the existing Jewish community that had already been in Palestine for 2 or 3 generations”. I did not say that it couldn’t add new members in the future through immigration. Churchill ruled-out the possibility of burdening the Palestinian people as such, displacing them from employment, or making Palestine Jewish.

        My statement was a verbatim quote from Churchill about the British government’s understanding of the meaning of the terms used in the Balfour declaration. It contained a statement about limitations on Jewish immigration that I’ve already mentioned above.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 12:46 pm

        Hostage, I assume you know what “explicitly” means. If the Mandate explicitly recognized the Palestinians as a people with clear rights to self-determination in the modern sense, please quote the section that makes that explicit recognition.

        1) By requiring that the terms of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations regarding communities be given legal effect in the preamble of an international agreement concerning the mandated State of Palestine.
        2) By preserving their existing civil and religious rights in the same preamble.
        3) By permitting and encouraging local autonomy in Article 3.
        4) By excluding any of their “State lands” “required for public purposes” from being used for the settlement of Jews.
        4) By obligating the Mandatory to establish self-governing institutions without any discrimination on the basis of race or religion in Article 7.

        The only reason that didn’t result in the recognition of an independent Arab majority government by 1928, as it did in the cases of Tranjordan and Iraq, was because the Mandatory deliberately violated its obligations.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 3:09 pm

        1) Please define “national recognition” and “communities” and the “self-determination” of “peoples” in the modern sense—and provide quotation(s) for the court’s position on the connection between those terms.

        Entire volumes have been written on the subject, such as Thomas D. Musgrave, “Self-Determination and National Minorities”, Oxford Monographs in International Law, 2000. Basically, only internationally recognized entities are entitled to exercise the right of self-determination and that exclusive club includes all of the “peoples”, “communities”, and “territories” mentioned in Mandates authorized by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League Nations, UN trusteeships, or other international agreement. So the erga omnes responsibility to respect the Palestinian peoples right of self determination arises from that scared trust of civilization.

        I already supplied you with the links and citations to some examples of cases which recognized that ethnic communities had enforceable “national rights” including the establishment of autonomous local councils, the right to operate their own schools; the right to practice their own religion; the right to establish religious courts; determine the personal status of members; speak their own languages when conducting official business; and observe their own holidays. All of those civil and religious rights were protected under customary and conventional international law. I quoted the definition of a community from this one verbatim in the Mondo link below:
        *Minority Schools in Albania (Opinion A/B 64)
        link to icj-cij.org
        link to mondoweiss.net

        I cited these examples too:
        *“Treaty with regard to the protection of minorities, etc., concluded on June 28th, 1919, between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan of the one part, and Poland of the other part”.
        link to worldcourts.com
        *Greco-Bulgarian Communities (Opinion No. 17)
        link to icj-cij.org

        2) “National recognition of the communities” is NOT equivalent to a recognition of a people as a people with national rights and a right of self-determination.

        All of the mandatories assigned responsibility for the “peoples”, “communities”, and “territories” that had not yet attained a full measure of self-government accepted a “sacred trust” to provide them with tutelage until such time as they had. In the South West Africa cases, the ICJ ruled that had been part of the inherent nature of a mandate. *http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/10/1891.pdf
        *http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf

        Paragraph 70 of the Wall decision quoted the portion of Article 22 about the former communities of the Turkish Empire and cited the case law on the nature of mandates from the South West Africa case.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 4:00 pm

        Khalidi is talking only about the ARAB or NONJEWISH Palestinians when he says “Palestinian people”.

        So was the text of the San Remo resolution and the Mandate when they included the undertakings regarding the preservation of the existing civil and religious rights of the “non-Jewish communities” Sherlock.

        Yes, that is patently obvious, yet Hostage continues with his fallacious conflating of different meanings. Don’t expect him to stop, though.

        I agree with AlGhorear. You guys either can’t or won’t read the source material that I’ve provided on the legal status and rights of national ethnic communities, or you wouldn’t turn right around an ask such vacuous questions.

        Even after I pointed out that the UN has created a subsidiary organ to look after the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and that it applied existing rights dating back to the Mandate to the Palestinians who are living in Israel or the refugee camps in the region, Talkback still thinks I’m not talking about Arabs and even had to ask if Palestinians living in Israel have the right to self-determination? FYI, I think they already do. They certainly voiced opposition to Liberman’s proposal of ceding the Triangle to the West Bank and stripping them of their Israeli citizenship. Opting for incorporation in another existing state is a valid mode of exercising the right. If they have the capacity to form a union, then there’s no prohibition in general international law if they decide to unilaterally declare their independence later on. I’ve also said on many occasions that the people of Gaza are entitled to their own state if they want one, and that the Palestinians aren’t limited to the option of one or two states.

        Yes, that is patently obvious, yet Hostage continues with his fallacious conflating of different meanings. Don’t expect him to stop, though.

        Frankly its the you two birds who either can’t or won’t respond to the questions I’ve asked. Did the Mandatory have an obligation under the terms of the mandate and the undertaking regarding it that it assumed at San Remo to establish self-governing institutions in which the Palestinians could debate and adopt laws to regulate Jewish immigration in-line with their previous entitlement to participate in representative Ottoman lawmaking organs that dealt with that same issue?

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 4:17 pm

        no Maan was part of the province of Syria and Abdullah didn’t get there until 1920.

        You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I gave you a link to the Article on Jordan and was quoting the section on the “Creation of Transjordan” at the Chronicle of the Middle East & North Africa when I said that Maan was part of the Hashemite Kingdom of the Hedjaz when Abdullah went there. link to fanack.com

        The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (Arabistan) June 27, 1916. It not only included both Maan and Aqaba, the other Allied and Associated Powers applied it when they helped liberate Palestine and Syria as well. See “International law documents”, by the Naval War College (U.S.), 1917, page 17 or International law studies, Volume 73, by Naval War College (U.S.), 1918, Proclamation of the Sherif of Mecca.

        Aqaba didn’t become part of Hedjaz until 1917 when TE Laurence captured it from the Ottomans.

        One man acting alone? LOL. Aqaba was part of Ottoman Vilayet of Hedjaz long before Feisal’s forces liberated it in the war of independence.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 5:00 pm

        that such a Home should be FOUNDED “in Palestine.” [emphasis added]

        Note the term “founded”. “Founding” a national home for the Jewish people is not simply “internationally guaranteeing” such a home, as you suggest.

        I didn’t suggest anything. I blockquoted the portion which said that during the previous two to three generations the Jews had “recreated” their community in Palestine complete with organs of government, their own schools, language, religious rabbinate, and other national characteristics – and that this was the British government’s understanding of the term national home when it originally made the Balfour Declaration.

        I also cited the statement of the Chairman of the League of Nations Permanent Mandate Commission who complained in 1932 that the Mandatory had long-since set up the Jewish national home, but had not assured, as was required by Article 2 of the mandate, the development of self-governing institutions for all the inhabitants.

        Again, that is nonsensical. A “community” cannot be a “national home”.

        I suspect that you are not very familiar with the public international law of Europe. Before the European Union was established, several entities that called themselves the “European Communities”, came together and formed joint entity that called itself the “European Community”. All of those individual entities retained their local autonomy and served as national home lands, while pursuing common economic, social, and political goals.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 5:21 pm

        “Local autonomy” for “all the communities” —except the Jewish *people* who get a “national home”. Can’t you see the disparity there?
        You can’t even cite a definition for the term national home, and apparently won’t accept the one proposed in the White Paper of 1922 that it only meant the further development of the existing community that had already been recreated during the previous two to three generations.

        That is false— as the quotes from that White Paper which I cited prove.

        Repeating a falsehood several times doesn’t make any less false.

        Fine I’ll just blockquote it again:

        During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact “national” characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

        This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty’s Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

        For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 5:42 pm

        Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The public interest in the premise only refers to state lands.

        It clearly applied to both state and waste land. Under the Ottoman Land code ownership of waste land could be acquired by prescription, i.e. by simply cultivating idle land. This Article allowed waste land to be earmarked for public purposes and excluded for use by Jewish settlers.

        FYI, although Jews were citizens, “State interests” still trumped the interest in facilitating the establishment of the national home. The Permanent Court of International Justice and an Arbital Court appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne, had ruled in 1925 that Palestine and Transjordan were the Allied successor States that had inherited the State lands, public debts, and treaty obligations from the Ottoman Empire, not the British government or mandatory.

        So you are still not answering the question about the failure of the British government to fulfill its obligation, as required by Article 2, to establish self-governing institutions that could represent those Palestinian state interests and adopt plans for the use of waste lands and state lands.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 6:28 pm

        Hostage says: “I don’t,”

        Do you understand, that Khalidi’s arguments are based on a different meaning of the term “Palestinian” than the meaning your counter arguments are based on, no matter whose definition is legitimate or not?

        No, I’m citing paragraphs from the ICJ advisory opinion and the San Remo resolution about the existing rights of the Non-Jewish communities of Palestine, and you are the one who claims that doesn’t mean the same Palestinian people that Khalidi is talking about. I’ve also cited the requirement in the Mandate which required the British to establish the institutions that would have allowed the majority to attain self-government. I’m saying the British violated their legal undertakings and obligations.

        You say: “In paragraph 84 it concluded that there was no prohibition in general international law against unilateral declarations of independence.”

        Glad, you found your mistake.

        I also cited the written opinions of 30 or more interested state parties who said that when the inhabitants of a portion of the territory of an existing state issue a unilateral declaration of independence, it is by definition, an act of secession under the terms of general international law. Can you provide another definition?

        Now about secession, Judge Koroma in the same case:
        “4. … International law does not confer a right on ethnic, linguistic or religious groups to break away from the territory of a State of which they form part, without that State’s consent, merely by expressing their wish to do so. …

        But like I said, the majority opinion said there was no provision in general international law that prohibited the ethnic, linguistic or religious groups in Kosovo from breaking their territory away from Serbia’s without its consent;-)

        And even the mere act of declaring independence itself violated S/RES/46, 14. April 1948:
        “1. Calls … upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately … the following measures: …

        In the Kosovo case the US and UK expressed doubt that UN Security Council resolutions are binding on non-State actors or non-member states which have no Charter obligations.

        In any event, the Jewish state ceased to be a proposal on the day that the General Assembly adopted its resolution. It was already in existence by April in accordance with the terms of the General Assembly resolution itself. Like the Mandated State of Palestine, it simply hadn’t become independent yet, e.g.

        The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.

        The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

        link to yale.edu

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 6:47 pm

        My problem is not with the British government’s interpretation of those terms, it is with YOUR idiosyncratic interpretation. . . . You conflate those two terms.

        I’ve actually blockquoted it twice now, but the paper explicitly stated that the term Jewish national home simply meant the further development of the existing Jewish community and that was the understanding of the government when it issued the Balfour Declaration.

        Your whole argument is sophistry intended to make it seem like the Mandate never mandated a “national home for the Jewish people” –and only the Jewish people– and all the concomitant obligations of the British government to facilitate that colonialist enterprise.

        I don’t know what’s idiosyncratic about it. There is no provision in the mandate which made Palestine Jewish or made it “only” the home land of the Jews. The British government stated that officially for the record in 1922. I’ve shown that so far as the Chairman of the League of Nations Mandates Commission was concerned, the Jewish home had long-since been set up by 1932. There was no obligation in the mandate for the British government to radically alter the demographic balance of the population in the way that it did, and it violated the civil rights of the other communities by doing that.

      • Hostage
        December 29, 2012, 8:31 pm

        Nobody said it did!

        Please recall it is THIS exact statement which you called “propaganda”:

        [Khalidi] This latter point is extremely important, for BY THE TERMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.

        Actually Khalidi did say exactly that. I was objecting to his entire statement from the blockquote you posted on December 27, 2012 at 10:14 pm, and simply provided a snippet. Here’s the whole thing:

        This latter point is extremely important, for BY THE TERMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.” The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, in London, and elsewhere. By contrast, the Palestinians had no international standing whatsoever, and indeed were often dependent on the hostile and unsympathetic British for such unsatisfactory diplomatic representation as they could obtain in Geneva and elsewhere.

        The 1922 White Paper mentioned the procedures that were being drafted so that individuals or entire communities could petition the Assembly of the League of Nations. There was only a draft mandate at the time, and the procedures for the Mandates System and Commission were still being developed. But it became a formal entitlement for any community to petition, appear, or be represented during deliberations on their case in the Assembly. The UN also adopted the practice of inviting the Arab Higher Committee to participate in its hearings, but it refused to cooperate or attend until after the plan of partition was adopted. It wasn’t the case that Geneva didn’t diplomatically recognize Al Quds, it was that Al Quds still refused to accept the mandate system and didn’t recognize the League of Nations.

        The same thing happened when the Palestinian Delegation was offered the opportunity to make suggestions about improvement to the draft Constitution and to help in implementing the safeguards for their civil and religious rights:

        3. Mr. Churchill has at all times been careful to explain that there can be no question of rescinding the Balfour Declaration. The Declaration, as you are aware, provided, first, for the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine; and, secondly, for the preservation of the rights and interests of the non-Jewish population of the country. The point to which Mr. Churchill has endeavoured to address himself, in his communications with your Delegation, is the provision of adequate safeguards for the fulfilment of the second part of the Declaration. He cannot but express his disappointment that the Delegation should decline to co-operate with him in seeking a practical solution of this important question. He fails to see what advantage they, or those who advise them, expect to derive from the purely negative attitude that they have seen fit to adopt. The draft constitution, which the Delegation refuse to discuss in detail, was framed with the object of creating some permanent machinery through which the interests of all sections of the population could find effective expression. In so far as they may regard the machinery suggested as defective, the Delegation would clearly serve the interests of those whom they claim to represent by offering criticisms or suggesting improvements. But what interests they hope to serve by mere abstention from collaboration it is less easy to understand. While regretting the attitude of the Delegation, His Majesty’s Government will not be diverted thereby from the line of action which they conceive to be in the best interests of the people of Palestine as a whole.

        link to unispal.un.org

        Article 4 recognition was only for the purpose of identifying the entity that would be advising and cooperating with the Palestine Administration. There was no such rule about the “Zionist movement being “entitled” to special “diplomatic” recognition as a result of Article 4 or otherwise. Every mandated community had the official right to petition the League of Nations and to be represented there. To suggest that the Arabs were denied diplomatic recognition in London and Geneva, when they were deliberately refusing to recognize London and Geneva in the first place, even to assist in drafting a suitable Constitution to protect their own community interests, smacks of propaganda.

      • Sibiriak
        December 29, 2012, 9:02 pm

        Hostage,

        Sibiriak: 2) Show where the 1922 White Paper limited the “Jewish People” mentioned in the Mandate to the Jewish people that had already been in Palestine for several generations.

        Hostage: I already supplied the direct quote and a link which said that was the understanding of the British government when it made the Balfour declaration. link to mondoweiss.net

        The problem is: that quote does NOT back up Hostage’s claim.

        The Mandate and the White Paper both refer to a “national home” for “the Jewish People” “in Palestine”, as well as to an existing Jewish “community”.

        Let’s break this down conceptually:

        The “national home” is a part of mandatory Palestine. The White Paper says it is not the whole of Palestine. There is no dispute on that point. Furthermore, a “national home” does not necessarily mean separate statehood. No dispute there either. As I wrote earlier, the term is unclear, which played into Zionist hands–allowing British-assisted development of a Jewish proto-state while giving “plausible deniability” to Zionists at the same time.

        “The Jewish People” refers to Jews throughout the world. It is not limited to just the Jews living in Palestine at the time. The White Paper refers explicitly to “Jews in other parts of the world” and “the Jewish people as a whole”. Hostage is flatly wrong to assert that the term “the Jewish People” is in any way limited—it can refer to Russian Jews, East European Jews, West European Jews, North African Jews, Iraqi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews etc. etc.

        The Jewish “community” already existing in Palestine is an element of the Jewish People and that seminal element is to be developed and expanded via immigration, settlement on the land etc. within the Jewish people’s national home so as to ” provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities.”

        According to the White Paper, the Jewish National Home “should should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.”

        According to the Mandate, the “Jewish people”–not just the local Jewish community — have a “historical connection” with Palestine and “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

        Now it should be clear that “reconstituting” the “national home for the Jewish people” does NOT simply mean guaranteeing the rights of the existing Jewish community in Palestine as just one local community among others with the same rights. Rather, it involves the British-assisted growth and development of that community so that it becomes a national home for the Jewish people *as a whole*.

        KEY POINT: The Mandate thus promulgates all the foundational myths of Zionist ideology: the existence of an indivisible “Jewish People” with “historic rights” to “reconstitute” their “national home” in Palestine.

        The White Paper is an attempt to assure the Arab Palestinians that this “national home for the Jewish people” to be reconstituted and expanded should not alarm them.

        In fact, they were right to be alarmed. History proves that in spades.

        The Mandate had many ambiguous and contradictory elements. It could be interpreted in different ways. Nevertheless, it formally enshrined the basic elements of Zionism and obligated the British government to facilitate their realization. The Palestinian Arabs–90% of the population–were given no right to reject this colonialist project.

        Hostage would have us believe there was no ambiguity in the Mandate, no internal contradictions or contradictions with other elements of international law. He argues that rulings by certain international courts–many decades after Mandatory Palestine ceased to exist–clear up any ambiguities and establish an indisputable meaning for the Mandate for all time.

        This is not only a misguided view of how legal documents and declarations function in history, but also a complete misreading of Khalidi’s basic argument.

        Khalidi was not arguing for a singular, fixed-for-all-time interpretation of the meaning of the Mandate. He was showing how the Mandate–with all its ambiguities and contradictions–served to privilege Jewish interests over Arab Palestinian interests and provide *the foundation*for a British-backed Zionist colonialist project in Palestine against the wishes of the vast majority of the population. (In other sections of his book, Khalidi talks about the failure of the Palestinian leadership to effectively resist this colonialist project–he doesn’t let them off the hook at all.)

        I provided a link to one such debate between Jews, Palestinians, and other lawmakers in the Ottoman Parliament of 1911. Please answer my question: Did the British have an obligation to preserve the rights hitherto enjoyed by the Palestinians to participate in representative lawmaking bodies that debated and adopted laws regulating Jewish immigration?

        Whether or not British were obligated to preserve those Palestinian rights–I believe they were–is besides the point.

        Unlike in 1911, the British government after the Mandate was explicitly obligated to facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement on the land. Thus, the Mandate established a NEW obligation to assist the Zionist project in Palestine that hadn’t existed previously.

        The simple fact is the Mandate required such facilitation of immigration and settlement ONLY in regards to the Jewish people.

      • Sibiriak
        December 30, 2012, 5:45 am

        Hostage:

        Frankly its the you two birds who either can’t or won’t respond to the questions I’ve asked

        I answered those questions. There is a very long delay before my posts appear.

      • Talkback
        December 30, 2012, 1:04 pm

        @ Hostage:

        You wrote: “The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (Arabistan) June 27, 1916. It not only included both Maan and Aqaba, …”

        Last time I checked, he only declared the independance of the Vilayet Hejaz and declared himself King of the Hejaz and of ALL ARABS, not of Arabistan, which didn’t even include the Vilayet of Hejaz. And in 1916 Maan and Aqaba lied in the Sanjuk of Maan which was part of the Vilayet of Syria which lied north of the Vilayet of Hejaz. Can you provide any different map of the Kingdom of Hejaz than this two? link to en.wikipedia.org
        link to fanack.com

        You wrote: “No, I’m citing paragraphs from the ICJ advisory opinion and the San Remo resolution about the existing rights of the Non-Jewish communities of Palestine,and you are the one who claims that doesn’t mean the same Palestinian people that Khalidi is talking about.”

        What a silly insinuation. I only wrote that Khalidi bases his arguments on a different meaning of the term Palestinians than you do, because you wrote that “all of the communities mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine” were Palestinian ones”.

        You wrote: “The Jewish community had already enjoyed local autonomy under the Ottomans for centuries. They had their own government organs, courts, schools, communal lands, & etc.”

        You didn’t answer my question. What territory exactly did Jewish Palestinian seperatists had the right to secede from Palestine? And if we’re talking about 25% of Jewish citizens of Palestine in 1948 (Jewish refugees and not yet naturalized immigrants excluded) what territory exactly would the 25% Nonjews in Israel have the right to secede?

        You wrote: “I also cited the written opinions of 30 or more interested state parties who said that when the inhabitants of a portion of the territory of an existing state issue a unilateral declaration of independence, it is by definition, an act of secession under the terms of general international law. Can you provide another definition?”

        I don’t have to. The ICJ made clear that there’s a difference between the mere act of declaring indenpendance and its legal consequences and that it wasn’t asked about the latter. It was right from its narrow point of view.

        You wrote: “But like I said, the majority opinion said there was no provision in general international law that prohibited the ethnic,
        linguistic or religious groups in Kosovo from breaking their territory away from Serbia’s without its consent;-)”

        Absence of prohibition or recognition is neither permission nor entitlement. And what do you mean by “majority opinion”? The General Assembly made sure that Serbia’s real question was never put through to the ICJ. And the ICJ made sure only to decide on the mere act of declaring independancy and not if the secession itself was in accordance with international law.

        You wrote: “In the Kosovo case the US and UK expressed doubt that UN Security Council resolutions are binding on non-State actors or non-member states which have no Charter obligations.”

        Well, you know how schizo they are. They would never doubt that, if they would pass a Security Council resolution calling Palestinians to do or abstain from certain actions.

        You wrote: “In any event, the Jewish state ceased to be a proposal on the day that the General Assembly adopted its resolution. It was already in existence by April in accordance with the terms of the General Assembly resolution itself.”

        You really want to argue that the state of Palestine simply ceased to exist on November 29, 1947, because the General Assembly adopted a
        RECOMMENDATION for a PLAN for partition which was neither accepted by all concerning parties (which means without consent) nor by the Security Council (which was requested to accept it, too) and therefore not only a Jewish state but also an Arab (even a failed) state came into existence? That’s even funnier than the stuff Eli Hertz writes. ROFL

      • Hostage
        December 30, 2012, 1:15 pm

        I answered those questions. There is a very long delay before my posts appear.

        Apparently we’ll just have to wait for hell to freeze over then, because I still haven’t heard your response to this:

        (Sigh) Here is a link to the debate in the Ottoman Parliament in 1911 in which the two representatives from Jerusalem, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. The two men were very careful to explain that they were not anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Zionist because the Jews in the Parliament were also members of their political party (the CUP) See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq
        link to books.google.com

        I’ve already provided a link in other comments here which explained that there were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish delegates to the Syrian General Congress of 1919.

        Now then, did the British have an obligation to protect the “existing rights” of Palestinian Arabs and Jews to participate in the representative lawmaking organs of the new mandatory government of Palestine, or not? This is not a trick question.

        Here is some anecdotal evidence which explains why the establishment of self-governing institutions would have prevented the rights of the non-Jewish communities from being violated. During the 20th Sitting of the first Knesset Ben Gurion explained that annexing the Triangle and Hebron would add 500,000 to 800,000 Arabs to the population of the State of Israel. He noted that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and that they would have to be given the vote. The Herut MKs replied that there were millions of Jews elsewhere in the world that would be willing to immigrate. Ben Gurion replied that the new Arab Knesset would adopt laws that would prevent them from coming. See “The Armistice Agreements with the Arab States”, in Netanel Lorch (ed), Major Knesset Debates 1948-1981, Vol. 2, JCPA/University of America Press, 1993, pages 514-515 (pdf file page 94 of 186)
        link to jcpa.org

        The fact remains that the Mandate didn’t establish an enforceable right for a single Jew to immigrate to Israel and a self-governed Palestinian lawmaking body would have never adopted the quotas proposed by the Zionist minority.

      • Hostage
        December 30, 2012, 3:41 pm

        Hostage would have us believe there was no ambiguity in the Mandate, no internal contradictions or contradictions with other elements of international law. He argues that rulings by certain international courts–many decades after Mandatory Palestine ceased to exist–clear up any ambiguities and establish an indisputable meaning for the Mandate for all time.

        I’ve gone out of my way to cite legal authorities who say the term “Jewish national home” was, not only ambiguous, but that it had no known meaning or scope in international law.

        However, the Mandate made it perfectly clear that no matter how it was defined, nothing was supposed to be done that would prejudice the civil or religious rights of the non-Jewish communities of Palestine.

        That’s UNAMBIGUOUS. In legal terms, it’s called a guarantee, a safeguarding clause, or a supremacy clause. It meant that those particular rights took priority whenever a conflict needed to be resolved between other competing interests – and that no exceptions were allowed. The Courts of Palestine operated under the English common law system, so there was no difficulty interpreting or giving legal effect to the “civil rights” of the non-Jewish communities mentioned in the Balfour Declaration. You either can’t or won’t give an honest analysis of that provision, so you choose to waste everyone else’s time hammering away at the advantages that were derived by the inclusion of meaningless hortatory boiler plate.

        Whether or not British were obligated to preserve those Palestinian rights–I believe they were–is besides the point.

        Propaganda fail! That was the entire point of this discussion. i.e. the fault was not the lack of adequate national recognition or legal guarantees for non-Jews in the Mandate instrument, it was that the government of Great Britain knowingly and willfully violated the ones that were deliberately included.

        FYI, that safeguarding clause was added to the Balfour Declaration after the War Cabinet rejected the original draft. I’ve commented here in the past about the efforts of the Zionists to keep those protective clauses out of the Balfour Declaration altogether. Legal scholars, like Dr. W. Tom Mallison have devoted volumes to documenting the drafting process. They credit anti-Zionist Jews, like Montagu and Montefiore, with insisting that those guarantees be included. After the Zionists lost that battle, they tried to claim that it could be inferred from the reference to the protection of the political rights of the Jews in other countries, that only the civil and religious rights of non-Jews were protected. The House of Lords responded by adopting a resolution rejecting any Mandate that included the Balfour Declaration. So the Supreme Allied Council at San Remo conditioned the conferral of the Mandate itself on an additional undertaking from the Mandatory that it wouldn’t prejudice any of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities.

        If the Mandate had the legal effects that you claim it did, then Palestine should have been considered the legal homeland of all the Jewish people. Why then, did they have no enforceable civil right to step foot in the country or reside there without applying for an immigrant visa? Why were so many ship loads turned away from their own so-called national home as illegal aliens and interned in other countries against their will by the Mandatory power? The PCIJ handled dozens of landmark cases in the 1920s and 30s that I cited earlier. They had already addressed the issue of civil and religious rights of ethnic national communities. Those decisions weren’t made decades later. It’s a complete mystery then, why the PCIJ never discovered any enforceable legal right in the Palestine mandate that would allow Jews to live in their own so-called national home, or why they would be considered immigrants or aliens there.

        The Courts handled two cases by 1925 regarding state succession in Palestine. They established that neither Great Britain nor its mandatory administration were the successors in interest to state lands, public revenues, and Turkish concessions in Palestine. The PCIJ said that the British were simply supposed to administer things in the interests of the Palestinians. The inhabitants of the new mandated states in Palestine and Transjordan were the actual legal successors of the Ottoman Empire.

        The only reason that Palestinian Arabs were flooded with an undesirable and burdensome level of Jewish immigration that displaced cultivators and others from their lands and employment was because Great Britain violated it’s explicit obligations and undertakings under the terms of the mandate, including the requirement that it give legal effect to Article 22 of the Covenant. Full stop. There is no dispute about that fact in light of the many declassified records that I’ve cited in the course of this discussion. We know for certain that Churchill and others deliberately lied about the McMahon-Hussein letters and British guarantees about the Arab population’s right to independence. One example of that happened to be the 1922 White Paper.

      • MRW
        December 30, 2012, 7:50 pm

        Hooray, Hostage. Goddam excellent response. (And the 1922 White Paper was underscored by the 1939 White Paper, as well.)

      • Sibiriak
        December 30, 2012, 9:58 pm

        Hostage,

        Apparently we’ll just have to wait for hell to freeze over then, because I still haven’t heard your response to this:

        Apparently, hell froze over! (It’s very cold where I live).

        My answer to that question posted previously was: I believe they did.

        BUT, I also pointed out the fact that in addition to the the obligation to protect “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”, the Mandate obligated the British not only to protect, but to facilitate in multiple ways, a separate and new right of the Jewish People as a whole to reconstitute, develop and expand a national homeland in Palestine, i.e. the British were obligated to assist in a colonialist/Zionist project which was adamantly opposed by vast majority of the population.

        No matter how many points you make about the first obligation, they cannot negate the reality of the second obligation.

        Nor can they negate the fact that, under the terms of the Mandate, that second obligation was of a qualitatively different nature than the first, and that it singled out the Jewish People (not just the local Jewish community) from all the other existing local communities (who were lumped under the term “non-Jewish”.)

        Here is some anecdotal evidence which explains why the establishment of self-governing institutions would have prevented the rights of the non-Jewish communities from being violated.

        Whether the violation of rights could have been prevented is pure historical speculation.

        Khalidi also speculated on that same point:

        Could the Palestinians have improved their situation by accepting some British proposals, whether for a legislative council or an Arab Agency?20

        Given the low ceiling that would have been imposed by the British in view of the terms of the Mandate, and that necessarily would have obliged the mandatory government to act in support of the Zionist project, any such body, irrespective of its makeup, would undoubtedly have had little impact on changing the nature of the pro-Zionist policies followed by the British in Palestine.

        Moreover, it would have given tacit Palestinian approbation to the idea of a Jewish national home in Palestine [...]

        Nevertheless, any elected representation, no matter how hemmed in by restrictions, or how limited in proportion to the absolute Palestinian majority of the population, would have given the elected Palestinian representatives an uncontestable legitimacy, and an unparalleled platform from which to make their case. The Congress Party in India used state assemblies to just this end in the late 1930s.

        As with some limited form of acceptance of a Jewish national home, in the end this would probably have had at best only diplomatic or propaganda value.

        And there is no guarantee that the Palestinians would ever have been granted even sham representative institutions, given the ferocious opposition of the Zionist movement to anything that gave the Arabs a recognized, official, representative voice, and of British officials and politicians to anything that would have weakened the terms of the Mandate.

        But in view of the glaring weaknesses of the Palestinians in just these realms of diplomacy and public relations, acceptance of such proposals might conceivably have slowed the slide of their country into the hands of the Zionist movement.

        I think it is reasonable to think that the Palestinians could have done many things differently and slowed down the Zionist project.

        On the other hand, I don’t think the ” the establishment of self-governing institutions” would have derailed that project.
        No such institutions would have negated the British desire, obligation, and capacity to support it.

      • Sibiriak
        December 30, 2012, 11:09 pm

        Hostage,

        I’ve gone out of my way to cite legal authorities who say the term “Jewish national home” was, not only ambiguous, but that it had no known meaning or scope in international law.

        Here we find a perfect example of your LEGAL FETISHISM which is the basis for our fundamental disagreement.

        You claim that the term “Jewish national home” ( and presumably likewise, “a national home for the Jewish people”) had no known meaning in international law, but Britain’s rulers, Palestinian Arabs, Jews (Zionist, non-Zionist alike), the international community ALL understood the phrase “national home for the Jewish People” (and the specific obligations to facilitate the establishment of that national home) to be highly meaningful, even if there was dispute about that meaning.

        As Khalidi said:

        League of Nations Mandate made it a solemn responsibility of Great Britain to help the Jews create national institutions. The mandatory power was specifically called upon to extend all possible assistance to the growth and development of this national entity, notably by encouraging Jewish immigration and “close settlement on the land.” The tiny Jewish community of Palestine, composing about 10 percent of the country’s population at the time, was thereby placed in a distinctly privileged position.

        The fact that the meaning of the term “national home” was unclear, or even possibly non-existent, in international law at the time in no way negates Khalidi’s point about Jewish interests being privileged over Arab Palestinian interests. International law is not the only reality.

        As I wrote previously:

        And the very ambiguity of the phrase “Jewish national home” in the Mandate itself tilted the document in favor of Jewish interests.

        The inclusion of such a phrase–the inclusion of entire Balfour Declaration–allowed for British-assisted development of a Jewish proto-state in Palestine, while the ambiguity allowed various figures to deny that such a “Jewish national home” was actually a potential state in the making.

        Moving on to your next point:

        [Sibiriak:] Whether or not British were obligated to preserve those Palestinian rights–I believe they were–is besides the point.

        [Hostage:] Propaganda fail! That was the entire point of this discussion. i.e. the fault was not the lack of adequate national recognition or legal guarantees for non-Jews in the Mandate instrument, it was that the government of Great Britain knowingly and willfully violated the ones that were deliberately included.

        1) We are having a reasonable debate here. Neither of us are propagandists.

        2) You conveniently omitted the continuation of my statement. I wrote:

        Unlike in 1911, the British government after the Mandate was explicitly obligated to facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement on the land. Thus, the Mandate established a NEW obligation to assist the Zionist project in Palestine that hadn’t existed previously.

        The simple fact is the Mandate required such facilitation of immigration and settlement ONLY in regards to the Jewish people.

        The British obligation to preserve existing rights of the “non-Jewish” communities, including the Arab Palestinians, IS besides the point since we BOTH AGREE on that obligation.

        Where we disagree is on the import of the British obligation to establish a “national home for the Jewish people” and to facilitate its growth and development.

        Your rhetorical strategy is to completely downplay if not totally deny such an obligation via the argument that the term “national home” was essentially meaningless.

        I find that argument entirely unconvincing and explained why.

        If the Mandate had the legal effects that you claim it did

        I never restricted my comments to legal effects.

        The Mandate set up a fundamental clash of rights and obligations. That clash could never be resolved in the sphere of international law alone, pace your legal fetishism.

        [Sibiriak:] The Mandate [...] promulgates all the foundational myths of Zionist ideology: the existence of an indivisible “Jewish People” with “historic rights” to “reconstitute” their “national home” in Palestine.

        This arguably set up a situation where, given the fundamental irreconcilability of aims, it would become increasingly likely that “massive force would have to be employed in order to impose a Jewish national home on the unwilling Arabs (Khalidi).”

      • Sibiriak
        December 31, 2012, 12:30 am

        Hostage:

        After the Zionists lost that battle, they tried to claim that it could be inferred from the reference to the protection of the political rights of the Jews in other countries, that only the civil and religious rights of non-Jews were protected.

        The House of Lords responded by adopting a resolution rejecting any Mandate that included the Balfour Declaration.

        I realize one of your favored debating strategies is to repeat the same arguments over and over, so that when those that disagree with you finally tire, one of the versions appears to stand uncontested.

        See my previous responses to those same points here:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • talknic
        December 31, 2012, 12:58 am

        In short. … you’ll find the Zionist lobby behind any British duplicity.

      • Sibiriak
        December 31, 2012, 1:56 am

        Hostage:

        More to the point, I’ve provided links to the British Cabinet papers about the Balfour Declaration and the UNSCOP report.

        They stated that the term “national home” had no known legal connotation and that there were no precedents in international law for its interpretation.

        Many of the Zionists quoted in those sources thought the term only implied a shrine or national cultural center, like the university on Mount Scopus

        I think that earlier comment or yours gets to the heart of our disagreement (and your legal fetishism).

        When you boil it down, your argument is that the various provisions in the Mandate calling for the protection of existing civil and religious rights for non-Jewish communities in Palestine were clear, valid and legally enforceable, while the provisions obligating the British government to establish, develop and expand a “national home for the Jewish People” were essentially meaningless–because they had “no known legal connotation and no precedent”.

        I, following Khalidi, have argued that far from being meaningless, the Mandate’s explicit call for Britain help reconstitute, develop and expand a Jewish national home in Palestine–a colonialist project– critically privileged Jewish interests over Arab Palestinian interests. Furthermore, the explicit references to a “national home”, “the Jewish people”, “historical connections”, etc. amounted to an official promulgation of all the foundational myths of Zionism.

        I have also argued that ambiguity of the term “national home” played right into the hands of Zionist interests, allowing the British to assist in the development of a Jewish proto-state, while giving Zionists “plausible deniability”.

        The other (similar) point that cuts to the heart of this debate regards the central concept of a “Jewish people.” You asserted that:

        The mandate made it quite clear that Palestine was not the national home of ALL the Jewish peoples.

        I contested that point. I questioned how you could substitute the plural notion of “Jewish peoples” for the singular term in the Mandate, “the Jewish people”?

        I asked you:

        How many Jewish peoples exist/existed, according to your theory? The national home in Palestine was intended for which of these peoples??

        Your response was very revealing, if evasive. You never explain which of the various “Jewish peoples” you think the “national home” in Palestine was intended for in the Mandate. You do say that:

        If you’re going to talk about cultural uniqueness, the national right of self-determination, and national homes, is there really only one White Anglo-Saxon people in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States, Great Britain, & etc.?

        The British and Israeli governments couldn’t even get the Palestinian Jews to agree upon a single Chief Rabbi. The Ethiopian Jews had their own religious practices that the government of Israel has prohibited. Neither the mandate, nor the UN minority protection plan would have permitted the government to practice any such religious discrimination

        That statement really does not explain your remarkable claim that:

        The mandate made it quite clear that Palestine was not the national home of ALL the Jewish peoples.

        You seem to be arguing that the term “the Jewish people” is vague, undefinable etc., and therefore essentially meaningless in terms of the obligations imposed by the Mandate.

        You conclude, therefore, that:

        The national home in Palestine was only a Palestinian one.

        I submit that, however valid as an *ideal*, that notion flies in the face of the plain meaning of the Mandate when it used the term “national home for a the Jewish people”.

        Personally, I happen to agree most of the arguments in Shlomo Sands “The Invention of the Jewish People”— but the point is, that is not the way the Mandate viewed the issue.

        The Mandate states:

        …recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

        It is abundantly clear that “The Jewish people” doesn’t refer to simply the existing Jewish community in Palestine at the time, nor does it suggest that only that community has a “historical connection” with that land. It refers to Jews all over the world. (The 1922 White Paper refers to “Jews in other parts of the world”, in that regard.)

        [Hostage:] Article 3 obliged the Mandatory to permit and encourage local autonomy for all the communities too.

        [Sibiriak:] “Local autonomy” for “all the communities” —except the Jewish *people* who get a “national home”. Can’t you see the disparity there?

        Apparently, you refuse to see that glaring disparity in the heart of the Mandate.

        It would be nice, indeed, if *under the terms of the Mandate*:

        The national home in Palestine was only a Palestinian one.

        Unfortunately, that was simply not the case, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that fact.

      • Hostage
        December 31, 2012, 12:05 pm

        Last time I checked, he only declared the independance of the Vilayet Hejaz and declared himself King of the Hejaz and of ALL ARABS, not of Arabistan

        Then you obviously never checked the text of the official declaration in the citation that I provided. He cited the religious and national rights of the entire land and the Arab people, while citing the hanging of 21 Arabs in Syria as a casus belli. FYI, a group of notables adopted a separate resolution which declared that he was the King of the Arabs.

        You and your friends here keep ignoring the results of the Arab war of independence, by pretending that T.E. Lawrence was the successor to the Ottoman state. You also ignore the fact that the whole region from Damascus to the Hedjaz had been under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Provincial Army of Arabistan. Antonius and the Shaw’s book explain that was simply the term the Ottomans used as a synonym for Arabia or the Land of the Arabs. In any event, even accounts which are based upon Zionist hasbara, like Martin Sicker’s, insist that Maan and Aqaba were forcibly annexed to Transjordan from the Hedjaz.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2013, 10:27 am

        Here we find a perfect example of your LEGAL FETISHISM which is the basis for our fundamental disagreement.

        The only subject we’re discussing is Khalidi’s legal interpretation of an international legal instrument and its possible impact on the legal rights of the Palestinian people.

        It’s a matter of public record that the Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for any Zionist legal entitlement on the ground of the sympathy that was expressed in the Balfour Declaration. So Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about recognizing the “historical connection” of the Jewish people and “immigration under suitable conditions” be added to the Mandate instead. The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate said:

        “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.

        – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

        So the Zionists had no legal claim whatever to a home in any part of the country. That fact was reflected in their legal status, i.e. mere candidates for possible immigration or illegal aliens. I’ve commented here in the past that that was the common understanding of the effects of the San Remo resolution. That opinion was expressed at the time in publications by the New York Times Company, e.g. Current History, Volume 13, 1921.

        When one of the members of the Zionist Organization testified to the Royal Commission looking into the 1920 Nabi Musa riots that there was only room for one national home in Palestine, and that there could be no cooperation between Jews and Arabs, the head of the British Colonial Office in the Middle East disavowed those comments as completely contrary to the stated policy on the subject that had been espoused by the British government and Dr. Weizmann. He also added that:

        The only disavowal which would be regarded as sincere by the people of Palestine would be the removal of Dr Eder from his present position, a step which I think we are fully entitled to invite the Zionist Organisation, in its official position as the Jewish Agency, to take.

        —- G.L.M.C. 2/9/1921, PRO. CO. 733/1 cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, page 135

        So the recognition of the Zionist Organization as the Jewish Agency really was only conditional, i.e. “so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate. So, the notion that Palestine only contained one national home was formally rejected. But each time the Zionists suffered a political or legal setback, they and their confederates carried on a spirited public propaganda campaign to turn lemons into lemonade.

        That’s why I have zero tolerance for people who repeat hasbara about the imaginary legal effects of the hortatory boilerplate regarding foreign Jews that was incorporated in the mandate. That wouldn’t be so bad if you weren’t being completely dishonest about the fact that “communities” was a legal term of art at the time and that it was routinely used in international law to describe recognized populations that possessed their own legally protected national and religious characteristics. You won’t even admit that clause of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo resolution, and the Mandate is a legal guarantee for the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities that amounted to a supremacy clause. You repeated the shopworn hasbara about the omission of political rights, although there was no separate legal category under English common law or Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin.

        ALL understood the phrase “national home for the Jewish People” (and the specific obligations to facilitate the establishment of that national home) to be highly meaningful, even if there was dispute about that meaning.

        That’s simply not true. I’ve pointed out that the phrase did NOT have the legal effects that you claim it did. It did not create a national home for all the Jewish people as you keep falsely claiming. Jews residing in other countries were still considered “immigrants” and “illegal aliens” there, and they had absolutely no enforceable civil right to even step foot in the country without obtaining a visa. The President of the Zionist Organization considered the majority of European Jews little more than dust, with no future, who were deemed unfit for immigration. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        That view was held by both the British Mandatory and the Jewish Agency who turned ship loads of Jews away from the country, even though thousands of unallocated immigration quotas were available. The mandatory also adopted a Land Transfer Ordinance, that was upheld by the High Court of Justice, which prohibited sales of land to Jews in 2/3rds of Palestine. Sales there were strictly limited to members of non-Jewish communities.

        When the High Court of Justice in Palestine rules that you have no right to live in Palestine without an immigrant visa, or to acquire property in 2/3rds of your so-called national home even if you somehow manage to get there, you can’t argue that ALL agreed about the legal significance of that bit of boilerplate.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2013, 1:15 pm

        And the very ambiguity of the phrase “Jewish national home” in the Mandate itself tilted the document in favor of Jewish interests.

        Only a mental midget would keep suggesting that an undefined “thing” in a legal instrument tilts the meaning of the document in favor of one party, when it unambiguously and explicitly stated that “nothing” [i.e. no thing] should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the other parties in Palestine.

        I realize one of your favored debating strategies is to repeat the same arguments over and over, so that when those that disagree with you finally tire, one of the versions appears to stand uncontested.

        It doesn’t reflect well on your general intelligence or debating strategy to admit that the draft Mandate was only accepted on the understanding that the British Mandatory had acknowledged its binding legal obligation to preserve all of the existing rights of the Arab communities, while arguing that “Whether or not the British were obligated to preserve those Palestinian rights is besides the point.”
        link to mondoweiss.net

        My approach beats the way you keep repeating the non-answers anyone can find on a Hasbara Fellowship website about the magical powers of the Mandate and international recognition of the “historical connection” of Jews to Palestine.

        Despite all of your rhetoric, the Mandate did not provide for a new Jewish proto-State or the establishment of separate Jewish self-governing institutions. In most cases, the communities simply retained the existing government organs, schools, courts, and local autonomy they possessed under the Ottoman Millet system or created new ones, like Vaad Leumi to replace the Old Yishuv. Neither of those elected bodies had any special standing under the terms of the Mandate. The Jewish Agency was not an elected organ of any government, local or otherwise.

        There were expatriate Jews from most of the rest of the World who were habitual residents of Palestine. They had lived there legally under the terms of the Capitulations during the previous two or three generations as “protégés” of the Western Consulates. There was nothing inherently immoral about granting lawful residents Palestinian citizenship by operation of the law and the Treaty of Lausanne. That was especially true in cases where they and their parents were born and raised there or they had married such a person in Palestine. By contrast, the Arabs were not living in Palestine by Capitulation.

        If the Jewish community in Palestine only amounted to 10 percent when it had 80,000 members, then nothing in the mandate precluded its growth while maintaining that demographic balance. Most countries do encourage immigration for reasons such as family reunification, & the need to attract persons skilled in some valuable profession or with exceptional talents in the arts and sciences. During the same period, the Arab population increased from 700,000 to 1.2 million. Today the same country hosts about 11 million persons. So there was more than enough room for the demographic balance and rights of the communities to be maintained, while facilitating Jewish minority immigration.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2013, 1:29 pm

        Hostage,

        Apparently we’ll just have to wait for hell to freeze over then, because I still haven’t heard your response to this:

        Apparently, hell froze over! (It’s very cold where I live).

        My answer to that question posted previously was: I believe they did.

        No your answer was a complete evasion, because you said that particular legal mandate was beside the point (of our discussion about the British mandate). I called bullshit, like everyone else and just gave up on getting an honest answer from you.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2013, 1:45 pm

        I think that earlier comment or yours gets to the heart of our disagreement (and your legal fetishism).

        We are talking about a legal instrument, not a political manifesto. Like all of the mandates it contained a compromissory clause that gave the PCIJ jurisdiction over any dispute between the members of the League regarding its interpretation.

        I’ve pointed out that Dr. Weizmann wrote an editorial in a political journal which (falsely) claimed that Arab members of the League of Nations, like Iraq and Egypt, had no locus standi to intervene on behalf of the Palestinians. See “Palestine’s Role in the Solution of the Jewish Problem, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1942), pp. 324-338

        So it’s a favorite pastime of propagandists to make legal arguments in political circles that would never fly in Court, while complaining that valid legal arguments that would prevail in Court are politically motivated, lawfare, and etc. I take it as a compliment that you are frustrated by my refusal to let you politicize a simple black and white legal guarantee.

      • Talkback
        January 1, 2013, 1:57 pm

        @ Hostage

        You wrote: “You and your friends here keep ignoring the results of the Arab war of independence, by pretending that T.E. Lawrence was the successor to the Ottoman state.”

        Another silly insinuation. Could you at least try to be honest? I only provided maps which show that Kingdom of Hejaz didn’t include the Sanjak of Maan. You haven’t provided any better map (as far as I can tell, because you answer in multiple comments, which is difficult to follow).

      • Talkback
        January 1, 2013, 2:44 pm

        @ Sibiriak

        Excerpts of UK correspondce with the Palestine Arab Delegation in 1922:
        UK: “His Majesty’s Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent [!] with the fulfilment of the pledges [national home) referred to. …

        … High Commissioner … :

        ‘These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants.’

        This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. …

        Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty’s Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine, …”

        Arab delegation: “In Article II of the Draft Mandate we read “The Administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in Article IV to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration.”

        This Article gives this Jewish agency (The Zionist Organisation) the monopoly of all public works and natural resources of Palestine. No competition is provided for, either by the Arabs alone, or by Arabs in conjunction with British firms who are excluded by these terms. We will quote one example—the Rutenberg Concession—to prove this. This concession was made to Mr. Rutenberg without having been put out to public tender.” [I think this was the Mavrommatis case in the international court.]
        link to unispal.un.org

      • Sibiriak
        January 1, 2013, 7:27 pm

        Hostage,

        The only subject we’re discussing is Khalidi’s legal interpretation of an international legal instrument …

        Neither Khalidi nor I ever restricted our remarks to legal interpretations.

        Jews residing in other countries were still considered “immigrants” and “illegal aliens” there, and they had absolutely no enforceable civil right to even step foot in the country without obtaining a visa.

        1)According to article 7 of the Mandate, Britain was obligated to enact a nationality law with provisions framed so as to:

        to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

        2) A visa requirement hardly negates the concept of a “national home” for the “Jewish People”–including Jews outside of Palestine. Even today, Jews wishing to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return must obtain a visa.

        The President of the Zionist Organization considered the majority of European Jews little more than dust, with no future, who were deemed unfit for immigration.

        That document you cite is from 1940 and was speculating about the post-war situation to come. What it actually says is:

        It was to be anticipated, Dr. Weizmann said, that by the at the end of the war there would be at least 2,500,000 Jews seeking refuge. Of those perhaps 1,000,000 would represent Jews with a future and the others Jews whose lives where behind them–“who were but little more than dust”. He believed it would be possible to settle in Palestine 1,000,000 of those refugees….

        Hostage:

        My answer to that question posted previously was: I believe they did.

        No your answer was a complete evasion.

        You posed a question; I answered “yes”–that is not an evasion.
        Apparently, you can’t take yes for an answer.

        because you said that particular legal mandate was beside the point (of our discussion about the British mandate).

        I said it was beside the point because (to your consternation) I agreed with you, as does Khalidi . There was no point debating something we all agreed on!

        If you wish to continue debating that point with yourself, be my guest.

        In any case, I appreciate all your informative contributions to this discussion. I’ve pretty much said all I have to say.

      • Hostage
        January 1, 2013, 8:43 pm

        @ Hostage

        You wrote: “You and your friends here keep ignoring the results of the Arab war of independence, by pretending that T.E. Lawrence was the successor to the Ottoman state.”

        Another silly insinuation. Could you at least try to be honest? I only provided maps which show that Kingdom of Hejaz didn’t include the Sanjak of Maan. You haven’t provided any better map (as far as I can tell, because you answer in multiple comments, which is difficult to follow).

        I guess you are having reading comprehension problems. I provided you with a link to the same website that your map comes from which explained that Maan was part of the Kingdom of Hedjaz in 1920, before Abdullah and his tribesmen took up residence there. Here’s that link again: link to fanack.com

      • Sibiriak
        January 2, 2013, 1:17 am

        Hostage,

        On the one hand you write:

        The national home in Palestine was only a Palestinian one.

        And on the other hand:

        So, the notion that Palestine only contained one national home was formally rejected.

        With all due respect, you are contradicting yourself.

        Actually, you can’t avoid these contradictions, since from your narrow personal perspective, the Mandate’s call to establish a Jewish national home was merely “hortatory boilerplate,” while for everyone involved– the British, the Zionists, the Arab Palestinians et al.–it was a whole lot more than that.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2013, 6:32 am

        The only subject we’re discussing is Khalidi’s legal interpretation of an international legal instrument … Neither Khalidi nor I ever restricted our remarks to legal interpretations.

        That’s your problem. You are still discussing an international legal instrument and trying to pass hyperbole and propaganda off as honest analysis of its provisions.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2013, 8:39 am

        This Article gives this Jewish agency (The Zionist Organisation) the monopoly of all public works and natural resources of Palestine. . . . [I think this was the Mavrommatis case in the international court.]

        Once again that is simply hyperbole. Article 11 of the Mandate did not grant the Jewish Agency any monopoly on the country’s resources. For example, the concession for land reclamation in the Huleh basin was held by a private individual from Beirut named Selim al Salam. Article 11 was one of the few articles that reflected the new state’s interests as a community and required that concessions to develop the country be undertaken in the public interest. It also ruled out any windfall profits by stipulating:

        that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        I’ve commented elsewhere about the subterfuges that Rutenberg, the British government, and his investors employed to make it appear that his private holding company and its publicly owned subsidiaries weren’t Jewish enterprises. See
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/we-must-expel-arabs-and-take-their-place-institute-for-palestine-studies-publishes-1937-ben-gurion-letter-advocating-the-expulsion-of-palestinians.html#comment-444807
        *Barbara Jean Smith, The Roots of Separatism in Palestine: British Economic Policy, 1920-1929, Syracuse University Press, 1993, pages 119-125
        link to books.google.com

        In the Mavrommatis case, the PCIJ ruled that the expropriation clause of the Rutenberg concession violated the obligations the Mandatory had assumed under the Treaty of Lausanne and that Palestine, not Great Britain, was supposed to be treated as “the State” for the purpose of succession in legal and public interests. FYI, the British government had underwritten a portion of the costs of the concessions and added a stipulation that required Rutenberg to purchase any necessary items from Great Britain. That violated the League policy of open trade and did nothing to stimulate the development of a manufacturing sector in Palestine. The whole scheme was viewed as an insider kickback deal that violated the intent of Article 11. One member of the League’s Permanent Mandate Commission labeled it “the scandal of Europe”.

        Declassified documents showed that although the Colonial Office agreed to let Mavrommatis proceed with the readaptation of the plans for his concession, it also intended “to erect such insuperable obstacles as to make his task impossible”. At the same time, the Colonial Office allowed Rutenberg to implement the profitable portions of a concession, while postponing indefinitely the less profitable portions, like the irrigation scheme in the Auja basin. So its a matter of public record that Great Britain violated its obligations under the terms of the Mandate to develop the country in the interests of the inhabitants.

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2013, 8:41 am

        “His Majesty’s Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent [!] with the fulfilment of the pledges [national home) referred to. …

        In fact, I’ve given you links and citations to British Cabinet papers which illustrate that the Colonial department had no intention of honoring its pledges regarding Arab independence in Palestine, although Lloyd George had told the Council of Four that they were a treaty obligation that could not be altered by the terms of the League of Nations Mandate.

        When General Allenby entered Jerusalem he told the population to go about its business. The British persuaded the French to issue the joint Anglo-French Declaration of 1918 assuring the Arabs that they were not interested in imposing any institutions on them and that they were only interested in assisting in the regular working of governments freely chosen by the inhabitants. After the Armistice of Moudros, the British told the French that the Sykes-Picot agreement was no longer to their liking and that if the French refused to renegotiate its terms, they would publicly announce that it had been rendered moot by the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918. In the mean time, the British Cabinet had decided to employ the establishment of a so-called “Occupied Enemy Territory Administration” in Palestine under a military governor, General Allenby. That was part of a deliberate subterfuge to use the Hague Convention of 1907 to prevent the French from establishing the international condominium envisioned for the Sanjak of Jerusalem and obtaining their share of political control in the civilian administration under the terms of Sykes-Picot. See Matthew Hughes, Allenby and British strategy in the Middle East, 1917-1919, Cass, 1999, page 93.

        Churchill’s speech to the parliament on 14 June 1921 repeated the false narrative he had invented about the wartime pledges to the Arab nation. He said the Arab nation was in need of “reconstitution” in so far as that was possible. He claimed that they were war time allies whose lands had been liberated, but didn’t attempt to explain why those same allies were subjected to a belated regime of “belligerent occupation”.

        In any event, you omitted the statement which said that the establishment of the Jewish national home would not be conducted in such a way as to violate Arab legal rights:

        7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

        I’ve shown that Great Britain deliberately violated that legal obligation.

        ‘These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population . . . This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921.

        That speech and the colloquy with other members of Parliament, like Ormsby-Gore who served as Britain’s representative on the League’s Permanent Mandates Commission, confirmed the fact that Palestine was never intended to be the actual home of the 15,000,000 Jews scattered around globe. The definition explicitly stated that while it would be “their home”, only “some amongst them” “should come to Palestine”, “within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population”

        Churchill noted that only about 7,000 members of the Jewish population were immigrants and repeated assurances that immigration would be strictly limited and that Zionist claims about its scope were propaganda, which did not reflect British policy. Ormsby-Gore explained that Palestine was simply a religious center, not an actual place where Jews would be allowed to take up residence:

        I quite agree that there is no room in Palestine for a very large number of Jews, and probably not a very large number of Jews want to go there. There are 15,000,000 Jews in the world, and it is very fortunate that the whole 15,000,000 do not want to go into a country which is about the size of Wales. A large number will remain, as heretofore, scattered throughout the nations of the world, without any particular home, but bound together as all Jews are by a common religious tradition. That common Jewish tradition has one centre only, and that is Palestine.

        link to hansard.millbanksystems.com

      • Talkback
        January 2, 2013, 9:25 am

        @ Hostage

        You wrote: “Aqaba was part of OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz long before Feisal’s forces liberated it in the war of independence.” and “The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (Arabistan) June 27, 1916. It not only included both Maan and Aqaba, …”

        In 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest.

        The liked article doesn’t prove otherwise as nothing you have so far presented can prove ‘no prohibition of secession’ or “Jewish state was in existence in April [1944].

        Is this the reason for your ad hominem attacks?

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2013, 9:27 am

        Hostage,
        On the one hand you write:

        The national home in Palestine was only a Palestinian one.

        And on the other hand:

        So, the notion that Palestine only contained one national home was formally rejected.

        With all due respect, you are contradicting yourself.

        No I’m not. I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the Ottoman Empire was a multinational state which had given formal assurances in international treaties and declarations that guaranteed the civil and religious rights of the various nationalities living in Palestine under the Millet system. That included several autonomous nations like the Druze, the Jews, and the Arabs. Here is another example, beside Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin. The Proclamation for the Ottoman Empire, 1908 said:

        3. It will be demanded that all Ottoman subjects having completed their twentieth year, regardless of whether they possess property or fortune, shall have the right to vote. Those who have lost their civil rights will naturally be deprived of this right.

        4. It will be demanded that the right freely to constitute political groups be inserted in a precise fashion in the constitutional charter, in order that article 1 of the Constitution of 1293 A.H. [Anno Hegira] be respected.

        9. Every citizen will enjoy complete liberty and equality, regardless of nationality or religion, and be submitted to the same obligations. All Ottomans, being equal before the law as regards rights and duties relative to the State, are eligible for government posts, according to their individual capacity and their education. Non-Muslims will be equally liable to the military law.

        10. The free exercise of the religious privileges which have been accorded to different nationalities will remain intact.

        link to fordham.edu

        I’ve also commented that the British Colonial Secretary testified to the League of Nations Mandates Commission that:

        The view of His Majesty’s Government as to the intentions of the Balfour Declaration was as follows:

        “His Majesty’s Government and their predecessors, since the obligations of the mandate were accepted, had taken the view, which the tenor of the mandate itself implies, that their obligations to Arabs and Jews respectively were not incompatible, on the assumption that in the process of time the two races would so adjust their national aspirations as to render possible the establishment of a single commonwealth under a unitary Government.”

        He bristled at the “charge that, if the mandate had been properly administered from the beginning, the two races would have come together to form a Judeo-Arab self-governing commonwealth” and claimed the charge of mismanagement was ” ill-founded”.
        See the Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission, Held on Friday, July 30th, 1937
        link to unispal.un.org

      • Hostage
        January 2, 2013, 11:08 pm

        You wrote: “Aqaba was part of OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz long before Feisal’s forces liberated it in the war of independence.” and “The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (Arabistan) June 27, 1916. It not only included both Maan and Aqaba, …”

        In 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria.

        I’m hardly relying on a single source which says that Maan and Aqaba were part of the Ottoman Vilayet of the Hedjaz before the war and before the Declaration of Arab Independence, i.e.

        In 1517 Egypt became a part of the Ottoman Empire, so Hejaz too became Turkish. Before the first World War broke out, Hejaz was a vilayet of the Ottoman Empire and it extended from Maan to Aqaba in the north, and from Aqaba to Asir along the Red Sea coast. Being a semi-desert, it existed on the pilgrim trade.

        — Nikshoy C. Chatterji, Muddle of the Middle East: 1799-1972, Abhinav Publications, 1973, page 189 link to books.google.com

        Muslim pilgrim Ibn Batutah said Maan was the last place in Syria before reaching Aqaba as-Sawan in the Hejaz. –See Guy, le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500, Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1890, page 509

        Prof Eugene L. Rogan, a fellow at the Oriental Institute and Oxford University and lecturer on Modern Middle Eastern History and Prof Tariq Tell a political scientist specialized in the historical and comparative political economy of development with a particular focus on the Middle East at the American University of Beirut co-authored a book, Village, Steppe and State: The Social Origins of Modern Jordan, I.B. Tauris, 1994, which explained that the Ottoman’s had annexed the region down to Maan and built a fort there in 1559. Although the governor of Syria put down a revolt in the region of Palestine and the Transjordan in 1656, the Ottoman troops were eventually routed from Maan as a result of a revolt by the Banu Tamim tribe. After that time the Ottomans struggled to attain control of the area (page 26).

        In another volume, Rogan explains that Maan had been divided between the two districts, Ma’an al-Shamiyya (Syria) and Ma’an al-Hijaziyya (Hedjaz). The latter was included in the pilgrimage route of the hajj. It contained the bulk of the population and was the principal town, while the former was only a small neighborhood inhabited by a few Syrians from the north. — See Eugene L. Rogan, (2002), Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921, Cambridge University Press, page 33.

        The liked article doesn’t prove otherwise as nothing you have so far presented can prove ‘no prohibition of secession’ or “Jewish state was in existence in April [1944].

        Nonetheless, Kosovo seceded from Serbia without obtaining its consent and the ICJ could find no prohibition in general international law that applied to the situation.

        One of the Jewish Agency’s advisors on international law, Jacob Robinson, explained to the People’s Council of Israel that the Jewish State was already in existence as a result of the 29 November 1947 resolution. The other advisor was Hersh Lauterpacht who was a famous advocate of the maxim that “a State is, and becomes, an international person through recognition only and exclusively. He also advised that the United Nations resolution amount to irrevocable legal recognition. See Anis F. Kassim(ed), The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1987-1988, page 279 link to books.google.com

        They were not alone, Judge Nabil Elaraby also advised in the Wall case:

        That there “shall be a transitional period” pending the establishment of the two States is a determination by the General Assembly within its sphere of competence and should be binding on all Member States as having legal force and legal consequences. & et seq.

        link to icj-cij.org

        The General Assembly resolution clearly ordered the Mandatory to set aside territory in the Jewish State no later than February of 1948. International and national courts had recognized the existence of the Mandated State of Palestine ever since 1925. Independence had nothing to do with the question of its statehood. All of the Mandated states were created by resolutions of the League of Nations. The new Jewish and Arab states were no different in that respect, i.e. the resolution of a competent international organization whould have been a sufficient legal basis to establish a new dependent state.

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2013, 2:06 am

        P.S. In addition to the longstanding historical claims cited above, here are some additional cites which establish that the region in which both Ma’an and Aqaba were located had been part of the Ottoman Vilayet of Hedjaz and/or the independent Hedjazi Sanjak of Medina long before Feisal’s forces liberated it in the war of independence and that the Hedjazis claimed all of the Muslim Holy Land extending north from Aqaba to at least Maan:

        1) “In 1886 the Sanjak of Maan (which included Aqaba) was transferred from the Ottoman Vilayet of Syria to the Ottoman Vilayet of the Hejaz. In 1894 it was restored to the Vilayet of Syria [minus Aqaba], and remained part of that vilayet until after the outbreak of WWI. See Malcolm Yapp, Paul Preston, Michael Patridge (editors) British Documents on Foreign Affairs: Near and the Middle-East. Eastern Affairs, July 1944-March 1945, British Foreign Office, page 3

        2) In “Clive Leatherdale, Britain and Saudi Arabia 1925-1939″, Psychology Press, Nov 12, 2012, page 41, the author explains: “Before proceeding, it is necessary to examine the history of Transjordan and, in addition, of Aqaba and Maan. The area around Aqaba forms the southernmost land crossroads between Arabia and Africa. Disputes over its sovereignty can be traced back to 1841 when, at the Conference of London, Egypt was awarded possession of Sinai and several Red Sea garrison towns, including Aqaba. From the 1890s until 1905 a resurgent Turkey administered Aqaba as part of the Vilayet of the Hejaz, whereupon an excessive Turkish presence in Aqaba and Sinai led to unrest in Egypt, a British ultimatum, and a strain in Anglo-Ottoman relations. From that time, the Turks looked after Aqaba through the independent sanjak district) Of Medina, before transferring the administration of the town to the Vilayet of Damascus in 1910.” In contrast, Maan had, since the 1890s, enjoyed uninterrupted administration as part of the Vilayet of Damascus.” In other words, when the forces of the Arab Revolt occupied Aqaba and Maan in 1917, both places were regarded by the Turks as outside the Hejaz. The First World War provided the seeds of the later frontier dispute. Hejazis claimed the territorial limits of the Moslem Holy Land as extending northwards beyond Aqaba.”
        link to books.google.com

        3) In Kamal S. Salibi, “The Modern History of Jordan”, I.B.Tauris, 1998, page 35, the author explains: “In the last decades of Ottoman rule, Transjordan was administered, north to south, in three divisions: the sanjak of Ajlun, the kaza of al-Balqa, and the mutasarrifiyya of Karak. The last centred around Bilad al-Sharat, stopping just short of Aqaba. This strategic port was kept by Muhammad Ali after the end of the Egyptian occupation of Syria in 1841 as part of the Egyptian territory of Sinai, which bordered the Gulf of Aqaba from the west. In 1892, however, the port was ceded back to the Ottomans to become part of the muhafaza of Medina, in the vilayet of the Hijaz. North of Aqaba, the town of Maan, in the desert, straddled the border between the mutasarrifiyya of Karak and the Hijazi territory of Medina.”
        link to books.google.com

        So there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Sherifians had claimed and administered both Aqaba and Maan long before Feisal’s forces liberated them in the war of independence; that they were included in the declaration of the independence of the Muslim holy land; and that both were part of the territory of the Kingdom of Hedjaz before Abdullah took up residence in Maan in 1920.

      • Talkback
        January 3, 2013, 4:56 pm

        @ Hostage

        First of all thank you for quoting from “Britain and Saudi Arabia 1925-1939″ which proves that my claim that in “1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest” is correct.

        Second, it was allready said that the ICJ only handled the question, if the mere ACT OF DECLARING independancy was prohibited by international law and not, if SECESSION in general or in the particular case was in accordance with international law. And it was allready said that secession without consent is in general not in accordance with international law, because it upholds the territorial integrity of a state and that a none state actor could only make a case for remedial secession which is not based on right, but on recognition.

        Third, it’s quite headspinning how you (and neither Lauterpacht nor Judge Elaraby) try to make the case that the Jewish Agency had allready become a state actor in 1947 based on the General Assembly RECOMMENDATION to become one and at the same time that AS NON STATE ACTORS the explicitly named “Jewish Agency for Palestine” and “Arab Higher Committee” were not bound by a Security Coucil resolution in April 1948 CALLING them to refrain from – to put it simple – becoming one “pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly”.

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2013, 6:55 pm

        First of all thank you for quoting from “Britain and Saudi Arabia 1925-1939″ which proves that my claim that in “1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest” is correct.

        The book says that when the forces of the Arab Revolt occupied Aqaba and Maan in 1917, both places were regarded by the Turks as outside the Hejaz. The many texts which I cited made it absolutely clear that both Maan and Aqaba had been considered integral parts of the Arab district of the Hedjaz for many centuries and that sovereignty over the area had been disputed and changed many times since at least 1841, if not since 1656. The Ottoman’s had even placed it under the administration of the Hashemites of Hedjaz during their many internal reorganizations. The book pointed out that the Hedjazis claimed all of the Muslim Holy Land including those territories, and said that dispute was one of the seeds of the Arab war of independence. The book also made it clear that the secular claim of conquest was only made after 1917 – and in addition to those other existing religious, historical, and Arab national claims.

        In any event, the attempts by you and others here to portray the Hashemites as foreigners in parts of historical Hedjaz or to deny that they had actually administered the parts that were subsequently annexed to Transjordan on behalf of the Ottoman’s – as part of the Hedjaz, long before Faisal liberated them or Abdullah took up residence in Maan, are obviously shopworn propaganda.

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2013, 9:38 pm

        And it was allready said that secession without consent is in general not in accordance with international law, because it upholds the territorial integrity of a state and that a none state actor could only make a case for remedial secession which is not based on right, but on recognition.

        You are quoting a “dissenting” minority opinion of Judge Koroma. None of the other Justices joined-in or subscribed to that view. The majority opinion came to just the opposite opinion:
        1) the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between sovereign States (Paragraph 80); [so it cannot apply to cases of secession at all] and
        2) “During the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were numerous instances of declarations of independence, often strenuously opposed by the State from which independence was being declared. Sometimes a declaration resulted in the creation of a new State, [i.e. secession] at others it did not. In no case, however, does the practice of States as a whole suggest that the act of promulgating the declaration was regarded as contrary to international law. On the contrary, State practice during this period points clearly to the conclusion that international law contained no prohibition of declarations of independence. (paragraph 79)

        Second, it was allready said that the ICJ only handled the question, if the mere ACT OF DECLARING independancy was prohibited by international law and not, if SECESSION in general or in the particular case was in accordance with international law.

        Not at all. The ICJ simply avoided the question if secession or a unilateral declaration of independence was a positive entitlement or legal right. It did not avoid the question if secession or a unilateral declaration of independence was in violation of a prohibition of general international law.

        I only said that the ICJ found that there was no prohibition against secession in general international law, not that there was a positive entitlement. So you’re arguing against a straw man.

        The Court explained the difference. It had been asked:

        to determine whether or not the declaration of independence was adopted in violation of international law. The Court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to break away from it. Indeed, it is entirely possible for a particular act — such as a unilateral declaration of independence — not to be in violation of international law without necessarily constituting the exercise of a right conferred by it. The Court has been asked for an opinion on the first point, not the second (paragraph 56).

        The Court noted that Serbia had adopted a decision stating that the declaration represented a forceful and unilateral secession of a part of the territory of Serbia (paragraph 77) and that several parties had proposed that Kosovo had the right to create an independent State either
        as a manifestation of a right to self-determination or pursuant to what
        they described as a right of “remedial secession” in the face of the situation (paragraph 82).

        The Court said it didn’t need to answer the question of whether those rights existed, only whether the declaration violated some prohibition of general international law (paragraph 83). The Court ruled that for the reasons already given, which included cases of secession described in paragraph 79, it considered that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence (paragraph 84).

      • Hostage
        January 4, 2013, 1:48 am

        Third, it’s quite headspinning how you (and neither Lauterpacht nor Judge Elaraby) try to make the case that the Jewish Agency had allready become a state actor in 1947 based on the General Assembly RECOMMENDATION to become one and at the same time that AS NON STATE ACTORS the explicitly named “Jewish Agency for Palestine” and “Arab Higher Committee” were not bound by a Security Coucil resolution in April 1948 CALLING them to refrain from – to put it simple – becoming one “pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly”.

        LOL! You’ve gotta be kidding! The “Steps Preparatory to Independence” in resolution 181(II) explicitly stated that the new States would be formed; the provisional governments established; and a militia raised in the shortest amount of time possible during the transition period, prior to independence. It explicitly required the government of each state to be carrying out its functions by 1 April 1948 including full authority in the areas under their control in matters of immigration and land regulation.
        link to yale.edu

        I’ve already pointed out that it required the British to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

        I’ve already shown that experts in the field of international law, like Jacob Robinson, advised the People’s Council, Vaad Leumi, that the Jewish State was already in existence as a direct result of the adoption of the UN resolution of 29 November 1947.

        By April of 1948 the elected Jewish government, Vaad Leumi, already had an army of 80,000 persons available. Most of them were in the field implementing enormous and complex operations plans. In many areas they had simply taken effective control of the territory by force. In fact there was great concern that the British administration would become isolated and trapped in Jerusalem. When Vaad Leumi finally assumed all executive, legislative, and judicial powers in the territory it occupied, it was a mere formality. It conferred some authority on the Jewish Agency, which became a subsidiary parastatal organ of the new Jewish Provisional Government.

        In 1946 the Anglo-American Inquiry had already bemoaned the fact that Vaad Leumi and its mouthpiece, the Jewish Agency, were functioning as “:

        “A State within the State”
        The Jews have developed, under the aegis of the Jewish Agency and the Vaad Leumi, a strong and tightly-woven community. There thus exists a virtual Jewish non-territorial State with its own executive and legislative organs, parallel in many respects to the Mandatory Administration, and- serving as the concrete symbol of the Jewish National Home. This Jewish shadow Government has ceased to cooperate with the Administration in the maintenance of law and order, and in the suppression of terrorism.

        — Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry – Chapter VIII
        link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        So the UN’s problem wasn’t establishing a provisional council of government by 1 April 1948 for the Jewish State as required by the resolution, it was overthrowing the existing one in order to install another that might better represent the more than 490,000 Arab citizens that were supposed to be living there too.

        FYI the US and UK expressed doubt in the Kosovo case that Security Council resolutions are legally binding in most cases involving non-signatories of the Charter or non-state actors. The League of Nations had partitioned Palestine into two states with a resolution adopted by the Council. The PCIJ had subsequently ruled in the Treaty of Lausanne case that Council resolutions were merely recommendations, except to the extent that the terms had been accepted by the members or parties concerned.

        The General Assembly had adopted another resolution on a similar basis to partition one of those states in Palestine again and to grant the successors their independence after a short transition period. So there was no question that the inhabitants already had the legal capacity for self-government, or else it wouldn’t have been necessary for the Security Council to address the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence in the first place.

        Shertok and Ben Gurion weren’t interested in declaring a government or a dependent state. Neither of those would have prevented the adoption of the US trusteeship proposal.

        The Palestine Commission had already addressed the possibility that the Jewish government might have to act on its own initiative if the UN was unable to assume control by 15 May. It’s Secretary noted that:

        It was pointed out that it was in fact possible for the Commission to select the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State before 1 April and to report its inability t0 select the one for the Arab State to the Security Council. The danger of the Commission’s being attacked on legal grounds if it did not select the Provisional Councils of Government before reporting their inability to function, was stressed. The opinion was expressed that the Provisional Council of Government for the Jewish State, once established, would derive its power not from the Commission but from the General Assembly resolution, and could take steps to avoid the chaos that would arise in Palestine, should the Commission be unable to assume such authority before 15 May.

        link to domino.un.org

        The fact that the General Assembly had reconvened and suspended the work of its Commission simply made it inevitable that others would have to assume control.

        The late ICJ President, Taslim Olawale Elias, said “It seems clear that, as far as General Assembly recommendations in respect of the nine specifically enumerated matters in Article 18(2) are concerned, its “decisions” in the form of “recommendations” are binding upon all once a draft resolution is adopted by a two thirds majority and that a decision on any other important question can be adopted by a simple majority.”

        Hersh Lauterpacht likewise had written an advisory opinion for the Zionist Organizations along the same lines. He said that the General Assembly unquestionably had the power to create two new states in Palestine by adopting a recommendation that it be partitioned. See His Collected Works on the subject starting at page 508, link to books.google.com

        Elaraby was merely paraphrasing the resolution and explaining that it must have had binding legal effects. It actually said the transition was to independence, not statehood:

        “The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.”

        As I’ve already noted the resolution required the establishment of the state governments and the fulfillment of functions, including full authority over land management and immigration well before 15 May 1948.

      • Talkback
        January 4, 2013, 1:28 pm

        @ Hostage

        You wrote: “In any event, the attempts by you and others here to portray the Hashemites as foreigners in parts of historical Hedjaz or to deny that they had actually administered the parts that were subsequently annexed to Transjordan on behalf of the Ottoman’s – as part of the Hedjaz, long before Faisal liberated them or Abdullah took up residence in Maan, are obviously shopworn propaganda.”

        No, it’s just your third dishonest insinuation, because it is clear that I only wrote: “in 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest.” It’s still correct, no matter how you’re trying to spin it. Even if the Kingdom of Hedjaz CLAIMED them to be part of the KINGDOM of Hejaz it’s still wrong to say that they were part of (or administered by) he Ottoman Vilayet of Hedjaz, since the Kingdom was not even Ottoman.

        You wrote: “You are quoting a “dissenting” minority opinion of Judge Koroma. None of the other Justices joined-in or subscribed to that view.

        I’m terribly sorry that I couldn’t quote Jacob Robinson, Hersh Lauterpacht, Taslim Olawale Elias or two Security Council members expressing their doubts. But Judge Koroma was “dissenting”, because he (I haven’t read all opionions) was actually dealing with the question, if secession was in accordance with international law and not only if the mere promulgation of independance was.

        You quote: “1) the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between sovereign States (Paragraph 80); [so it cannot apply to cases of secession at all]“.

        Judge Keith in the same case: “12. While the Council “[r]eaffirm[ed] the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, the effect of the resolution, as long as it remained in effect, was to displace the administrative and related functions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which it would otherwise have exercised through its institutions as the sovereign over the territory of Kosovo.”

        It’s clear that a “commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity” or its opposition (recognition of secession) lies within “the sphere of relations between souvereign states”. It just shows again the limited approach of the ICJ trying to avoid the question of “the legal consequences of that declaration” in general and in this particular case.

        You quote: “I only said that the ICJ found that there was no prohibition against secession in general international law, …”

        And you still are wrong, because the ICJ only concluded that there was no prohibition against the mere “act of promulgating the declaration” in international law. (I know, it sounds ridiculous.)

        You wrote: “LOL! You’ve gotta be kidding! …”

        You’re avoiding my objections.

        You’re trying to make the case that the Jewish state was allready a state actor in November 1947. Fair enough. But at the same time you’re trying to make the case that it wasn’t a state actor in April 1948 and therefore SEC RES 46 was not legally binding for it. How do you explain this contradiction?

        And how do you explain that SEC RES 46 asks both “organisations” (not states) to refrain from political acts which might prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either community, if the position of the Arab community was, that neither an “Arab” nor a “Jewish” state should be created at all within the state of Palestine, but that the latter should be released into independence?

      • Hostage
        January 4, 2013, 8:08 pm

        No, it’s just your third dishonest insinuation, because it is clear that I only wrote: “in 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria.

        There’s nothing dishonest about it. You and the other commenters here insinuate that Maan and Aqaba weren’t a historical part of the Hedjaz or that they were part of the Arabian Holy Land included in Hussein’s 1916 Declaration of Independence. You in particular keep implying that the indigenous people of the Hedjaz, including the Hashemites could only claim Aqaba and Maan by conquest, and ignore the fact that the Syrian General Congress named Feisal the King of the territory included in their former Vilayet. Sovereignty over the region changed hands several times after Egypt and the Hedjaz were restored to Ottoman control in the 1840’s, and remained disputed thereafter. The Ottoman Porte also incorporated Maan and Aqaba in the Vilayet of the Hedjaz for much of that time. The notion that people living in Warsaw, Berlin, Constantinople, Paris, or London held better title to any part of Arabia just doesn’t pass the laugh test.

        (I know, it sounds ridiculous.)

        It surely does. The majority opinion not only addressed cases where declarations were promulgated in paragraph 79, it also noted that new States had been created in some cases and that state practice indicated there was no prohibition in any of those cases.

        You wrote: “LOL! You’ve gotta be kidding! …”

        You’re avoiding my objections.

        No I’m avoiding your sophomoric straw men. I never said the Jewish Agency or the Arab Higher Committee became states. Vaad Lemui certainly did. The Jewish Agency specifically mentioned it as a separate elected entity in all of its correspondence with the League of Nations, the UN Palestine Commission, and the Security Council. The People’s Council had implemented compulsory military service for able bodied Jews ever since the 1930s. By April of 1947 it was in control of a population of 600,000 that paid it regular alliance, the second largest Army in the region, and most of the territory that had been allocated to it under the UN plan. It had long-since been recognized as a government organ by other countries, including the US and UK, as evidenced by the report of the Anglo-American Inquiry.

        But at the same time you’re trying to make the case that it wasn’t a state actor in April 1948 and therefore SEC RES 46 was not legally binding for it.

        No, you claimed “even the mere act of declaring independence itself violated S/RES/46, 14. April 1948″ and I responded that “In the Kosovo case the US and UK expressed doubt that UN Security Council resolutions are binding on non-State actors or non-member states, which have no Charter obligations. In any event, the Jewish state ceased to be a proposal on the day that the General Assembly adopted its resolution.

        In addition, the decision by a third party to declare independence outside the framework of a Security Council resolution regarding the “Assembly of Kosovo” is precisely analogous to the decisions taken by the Jewish People’s Council outside the framework of UN resolutions regarding “the Jewish Agency”. In any event UN resolution 46 did not contain any decisions taken under the auspices of Chapter VII. It called on the Jewish Agency, the Arab Higher Committee, and other organizations in Palestine to take some actions “without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions” and for those organizations to refrain pending further consideration of the future government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community.

        The ICJ noted that the UN Security Council resolution in the Kosovo case was merely an interim stabilization measure which did not, in and of itself, determine the future status of Kosovo. The same thing can be said for Security Council resolution 46. No member of the Council ever suggested that it had the legal consequence of preventing the declaration of the State of Israel. In fact, Israel was immediately recognized by several of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

        FYI, the UN Charter doesn’t even mention the term “resolution”. For decades various UN member states challenged the right of both the General Assembly and the Security Council to adopt resolutions that were legally binding on members, much less non-members, e.g. “Certain Expenses (1961); and “Legal Consequences” (Namibia 1970). Other cases, like Bosnia, have raised challenges to the notion that the lex specialis created by Security Council resolutions can preempt customary norms regarding the inherent right of self-defense, self-determination, & etc.

      • Talkback
        January 5, 2013, 1:27 pm

        Hostage: “There’s nothing dishonest about it. You and the other commenters here insinuate …”

        Stop being dishonest! For the third time, this is what I excactly wrote: “in 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest”.

        Leatherdale writes that Aqaba (since 1910) and Maan (since 1890) were administered by the Ottoman Vilayet of Damascus (Syria) and were captured in 1917 and that Husein laid claim to the region on the additional, secular grounds of conquest.

        So stop twisting my words, because you can’t refute what Leatherdale and I wrote, which is basically the same.

        Hostage: “The notion that people living in Warsaw, Berlin, Constantinople, Paris, or London held better title to any part of Arabia just doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

        Neither does the notion that they held better title to any part of Palestine, right?

        Hostage : “The majority opinion not only addressed cases where declarations were promulgated in paragraph 79, it also noted that new States had been created in some cases and that state practice indicated there was no prohibition in any of those cases.”

        Wrong again. The ICJ only noted that state practice indicated that there was no prohibition of promulgating independance in any of those cases.

        Hostage: “I never said the Jewish Agency or the Arab Higher Committee became states. Vaad Lemui certainly did. …”

        Fair enough, but you also claim that the state existed only because of the recommendation for a plan two create two states and because it was adopted and that it was legally binding. Even the late ICJ president won’t find anything in the UN article he refers to, to support his claim. The fact that the Security Council didn’t accept GA RES 181 and instead released SEC RES 46 asking the Jewish Agency not to declare independancy
        pending further considerations of the future Goverment of Palestine proves that 181 was not legally binding at all for any party. SEC RES 64 may have not been legally binding for the Jewish Agency, but it certainly was for the UN Members because of article 25. And since the declaration violated SEC RES 46 the members were obliged not to recognize it.

        But you don’t even want to answer my repeated questions on what territory exactly did Jewish Palestinian seperatists had the right to secede from Palestine and if we’re talking about 25% of Jewish citizens of Palestine in 1948 (Jewish refugees and not yet naturalized immigrants excluded) what territory exactly would the 25% Nonjews in Israel have the right to secede? You know why you don’t want to answer, don’t you.

        Hostage: “No member of the Council ever suggested that it had the legal consequence of preventing the declaration of the State of Israel.”

        The objections go far beyond that. Syria’s draft proposal in the Security council December 1948 which was supported by Belgium while the other members only abstained:

        “DECIDES to request an advisory legal opinion of the International Court of Justice under Article 96 of the Charter and chapter IV of the Statute of
        the Court on the following questions:

        1. Do the recommendations of the General Assembly in the resolution of 29 November 1947 for a partition plan with economic union, which was
        rejected by the Arabs of Palestine, create right to the Jewish minority to proclaim their separate state at the termination of the Mandate on the
        area assigned to them by that resolution?
        2. What is the international status of Palestine at the termination of the Mandate on 15 May 1948?
        3. Under the present circumstances would the Security Council be acting in comformity with the United Nations Charter and the international law if it recommended the admission of the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations?
        4. Is the General Assembly empowered to partition Palestine between Arabs and Jews without consulting the lawful inhabitants of the country in securing their consent?”
        link to unispal.un.org

        And in this document you find the rejected proposal of the Subcommitee Nr. 2 before the adoption of the partition plan, starting at DRAFT RESOLUTION REFERRING CERTAIN LEGAL QUESTIONS
        TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE:
        link to unispal.un.org

        The proposal to refer the question in point (viii) to the ICJ was rejected only by 21 to 20 votes: “(viii) Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future Government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine.”

        It’s clear that international law was avoided and justice was denied.

      • Hostage
        January 6, 2013, 12:59 pm

        Stop being dishonest! For the third time, this is what I excactly wrote: “in 1916 Aqaba was NOT part of the the “OTTOMAN VILAYET of Hedjaz”, but of the OTTOMAN VILAYET of Syria. And Aqaba and Maan were captured in 1917 and the KINGDOM of Hedjaz claimed posession by right of conquest”. . . . So stop twisting my words, because you can’t refute what Leatherdale and I wrote, which is basically the same.

        No, you’re still trying to employ a book about Great Britain and Saudi Arabia 1925-1939 to insinuate that the Hashemite claim to Maan and Aqaba was limited to a claim of conquest. But the author admits that conquest was merely an additional claim of title to the territory and points out that it had been ruled by the Hashemites for a number of years. The other sources that I cited illustrated that other Arabs had considered those areas part of the Hedjaz for centuries.

        Leatherdale cited several other bases which support the Hashemite claim. He doesn’t even mention the fact that the patriarch of the Hashemites is buried in a holy shrine in Gaza City or that other Hashemites living in Palestine, including the future Mufti of Jerusalem, participated in establishing the Syrian General Congress that declared Feisal the King of Syria and Palestine.

        After the CUP came to power and pursued its policy of “Turkification”, Arab leaders like the Sharif and the 21 Arabs that were hanged in Damascus had advocated that the powers of government be decentralized and Arab national rights recognized. When their demands were ignored, they finally declared their independence in 1916. Your argument supposes that it was up to the central government of the Ottoman Empire or the British in Egypt to decide whether Aqaba or Maan were part of the administrative districts of the Hedjaz or the Arab Holy Land. I’ve commented elsewhere that Ottoman officials complained for the record that they didn’t even have maps of the region between Aqaba, Nablus, and Salt (in the Transjordan) and that they had traveled for days in the area without encountering any of their government officials at all. They admitted the region was ruled by local sheiks who were seeking to end their inclusion in the same Vilayet as Damascus. That sentiment certainly included notables and religious leaders, like the custodian of the Holy Places, the Muftis, and the Imams. See for example the discussion on pages 53 & 54 of Johann Büssow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872-1908 link to books.google.com

      • Hostage
        January 6, 2013, 1:21 pm

        Hostage : “The majority opinion not only addressed cases where declarations were promulgated in paragraph 79, it also noted that new States had been created in some cases and that state practice indicated there was no prohibition in any of those cases.”

        Wrong again. The ICJ only noted that state practice indicated that there was no prohibition of promulgating independance in any of those cases.

        A declaration of independence is simply a declaration of secession. All the court said was that it wouldn’t address whether that was a positive entitlement, not that it wouldn’t address whether it violated a prohibition of general international law.

        If the majority opinion didn’t conclude that there was no prohibition against secession, then it’s a mystery why Judge Koroma took the time and effort to write a “dissenting” opinion complaining that secession without consent is prohibited under international law. You really can’t have it both ways.

      • Hostage
        January 6, 2013, 4:56 pm

        Hostage: “I never said the Jewish Agency or the Arab Higher Committee became states. Vaad Lemui certainly did. …”

        Fair enough, but you also claim that the state existed only because of the recommendation for a plan two create two states and because it was adopted and that it was legally binding.

        I never said any such thing. There were a number of legal bases for the existence of the Jewish state mentioned in the declaration of independence besides the UN resolution. In fact, I’ve pointed out repeatedly that the Palestinian Yishuv already had the national and legal characteristics of provisional statehood when 1) the League of Nations used the legal formulation “Jewish people” ; and 2) mentioned “communities” and their connection to Article 22 of the Covenant in the text of the Palestine Mandate. The only questions were whether they were entitled to an independent state of their own and a territory.

        The fact that the League of Nations Mandate divided the administration of the territory into two dependent states at the Jordan river on the basis of ethnicity and that the General Assembly resolution had the legal effect of further partitioning the country west of the river into two dependent states isn’t the end of the story. On 21 March 1948 David Ben Gurion wrote an article that appeared on page 1 of the Palestine Post titled “The Jewish State Exists” which explicitly said that the UN resolution alone had not brought about its practical establishment, but rather that “The Jewish state exists, and will continue to exist, because the Jewish people defend it.”

        On a number of occasions I’ve cited an advisory opinion written by Ernest Gross, a Legal Counsel at the US State Department, which explained that in the absence of the mandatory or other UN administration, the law of nations recognized the inherent right of the peoples of the communities in Palestine to organize a state and operate a government in the areas that they occupied.
        link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve cited the fact that Vaad Leumi had the legal capacity to declare its own independence outside the framework of the UN resolution and that it did so when it declared the establishment of Israel and adopted a provisional constitution. Here is the comment Ben Gurion made on that subject from the link I supplied earlier to the Palestine Yearbook of International Law:

        D. Ben-Gurion: I say that we should not say “within the framework of the U.N. resolution”, but rather “on the basis of the U.N. resolution”. We should not talk about sovereignty and non-sovereignty but rather about a state. We must approve the title: State of Israel. We must proclaim: As of this moment the State of Israel is established. We must reach a decision about the government and whether to announce its formation.

        link to books.google.com

        I noted that the Provisional Government claimed it was established by its own acts and was in no sense a successor to the mandatory regime. I’ve also pointed out that many legal experts agree that Israel was established through an act of secession. James Crawford devoted Chapter 9 of the 2nd Edition of The Creation of States in International Law to the subject of Palestine and the fact that Israel was a case of secession. See also D.P. O’Connell author “The Law of State Succession”, Volume V of the Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law, 1956, Hersh Lauterpacht editor, pages 10-11, and 178; and CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) link to elyon1.court.gov.il

        But you don’t even want to answer my repeated questions on what territory exactly did Jewish Palestinian seperatists had the right to secede from Palestine and if we’re talking about 25% of Jewish citizens of Palestine in 1948 (Jewish refugees and not yet naturalized immigrants excluded) what territory exactly would the 25% Nonjews in Israel have the right to secede? You know why you don’t want to answer, don’t you.

        That’s a question I’ve answered many times. First I’ve pointed out that under international law a change of sovereignty doesn’t effect private property rights:
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        Secondly I’ve noted that the customary doctrine of uti possidetis limited the borders of any new state to the limits of its pre-independence administrative frontiers, like the ones laid down in the UN’s transition plan and plan of partition, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net

        Thirdly, I’ve commented that no matter how Israel came into existence, the UN believes it secured Israel’s agreement to implement the terms of UN resolutions 181(II) and 194(III) protecting the rights of Palestinians, including those living inside Israel and the refugees, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net

      • Hostage
        January 6, 2013, 8:04 pm

        Even the late ICJ president won’t find anything in the UN article he refers to, to support his claim.

        Of course he did. Every time the question has been raised in an ICJ case, the Court has explained that the General Assembly can adopt legally binding decisions on any question. It simply needs the assistance of other organs or member states in the area of enforcement. The same can be said for the ICJ and the Security Council too, since no states have ever concluded the special agreements or implemented the transitional arrangements contained in Article 43 and 106 of the Charter to turn over their armed forces to the Security Council. So, the Security Council and the General Assembly have always relied upon coalitions of willing members to enforce their decisions.
        * link to un.org
        * link to un.org

        The fact that the Security Council didn’t accept GA RES 181 and instead released SEC RES 46 asking the Jewish Agency not to declare independancy

        Security Council resolution 46 did no such thing. It specifically stated that it was “without prejudice” to the rights and claims of the organizations that you mentioned. It contained no particular statements about the subject of statehood or calling on members not to recognize the Jewish or Arab states. Compare that to its resolutions on Namibia or Southern Rhodesia if you don’t understand what I’m talking about.

        The representatives of the Jewish Agency, like Rabbi Silver, had long since advised the Security Council that the Jewish State was already in existence. On 21 March 1948 David Ben Gurion, the Chairman of the Jewish Agency, had written an article that appeared on pages 1 & 3 of the Palestine Post titled “The Jewish State Exists”. He explained that the UN resolution of 29 November did not, in and of itself, achieve the practical establishment of the Jewish State. He explained that:

        The Jewish State exists, and will continue to exist, because we defend it.

        The meetings of the People’s Council on the subject of the declaration and provisional constitution that I’ve cited are a graphic illustration of the customary state practice reflected in Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention:

        The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law. [e.g. the doctrine of uti possidetis]

        link to jus.uio.no

        Resolution 46 wasn’t issued in lieu of resolution 181(II), which dealt with matters within the General Assembly’s area of competence according to Articles 10, 18, and 85 of the UN Charter. FYI, the Security Council didn’t reject resolution 181(II). It simply said that it couldn’t be implemented at the time by peaceful means and referred the matter back to the General Assembly. The members of the Security Council subsequently reaffirmed the provisions of resolution 181(II) on the status of the City of Jerusalem and resolution 194(III) on the status of the refugees annually until at least 1967.

        Hostage: “No member of the Council ever suggested that it had the legal consequence of preventing the declaration of the State of Israel.”

        The objections go far beyond that. Syria’s draft proposal . . . It’s clear that international law was avoided and justice was denied.

        Nonsense. Most of the foreign ministers of the EU and Mercosur states still believe that either a special UN-sponsored international diplomatic conference, (like Versailles) or the Security Council can impose an arbitrated settlement on the parties if they fail to reach an agreement, e.g.

        “After a fixed deadline, a U.N. Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution,” Solana said, adding this should include border parameters, refugees, control over the city of Jerusalem and security arrangements.

        –EU’s Solana calls for UN to recognise Palestinian state
        link to reuters.com.

        The ICJ didn’t object to the idea that the UN could step in and administrate territory and adopt decisions like that regarding the future government of Kosovo or East Timor without respecting the wishes of the people of Serbia or Indonesia. The Charter specifically provided that either the Security Council or General Assembly could do that sort of thing in articles 83 and 85.
        * link to yale.edu
        * link to yale.edu

        But the British Mandatory; the Anglo-American Inquiry; and the UNSCOP Commission had all consulted the wishes of the Palestinians and the neighboring states. After the London Conference, the British government simply established a deadline for the Jews and Arabs to come to an agreement before their dispute would be submitted to binding international arbitration by the UN. See the FRUS, The Near East and Africa, 1947, page 1037 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        FYI, I stopped counting the number of times the territory of Syria and Lebanon was subdivided under the French Mandate at around six, including an Alawite State. Syria itself sat on the Trusteeship Committee, the fourth primary organ established under the UN Charter, and routinely made decisions effecting the people of French Cameroon without consulting the inhabitants of either the British Southern or Northern Cameroons. Obviously, neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly felt that questions posed by Syria and the Ad Hoc Committee required an answer from the ICJ.

        Legal experts and historians, like Hersh Lauterpacht, Musa E. Mazzawi, and David Tal, have all commented about the schizophrenic arguments employed by both sides regarding the legal status of the General Assembly resolution. Lauterpacht and Mazzawi both noted that all of the parties implicitly agreed that the General Assembly had the legal competence to adopt a binding solution, so long as it decided in their favor against the proposals of the other party or parties to the dispute. Whenever it suited Syria’s purposes, it argued that the resolution was legally binding, and that Israel had violated it’s provisions, like those concerning the status of Jerusalem.

      • Obsidian
        January 7, 2013, 12:02 pm

        @Hostage

        No Hostage. That IS correct. You have simply followed the ICJ’s misinterpretation of Article 22.

        The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addresses Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the Mandate for Palestine violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph

        4:
        “As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive; the words are ‘can be provisionally recognised’, not ‘will’ or ‘shall’: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League: (c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sevres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.
        “This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires ‘the development of self-governing institutions’; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.
        “(3) The field [Territory] in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field [Territory] under Article 25.”

      • Hostage
        January 7, 2013, 8:07 pm

        No Hostage. That IS correct. You have simply followed the ICJ’s misinterpretation of Article 22. The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addresses Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the Mandate for Palestine violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,

        LOL! Of course no one relies on interpretations offered by British government officials regarding the nature of Mandates. That was the whole point of the earlier International Status of South West Africa case that the ICJ cited in the Palestinian Wall case.

        For my own part, I’m following the British War Cabinet papers on the meaning that was attached to Balfour Declaration at the time it was adopted and the travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the terms of the Palestine Mandate. It concluded that the territory of the national home was not the whole of historic Palestine:

        “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.

        – See PRO FO 371/5245

        We also know from other declassified Cabinet documents that the British government deliberately lied about its treaty obligations regarding the independence of the Arabs of Palestine.

        More importantly, nothing in the Mandate appointed Great Britain as the arbiter of disputes regarding the interpretation of the terms of the Mandate arising between itself and the Arab member states of the League of Nations, like Egypt and Iraq. They and the other Arab states contested the interpretation of the mandate and the policies that adopted by Great Britain regarding the Jewish national home and the 1936 Arab Revolt. I’ve noted that Chaim Weizmann wrote editorials which falsely claimed that the Arab States had no locus standi to engage in disputes regarding the Mandate.

        But in fact, Great Britain had agreed to submit any dispute relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate to the Permanent Court of International Justice in accordance with Article 26 of the Mandate itself. So that naturally applied to its interpretation of the requirement for the mandatory to give legal effect to Article 22 of the Covenant. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The Statute of the International Court of Justice is annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, of which it forms an integral part. The members have agreed that under the terms of Articles 36 and 37 of the ICJ Statute, the ICJ has final jurisdiction to settle disputes reading the interpretation of treaties, including those that called for the reference of maters to the Permanent Court of International Justice. In the South West Africa case, the Court held that even the inhabitants of the Class C mandated territories were the subject of a Sacred Trust of Civilization that remains in force – and that its primary characteristics were non-annexation and the attainment of self-government.

      • Obsidian
        January 8, 2013, 4:30 am

        @Hostage

        How do your sources explain that according to Article 22, recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive? That the drafters used the permissive wording ‘can be provisionally recognised’, not ‘will’ or ‘shall’?

        How do your sources explain that the Syrian and Iraqi Mandates provided that the new governments facilitate the progressive development of Syria, Iraq and the Lebanon as independent States, and in compliance, National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis.
        On the other hand, Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”

        How do your sources explain these contradictions?

      • Obsidian
        January 8, 2013, 9:13 am

        Not to put too fine a point on it, ART. 26. says that a dispute will go to the Court of International Justice, IF the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation.

      • Obsidian
        January 8, 2013, 9:25 am

        In a nutshell, The Union of South Africa didn’t want to relinquish the Mandate it held over the future Namibia. So what does that have to do with Israel’s occupation of the West Bank?

        And lest anyone forget, Israel did try to give the West Bank back to the local Arabs immediately after the ’67 War.

        link to jstor.org

        Rights to self-determination offered, rights to self-determination refused.

      • Hostage
        January 8, 2013, 5:09 pm

        Not to put too fine a point on it, ART. 26. says that a dispute will go to the Court of International Justice, IF the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation.

        Then to put a cherry on top, here are the conclusions of the negotiations between the Arabs and the British over the interpretation of the mandate and all of the conflicting British Treaty obligations to the Arabs taken verbatim from the 1939 White Paper:

        In the recent discussions the Arab delegations have repeated the contention that Palestine was included within the area in which Sir Henry McMahon, on behalf of the British Government, in October, 1915, undertook to recognise and support Arab independence. The validity of this claim, based on the terms of the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, was thoroughly and carefully investigated by the British and Arab representatives during the recent conferences in London. Their report, which has been published, states that both the Arab and the British representatives endeavoured to understand the point of view of the other party but that they were unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the correspondence. There is no need to summarize here the arguments presented by each side. His Majesty’s Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen as regards some of the phrases used. For their part they can only adhere, for the reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon’s pledge, and they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.

        Article 26 stated that “any dispute” that couldn’t be resolved was supposed to be referred to the Permanent Court.

        Furthermore, Article 28 required that in the event the mandate was terminated that the existing rights of the communities be safeguarded “in perpetuity” under international guarantee. The ICJ noted that the rights of the Palestinian communities were under several international guarantees, including an entire chapter of the UN partition plan that protected their “existing rights”. That minority protection plan also gave the UN the right to refer any unresolved dispute over its own interpretation to the ICJ. That is exactly what the General Assembly did when it asked the Court about the legal consequences of international law and the relevant UN resolutions, including 181(II) – which was at the head of its list.

      • Hostage
        January 8, 2013, 8:40 pm

        How do your sources explain that according to Article 22, recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive? That the drafters used the permissive wording ‘can be provisionally recognised’, not ‘will’ or ‘shall’? How do your sources explain that the Syrian and Iraqi Mandates provided that the new governments facilitate the progressive development of Syria, Iraq and the Lebanon as independent States

        1) None of the sources that I cited ever accepted that prevarication for a moment. The proposition that provisional recognition of the nations or Mandated States was permissive, much less that a mandatory power had any choice in the matter, was repeatedly rejected. For example, the PCIJ had to remind Great Britain about its limited powers of administration and international obligations under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne in the 1925 Mavrommatis decision.

        It certainly was NOT left up to the discretion of individual States to recognize the newly created states under the terms of Articles 30, and 46, and 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne. The Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Permanent Mandates Commission adopted the same position and reminded the mandatory of that fact from time to time too. I’ve commented about that on many occasions. I’ve also pointed out that enemy states were legally obligated to recognize any new states the Allied Powers chose to establish in Ottoman Asia, including Palestine. See Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles; Article 245 of the Treaty of Sèvres, and Article 30, et seq. of the Treaty of Lausanne. Taken together with Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly; Article 74 (2) of the Treaty of Trianon; Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, the Mandated State of Palestine is one of the truly rare examples of a state that actually was created in accordance with international law.

        2) Most reliable sources point out that 1) the Churchill White Paper of 1922 and the MacDonald White Paper of 1939 both said that the whole of Palestine was never intended to become the Jewish national home and 2) that the British government was deliberately misstating the facts whenever it publicly discussed its treaty obligation to recognize Arab independence in Palestine and assist the Arab inhabitants attain self-government over their own territory. I’ve already provided links to free downloads of declassified British Cabinet papers, available from the UK National Archives website, which illustrate that the British were deliberately lying about the proper interpretation of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and the Sykes-Picot agreement.

        On the other hand, Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”
        How do your sources explain these contradictions?

        I’ve already pointed out that the Chair of the Permanent Mandates Commission said the mandatory was obliged to facilitate self-government for all of the peoples in accordance with Article 6 of the Mandate itself. My sources note that the Covenant of the League required members to adopt “a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another”, and required the members to deposit their treaties with the Secretary of the League. They also note that the British only administered the mandate on behalf of the League.

        The British and French deliberately violated their international obligations under the terms of their treaty agreements with organized peoples. I provided links to the British minutes of the Meeting of the Council of Four in which Lloyd George told the other Allied Powers that the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was the basis of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and that the mandates could not be used to break those treaty obligations to the Arabs. Here’s a link to a Cabinet paper which explained that the Sharif Hussein was only willing to accept Syke’s and Picot’s proposal regarding foreign advisors and spheres of influence, subject to the understanding that they were to have no executive powers whatsoever. As far as Hussein was concerned, both the British and French had agreed in advance to the renunciation of the ideas of annexation, permanent occupation, or the exercise of jurisdiction over any part of Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. See pdf file page 9 of 21 in:
        Former Reference: GT 6185
        Title: British Commitments to King Husein.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/68
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        I’ve also cited Balfour’s memos and the War Cabinet discussions about them. The participants agreed that Palestine was included in the territory that McMahon had pledged to Hussein and that it would be Arab and independent in the future.

      • Hostage
        January 8, 2013, 9:02 pm

        The Union of South Africa didn’t want to relinquish the Mandate it held over the future Namibia. So what does that have to do with Israel’s occupation of the West Bank?

        The connection to Palestine was that the Court cited the similar status of South West Africa to explain that Article 22 had created a sacrosanct or irrevocable trust of civilization that was still in force.

        And lest anyone forget, Israel did try to give the West Bank back to the local Arabs immediately after the ’67 War.

        No one granted Israel a mandate over the West Bank in the first place. The General Assembly emancipated the peoples of Palestine and South West when it terminated the mandates and it subsequently demanded that Israel and the Union of South Africa withdraw unconditionally from those occupied territories. FYI, in both cases it recognized the statehood of the liberation governments formed by SWAPO and the PLO.

        Your lame-assed attempt to imply that a sacred trust of civilization can be terminated by a third-party with no mandate is duly noted. But that is just another parallel to the tactics employed by the Union of South Africa isn’t it?

      • Obsidian
        January 9, 2013, 12:13 am

        @ Hostage

        Your are absolutely correct. The disputes should have gone to the Court of Justice, but the pesky matter of World War 2 interfered.

        Still, I would have preferred you’d answered my above posted question, “How do your sources explain….?”

      • Hostage
        January 9, 2013, 1:36 am

        Still, I would have preferred you’d answered my above posted question, “How do your sources explain….?”

        I did. See the comments immediately above yours.

      • Obsidian
        January 9, 2013, 5:31 am

        Assuming, arguendo, that all you’ve said is correct, Israel would have been in agreement with the international laws pertaining to self-determination when she offered the West Bank Palestinians a State (or Autonomy) in 1968. No?

        ‘ [Yigal] Alon claimed that the only logical solution that could be an answer to Israel’s security needs in the eastern sector was the establishment of a Palestinian state. “I am taking the maximum possibility. Not a canton, not an autonomous region, but an independent Arab state agreed on between us and them in an enclave surrounded by Israeli territory – independent even in its foreign policy.”‘

        Prime Minister of Israel Levi Eshkol personally offered the local Arabs their State, or an Autonomy.

        ‘At the beginning of February 1968, Eshkol decided to hold a series of clandestine talks with leaders from the territories. These talks went on until September. He tried to clarify with his interlocutors the possibility of leading the process in the direction of setting up an autonomy in the West Bank. However, when Eshkol mentioned in a conversation with Hikmet al-Masri and Walid Shak’a from Nablus the idea of bringing about an agreement between Israel and the residents of the West Bank, al-Masri told him the problem would have to be solved with the entire Arab world. “If you claim that you can’t act as Palestinians, then we have reached deadlock,” Eshkol responded.’

        link to haaretz.com

      • Shingo
        January 9, 2013, 6:43 am

        Prime Minister of Israel Levi Eshkol personally offered the local Arabs their State, or an Autonomy.

        No he didn’t. The offer was never made. Matti Peled proposed this as a solution too and documented that the suggestion was shot down by Eshkol’s cabinet.

      • Hostage
        January 9, 2013, 7:56 am

        Assuming, arguendo, that all you’ve said is correct, Israel would have been in agreement with the international laws pertaining to self-determination when she offered the West Bank Palestinians a State (or Autonomy) in 1968. No?

        Of course not, since the Palestinians in the West Bank had already opted to be part of a constitutional monarchy after a national plebiscite was conducted. Israel was intervening in a matter which was essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the state of Jordan and violating the explicit provisions of Article 2 of the UN Charter. Israel had a treaty obligation to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, including Jordan, a fellow UN member state that had been admitted to the Organization on the basis of sovereign equality.

        If you want to have a serious discussion about an irrevocable trust or inalienable rights, then you need to quit trying to rationalize flagrantly illegal behavior, like Israel’s policy of deliberate denial of self-determination and apartheid.

        A decade before 1967, a West Bank Palestinian, Husayin al-Khalidi, had served as the Prime Minister of Jordan. Ever since 1950 half of the members of the lawmaking bodies of Jordan were elected representatives from the West Bank. So Jordanian sovereignty was synonymous with shared Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and the East Bank. Why would the inhabitants accept the offer of a dependent, autonomous state from Israeli aggressors who did not want them to remain an independent UN member state?

        *Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban told the United States government that Israel wanted the territory of Gaza, but not its inhabitants. He indicated that Israel opposed the establishment of an independent state in the West Bank that might become a UN member state. But he noted that the era of establishing autonomous non-self-governing regions was over. link to history.state.gov

        So let’s flip the question around and ask why Israel refused to recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination through a union with Transjordan and why Israel refused to recognize the sovereignty of the new Jordanian entity over the West Bank?

        *Unlike Prime Minister Eshkol, King Abdullah had received hundreds of requests from Palestinian notables to protect their territory from Jewish militias after the British withdrawal. Historian Eugene Rogan says that petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001

        *The signing of the resolution of the Arab Palestinian Congress at Jericho was the culmination of a series of earlier requests made by the Palestinian Arabs through conferences attended by the elected Mayors of major West Bank towns and villages (Hebron, Ramallah, Al-Beereh, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Anabta), as well as leading religious clerics (Muslims and Christians alike), and a multiplicity of notables, tribal leaders, activists, college presidents, the Chief Shariaa Judge, and the Mufti of Jerusalem Saed-Ideen Al-Alami.

        *Following these conferences, King Abdullah approved a constitutional amendment to expand the membership of the Jordanian Parliament to include elected representatives from all the West Bank constituencies. Elections for the expanded Parliament were held on 11 April 1950 and a new Parliament was elected with half of its members elected from the West Bank. The new Jordanian Parliament ratified the union between the two Banks of the Jordan. See for example Para 2.19 of the written statement of Jordan to the International Court of Justice in the Wall case: link to icj-cij.org

        Here is some evidence that the UN and the permanent members of the Security Council recognized Jordanian/Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank:

        *The US and the UK recognized the union between the two peoples and “Jordanian” sovereignty over the territory. See Jordan and Israel (GOVERNMENT DECISION) HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 and “Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950″ which documents the US recognition of the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan in Foreign relations of the United States, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921

        *The Security Council adopted Resolution 228 (1966) in which the Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel” . . . See the written statement of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” submitted to the International Court of Justice, para 2.21, page 19 of 229 link to icj-cij.org

        *In a letter to David Ben-Gurion published by Reuters on 9 January 1968, French President De Gaulle explained that he was convinced that Israel had ignored his warnings and overstepped the bounds of moderation by taking possession of Jerusalem, and so much Jordanian and Syrian territory by force of arms. See Text of de Gaulle’s Answer to Letter From Ben-Gurion link to select.nytimes.com

        *During the 5th Emergency Session of the General Assembly the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kosygin, repeatedly asserted that the West Bank was Jordanian territory. See A/PV.1526 of 19 June 1967. link to un.org

      • Obsidian
        January 9, 2013, 10:59 am

        @Hostage

        And in a few short years, the Hashemite King was slaughtering thousands of his loyal Palestinian subjects (who had tried to overthrow their King’s equitable, inclusive, representative democracy).

        Keep it real Hostage. Keep it real.

      • Hostage
        January 9, 2013, 2:11 pm

        @Hostage

        And in a few short years, the Hashemite King was slaughtering thousands of his loyal Palestinian subjects (who had tried to overthrow their King’s equitable, inclusive, representative democracy).

        That wasn’t Abdullah. FYI, the same thing can be said for most fratricidal civil wars, including the one waged by President Abraham Lincoln.

        Keep it real Hostage. Keep it real.

        I have. Israel has no intention of allowing Palestinians to exercise the right of self-determination and never did. That’s why the Palestinians preferred Abdullah to Ben Gurion. They also preferred Hussein to Eshkol by a significant margin too. Hundreds of thousands of them, like Ali Abunimah’s father, are still citizens of Jordan and that country still hosts about two million refugees that won’t be voting in Israeli elections any time soon.

      • Obsidian
        January 10, 2013, 7:03 am

        @Hostage

        “That’s why the Palestinians preferred Abdullah to Ben Gurion. ”

        The Palestinians assassinated Abdullah.

        Prime Ministers Eshkol, Barak and Olmert offered the Palestinians self-determination. Each came to learn that the Palestinians are playing a zero-sum game.

      • Cliff
        January 10, 2013, 8:56 am

        Palestinians? So all Palestinians killed Abdullah? I suppose all Israelis assassinated Rabin.

        No Israeli PM has offered Palestinians self-determination.

        Your swiss cheese, demilitarized, Israeli and American client State/archipelago is propaganda.

      • Donald
        January 10, 2013, 12:16 pm

        “Each came to learn that the Palestinians are playing a zero-sum game.”

        The Israelis, even the liberal Zionists, play a game where Israel takes 78 percent of the land (little of which was theirs to begin with) and then negotiate about the remaining 22 percent, though initially claiming that a big chunk of that 22 percent is also theirs. After that they are willing to negotiate without preconditions, while they continue to expand settlements.

      • Hostage
        January 10, 2013, 2:14 pm

        @Hostage

        “That’s why the Palestinians preferred Abdullah to Ben Gurion. ”

        The Palestinians assassinated Abdullah.

        Once again the same thing could be said about President Abraham Lincoln: He killed hundreds of thousands of them in a fratricidal civil war and the Americans assassinated him.

        Prime Ministers Eshkol, Barak and Olmert offered the Palestinians self-determination.

        In fact I’ve already illustrated that Eshkol and Eban only wanted to turn the inhabitants of a sovereign UN member state into a autonomous dependent region that wouldn’t be allowed to join the UN if Israel had any say in the matter. Barak and Olmert only offered the Palestinians demilitarized Bantustans and refused to even allow the refugees of 48 and 67 to return to their country of origin. None of those proposals is an example of an offer that allows Palestinians to freely decide their own political status.

      • Obsidian
        January 10, 2013, 3:22 pm

        “..the same thing could be said about President Abraham Lincoln: He killed hundreds of thousands..”

        What was Abdullah’s crime again?

      • Hostage
        January 10, 2013, 4:58 pm

        What was Abdullah’s crime?

        During WWII the Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini had gone to Iraq and issued a fatwa declaring war against the British and their Allies, including Abdullah and the Arab Legion. For his part the Emir had always counseled that the Mufti should be eliminated on the grounds that he was untrustworthy and a dangerous, belligerent adversary.

        Abdullah and the Allies took steps to prevent their wartime enemies, including the Mufti, from heading up any post-war governments. The Mufti and his supporters responded in kind. The press reported that Abdullah’s assassin was a former member of a “dynamite squad” attached to the Mufti’s irregular Arab forces. But the Mufti and his supporters had lost credibility and popular support after their predictions of a swift victory against the Zionist militias failed to materialize.

      • Obsidian
        January 12, 2013, 2:10 am

        Oh. I thought Abdullah’s attempted rapproachement with the young State of Israel was the cause of his assassination.

      • Hostage
        January 12, 2013, 4:39 pm

        Oh. I thought Abdullah’s attempted rapproachement with the young State of Israel was the cause of his assassination.

        No, the King was a realist who opposed the partition as an unfair division of the territory, but he nonetheless had attempted to establish a modus vivendi with the Jewish Agency that would allow for an orderly transition of power. So did the heads of hundreds of Arab Palestinian villages, like Deir Yassin, who had signed non-aggression pacts with the Arab Section of the Jewish Agency and the Haganah. Simha Flapan cited Ben Gurion’s diary and a report from Ezra Danin in the State archives (Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents” Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979). Both indicated that the majority of Palestinians had accepted the inevitability of the partition and had agreed to live in peace alongside their Jewish neighbors. See The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities, page 55. The representatives of the Jewish Agency also testified before UN organs that the plan of partition could be implemented peacefully, because the majority of Palestinians accepted it.

        Before the massacres in Palestine, Abdullah and the Saudis had cautioned the Secretary of the Arab League that partition of Palestine was a domestic issue and that they shouldn’t take any collective action that could be interpreted as aggression by the UN Security Council.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        That all changed after the Zionist militias implemented Plan Dalet. After the Israeli militias started routinely leveling conquered Palestinian villages and conducting sporadic massacres the Arab States came under tremedous public pressure to intervene. Abdullah cabled the UN saying “Secretary-General we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin. We are aware of our national duty towards Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular and also Nazareth and Bethlehem. Be sure that we shall be very considerate in connection with Jews in Palestine and while maintaining at the same time the full rights of the Arabs in Palestine. Zionism did not react to our offers made before the entry of armed forces.” link to unispal.un.org

        Here is a report forwarded to the US State Department afterward:

        A statement by King Abdullah that he had advised the Arab states before the outbreak of fighting to study the situation in Palestine carefully and that he had ordered his forces to enter the former Mandated territory on May 15, 1948, only when he found that other members of the Arab League insisted on intervention was printed in Al Garida Al Misaiya, a new evening daily newspaper, yesterday. The new paper, which will apparently be pro-Wafdist in tone, stated that the Hashemite monarch had given his views in a special interview.

        King Abdullah was quoted as saying he had marched into Palestine in order to avoid accusations which might have been leveled against him. He had given the order to march in without having changed the views expressed in his warning to the other Arab states. This warning had pointed out that it would not be sufficient to rely on courage and faith to secure victory, but that it was necessary to take into account every eventuality and to be prepared for “behind the scenes” activity.

        The order to enter Palestine had been given although he knew that the Transjordanian army and Kingdom lacked sufficient resources to face the situation. “We have made and still are making great sacrifices to safeguard Arab unity”, continued King Abdullah, “but we are now faced with two alternatives”. He defined these as being either to resume fighting with the object of annihilating the Zionists in Palestine and their supporters abroad, or to acknowledge the present status quo and to sign peace agreements. “I believe”, added King Abdullah, “that Transjordan will adopt the latter course”.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • Obsidian
        January 14, 2013, 3:04 pm

        @Hostage

        “A statement by King Abdullah that he had advised the Arab states before the outbreak of fighting to study the situation in Palestine carefully and that he had ordered his forces to enter the former Mandated territory on May 15, 1948, only when he found that other members of the Arab League insisted on intervention was printed in Al Garida Al Misaiya, a new evening daily newspaper, yesterday.”

        Pure rubbish. Abdullah, a British stooge, was the lead aggressor.

        Compare your quote with contemporaneous French Secret Service reports compiled after the French had successfully planted agents high in the Syrian government as well as in the British Legation in Beirut.

        “The American government’s proposal — conveyed a few days ago to the Arab states and consisting of extending the British mandate over Palestine by ten days in order to facilitate an agreement between the Arabs and Jews — would have been accepted, it appears, straightaway by Azam Pasha, Riad al-Sulh, Jamil Mardam and Haj Amin al-Husseini, but rejected by King Abdallah. The others, even if they didn’t want to, would then agree with him, in the present circumstances — not wanting to appear less enthusiastic defenders of an Arab Palestine than the Hashemite sovereign. ”

        French Legation in Beirut, May 11, 1948
        Military, Naval and Air Attaché
        Intelligence Report no. 68

        link to think-israel.org

      • Hostage
        January 15, 2013, 12:56 am

        Pure rubbish. Abdullah, a British stooge, was the lead aggressor.

        LOL! For $25 and a chance to participate in the lightening round: Name the localities in the territory that had been allocated to the Jews under the UN plan in which Abdullah supposedly committed this so-called “aggression”. Hint: The Arab Legion never entered any territory that had been allocated to the Jewish State.

        “The American government’s proposal — conveyed a few days ago to the Arab states and consisting of extending the British mandate over Palestine by ten days in order to facilitate an agreement between the Arabs and Jews . . . rejected by King Abdallah. . . . French Legation in Beirut, May 11, 1948

        Yes, that date is considerably well after the massacre at Deir Yassin in the Corpus Separatum and the implementation of Plan Dalet in the territories allocated to the Arab State. You also failed to mention that the Zionists rejected the truce proposal once they heard that Abdullah couldn’t enter the territory allocated to the Jewish State.

        The week before Shertok’s meeting with Secretary Marshall and Under-Secretary Lovett the representatives of the Jewish Agency had been in the Security Council demanding a truce. After they were advised the British had prohibited the Arab Legion from invading the Jewish State, the Jewish Agency had no more interest in a UN brokered truce that entailed a delay in making their declaration of independence. They no longer felt that their survival was threatened. Secretary Lovett explained that situation to President Truman:

        Mr. Lovett gave a lengthy exposition of recent events bearing on the Palestine problem. He recalled that on the preceding Saturday, May 8, the Political Representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Moshe Shertok, had called upon the Secretary and himself, accompanied by Dr. Epstein. Mr. Shertok had related that the British Minister for Colonial Affairs, Sir Arthur Creech Jones, had told him that Abdullah, the King of Transjordan, might enter the Arab portions of Palestine but that there need be no fear that Abdullah’s forces, centered upon the British subsidized and officered Arab Legion, would seek to penetrate Jewish areas of Palestine. Furthermore, Mr. Shertok told the Secretary that a message, a week delayed in transmission, had been received from the Jewish Agency in Palestine, recounting overtures by a Colonel Goldy, an officer of the Arab Legion, suggesting that a deal could be worked out between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency whereby the King would take over the Arab portion of Palestine and leave the Jews in possession of their state in the remainder of that country.

        Mr. Lovett said that this intelligence had obviously caused an abrupt shift in the position of the Jewish Agency. Only a week ,before, the Jewish Agency had officially communicated to the Security Council its charges that Arab armies were invading Palestine. Likewise, only a week before, Mr. Shertok and other representatives of the Jewish Agency had seemed seriously interested in proposed articles of truce. Now, however, their attitude had shifted and they seemed confident, on the basis of recent military successes and the prospect of a “behind the barn” deal with Abdullah, that they could establish their sovereign state without any necessity for a truce with the Arabs of Palestine.

        — Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume 5, page 973. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • Obsidian
        January 15, 2013, 5:13 am

        @Hostage

        “Hint: The Arab Legion never entered any territory that had been allocated to the Jewish State.”

        Fact. Jordan’s Arab Legion attacked the Jews on both sides of the partition line. Yitzhak, Ronen. “Transjordan’s Attack on the Etzion Bloc during the 1948 War.” Israel Affairs 17, no. 2 (2011): 194–207

        link to tandfonline.com

        “No, the King was a realist”

        No. The King was a dreamer. He dreamed of becoming the King of Greater Syria, which would comprise Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and TransJordan.

        “..we were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres”

        Omitting the fact that his Arab Legionnaires had committed massacres of Jews at Gush Etzion. See above, Yitzhak, Ronen.

      • Shingo
        January 15, 2013, 7:02 am

        Fact. Jordan’s Arab Legion attacked the Jews on both sides of the partition line.

        Apparently no one explained t you the difference between an attack and an invasion. How many Israeli forces invaded or entered Gaza during Operation Pillar of Defense?

        Omitting the fact that his Arab Legionnaires had committed massacres of Jews at Gush Etzion.

        The question was:

        Name the localities in the territory that had been allocated to the Jews under the UN plan in which Abdullah supposedly committed this so-called “aggression”.

        Was Gush Etzion allocated to the Jews under the UN plan or not?

      • Obsidian
        January 15, 2013, 12:15 pm

        @Shingo

        “Name the localities in the territory that had been allocated to the Jews under the UN plan in which Abdullah supposedly committed this so-called “aggression”.”

        The Arabs League rejected the partition plan and local Arabs began large, coordinated attacks on the Jews the day after the resolution passed on November 30, 1947. To wit; the partition plan boundaries became meaningless.

        “Was Gush Etzion allocated to the Jews under the UN plan or not?”

        No it was not, and the status of Gush Etzion had no bearing on the fact that the local Arabs and Legionnaires massacred scores of the Gush Jews who’d just surrendered to them.

      • Hostage
        January 15, 2013, 12:23 pm

        No. The King was a dreamer. He dreamed of becoming the King of Greater Syria, which would comprise Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and TransJordan.

        I’ve already provided a cite to Israeli Military Historian David Tal’s “War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and Diplomacy” pages 21-23 which explains that Abdullah had already abandoned his plans for Greater Syria by 1948. It was the British and the Zionists who kept that rumor alive for their own propaganda purposes (e.g. page 355).

      • Shingo
        January 15, 2013, 7:01 pm

        The Arabs League rejected the partition plan and local Arabs began large, coordinated attacks on the Jews the day after the resolution passed on November 30, 1947. To wit; the partition plan boundaries became meaningless.

        Again, according to what ruling? The law of Obsidian?

        Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated to the UNSC
        “Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations”
        “We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. “
        link to unispal.un.org

        Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:
        “The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State.” link to unispal.un.org

        So what so you know that Silver doesn’t Obsidian?

        No it was not, and the status of Gush Etzion had no bearing on the fact that the local Arabs and Legionnaires massacred scores of the Gush Jews who’d just surrendered to them.

        We were debating if Israel was invaded or not. On the other hand, the Haganah, Irgun and Stern most certainly did conduct a massacre outside the territory that had been allocated to the Jews under the UN plan.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 8:42 pm

        The law of Obsidian! funny.

      • Hostage
        January 15, 2013, 9:44 pm

        The Arabs League rejected the partition plan and local Arabs began large, coordinated attacks on the Jews the day after the resolution passed on November 30, 1947.

        Even at the height of the disturbances, the British High Commissioner reported that the armed Jewish militias over reacted to disorganized local rioting of unarmed Arabs by inflicting disproportionate casualties and taking reprisals which only inflamed the situation. By February the Arab casualties outnumbered the Jewish ones.

        The Mandatory Power provided the Commission with a list of casualties in Palestine for the period from 30 November 1947 to 1 February 1948, which gives the following totals of killed and wounded: Arabs Killed 427, Wounded 1035; Jews Killed 381, Wounded 725. link to unispal.un.org

        That’s certainly significant, but it doesn’t appear that the population of 1.9 million were the targets of any large scale coordinated Arab attacks. That’s true for the simple reason that there were no longer any large indigenous Arab militias.

        Ben Gurion had long since issued orders to the Haganah that the Irgun and Lehi, who rejected partition, were to be given a free hand to carry-out attacks in the district of Jerusalem. — See the remarks on that subject in the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445.

        Here’s a link to the front page of the Palestine Post for the 30th of November, the day after the resolution was adopted. The big stories were 1) the resolution had been adopted by a 2/3rds majority; 2) Jews were dancing in joyous public celebrations; 3) A newspaper in Cairo had come out in favor of accepting the partition plan to avoid further Jewish aggression; 4) 1420 Visaless immigrants had returned to Palestine; and 5) The Arab States were preparing for war against Abdullah. link to jpress.org.il

        But there are no reports about “large coordinated attacks committed by Arabs” .

        The next day, it was reported that 7 Jews were killed in Jaffa when Arab sniper(s) opened fire on an Egged bus. There were reports about similar bus shooting incidents in Haifa and Jerusalem in which one person was hurt. The big news was that 1) The Yishuv was still celebrating; 2) Jerusalem was dressed in blue and white; 2) There was free ice cream for all in Tel Aviv; 4) The Arabs planned to start a three day general strike and boycott; 5) The Arabs were “attacking” the legality of the partition.
        link to jpress.org.il

        The headlines for December 2nd were 1) Transjordan may police Arab sector; 2) Riots and Arson in Syria (not Palestine); 3) The Jewish Militias thought to be able to keep order; 4) Military rule was likely in areas after British withdrawal – dates to be announced; 5) Railway Strikes in France; 6) Rivalry in the Arab League delayed any action; 7) The 3 day Arab Strike had started; and 8) One person was shot in the arm and another wounded by a grenade fragment in the hand during a Jaffa border attack that was repulsed by the Haganah;
        link to jpress.org.il

        On December 3rd there were reports of 1) hooligans or mobs rioting, looting, committing arson, and stabbing a number of people in Jerusalem – and the Haganah coming to the defense of the Jewish community; 2) attacks on road traffic in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa region in which the total dead were 5 Jews – 1 at Haifa, 1 at Ramle, and 3 outside Tel Aviv – and 3 Arabs – 1 near Safad and 2 near Tel Aviv; 3) The French Strikers Counter Attack; 4) The Arab States called for calm; 5) The Jewish Agency applied for huge loans; 6) The Friends of the Haganah called upon the US to supply arms to the Jewish State; 7) Bevin and Marshall were scheduled to meet and discuss Palestine.
        link to jpress.org.il

      • Obsidian
        January 20, 2013, 1:30 am

        @Hostage

        Okay. You’re right. The destruction of the Jewish commercial district in Jerusalem by Arab rioters and lethal attacks on Jews elsewhere began on December 3, not December 1.

        Large, organized attacks by Arabs, against Jews, did occur.
        At the end of January, 1948, a band of 400 local Arab militiamen attacked Tel Aviv. Historian Uri Milstein called the attacks on Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, ‘The Battles of the Cities’ and, notably, the attacks were launched by Arabs against Jews.

        BTW. In the first week after the passage of the U.N. partition plan, Palestinian Arabs murdered 62 Jews. In the following month, Arabs killed an additional 200 Jews. By March 1, 1948, 546 Jews had been murdered and, and by Ben-Gurion’s declaration of independence, the total was over 1,000, mostly civilians.
        Your statistics are misleading as Arabs were killed by the British also , not just by the Jews.

        Massacres were common. Arab rioters killed 39 Jews at Haifa’s oil refinery on December 30, 1947, and two weeks later Arab irregulars killed 35 Jews trying to reach Gush Etzion. On February 1, 1948, an Arab or British terrorists blew up The Palestine Post building and, three weeks later, a terrorist’s bomb killed 44 Jews on Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda Street.

      • Obsidian
        January 20, 2013, 7:02 am

        “Ben Gurion had long since issued orders to the Haganah that the Irgun and Lehi, who rejected partition, were to be given a free hand to carry-out attacks in the district of Jerusalem.”

        The Irgun’s attacks in Jerusalem were the result of an entente between the Irgun, Ben Gurion and the French Government. The French was supplying the Zionists with vital supplies and intelligence, without which, the Zionist would have probably lost the War of Independence.

        French Foreign Minister Georges Bidault deeply feared occupation of Jerusalem by the British supported Jordanian Arab Legion. In the second half of May 1948, the Legion had damaged French Catholic institutions and France’s consulate in Jerusalem. Years later Ben-Gurion hinted that the French gave the Irgun the arms in return for a commitment to protect the Catholic institutions in the city.
        On May 24 the French Foreign Ministry sent communiques to Jordan’s King Abdullah, Israel’s government and British and Arab legations in Paris, demanding that they avoid attacking religious and diplomatic institutions in Jerusalem. Irgun representatives in Paris received a similar notice.

        link to haaretz.com

      • talknic
        January 20, 2013, 10:17 am

        Obsidian “… lost the War of Independence”

        A misnomer if ever there was one. The Jewish State was given its territory under UNGA res 181. Accepted as binding by the Jewish Agency. It was recognized as independent and accepted as a UN Member State before wars end (the signing of all the 1949 Armistice Agreements)

        The already independent State of Israel made claims on these territories on 31st Aug 1949. The claim was rejected by the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, citing the Armistice Agreements

        The war was fought to acquire and retain territories “outside the State of Israel”

      • Hostage
        January 20, 2013, 5:56 pm

        The Irgun’s attacks in Jerusalem were the result of an entente between the Irgun, Ben Gurion and the French Government. . . . The French was supplying the Zionists with vital supplies and intelligence, . . . In the second half of May 1948, the Legion had damaged French Catholic institutions and France’s consulate in Jerusalem.

        Please give the hasbara a rest. If the French were supplying the Zionists and giving them intelligence, then French institutions were valid military objectives. I’ve already pointed out that Avi Shlaim and others say that Ben Gurion took the initiative and launched the attacks on the Arab Quarter of East Jerusalem after 14 May 1948.

        The French Ambassador to the UN, Mr. Parodi, was one of the ringleaders who convened meetings on 2 May of the western P5 members and their allies on the Security Council to pitch the idea of partitioning Palestine between Abdullah and the Zionists in order to end the fighting. See the FRUS, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Vol 5, page 895

        After the massacre at Deir Yassin, Parodi and the other members of the Council concluded that if Abdullah and the Arab states entered Palestine to assist their beleaguered brethren, it wouldn’t be an act of aggression. For example here’s a cable from:

        The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
        SECRET US URGENT NEW YORK, May 9, 1948-6: 43 p. m.:
        Parodi called meeting of British, Belgian, American, French representatives last night to discuss situation regarding truce and possible action which SC may be called to take following May 15. Hare and I attended. Parodi said time fast running out and essential to make up minds now regarding certain problems.
        He said that as of May 15 we would be faced by declarations two states of Palestine coupled with entrance of Abdullah. Regarding latter two ideas are current. The first is that if Abdullah moved beyond own frontier it might constitute an”act of aggression”. The second idea was that if he entered on invitation of Arab population of Palestine his act might not constitute aggression. Parodi said he was inclined to second theory and thought conclusion to that effect would avoid endless argument.

        — Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 946

        Here’s another:
        Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations
        Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)
        SECRET [WASHINGTON,] May 4, 1948:

        “The Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership. The question which will confront the Security Council in scarcely ten days’ time will be whether Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council. The situation may be made more difficult and less clear-cut if, as is probable, Arab armies from outside Palestine cross the frontier to aid their disorganized and demoralized brethren who will be the objects of Jewish attack. In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside Palestine which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.

        The internal memo was published in the Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa , Volume V, Part 2, page 848
        Analysis of the memos is contained in “The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951″, William Roger Louis, Oxford University Press, 1984, ISBN: 0198229607, page 545; Zionism and the Palestinians, Simha Flapan, Croom Helm, 1979, ISBN: 0856644994, Page 336; and Fallen pillars: U.S. policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, Donald Neff, 2nd Edition, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995, ISBN: 0887282598, page 65.

        In any event, the Zionists had long since launched attacks against the Arab Legion from Orthodox and Catholic buildings that the Zionists had captured in the first half of May 1948. There’s no better example of that than the Russian Monastery, Dayr al-Shaar, adjacent to the Kfar Etzion Block. The accounts of both General Glubb and Maan Abu Nowar explain that the road wasn’t visible from the Jewish property, and that the Haganah had simply taken over the Christian site and used it as a fighting position to direct fire on convoys traveling on the road. Even after the Arab Legion initially drove the Zionist off the premises, the Haganah fighters simply re-occupied the Monastery. All of that happened before the Declaration of Independence on the evening of the 14th of May.

      • Hostage
        January 21, 2013, 12:36 am

        @Hostage Okay. You’re right.

        Of course. Thanks.

        The destruction of the Jewish commercial district in Jerusalem by Arab rioters and lethal attacks on Jews elsewhere began on December 3, not December 1.

        Sorry but Zionists in the Irgun, Lehi, and Palmach never stopped carrying out lethal attacks against Arabs. Oxford-trained historian, Shlomo Ben Ami, noted that after the Arab Revolt was quelled (in 1939) – mainly, of course, by the brutal repression of the British – it was a new military offspring of the Haganah, the ‘Poum’, that led what became almost routine reprisals and collective punishments against Arab villages. link to books.google.com

        Unlike the Arab riots, the destruction of over 400 Arab towns or villages was systematically planned and carried out under orders from Zionist leaders, like Joseph Weiss, Director of JNF and Yigal Allon, Commander of the Palmach.

        Large, organized attacks by Arabs, against Jews, did occur. At the end of January, 1948, a band of 400 local Arab militiamen attacked Tel Aviv.

        You are talking about a country with an Arab population of 1.2 million, yet the largest organized fighting force you cite is a local militia of 400. You do realize that 90,000 Arabs were living in Jaffa, next door to Tel Aviv and that they were under regular attacks from the illegal Jewish militias?

        Your statistics are misleading as Arabs were killed by the British also , not just by the Jews.

        Everyone’s statistics say the same thing. Historians using Zionist archives, like Simha Flapan, Eugene Rogan, and Avi Shlaim say that Arab casualties were higher than Jewish ones and 60-70 percent of the Jewish casualties occurred in fighting outside the borders of the proposed Jewish state.

        Massacres were common. Arab rioters killed 39 Jews at Haifa’s oil refinery on December 30, 1947, and two weeks later Arab irregulars killed 35 Jews trying to reach Gush Etzion. On February 1, 1948, an Arab or British terrorists blew up The Palestine Post building and, three weeks later, a terrorist’s bomb killed 44 Jews on Jerusalem’s Ben Yehuda Street.

        In fact Arab massacres of Jews were rare. In the cases that you recited at the Haifa Oil Refinery and Kfar Etzion the Jews had initiated hostilities.
        1) In the Haifa Refinery incident the Palestine Post reported that:
        *Two Bombs had been tossed into crowd of 100 Arab laborers from passing car killing 6 and seriously wounding more than 40 Arabs (page 1)
        link to jpress.org.il
        *Jewish labor union had been agitating to have the British replace the Arab Legion with a Jewish force. During the height of the violence the Arab Legion escorted the bulk of the Jewish workers to safety (page 3).
        link to jpress.org.il
        *Wikipedia summarizes several published sources which all say that the members of the Zionist paramilitary organization, the Irgun, threw a number of grenades at a crowd of 100 Arab day-laborers triggering the massacre.

        In the case of Kfar Etzion we are really talking about a Haganah military base established in the middle of the Arab State. It was taking part in hostilities by attacking Arab traffic on the road between Hebron and Jerusalem, while being resupplied with supplies that were either flown in to its airstrip or parachuted in.
        *The Zionists attacked an Arab Legion convoy that was being withdrawn from its garrison in Palestine to Transjordan as part of the preparations for the termination of the Mandate.
        *By the time Kfar Etzion was evacuated the Palestine Post reported that Jaffa and surrender.
        link to jpress.org.il
        *Jaffa had been invaded by both the Haganah and the Irun. Menachim Begin’s memoirs say the Irgun had planned to capture the city in April simply because it was considered part of Eretz Israel.
        *From the Arab perspective, on 14 May 1948 the Arab areas of many towns and cities – including scores that were well beyond the UN boundaries – were simply usurped by Jewish forces or terrorists including:
        • The city of Tiberias and its environs: al-Aubaidiyah, al-Majdal,
        al-Tabighah, Maather, Kufr Sait, Nasir al-Din, al-Dulaimiyah and
        al-Samikah.
        • The city of Safad and its environs: al Jauniyah, al-Khait, Biriya,
        Aaqrah, al Tahiriyah, Ain Zaitoun and al Houlah.
        • The city of Akka and its environs: al Zait, al Bassah, al-Saidiyah,
        Iraq al-Manshiyah and al Mazrah.
        • The city of Baisan and its environs: al Aubaidiyah, al Samiriyah,
        Farwal, Arab al Saqr, Arab al boutti, Arab al Ghazzawiyah and Arab
        al Bashatwah.
        • The city of Haifa and its environs: Ijzim, Jabaa, al Ttireh, Ain
        Ghazal, Shafa Amr and Ibillin.
        • The city of Jaffa and its environs: Salamah, Yazour, Bait Dajan,
        al-Khairiyah, al-Saqiyah, Kufr Aanah, al Safiriyah, al Aabbasiyah,
        Sarafand, Shabah, Monis, Jalil, al Masaudiyah, Arab Abu Kishik,
        Saiydna Ali, Sarafand al Kharab and Fajjah.
        • The city of Jerusalem and its environs: Qatamon, al Talibiyah,
        al Baqaah al Fowqa, al Baqaah al Tahta, Bab al Khalil, Dair Yasin,
        al-Qastal, Abu Ghosh, Muwais, Bait Mahsir, Sawbah and Bait
        Naqoubahm al Malihah. — See Maan Abu Nowar, The Jordanian-Israeli War 1948-1951, starting on page 59 link to books.google.com

  23. J. Otto Pohl
    December 17, 2012, 11:51 am

    Walzer has been a pillar of the US academic “left” for decades and his stance is typical of many of the people in that environment. The few dissidents such as Finkelstein or Mearsheimer and Walt are generally ruthlessly attacked by other academics and driven out completely if they lack tenure. “Left wing” professors in the academy like Walzer not Christian evangelists have provided the intellectual infrastructure for the US government’s, particularly on the Congressional level, unconditional support of Israel. People like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are self identified “progressives” not right wingers. Until the left wing base of support for Israel is discredited then they will continue to receive US support. Had they only been a right wing cause they would have gone the way of Rhodesia decades ago. It is their left wing support in US universities and among the Democratic Party that has given them an edge over other settler colonies like South Africa.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 1:39 pm

      “It is their left wing support in US universities and among the Democratic Party that has given them an edge over other settler colonies like South Africa.”

      J Otto Pohl has lived for a long time in Africa, where he learned the trick of killing two birds with one stone.
      I’m better at shattering windows. In the first sentence, Mr. Pohl, you have the word “left” in quotes. Unfortunately, your comment must have been truncated, since there is no link to the quoted definition of “left” without which your comment is totally bogus!

      Oh, don’t feel bad, Pohl, people use to use “Jews” or “the Jews” the same way, all the time. So I can sorta see why you might pick it up. And they wouldn’t even use quotes, even purely for their insinuative power.

      • J. Otto Pohl
        December 17, 2012, 2:13 pm

        The term “left” refers to people who identify themselves as “leftists.” Walzer self identifies himself as a man of the “left.” Whether you wish to accept his definition as accurate or not is neither here nor there. The fact is that people like Walzer do not and never have described themselves as being “rightists.” The justification for support of Israel by people like Walzer is all done using the rhetoric of what in the US is considered the “left wing” of the political spectrum. This allows Israel to get the support of “liberals”, “progressives”, and “leftists” in the US who would never think to back Zionism if it were solely justified using “right wing” rhetoric. South Africa and Rhodesia never had this “leftist” base of support and hence no longer exist.

      • Mooser
        December 17, 2012, 4:38 pm

        “The term “left” refers to people who identify themselves as “leftists.”

        I don’t know, I suspect there’s a logical flaw here, but I’m too stupid to see it.
        No, I could never see it in a million years.

      • Byzantium
        December 18, 2012, 4:26 am

        Er…as a native South African still living here, I’m happy to say that my country does, in fact, still exist.

      • J. Otto Pohl
        December 18, 2012, 8:09 am

        I forgot to type in the word apartheid in front of South Africa. The country still exists, but its political structure is radically different what it was during the years 1948-1994.

  24. Binyamin in Orangeburg
    December 17, 2012, 11:56 am

    We must all learn to confront the slander that we are either anti-semites or self-hating Jews it we oppose the subjugation of the Palestinians. Rule does not do that effectively enough.

    It is absolutely true that we single out Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians and not China, Sri Lanka or Singapore for the maltreatment of its ethnic minorities. We do so because our nation singles out Israel, above all other nations, in three ways:

    1. The $4 billion a year in free weapons (three time the next largest recipient, Pakistan). And that is only the tip of the iceberg. If Israel had to pay cash for the intelligence product they get from us, the bill would be ten times that amount;

    2. The 43 UN vetoes we have cast in a desperate effort to prevent Israel’s total diplomatic isolation; and

    3. Most importantly, more important than the prior two by orders of magnitude, is the moral sanction we give to Israel.

    America does not pay for Assad’s tanks or China’s police. We do pay for a part of every IDF bullet the whacks a Palestinian.

    We can proudly assert that America’s great ideals of liberty, freedom, and, above all, equality, are being degraded by our support of Israel. America’s policy of unremitting support for Israel is not only morally wrong, it is dangerous.

    We now have four of our nine carrier battle groups deployed in the Persian Gulf for the sole purpose of protecting Israel’s nuclear monopoly over the Middle East. If we think we have a jihadi threat to our homeland now, with until we kill off 10,000 Iranian civilians as “collateral damage” from the release of uranium hexafloride gas.

    BTW, as Americans we don’t have any right to tell the Palestinians one state or two states. Our only responsibility is stop facilitating the occupation of the West Bank and the imprisonment of Gaza.

    • RoHa
      December 17, 2012, 6:46 pm

      “We do so because our nation singles out Israel, above all other nations, in three ways:”

      Aside from your nation, there are other reasons to single out Israel. It causes wars and disruption that affects a large chunk of the world.

      The domination of ethnic Chinese in Singapore does not have any discernable impact outside Singapore. No streams of Malay or ethnic Indian refugees heading for Australia. We do get Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, but that is about all the effect we see.

      They are largely local issues.

      Where Israel is concerned, we see Russia and Turkey, Georgia and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Britain, the US and Iran all getting involved. Israel is a global issue.

      • GilGamesh
        December 21, 2012, 6:27 am

        @RoHA Australia keeps refugees on off shore islands. that’s why you don’t see them. now tell me why no one cares about this treatment.
        link to nytimes.com

      • Shingo
        December 21, 2012, 6:02 pm

        Australia keeps refugees on off shore islands

        Anyone who reads the link can find out for themselves that Gil is lying. No refugees are kept on off shore islands. Australia is trying to combat people smuggling, where dangerously inadequate boats are being used to transport those paying people smugglers money to get them to Australia. The boats often end up sinking and drowning the passengers.

        The rescue efforts have taxed Australian resources and overwhelmed the immigration department.

        The truth is hat no refugee is kept in offshore detention centres. Each asylum seeker is processed to determine their refugee status.

        To suggest no one sees or talks about them or cares about the treatment of these asylum seekers is also a lie. This issue is front and centre in terms public and political debate all the time. Many are not comfortable with these measures, but every time a boat carrying 100 people sinks and drowns it’s passengers, it is a tragedy.

        And most importantly of all, it should be pointed out that none of these refugee became refugees because they were expelled from Australia

      • GilGamesh
        December 24, 2012, 11:01 pm

        they are kept on off shore islands not forever but for long periods. Here is a quote from the article:”In a major reversal, the measures would reopen a chain of offshore detention centers that human rights groups have criticized as inhumane and possibly illegal.”

        So there you are Shingo, making excuses for inhumane and illegal treatment and slandering me to boot. I told no lies. Show me a post by anyone on this board here or anywhere else about this issue.

      • Shingo
        December 25, 2012, 7:45 am

        So there you are Shingo, making excuses for inhumane and illegal treatment and slandering me to boot. I told no lies.

        You stated that Australia keeps refugees on off shore islands . That is not what Australia is doing. Refugees are afforded full protections under the refugee convention.

        The shore Island detention facilities are where illegal aliens are taken to be processed – while their status as refugees is verified.

        The establishment of these offshore processing facilities was prompted by the loss of life of people paying smugglers money to transport them from South East Asia in dangerously unseaworthy vessels.

        Here are some examples:
        link to abc.net.au
        link to rethinkrefugees.com.au

        This policy was introduced by the previous conservative government, and while it was unpopular, it lead to a drastic reduction in the number of boats attempting the journey and the number of those killed out at sea. When the current government took power, it closed the offshore processing centres, which in turn resulted in a huge increase in boats attempting the journey and a proportional increase in the number of boats sinking.

      • GilGamesh
        December 25, 2012, 10:37 am

        Shingo writes:”Refugees are afforded full protections under the refugee convention.”

        hmmm. then why pray tell is the UN upset.
        link to abc.net.au

        the fact is it is only Asians that spend any time being detained on those Islands sounds racist to me. Of course that’s no concern of yours.

      • Sibiriak
        December 25, 2012, 1:01 pm

        GilGamesh says:

        hmmm. then why pray tell is the UN upset.

        I agree. There are legitimate concerns regarding Australia’s “offshore” policies.

        Shingo has a point also about the deaths of would-be immigrants.

        However, it seems pretty obvious that concern for those would-be-immigrants’ welfare is hardly the only motivation for their “offshoring”.

      • RoHa
        December 25, 2012, 7:17 pm

        We don’t see streams of Malay or ethnic Indian refugees from Singapore heading for Australia because there aren’t any.

        We do see refugees from Sri Lanka heading for Australia because our media tells us about them.

        “now tell me why no one cares about this treatment.”

        The treatment of refugees is a constant hot topic in Parliamentary debates, newspapers, and radio and TV discussion programs. Lots of people in Australia care deeply about the subject.

        Read some Australian papers rather than relying on the NYT.

        But does this in any way change my contention that Israel is a global issue, whereas the situation in Singapore is strictly local, and the situation in Sri Lanka is largely local?

      • Shingo
        December 25, 2012, 8:35 pm

        hmmm. then why pray tell is the UN upset.

        Pray tell why you can’t read. This article does not refer to refugees, but asylum seekers. And the criticism from the UN was with regard to Papua New Guinea’s capacity to shoulder the responsibility of processing asylum seekers, not the policy of offshore processing itself.

        the fact is it is only Asians that spend any time being detained on those Islands sounds racist to me.

        The fact is that the only people catching boats to Australia are coming through Asia, and thus the majority will be from Asia and war torn regions in the Middle East.
        Of course that’s no concern of yours.

      • Shingo
        December 26, 2012, 5:25 am

        However, it seems pretty obvious that concern for those would-be-immigrants’ welfare is hardly the only motivation for their “offshoring”.

        While there are politicians who are too happy to appeal to the electorates worst instincts, the return to “offshoring” option would not have forced on the government were it not for the deaths at sea.

      • GilGamesh
        December 26, 2012, 4:05 pm

        I’m the one who brought it up so clearly it is a concern of mine. Your the one defending it so clearly the Asians are not a concern of yours. Why can’t these refugees be brought to the main land?

      • GilGamesh
        December 26, 2012, 4:16 pm

        @Shingo its the Australians who are bringing them to NG. And the fact that they are abusing asylum seekers is just as bad as abusing refugees so whats you point ?

      • straightline
        December 28, 2012, 3:47 pm

        Many Australians would agree with you about “irregular maritime arrivals” (IMA). Please note the name – these are not “refugees”. Since this is a concern of yours, I’m sure I’m preaching to the converted but for those less knowledgeable here is an Australian report on the situation from January 2011 which makes clear the difference.

        link to aph.gov.au

        This report sets out the issues clearly, as you will be aware GilGamesh, and is a necessary read for those concerned with the problem. It is not entirely a black and white issue and much of the current debate has been whipped up by the Murdoch Press and other right wing media to cause political embarrassment to the Labor Government, though the latter has not dealt with it well.

        There is one aspect that all sides of the political spectrum are united on; namely, that all should be done to prevent the large number of deaths at sea caused by these attempts to illegally enter Australia by boat.

        As to refugees, Australia continues to welcome them at a higher rate than almost any other country in the world – in 2008 only the US and Canada took more. Here is a recent announcement of a significant increase which, I suspect (though I admit to not having done my homework on this) moves Australia to number two behind the US.

        link to abc.net.au

        Australia takes these refugees, as is the case for all of its immigrants, without concern for the colour of their skin or their religion – many of these refugees will be from Afghanistan and Sri Lankans. But I guess you know all of this, Gilgamesh.

      • Mayhem
        December 23, 2012, 8:20 am

        Israel is the fall guy.

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2012, 8:35 am

        Israel is the culprit

  25. ckg
    December 17, 2012, 12:16 pm

    Gainesville Sun, June 20, 1986
    Presbyterian assembly approves resolution condemning apartheid.
    Minneapolis (AP) – In its strongest anti-apartheid position to date, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) urged its members to lobby for stiff economic sanctions against [South] Africa.
    The resolution Tuesday urged the nation’s 3.1 million Presbyterians to encourage U.S. lenders not to renew loans with South Africa.
    The Assembly also approved a resolution calling on the U.S. government to apply direct economic and political pressure on South Africa, insisting on the total dismantling of apartheid.

  26. Sibiriak
    December 17, 2012, 12:30 pm

    Walzer:

    Israel is a country in need of radical criticism; it currently has the worst government in its history, perhaps the worst government among Western democracies.

    The * myth of Israeli democracy* must be attacked at every opportunity.
    Israel is an *ethnocracy* (including some theocratic features as well).

    • seafoid
      December 17, 2012, 3:26 pm

      The time for radical criticism was 50 years ago. Israel’s communal brain is being eaten away by the cancers of tribal hatred and self pity. The time when words would have made a difference is history.

      • GilGamesh
        December 19, 2012, 7:27 pm

        what is it time for in your opinion seafoid ?

      • seafoid
        December 20, 2012, 4:11 am

        Time for equal rights . Time for Judaism to man up

      • GilGamesh
        December 20, 2012, 9:59 am

        what should Judaism do? can you be more specific. Jews don’t have a supreme leader.

      • Hostage
        December 22, 2012, 6:10 am

        Jews don’t have a supreme leader.

        You should tell that to the Jews who claim that God gave them some land.

      • Sibiriak
        December 25, 2012, 1:27 pm

        And woman up:

        Equal rights for women too.

      • Mooser
        December 26, 2012, 3:22 pm

        “what should Judaism do? can you be more specific. Jews don’t have a supreme leader.”

        When a Zionist admits that Judaism has no power to influence Zioniusm, I usually leave him alone.
        Unless, of course, Gil wants to maintain that the President or Prime Minister of Israel is the leader of the Jews.

      • GilGamesh
        December 26, 2012, 4:20 pm

        @Hostage how does that answer my question. Some Christians believe no one should work on Sunday. It’s still not an answer to my question. seafoid says its to late for words I want to know what its time for.

  27. Betsy
    December 17, 2012, 12:35 pm

    I’m really confused by a lot of this actually. I’m looking at it from a grassroots level — as someone who is trying to work within a congregation & in relationship to warm friendships & civic bonds that cross & criss cross multiple faith communities in my current town of residence. Whatever the Big People like Walzer actually feel — I can say that the civic terrain on which little people like me & my pals are operating is charged with kinda crazy feelings…I’ve actually only been able to find one friend who actually attends Temple — to take me to visit periodically. And, I’m working w/ some folks on an interfaith something-or-other. What I’m *feeling* to speak personally — is that there is fear mongering which has caused my friends (of a Jewish persuasion) to have really strange ideas re/ what’s going on in Presbyterianism — at this grassroots level, I’m not seeing a clean distinction of Zionist/not Zionist — but really wonderful people that I respect & care about who are getting fed a whole lot of malarkey about what’s going on in PC(USA) — for all the interfaith blah blah blah — there’s not a good terrain within which we can work this thro…there are strange emotional force fields & cul de sacs — and I don’t know what to do to break thro this.

    • Mooser
      December 17, 2012, 1:36 pm

      “and I don’t know what to do to break thro this.’

      Learn a liottle about how Judaism is structured (or not) and organised (or not) and how the “professional Jews” (for lack of a better term, we don’t have them, that I know of) relate, or don’t to the Jewish people, and you will have a much better idea of where you are at. And then, there’s Zionism which came into it, too.
      If it was me, and I wanted suggestions on reading in the subject, I would ask Hostage. In fact, even if it wasn’t me (and I’m often not) I would still ask him.

      • Betsy
        December 18, 2012, 10:35 am

        @Mooser — I sense many acronyms in my future.

        Can anyone suggest a short, fact-rich article on this — e.g., what Mooser calls “how Judaism is structured (or not)” — what are various strands & how do they relate to each other — e.g., “the Israel Lobby”, the do-good service organizations, the philanthropic organizations, training for rabbis, mutual aid societies for immigrants?

        It’s not that I won’t read whole books. But, is there perhaps a gap here — a lack of straightforward, short summaries of what “the organized Jewish community” is. The first time I heard that phrase (from a representative of a local Jewish organization), it worried me. Maybe it’s my Protestantism — but our faith communities have become obsessed with making fine distinctions between governance in the spiritual, philanthropic, theological, service, prophetic, lobbying of actual governments, ethnonational identity realm. Protestants have behaved so badly in the past in mixing these forms of governance up — so we’ve tried to build fail-safe mechanisms to try to separate them. E.g., John Calvin created horrors in Geneva, when he & his pals tried to run the govt in a purist theocratic way; the misbehaving Puritans in New England went to excess till they reformed themselves & flipped into the pluralist tolerance of Unitarians & Congregationalists / United Church of Christ; the fundraising efforts of 19th c ‘mission’ /philanthropic ministries created all sorts of racist views of people they were trying to serve; the Rightwing Christian coup d’etat of US in 1980s created crazy lobbying groups like Moral Majority etc. which are still distorting our politics. The ethnic mutual aid societies of Irish Americans got entangled in bad ways in IRA violence & Catholic/Protestant hostilities.

        My point. Do I have to become an I/P geek in order to get the understanding Mooser says I should have? Mooser of course, speaks like a many headed sphinx, with each head contradicting the other. But, somewhere he has spoken of the ‘double duty’ of anti-Zionist work. I think that it’s a triple duty for pluralist Christians working on I/P — that a bunch of hard work is being off-loaded unfairly onto critics of Israel. This means, first, that anyone who starts working for justice in I/P, is constantly getting waylaid by other labor-intensive tasks that they are told they need to do first (cleanse themselves of any faint slight echo of ignorance or prejudice relating to Jewish history/identity/ theology etc.; speak against every possible other injustice FIRST anywhere else in the world; follow rigid protocols re/ the ethnicity of truth-tellers — e.g., only certain ethnicities can speak authoritatively about certain topics, expertise doesn’t count, etc.) Second, some of the tasks that are being off-loaded really could be better done by people who are coming from within Jewish experiences & traditions. There is a depth of knowledge, an ability to be critical, an understanding of back stories, and deep emotions — that comes best from those within a faith, or ethnic, or immigrant experience. And, non-Jewish Americans are so horrified of past tendencies toward conspiracy theories at the fringes of American political culture — that don’t want to touch questions about lobbies, etc. Third, pluralist Christians have a responsibility & necessity, I think, to deal with Rightwing Christianity — this is a lot of work already.

        Given these other tasks, isn’t there some kind of 101 type reading that could help both combat anti-Semitism & help build more aware interfaith dialog?

      • Rusty Pipes
        December 18, 2012, 8:54 pm

        Off-hand I can’t think of the concise article you are seeking. You might consider reading Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby” and Finkelstein’s “The Holocaust Industry” as two sides of one coin. This recent article by MJ Rosenberg about various organizations is a good read:

        I want to praise AIPAC for its lack of hypocrisy. AIPAC is the Israel lobby. It makes no pretense of caring about anything except Israel. It has no position on any matter that does not relate to Israel.

        It is like every other single-interest group (with the difference being that its single interest is a foreign country). It does not pretend to be anything it is not. For AIPAC, politics begins at the water’s edge — although it directs campaign contribution and strong arms Congress from this side of the water.

        This is not the case with other Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee, the Union of Reform Judaism, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Jewish Council For Public Affairs (the “action” arm of the Jewish federations). These are dedicated, or so they say, to the interests of Americans, Jewish Americans in particular but, they would argue, all Americans. They are interested in Israel (although the American Jewish Committee was traditionally anti-Zionist, it is now well to the right of AIPAC) but Israel is not what they are about.

        They are about defending the rights of Jews in America. …

      • Betsy
        December 19, 2012, 10:32 am

        @Rusty Pipes — thanks. I read the Rosenberg article. It sounds from this like the ‘lobbying’ groups are driving the situation — and have swallowed the mutual aid & religious & philanthropic missions of other groups. (as happened in 1980s & 90s w/ Rightwing Christian lobbies). But, it looks fragile — like a bubble (or, like a scam directed towards scaring older people). E.g., if moral authority has been lost & they’re ‘hacks’ trying to defend their own paychecks, who depend on patently false smear campaigns (of broad numbers of ordinary Americans) — one would think that a broad campaign from within Jewish faith communities to take back power & get better representatives — could sweep this away pretty quickly. Or, for youth to assuage the fears of older generations who fear that they are ‘losing’ the next generation…(a typical American fear, in this land of immigrants & diversity)

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 11:41 am

        “Mooser of course, speaks like a many headed sphinx, with each head contradicting the other”

        Oh, please, Betsy. I haven’t even got enough teeth for one mouth, let alone a “many-headed sphinx”. Which is sort of all to the good, cause if I did, I would grind them.

        And always remember, Betsy: When dealing with Judaism, you are in the presence of one of the world’s oldest disorganised religions.

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 2:21 pm

        “one would think that a broad campaign from within Jewish faith communities to take back power & get better representatives — could sweep this away pretty quickly”

        Yes! And even the most casual perusal of Jewish history will show that is what we have done. It’s a process akin to “losing the Mandate of Heaven” for Chinese Emperors.
        And this penchant for intra-faith revolutionary processes is what has brought Judaism to the advanced place it holds today! Of course, it’s all done without violence, by system which creates consensus, and a tradition of graceful relinquishment bythe out-voted element. And of course, the religious work of Judaism goes on, even during leadership disputes because the assets of Judaism are owned by the religion in common, not private people.

        Hoo-boy!

      • Donald
        December 19, 2012, 6:19 pm

        Betsy–I don’t have any suggestions. Those are darn good questions. In fact, the only reason I’m commenting is to say that your 10:35 comment was really really good.

      • Sibiriak
        December 20, 2012, 9:30 am

        Mooser of course, speaks like a many headed sphinx, with each head contradicting the other.

        LOL!

      • Stephen Shenfield
        December 28, 2012, 6:27 pm

        “Anyone who starts working for justice in I/P, is constantly getting waylaid by other labor-intensive tasks that they are told they need to do first (cleanse themselves of any faint slight echo of ignorance or prejudice relating to Jewish history/identity/ theology etc.; speak against every possible other injustice FIRST anywhere else in the world; follow rigid protocols re/ the ethnicity of truth-tellers — e.g., only certain ethnicities can speak authoritatively about certain topics.”

        Betsy. All these demands have one purpose — to shut you up. First you must learn about X, then you must speak against Y, but even then you are told you can’t talk about Israel because you are not Jewish. Not because you are not a believer in Judaism (that could change) but because you are not “ethnically” Jewish (which cannot be changed). So it turns out that the silencing is not temporary but permanent.

        I would like to encourage you to recognize all these demands for the crap they are and ignore them. If you have reasonably reliable information about an injustice, there is no reason why you should not protest against it right away.

        I am of Jewish background (that should be irrelevant, but unfortunately it isn’t).

    • seafoid
      December 17, 2012, 4:57 pm

      Debate requires trust. You can’t trust Israeli junkies. They only ever think about the next fix of land.

    • Citizen
      December 18, 2012, 7:36 am

      @ Betsy
      Do your activities also involve or try to directly involve Muslims in your “multiple faith communities”? Or, are there none in your hometown or any adjacent town?

      • Betsy
        December 18, 2012, 9:50 am

        @Citizen — yes, we have a small Mosque & small Hindu temple — thank God. I live in a depressed “Red State”, with a lot of needs for health care etc., so have attracted very talented professionals who have brought these faiths with them — which is a blessing for us & is probably a terrible loss for their home countries, for which I should feel guilty, but it’s such a relief in the flat terrain of insipid or Rightwing Christianity.

        I know that national & international work is important. But, I think it’s also really important to link the broader levels with grassroots efforts. If one can get grassroots interfaith civic webs going — it can be mobilized when crises or bigger campaigns come up…However, people still seem to be dancing around the big questions & not able to process feelings & ideas with each other. I was young during the civil rights struggle, but my memory is that (in equivalent networks of good faith, interracial networks trying to work together for change) there was more open, emotional discussion then, of race & prejudice — as people could call each other out, reflect on themselves, change their ways of thinking, learn from each other.

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 2:29 pm

        “but it’s such a relief in the flat terrain of insipid or Rightwing Christianity”

        Yes, I’ve noticed that all the independent evangelical and pentecostal churches and certain Baptist denomination are growing fast. I wouldn’t get up early for on a Sunday for insipidity, but everybody is different.

  28. Avi_G.
    December 17, 2012, 12:43 pm

    But he says it is the duty of liberals to support liberal Zionists in Israel, the old Labor Zionists, so that Israel can be preserved as a communal Jewish state.

    It sounds like the last time Walzer was in Israel was sometime back in the 1960s.

  29. seanmcbride
    December 17, 2012, 12:46 pm

    Michael Walzer is yet another “liberal Zionist.”

    The term “liberal Zionist,” which is equivalent to “liberal Jewish nationalist,” is as absurd on its face as the terms “liberal white nationalist” or “liberal Nazi” or “liberal black nationalist.” It is a bogus and self-contradictory concept at its root.

    Liberal Zionists are Jewish ethnic nationalists who are falsely pretending to be high-minded progressive universalists. Some of them are probably fooling themselves, rather than engaging in the witting deception of the world. It is no wonder that they always side with extreme right-wing and racist Israeli regimes against “the nations” and ethnic outsiders.

    Bring on the well-deserved ridicule until they wake up and get real.

    James B. Rule clearly has Michael Walzer on the run, which isn’t difficult — Walzer is trying to defend the indefensible. He is being undone by an obsessive-compulsive ethnocentrism which is completely overriding his rational faculties. He has the mentality of a thoroughly indoctrinated cultist.

    I will take neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams over liberal Zionists like Michael Walzer any day — they are who they seem to be — outright and unapologetic ethnic nationalists. They have their act together, at a certain primitive level. Walzer is a mess.

    • Shingo
      December 17, 2012, 9:49 pm

      I will take neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams over liberal Zionists like Michael Walzer any day — they are who they seem to be — outright and unapologetic ethnic nationalists. They have their act together, at a certain primitive level. Walzer is a mess.

      I couldn’t agree more. I hate to generalize, but liberal Zionists turn my stomach, and this goes back to the very foundations of Israel. If you read some of the statements by Jabotinsky, they are almost refreshing in their candour. In fact, some of his statements even reflect a greater understanding of the Palestinian perspective than the liberal Zionists – we both wanted the land, and only one side could have it, so we used what we had to take it.

      You won’t hear that brutal honesty from liberal Zionists. They are too busy polishing the turd.

      Jonathan Cooke’s interview clarified much of this for me. He was asked what he believed liberal Zionists would do when finally forced to chose between Zionism and their liberal progressive values – he said the majority would go with the former.

      In many ways, it seems that liberal Zionists are merely stalling for time; keeping the world at bay with their deceit and cynical manipulation until they can no longer maintain the façade – at which point they’ll let their masks fall away and own up to their true ideology.

      As I always said, liberal Zionists are just right wing Zionists without the honesty.

  30. Castellio
    December 17, 2012, 12:49 pm

    Due to our governments unconditional support for Israel, we are directly complicit in Israeli crimes. That is why there is a focus on Israel.

    • Citizen
      December 18, 2012, 7:49 am

      @ Castellio
      Yes, it’s very telling that those who say critics of Israel our singling out Israel never acknowledge this fact. Walzer is locked into primary hasbara 101, the four sequential arguing points first told here by Mooser; he got them from Jews Sans Frontiers, if memory serves.

      • chinese box
        December 19, 2012, 9:33 am

        @Citizen

        At their core, all hasbara arguments rely on legalistic hairsplitting, special pleading, and Procrustean formulations. That’s why they’re so unsatisfying when dissected and always fail at the logical level.

        The only convincing arguments I can think of for supporting Israel and it’s behavior are realpolitik ones that focus on it being a strategic asset. These may have held up to some extent during the cold war but I don’t think they’re valid these days.

  31. seanmcbride
    December 17, 2012, 12:53 pm

    Michael Walzer’s clinging on to Zionism reminds one of those Communists who refused to recognize the failure of the Soviet Union or of those neoconservatives who continue to believe that the Iraq War was a success. A sad case.

    Israel has gone over the cliff for good. It is not going to reform itself. The Zionist experiment ended in failure. It could yet trigger a global catastrophe on its downslide. Zionist true believers like Michael Walzer will be held responsible for this mess. These are the hard facts of the situation.

    • libra
      December 17, 2012, 5:28 pm

      seanmcbride: Israel has gone over the cliff for good. It is not going to reform itself. The Zionist experiment ended in failure. It could yet trigger a global catastrophe on its downslide.

      Sean, I can understand how your analyses could lead you to conclude that this catastrophic outcome is a distinct possibility. But what I don’t understand is how you can at the same time write in a comment above:

      Thoughtful Gentiles are worried about stirring up antisemitism by attacking Jewish Zionists too forcefully — as well they should be.

      For someone with an analytical mind not to see the logical (and moral) disconnect between these two statements is odd. To me it leaps right out and I find it weird. If the potential outcome of their actions is so dire then we really shouldn’t worry about the sensibilities of Zionists, Jewish or otherwise. Indeed the very reverse surely holds. Isn’t it necessary to start forcefully challenging these people whilst there is still time to change course?

      I think you need to do some more analysis here.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 1:37 pm

        “For someone with an analytical mind not to see the logical (and moral) disconnect between these two statements is odd.”

        Yes, it is, isn’t it. It would be very odd for someone with an analytical mind. For somebody stuck in what is basically 19th Century ways of thinking, it’s a breeze!
        (Uh-oh, when those lists congeal into a “machine of great cognitive power”, I better watch out! I’ll be skittering around avoiding telepathic death rays like a bead of water on a hot skillet.)

      • libra
        December 18, 2012, 6:21 pm

        … like a bead of water on a hot skillet.

        What wonderful imagery. And my own Internet research tells me that the phenomena so poetically described here by Mooser is all down to the so-called Leidenfrost effect, discovered by the German doctor and (seemingly Presbyterian) theologian, Johann Gottlob Leidenfrost.

        Apparently he studied at the University of Gießen which, believe it or not, translates into the University of Pouring. Astonishingly it would seem that 18th century Germany had a whole university devoted to the science of pouring. Talk about attention to detail. So it could have only have been a matter of time before one of their students poured a few drops of water onto “eine Bratpfanne” and the rest is history.

        Actually, with a bit more “Vorsprung durch Technik”, young Johann could have invented the steam engine, beating his fellow Presbyterian James Watt by a crucial decade or so and thus putting Germany in pole position apropos the Industrial Revolution. Now that really could have changed history.

        Perhaps Klaus can fill us in on the details, especially the fascination that hot water holds for Presbyterians. Is it something to do with the guilty pleasure of a hot bath whilst publicly proclaiming the virtues of a daily cold dousing?

      • Antidote
        December 29, 2012, 12:05 pm

        Nice theory about German Gründlichkeit, libra. The real story has more to do with location than national character or scientific aspirations. The name Giessen is first mentioned in connection with the Comtessa von Giezzen, in the 12th century , and her name contains a geographical reference to lakes and small streams that ‘pour’ into the major river in town. The university was founded long before the 18th c, and long after Giessen got its name (in the early 1600s)

      • seanmcbride
        December 18, 2012, 6:44 pm

        libra,

        For someone with an analytical mind not to see the logical (and moral) disconnect between these two statements is odd. To me it leaps right out and I find it weird. If the potential outcome of their actions is so dire then we really shouldn’t worry about the sensibilities of Zionists, Jewish or otherwise. Indeed the very reverse surely holds. Isn’t it necessary to start forcefully challenging these people whilst there is still time to change course?

        I think you need to do some more analysis here.

        My analysis works this way:

        Framing the critique of Zionism (and especially of Jewish Zionists) in terms that incite a generalized angry antisemitism in the United States and Europe would be immoral and unethical. But, worse than that, it would be counterproductive and make more likely the catastrophe we are trying to avoid.

        If Jews in general began to feel seriously threatened by the world, the intensity of their commitment to a paranoid and belligerent Zionism will greatly increase and tension and conflict between “the Jews” and “the nations” will perhaps escalate towards towards an apocalyptic outcome (including any number of variations on the Samson Option).

        We need to find a way to criticize Zionism that provides the maximum opportunity for Jews to envision and look forward to a positive, prosperous and creative future.

        But with regard to Likud Zionists and “liberal Zionists” who are basically running interference for the Likud Zionist agenda — go after them with full rhetorical force and a steady deluge of irrefutable facts.

        I distinguish between Jewish and Christian Zionists because I think Christian Zionists are much less vulnerable to suffering a social/political disaster than Jewish Zionists (and Jews in general). I feel no responsibility to coddle the sensibilities of Zionists like Michele Bachmann, John Hagee, Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. Have at them. There is no need to treat them gingerly.

    • chinese box
      December 19, 2012, 9:03 pm

      @sean

      Part of me thinks that Israel will succeed in it’s project and all this will be conveniently forgotten. However, if that doesn’t happen, when the dust finally settles, a lot of intellectuals and media figures are going to be called to task in the same way that Heidegger, Sartre and others were for their participation in or silence in the face of various Nazi/Soviet outrages. A black cloud will hang over a lot of people’s legacies.

  32. Philip Munger
    December 17, 2012, 1:10 pm

    My reply to Waltzer re “I Googled “Presbyterians and China,” looking for some protest against the settlement of Han Chinese in Tibet.”

    Jesus didn’t get baptized in the Yangtze River. It was the Jordan.

    Jesus didn’t heal a blind man in Shanghai. It was in Bethsaida.

    Jesus didn’t begin his ministry in Tianjin. He began it in Capernaum.

    Jesus didn’t raise the dead in Nanjing. He did it in Nain.

    Jesus didn’t raise Lazarus in Beijing. He did it in Bethany.

    Jesus wasn’t tried and crucified in Shanghai. It happened in Jerusalem.

    Jesus didn’t have his transfiguration on Mt. Kailas. It happened on Mt. Tabor.

    Why doesn’t Waltzer understand the centrality of this to the Presbyterian faith, or other Christian creeds?

    Perhaps he is anti-Christian?

    • Klaus Bloemker
      December 17, 2012, 4:13 pm

      What Jesus did, he did it as a Jew. And that’s none of the Presbyterians’ business.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 1:33 pm

        “What Jesus did, he did it as a Jew. And that’s none of the Presbyterians’ business.

        Thanks for sticking up for us intrinsic types, Klaus. Say, you ever think about converting? We’ll have to change the old saw about “two Jews’ three opinions” , but that’s a small price to pay for the honor of receiving you among us.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        December 18, 2012, 6:48 pm

        Well Mooser – converting to Judaism?
        ————————————————
        I’ll never join a club from which there is no resignation.

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 12:06 pm

        “I’ll never join a club from which there is no resignation.”

        Oh, you get resigned to it after a while. Why, you even come to expect it, like I expect the stupidest kind of anti-Jewish tropes from you. Once again, I might get mad about it, and call it anti-Semitism, but I’ve been reading your comments for some time, Klaus, and you are just as ridiculous about everything, so I hardly feel singled out. The one about the benevolent intentions of National Socialism in the rest of Europe 1938-44 was a real winner.
        And sometimes I wonder if you drink excessively. I wouldn’t mention it, but you seem to be plagued by some kind of two-tonic self-satisfaction.

        Anyway, Klaus has let the secret out, so the world might as well know: if you even so much as express a disatisfaction, let alone try to “resign” they send the ——– (I can’t even say the name! I want to go on living!) to your house and they…. well, you’ve seen all those old movies with the girl-in-peril headed over the falls? Ever seen at automated bagel bakery? And that water is boiling!!!

      • Klaus Bloemker
        December 19, 2012, 1:22 pm

        Mooser,
        I didn’t mean to cause a fit (or was it a seizure?), when I said: “I’ll never join a club from which there is no resignation.” (The Jewish one in this case.)

        But thanks for the invitation to join anyway. The reason I turned it down is a matter of general principle, don’t take it personal. Chin up!

      • Mooser
        December 19, 2012, 5:16 pm

        “The reason I turned it down is a matter of general principle” 1:22pm

        Darn, Klaus, I coulda sworn you said: “I’ll never join a club from which there is no resignation.” 6:48pm
        Guess I’ll never know, and without a quote or something, I’m nowhere. I bow to superior reasoning.

    • GilGamesh
      December 17, 2012, 7:13 pm

      ah so its not about human rights but about where Jesus was baptised ? by your logic the only HR issues that Presbyterians need to be concerned about are those that take place within close proximity to where Jesus lived. The fact that they have lots of money invested in companies that trade and make things in China has no barring and give them no interest in HR issues there. You guys keep making excuses for why Israel is singled out, I don’t buy any of them.

      • Citizen
        December 18, 2012, 8:15 am

        @ GilGamesh
        Yes Israel is singled out. It is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid in US history, despite the fact it is the size of New Jersey, is nuclear-armed, has the 4th strongest military in the world, and has a credit rating better than the USA’s even as the USA guarantees Israeli’s loans; not to mention it alone charges interest to the USA on the aid USA gives Israel, and that America’s veto at the UN SC is in Israel’s pocket, resulting in America’s steep decline as a moral/ethical model. Or that Israel alone gets to use one-fourth of the military aid to fund its own weapons manufacturers in direct competition with US manufacturers. It’s not what you buy, but
        what America buys in behalf Israel, and at what expense to America,
        that should cause Americans to focus on Israel.

      • Betsy
        December 18, 2012, 11:08 am

        Hold on. PC(USA) has been arguing on the basis of universal human rights, not to protect a particularistic historical connection to a specific patch of land.

        From 1940s, PC(USA) General Assembly resolutions have supported Palestinian rights to self-determination. And, since late 1980s here are most important GA resolutions:

        1988: “Cease the systematic violation of the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Specifically, we call for an end to the policies and (or) practices of administrative detention, collective punishment, the torture of prisoners and suspects, and the deportation of dissidents…..(Israel must) end the settlements policy and acquisition of
        land within the occupied territories….”

        1989, ’90, ’91: Continued to call for support of the peace process in Israel-Palestine including participation of the Palestinians and for Israel to stop constructing illegal settlements in the occupied territories.

        1992: (affirms) “policies in refusing loan guarantees for Israel until the building of settlements on the occupied territories has come to a halt.” Also “Calls for exploration and investigation of additional ways to reduce feelings of despair and abandonment that the Christian communities in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and Lebanon are experiencing…” “Calls for the U.S. government to press for the end to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza and for the withdrawal of
        Syrian troops from Lebanon.” “Calls for reexamination of U.S. practice and policy relating to the sale of arms with the goal of the demilitarization of the Middle East.”

        1994: Reaffirmed previous GA resolutions (’74, ’84, ’88, ’90) affirming the status of Jerusalem; “Renewed efforts to make U.S. aid to Israel conditional upon the cessation of the appropriation of Palestinian land in and around Jerusalem and the establishment of new settlements in the occupied territories….” Rejects current legislative efforts to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that would do severe damage to the Middle East peace process.” Urged Israel to lift the military closures of Jerusalem that deny Muslims, Christians, and others access to their holy places….”

        1995: Called for Withdrawal of Israeli and Syrian troops from Lebanon; reaffirmed previous resolutions calling for a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, noting PCUSA concerns stem from 160 years of Presbyterian involvement in the Middle East and concerns repeatedly raised by Middle Eastern Christian partners.

        1998: Noted set-backs to peace process with assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and policies of the Netanyahu Government in Israel that favored violence and military solutions over “those favoring negotiations.” Called upon the US to monitor Israel’s fulfillment of the terms of the Oslo Accords with regard to continuity U.S. aid to Israel. Specific areas of accountability: “a permanent termination of (Israel’s ) efforts to expand the settlements.”

        2001: Urged implementation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338; …

        2002: Urged all parties to end all forms of violence, Implement the Arab League proposal, essentially the same as UN Resolution 242, calling for full Arab recognition of Israel and Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Also affirmed the need for an international “protective force” in the occupied territories; “directs Israel to end the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.”

        2003: Called for a delegation to be sent to our partner churches in the Middle East and adopted an extensive resolution calling for “an end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.” Noted the “occupation is growing stronger, and the threat to Palestinian rights,” and referred to Israel’s request for an additional $4 billion in military aid to Israel that helps sustain the occupation.” Called for a national study and prayer in churches across the country.

        2004: l. Adopted a Resolution on Calling for an end to the construction of the separation wall by the State of Israel in the West Bank; 2. Adopted a resolution on “Confronting Christian Zionism” as “inconsistent with reformed theology; 3. adopted a resolution affirming support for the Geneva Accord as a Means of moving toward peace between Israel and Palestine; affirmed the steadfastness of Palestinian Christians; reiterated the call for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip now; condemned the violence and deadly attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers and by the Israeli military; noted the international community has an obligation to provide physical protection for those under occupation ; and “Refers to Mission Responsibility through Investment Committee (MRTI) with instructions to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for action.

        for more link to theipmn.org

    • Hostage
      December 18, 2012, 4:18 am

      My reply to Waltzer re “I Googled “Presbyterians and China,” looking for some protest against the settlement of Han Chinese in Tibet.” . . . . & etc.

      Much more to the point:
      1) You need to turn off Google search history personalization, or else the results will simply reflect your own selection bias and interests; link to support.google.com
      2) You need to see if the website in question uses a robots.txt file to restrict access to directories by Google’s automatic indexing program. The robot.txt file at link to pcusa.org does exactly that:

      User-agent: *
      Disallow: /search/
      Disallow: /accounts/
      Disallow: /comments/
      Disallow: /news/feeds/
      Disallow: /resource/feeds/
      Disallow: /snippet/
      Disallow: /ministries/today/presbyterians-today-digital-edition/
      Disallow: /media/
      Disallow: /get/
      Disallow: /browse/
      Sitemap: link to pcusa.org

      3) The site search feature at the Presbyterian Church USA returns 65 items about Tibet. Many of the results happen to be news and announcements that address the annexation of Tibet by China and persecution of the ethnic Tibetan population or Tibetan refugees:
      link to pcusa.org
      4) The Presbyterians appear to be at work, together with the World Council of Churches and the China Christian Council, on the subjects of equal rights and human rights in China. There are 434 results for articles about China:
      link to pcusa.org

      • Betsy
        December 18, 2012, 11:34 am

        @Hostage — thanks for your always data-rich reflections. Can you imagine — renowned scholar Googling in such a silly way? One would laugh if one were not crying…

        He could have just phoned the headquarters in Louisville — folks would have loved to explain. Part of what’s going on re/ China — is that Presbyterians in 20th & 21st century have moved strongly to work in partnership with faith communities & civil society in different parts of the world. The reason is, that in the 19th & early 20th century, mission workers too often were imperialist & high-handed — coming into complex situations w/o understanding & pushing things based on narrow ideologies & ideas. In reaction, the US church tries to play a supportive role, to be a partner, not a pronouncer as if from on high. E.g., the recent PC(USA) statements against the govt in Sudan, or earlier ones against apartheid South Africa — were in partnership & support of justice movements & campaigns. The condemnations of bad trade policies (which criticize many govts) are typically linked with support for webs of labor rights workers, hunger fighters, anti-globalization movements, debt movement Jubilee efforts, etc. So, the idea that PC(USA) is “singling out Israel’ is both wrong — it shows a self-enclosed, lack of interest in how Presbyterianism actually works…

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 6:22 pm

        “He could have just phoned the headquarters in Louisville — folks would have loved to explain.”

        And that is, in my opinion, a wonderful thing. That they are there, ready to offer correct information, from an (on these matters, matters concerning the Church) authoritive source.
        I wish we had something like it.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2012, 1:29 pm

        Thank you, Hostage, for the info on Google searches. My search skills are bad enough, plus Google is misdirecting me? Oy Gevalt
        And as the default condition, I’ll wager.

  33. eljay
    December 17, 2012, 1:38 pm

    >> Walzer’s response is angry and accusatory. He says that Rule is emblematic of “leftist circles,” where Israel is singled out for criticism from a large pool of states that grant special status to ethnic and religious communities.

    If Mr. Rule is consistent in his criticism of special status for ethnic and religious communities and he’s being taken to task for addressing, at a point in time, the issue of “Jewish State”, Mr. Walzer’s anger is misplaced.

    If Mr. Rule is inconstent in his criticism of special status for ethnic and religious communities, then Mr. Walzer’s anger is understandable and appropriate.

    >> Rule then accepts Walzer’s challenge and seeks to imagine ways that Israel might be reformed to be more egalitarian.
    >> . . .
    >> … Constitutional restrictions against political activity by Arab and secular interests would have to be reversed. And all concerned would have to acknowledge that, over time, today’s Jewish majority might not hold that status forever.

    “This will not do.” (w/ apologies, again, to Pink Floyd)

    Zio-supremacists – even the “liberal” ones – insist that the “Jewish State” construct must continue to exist. To suggest that a Je