John Judis’s Truman book is a landmark in anti-Zionism

Israel/Palestine
on 174 Comments
Rabbi Stephen Wise, from the Clarence Darrow collection

Leading Zionist lobbyist, Rabbi Stephen Wise, from the Clarence Darrow collection

I’ve finally finished John Judis’s new book, Genesis: Truman, American Jews and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, and can say that it is a landmark in anti-Zionism: it states that Harry Truman was opposed to establishing a religious state in Palestine out of the fear that it would lead to endless conflict, and possibly World War III. But he was overwhelmed by a Zionist lobby that corrupted the policy-making process. The binational state that Truman always endorsed was impossible to achieve, Judis says, but we got the endless conflict. Palestinians were “screwed” out of their own country and have never gotten a fair break in more than a century of Zionist domination.

As his subtitle suggests, Judis is concerned with the American Jewish role in creating the conflict. The core of his investigation is surely the moment in mid-1948 when Truman wanted Israel to stop taking more land by military force beyond the UN’s Partition lines and was “disgusted” by the Israeli refugee policy, saying that Jews had turned their own narrative on its head by denying Palestinians the right to return. But Truman folded on these impulses, Judis says, in part because he needed $100,000 from political donors Abe Feinberg and Ed Kaufmann – a huge sum in 1948–for a whistlestop campaign trip through the midwest when his campaign was broke and Thomas Dewey was threatening to make him a one-termer. Those Zionist donors got “unmatched access to the White House.”

The pattern never changes. In 2011 Obama’s need for the endorsement of Haim Saban and other “major Jewish donors” caused him to give in on Israel’s latest landgrab, its colonies in the West Bank, Judis writes.

“In Obama’s first term, he replicated almost exactly what happened to Truman in his first term. Like Truman, he began with the understanding that in the clash between Jews and Palestinian Arabs …. [t]he Arabs as well as the Jews had a strong claim upon the American sense of justice and fair play…. Obama, like Truman, backed down… and betrayed his own moral understanding. The players were different in 1947 than in 2011, but the script was the same.”

Notice the word “moral.” The author, who states in his introduction that he subscribes to the liberal Reform Jewish belief that Judaism is a religion and not a nation, has a journalistic plainness. He speaks flatly of dual loyalty. His telling of the story of 1948 is concise and horrifying in relating the repeated dispossession of Palestinians by force and Israel’s contempt for the refugees.

Racism is a theme of this book. Otherwise-liberal, Eleanor Roosevelt, Stephen Wise, and Felix Frankfurter are shown to be bigoted, for they describe Palestinians as less worthy of rights than Jews. Frankfurter calls Palestinians “simple folk.” Wise says Palestinians are “in the depths of primitive life.”

Wise and Frankfurter help make up what Judis calls the “center of Zionist influence in the U.S.” Judis, as New Republic writer, takes pleasure in showing the Nation magazine’s role in cranking Zionist pressure, but the fulcrum are Jews who come and go in the White House and, aware of the State Department’s opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state, dig in whenever it is necessary. Many of Truman’s meetings on the issue are dominated by political considerations. Judis says it is impossible to imagine such a thing happening in meetings over the Berlin crisis.

Some of these advisers are White House officials, some are members of the Jewish agency, some occupy a “gray area” in between, it hardly matters. Ben Cohen was both advising the Jewish Agency and serving as an American representative to the UN; Robert Nathan was an economist in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations and also working for Chaim Weizmann in Palestine; Max Lowenthal was “a proverbial backroom operator… a fixture at the White House, even though he had no formal position and did not have an office.” Part of Louis Brandeis’s circle of Zionists, Lowenthal drafted memos that went directly to Truman. One said that opposing partition would put the United States “in the ridiculous role of trembling before the threats of a few nomadic tribes.”

Judis makes light of the famous Buck Stops Here placard on Truman’s desk: The buck never stopped with Truman, it stopped with the lobby. For Truman repeatedly states privately that his preferred plan was the Morrison-Grady plan of 1946 that called for a binational state. But he caved again and again, even as he wrote letters saying that was the solution.

It has been objected that Truman’s anti-Semitism is not fully treated in Judis’s book. While I wish his presidential portrait had a little more flesh and blood, what comes through is that Truman was a man of his era with conventional social stereotypes about many groups. He saw Jews as too “emotional,” “selfish” and “fanatical.” But he was moved by the plight of eastern European Jewry and revered Chaim Weizmann and had a sincere friendship with his former business partner Eddie Jacobson. Truman’s prejudice against Jews as selfish was obviously exacerbated by the pressure of the lobby. Still, it was prejudice: it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.

The question is, Did Truman’s opposition to a Jewish state grow out of his prejudice? Judis is convincing on this score: Truman believed in the separation of church and state. His objection to a religious state was principled and hardheaded. My favorite line in the book was Truman’s comment to his wife Bess Truman in 1939 about why he always avoided arguments about religion:

“It has caused more wars and feuds than money.”

Franklin Roosevelt expressed a similar secular pragmatism. In 1944, he chided the two leading Zionist lobbyists, Rabbis Wise and Abba Silver, that they were pushing a course that could lead to war. Roosevelt reflected angrily: “”To think of it, two men, two holy men, coming here to ask me to let millions of people be killed in a jihad.”

FDR surely feared a world war. So did Truman. So did the Arab Higher Committee, which warned that “any attempt to impose a solution contrary to the Arabs’ birthright will lead to trouble, bloodshed, and probably a third world war.”

It is very hard not to see these warnings as prophetic. In resolving the great Jewish problem in Europe, the U.S. achieved what the State Department said it would achieve: it created endless unrest in the Middle East. As Stephen Walt emphasized to Haaretz last weekend, 9/11 was prompted in part by the Palestinian issue.

When Walt and John Mearsheimer published their paper on the Israel lobby in 2006, I predicted they would unleash a pack of investigative journalists to document its damages. I was wrong. The journalists stayed away for a lot of reasons, including that Jeffrey Goldberg and Alan Dershowitz salted the fields. But Judis surely felt the issue was too important for him to ignore it. His book forces one to consider how much violence stems from the west’s decision to establish a religious state: from the Nakba to the many wars between Israel and its neighbors, to 9/11 to the Iraq war to the attack on the Liberty and the murders of Rachel Corrie and Robert Kennedy, to the destabilization of Lebanon by Palestinian refugees and the resulting civil war, and further out to the destabilization of Pakistan and Afghanistan. There might then be a conversation about whether a sacred American principle, separation of church and state, should be upheld in Israel so long as we are footing the bill. There would follow questions about why many Jewish liberals in the U.S. endorse secular law for Americans and religious rule for a place they don’t have to live.

Judis wants to have that conversation so as to end a tragic political pattern, in which we repeat the same corrupt political activities for 70 years running because we can’t talk about them openly. We can’t talk about them because Jews are simply too important to the functioning of western society and because the media feel that discussing a theory of Jewish influence will only lead to trouble. For Judis is advancing an argument about Jewish influence– conservative Jewish nationalist influence, but Jewish just the same.

Judis is somewhat more timorous when it comes to justice in the Middle East. Asserting that Palestinians have never had the right of self-determination and have been screwed by Zionists again and again raises a profound justice issue. That imbalance must be redressed, Judis writes. He is for two states. Binationalism was unworkable, and probably still is, he seems to say; and it would be “equitable” for the world to impose partition now–on drastically unequal geographical terms. Judis seems to be arguing stare decisis, the die is cast: having set up a nuclear armed religious state, the only way to get out of the conflict without a third world war is to keep it around. I am not sure how persuasive this will be to the next generation of Palestinians that seeks political rights on more than a fragment of the land.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

174 Responses

  1. Krauss
    April 21, 2014, 12:48 pm

    Your review is so thorough, I am glad that I read the book and finished it weeks ago.
    Even so, it is a brilliant review.

    And you’re right about Judis’ timidity about the Palestinians in the present time. For all the demonization that he has endured, by Wieseltier and others, Judis is still culturally bound.

    The book is more useful as a document of history, rather than a guide to the future.
    But even so, it is a very, very impressive book.

    • David Samel
      April 21, 2014, 1:27 pm

      Agreed, Krauss. Phil accurately calls the book “anti-Zionist” even though its author would disagree, or at least certainly not call himself that. The situation bears slight resemblance to Benny Morris, whose historical research was groundbreaking, but whose opinions have evolved to reprehensible. Judis of course is much less offensive, but both authors illustrate the importance of evaluating their histories and their opinions separately. Judis’s political conclusions and prescription for the future are less important than the historical record he has provided.

  2. pabelmont
    April 21, 2014, 1:07 pm

    Fortunately, no-one fears a WWIII now. Therefore, let the Palestinians go to * * * Halhoul? Human rights for a few is unimportant, it seems, and the Palestinians (oddly) are counted as such “a few”, whereas the approximately equally not-very-numerous Jews are counted as “not such a few” (but very many, yessir!) and therefore their human rights transcend. Animal Farm. some few are more equal than others.

    In America the 0.01% are more important than the 99.99%. And those who don’t need to pay expensive taxes (because they pay inexpensive bribes) are more important than those who still have to pay taxes.

    • Feathers
      April 21, 2014, 3:22 pm

      Fortunately, no-one fears a WWIII now

      Please get that memo to Ukrainian people whose democratically elected leader the US has Mossadeqhed; and to the Syrian people, who are the pawns in a proxy war in which US is arming the opposition to a leader who has majority support; and to the Iranian people who are struggling under an economic & cyber war intended to soften them up for “all options on the table.”

      • pabelmont
        April 21, 2014, 5:39 pm

        Feathers: you are right, of course, that there are some small wars here and there, and all the time. That is, after all, the USA’s joie-de-vivre and the DoD’s raison-d’etre. As M. Albright (among I daresay many, many, others) is credited with saying, “What’s the use of having an army if you don’t use it?”

        And in our splendid Oligarchical Replacement of Democracy, 20th century’s greatest perfection of an old idea — to say nothing of its latest “New World ORDure” — what BIG-DEFENSE BIG-BANKS, BIG-ZION, BIG-OIL BIG-BANANA, etc. want., BIG-DEFENSE BIG-BANKS, BIG-ZION, BIG-OIL BIG-BANANA, get.

        As to Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Israel-in-Lebanon, USA-in-Africa, USA-by-Drones-everywhere: I don’t see the USA or Russia allowing these pip-squeak military murder-fests to get out of hand to a point where anyone will refer to them as WWIII. More a matter of boyz will be boyz.

      • John Douglas
        April 21, 2014, 9:09 pm

        “- what BIG-DEFENSE BIG-BANKS, BIG-ZION, BIG-OIL BIG-BANANA, etc. want …[they] get.”

        True enough, Pabelmont. The U.S. is addicted to war. It’s the crack cocaine that flows up the national nostrils and through the body politic. Profiteers fatten off it, the media proudly stenographs it, reporters embed in it, pundits blow smoke about it, politicians milk it, fake narratives explain it, citizens excite about it, heroes get forced to the front of it, insiders trade in it, PTAs knit socks for it, bones get smashed by it, democracy shrivels from it, flesh rips apart by it, boots crush rights for it, loudspeaker shout fear for it. It moves money, channels wealth and, even in defeat (Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon), it accomplishes its goal.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2014, 6:12 pm

        FEATHERS- “Please get that memo to Ukrainian people whose democratically elected leader the US has Mossadeqhed….”

        I agree. Furthermore, I believe that we have entered a period of extreme danger which may be as perilous as the Cuban missile crisis during which “Vasili Arkhipov, a Soviet submarine officer…blocked an order to fire nuclear-armed torpedoes on October 27, at the tensest moment of the crisis, when the submarines were under attack by US destroyers. A devastating response would have been a bear certainty, leading to a major war.” (p74, “Hegemony or Survival,” Noam Chomsky) There have been other incidents as well as the US has engaged in 70 years of nuclear brinkmanship, planetary survival contingent upon the other fellow backing down. How long can this go on? The ongoing eastward march of NATO and the destabilization of the Ukraine is a very high risk strategy for empire to pursue. Power-lust may well be the death of us all.

      • Abierno
        April 21, 2014, 8:12 pm

        “Mossadeqhed” – what a nuanced and appropriate term for the
        US endeavors in the Ukraine, have attempted in Syria, and wish to
        achieve in Iran. Thanks.

    • Mooser
      November 16, 2015, 11:18 am

      “Fortunately, no-one fears a WWIII now.”

      And in 1914, no-one feared an extended trench-and-artillery stalemate grinding millions of lives and resources into the mud, either.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 1:03 pm

        In September 1914, the British Foreign Secretary expected the war to last many years and to be a catastrophe.

  3. SeaPort
    April 21, 2014, 1:10 pm

    Judis’ book confirms what Zionism Unsettled, the new Presbyterian booklet, has laid out regarding Mainline Protestant support for the Zionist enterprise – from Judis’ intro:

    “Zionism also attracted the enthusiastic support of Christian liberals, including Reinhold Niebuhr, Henry Wallace, and Eleanor Roosevelt, and of the country’s most liberal media… These liberals and progressives supported labor rights, civil rights, and the first amendment…. Many of them had also backed Wilson’s call for the self-determination of colonial peoples. But when it came to Palestine, they were oblivious to the rights of Palestine’s Arabs. In the movement’s first decades, American Zionists averred that the Jews were emigrating to a largely unoccupied wasteland or desert; later, when it became clear that Arabs already lived there, they insisted that these Arabs, who could trace their lineage in Palestine to 638 C.E., could easily pick up and move to Jordan, Iraq, or Syria.”

    Today, we call that ethnic cleansing.

    And in chapter 11:
    “Niebuhr, perhaps the most famous liberal of his day, put forth Jabotinsky’s old argument that ‘while Palestine was the logical place for homeland for the Jews … the Arabs have a vast hinterland in the Middle East.’ Niebuhr also endorsed the Revisionist case for population transfer. ‘Perhaps, ex-President Hoover’s idea that there should be a large scheme of resettlement in Iraq for the Arabs might be a way out,’ he told the committee. It was another example of how American liberals, in the wake of the Holocaust and the urgency it lent to the Zionist case, simply abandoned their principles when it came to Palestine’s Arabs.”

    Double standard much? Time to hold the “giants” of Liberalism to account!

    • lysias
      April 21, 2014, 2:45 pm

      Unfortunately, support for establishing Israel was not just on the left in the U.S. It was also supported not only, as Phil indicates, by Republican presidential hopeful Dewey, but also, incredibly, by semi-isolationist Mr. Republican Bob Taft.

    • notatall
      April 21, 2014, 4:28 pm

      “Today, we call that ethnic cleansing.”

      “Ethnic cleansing” is itself a euphemism.

  4. James Canning
    April 21, 2014, 2:19 pm

    Great piece. Emanuel Cellar of New York told Truman, in the White House, that his rich Jewish pals in New York would put Dewey into the White House if Truman did not ignore the recommendation of all of his foreign policy and defence advisers, and recognise Israel before its borders were defined.

  5. James Canning
    April 21, 2014, 2:20 pm

    One of the great blunders of Obama’s presidency was his failure to stop Israel’s growth of the illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank.

  6. lysias
    April 21, 2014, 2:41 pm

    Nitpick: Thomas Dewey. John Dewey was the educational philosopher.

  7. lysias
    April 21, 2014, 2:51 pm

    Phil: Your reminding us that Israel is nuclear-armed makes me think of a powerful additional reason for the one-state solution. A single Israel-Palestine state could presumably only be established by international treaty, with other powers guaranteeing the rights of both nationalities. Nuclear disarmament could be made part of that treaty.

    Might be the only way to achieve the nuclear disarmament of Israel, and thus rid the world of a terrible problem.

    • Feathers
      April 22, 2014, 10:18 pm

      Will Phil/Adam/Annie bring this to the attention of the Mondoweiss community?

      from Dan Joyner’s blog, Arms Control Law: Another Nail in the Coffin of the NPT

      the gist of the item is that Israel would gain access to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which would give Israel nearly all the benefits that NPT signatories are supposed to enjoy (but don’t, i.e. Iran) without actually signing and abiding by NPT and Safeguards agreements and oversight.

      While some agencies in US government are reviewing evidence that Israel stole bomb-grade uranium from the US, Mark Hibbs of Carnegie Endowment says that:

      Nuclear expert Mark Hibbs said such an acknowledgement by the NSG would be important for Israel. “It would be a recognition from a very important nuclear non-proliferation related body that Israel is a responsible nuclear state.”

      see also
      http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3D0T320140414?irpc=932

  8. Boomer
    April 21, 2014, 3:05 pm

    For years I’ve been “agnostic” about a two state or one state solution. It isn’t up to me, and I don’t know what is feasible. I just want the U.S. to end its support for what has been done, and is still being done, to the Palestinians.

    And I want the U.S. to do something to make up, at least in some small way, for the evil it has enabled there. Israel and its lobby won’t give up what they have gained: it is futile to hope for that. But perhaps the U.S., having deprived so many of their homes, having made so many become stateless refugees, can at least offer them a new home here.

    In general, I’m not in favor of unrestricted immigration. It may have been feasible in 1903 to say,

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me . . . ”

    In today’s world, however, that is not a feasible or desirable policy. But with respect to the Palestinians, both those living as stateless refugees outside the undefined borders of Israel and those living as second-class citizens in the “Jewish State,” it seems to me that we can give them a home as citizens here, and we owe them that.

    We have committed other sins for which we should attempt at least some restitution. We owe Iraq a lot for example, though we could never really make amends for what we did there. But those sins are not the focus of this site (though some–including Iraq–are not unrelated).

    • YoniFalic
      November 17, 2015, 2:32 pm

      As a former Israeli and a former Jew, who is also a US citizen, I would argue that we Americans have an obligation to expunge the racist genocidal State of Israel and remove the E. European invaders and their non-European lackeys. No one can be allowed to profit from post-Auschwitz genocide, and just as 19th century style racial slavery is unacceptable today, so is 19th century style white racist European genocidal colonialism.

  9. American
    April 21, 2014, 3:17 pm

    More and more books out there now. Allison Weir’s ‘Against Our Better Judgement’ is excellent also, covers Truman and more.

    Unfortunately I dont see any of them or authors efforts impacting the politicans, politics or policy.
    The only problem with doing grassroots educating/exposing upward is it is going to take a long time to effect Washington.
    I dont now if the Palestine have that much time left.

  10. lysias
    April 21, 2014, 3:18 pm

    OT, the Supreme Court is going to rule, apparently, on whether Congress has the power to dictate Israel policy to the executive branch. SCOTUSblog: Court to rule on Israel policy:

    The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on whether the president has the sole power to decide on the nature of the U.S. government’s formal relations with Israel. That issue arises out of a dispute between the White House and Congress over whether Israel should be noted as the place of birth of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem. At issue is the constitutionality of a 2002 law mandating Israel as the place-of-birth designation in that situation, if requested. (The case is Zivotofsky v. Kerry.)

    • lysias
      April 21, 2014, 3:34 pm

      South Africa’s dismantling of its nuclear weapons (in 1991), its signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (in 1991), and its signing the Treaty of Pelindaba establishing the African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (in 1996) were of course all connected with the end of apartheid.

      • James Canning
        April 21, 2014, 3:45 pm

        And we need such a zone in the Middle East.

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 21, 2014, 3:55 pm

      “OT, the Supreme Court is going to rule, apparently, on whether Congress has the power to dictate Israel policy to the executive branch”

      As if this issue hasn’t done enough damage to our system, now the separation of powers is under fire. Great.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2014, 10:10 pm

        As if this issue hasn’t done enough damage to our system, now the separation of powers is under fire. Great.

        It’ll be interesting, since
        1) the US recognized the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan;
        2) the UN Security Council adopted resolutions on the strength of the USA’s “Yes” vote, which recognized the West Bank as “Jordanian territory” and censured Israel for attempting to alter the status of the City of Jerusalem; e.g.
        * http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5932ECF53FF36A04852560C300656122
        * http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF
        3) The US Code required the State Department to put “Jerusalem, Palestine” on passports of individuals born during the Mandate era. But the US stopped using “Palestine” after Israel objected. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67, Document 30, footnote 2 http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v18/d30 ; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, page 341; and US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions, “foreign state”.
        4) Article 3 and 9 of the Peace Treaty between between Israel and Jordan preserved the legal status and role of Jordan with regard to the territories captured in 1967, including the Washington Agreement regarding the Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem signed by President Clinton;
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pal06.asp
        and
        5) the recent treaty between Palestine and Jordan says that Jordan still exercises territorial jurisdiction over over 144 dunums of mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground and the Waqf properties tied-up to “Al Haram Al Sharif”. See Jordan: Israel’s actions on Temple Mount violate peace treaty http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.586596

    • brenda
      April 21, 2014, 4:21 pm

      that link made interesting reading, lysias. Do you know what the normal designation would be for a person born overseas to American parents? If born in England for example, would something like “Birmingham, UK” be entered on the legal document, or would it be simply “UK”?

      • pabelmont
        April 21, 2014, 5:52 pm

        As a point of reference, and not a matter of law, so far as I know, when (in 1967) I went to City Hall, San Francisco, to get a Marriage License, the clerk’s form demanded to know the registering-proposed-wife’s father’s “nationality” and since he was born in 1885 in Ramallah, we put down “Ottoman Empire”. The clerk returned the form for amendment. We next put down “Palestine”. The clerk returned. We then put down “Jordan” and even though this was after the June 1967 war, the clerk thought “Jordan” was OK — presumably since it was the name of a country in her list of OK countries, and presumably not because of the current de facto authority in the territory in question.

        There, Supreme Court, FYI.

      • brenda
        April 21, 2014, 7:29 pm

        that’s what I was afraid of, Pabelmont. We could really be in trouble. How much money do you think it would take to take a case like this to the Supreme Court? And how much political leverage would you need to have to get the Court to hear it?

        Let’s hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the United States rather than Israel.

    • MRW
      April 21, 2014, 5:55 pm

      OT, the Supreme Court is going to rule, apparently, on whether Congress has the power to dictate Israel policy to the executive branch.

      Foreign policy has been the exclusive purview of the executive branch I thought, per the Constitution.

      Will this affect the power to dictate all foreign policy to the executive?

      • James Canning
        April 21, 2014, 7:24 pm

        The Senate ratifies treaties and scrrens appointments. The House appropriates funds to carry out treaties and executive orders and other deals.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2014, 11:28 pm

        Foreign policy has been the exclusive purview of the executive branch I thought, per the Constitution.

        Not when it comes to recognition. That is entirely a 20th Century development, for which the Supreme court is entirely responsible.

        In the good old days, it held that it was a “political question” and of no concern to the judicial branch, i.e. if the President doesn’t follow orders, then the Congress is the proper court, and they should impeach him from their cells at Guantanamo;-)

        But seriously, the Supreme Court has been all over the map:

        The conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative-‘the political’- departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision. United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 307, 309; Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511, 517, 520; Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet. 415, 420; In re Cooper, 143 U.S. 472, 499 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 453. It has been specifically decided that:

        ‘Who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory is not a judicial, but is a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances.’ Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 , 11 S. Sup. Ct. 80, 83 (34 L. Ed. 691).

        — OETJEN v. CENTRAL LEATHER CO. , 246 U.S. 297 (1918) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=246&invol=297

        But in a series of cases, the Supreme Court said that the President exercised sole authority to recognize other governments using executive agreements and that he didn’t need permission from the Senate to do it. So, when the Supreme Court ruled that MBZ v Clinton didn’t involve a political question and sent it back on remand, the lower court cited three or four pages of Supreme Court cases, including Belmont, which held that the President has exclusive power to recognize governments and sovereignty over territory:

        The Supreme Court has more than once declared that the recognition power lies exclusively with the President. See Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 38 U.S. 415, 420 (1839) (“[If] the executive branch . . . assume[s] a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department[.]”); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330 (1937) (“[T]he Executive had authority to speak as the sole organ of th[e] government” in matters of “recognition, establishment of diplomatic relations, the assignment, and agreements with respect thereto . . . .”);
        Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 138 (1938) (“We accept as conclusive here the determination of our own State Department that the Russian State was represented by the Provisional Government . . . .”); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942) (“The powers of the President in the conduct of foreign relations included the power, without consent of the Senate, to determine the public policy of the United States with respect to the Russian nationalization decrees. . . . [including t]h[e] authority . . . [to determine] the government to be recognized.”); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 213 (1962) (“[I]t is the executive that determines a person’s status as representative of a foreign government.”); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 (1964) (“Political recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive.”). To be sure, the Court has not held that the President exclusively holds the power. But, for us—an inferior court—“carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative,” United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 375 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted); see also Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.), especially if the Supreme Court has repeated the dictum, see Overby v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 595 F.3d 1290, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Supreme Court dictum is “especially” authoritative if “the Supreme Court has reiterated the same teaching”).
        In Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Company, the issue before the Court was whether “the Falkland islands . . . constitute any part of the dominions within the sovereignty of the government of Buenos Ayres.” 38 U.S. at 419. The Court decided that the President’s action in the matter was “conclusive on the judicial department.” Id. at 420. And can there be any doubt, that when the executive branch of the government, which is charged with our foreign relations, shall in its correspondence with a foreign nation assume a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country, it is conclusive on the judicial department? And in this view it is not material to inquire, nor is it the province of the Court to determine, whether the executive be right or wrong. It is enough to know, that in the exercise of his constitutional functions, he has decided the question. Having done this under the responsibilities which belong to him, it is obligatory on the people and government of the Union. Id.

        Similarly, in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, without determining whether the United States had derecognized Cuba’s government under Fidel Castro, the Court explained that “[p]olitical recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive.” 376 U.S. at 410. The Court emphasized that were it to decide for itself whether Cuba had been de-recognized, there would be a real “possibility of embarrassment to the Executive Branch in handling foreign relations.” Id. at 412.

        President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1933 recognition of the Soviet Union led to three cases supporting the conclusion that the President exclusively holds the recognition power. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324; Guaranty Trust, 304 U.S. 126; Pink, 315 U.S. 203.

        http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C8DC59BCC7D10E6D85257BB10051786D/$file/07-5347-1447974.pdf

        The fact that the Robert’s Court didn’t just let the lower court decision stand, indicates that it may be willing to contradict all of those Supreme Court statements on the subject. But I don’t think it can ignore the fact that the Security Council, General Assembly, and ICJ have advised that Israel’s attempts to alter the status of the City of Jerusalem are illegal, without inviting those same bodies to weigh-in on the international legitimacy of its decisions.

  11. Pixel
    April 21, 2014, 4:01 pm

    …it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.

    While there are reasons for everything, there are no excuses.

    • RoHa
      November 16, 2015, 1:52 am

      But the group – the lobby – was American Jews. How did they have a “European population” to annihilate?

  12. Jeff Klein
    April 21, 2014, 4:11 pm

    The baleful effects of the Zionist Lobby go back much further than FDR and Truman. Pres. Wilson was persuaded to abandon his own professed principle of self-determination for former colonial peoples by the determined pressure from Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Wilson was convinced to acquiesce to the principles of Balfour and the British Mandate, despite the report of the commission he himself had appointed to look into the issue in 1919.

    Henry King and Charles Crane took the pulse of Arab opinion in April-June 1919 and reported that Syrians and Palestinians were overwhelmingly for independence, with a US mandate as second choice. There was near universal opposition to the Zionist project — at a time when the Jewish population of Palestine was around 60,000 (less than 10%), with half or more religious folk, rather than supporters of a Zionist state.

    The King-Crane conclusion in August 1919, was prophetic:

    Not only you as president but the American people as a whole should realize that if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained… nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

    • lysias
      April 21, 2014, 4:23 pm

      I just read Fredrik Logevall’s Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam. Woodrow Wilson was no more sympathetic towards the aspirations towards independence of the Vietnamese (and indeed of all the peoples subjected to Western colonial empires) than he was towards the Palestinians. Wilson, as the son of a Presbyterian minister of Scots-Irish descent, was even unsympathetic towards the aspirations of the Irish (Catholics). Self-determination was only meant to apply to the peoples of the defeated Central Powers.

      • James Canning
        April 21, 2014, 4:57 pm

        Wilson declined to accept a US mandate for Palestine, and he declined to accept a US mandate for Armenia (which never was created, as things transpired).

        Poland was largely created from territory formerly held by Russia. Estonia, Latvia and Lituania were taken from Russia.

      • lysias
        April 21, 2014, 7:02 pm

        Russia was also one of the losers in the First World War. And Wilson hated Communism.

      • James Canning
        April 21, 2014, 7:20 pm

        Russia was of course an ally of Britain and the US, prior to Bolshevik coup. And of course he hated the Bolsheviks.

      • Feathers
        April 22, 2014, 10:38 am

        Yes, Wilson hated Communism and, in the course of WWI tried to wipe out Bolshevism. America’s Secret War Against Bolshevism: U. S. Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1917-1920 by David Fogelsong, prof of history at Rutgers.

        Wilson’s scheme backfired: it was an attempt to persuade Russian peasants to rise against Bolsheviks in their country, but had the outcome of pushing Russian peasants to ally with Bolsheviks against the intruders/invaders.

      • James Canning
        April 22, 2014, 7:34 pm

        But Wilson refused to send the large American army in France on to Russia, to overthrow the Bolsheviks (as requested personally by George V).

      • lysias
        April 22, 2014, 11:30 am

        When Poland and the Baltic States were created, the government in power in Russia was no longer the government which was allied with Britain and which fought on the same side in the First World War as the U.S. (the U.S. did not even consider itself an ally of Britain and France, but an “associated power”), but the Bolshevik government which Wilson hated, and which he and Western opinion thought had been a quasi-ally of Germany.

      • James Canning
        April 22, 2014, 7:31 pm

        As an aside, one notes that Wilson refused George V’s request that the US send its large army in France on to Russia, to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

    • Boomer
      April 21, 2014, 4:24 pm

      “. . . only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained… nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine . . . ”

      Prophetic indeed! Thanks for that bit of wisdom from nearly a century ago, tragically ignored.

    • James Canning
      April 21, 2014, 7:41 pm

      Great post. Too few Americans are even aware of the King-Crane commission and its conclusions.

      • Feathers
        April 22, 2014, 10:44 am

        Very early on the King-Crane Commission was branded as antisemitic and shelved by Wilson’s advisers, much as reports from British intelligence that Saddam did NOT have WMD were shelved by Condi Rice & the Bush administration.

        Oberlin College holds the King Crane archives — http://www.oberlin.edu/library/digital/king-crane/

      • James Canning
        April 22, 2014, 7:37 pm

        At least Wilson and advisers had the good sense to take advice of the commission, not to accept mandate for Armenia or Palestine.
        GW Bush and Condi Rice were duped. Not that this excuses their horrific blunders.

  13. Hostage
    April 21, 2014, 4:38 pm

    Truman’s prejudice against Jews as selfish was obviously exacerbated by the pressure of the lobby. Still, it was prejudice: it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.

    At some point Phil we have to suspend our sense of disbelief and anachronistic appeals to the Holocaust and accept the fact that the Zionist agenda in Palestine was based upon unabashed selfishness and militarism from day one. Truman and everyone in his generation had been warned about that fact when the long-suppressed King-Crane Commission report was finally published:

    —it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a “national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor ran the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine”

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crane.html

    Dr. M. D. Eder, the acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission, testified to the Haycroft Inquiry that

    “In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased.”

    — — Palestine. Disturbances in May, 1921. Reports of the Commission of Inquiry with correspondence relating thereto .. (1921) page 57 link to archive.org

    Over British government objections, Eder went on to serve two terms on the Zionist Organization Executive that was designated the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Fellow Executive Committee member Ze’ev Jabotinsky was even more bellicose in his demands to arm the Jews against the Arabs and employ an “Iron Wall” of bayonets to keep them at bay until all hope of resistance could be extinguished.

    Likewise the Holocaust had nothing to do with the fact that Ben Gurion’s 1919 Ahdut Ha’avodah party platform contained a manifesto which demanded the establishment of “a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

    These people got off the boat in Palestine spouting selfish, bellicose nonsense. Despite the conventional wisdom that Balfour was trying to keep the Russians in the war, the fact is that didn’t happen. The British Cabinet had been told that the American Zionists wanted Palestine as the price for their support for America entry into the war – and that did happen. Armenian, James A. Malcolm proposed a scheme to secure autonomous Armenian and Jewish states through the intervention of the government of Great Britain in the late 19th century, acting in its role as “the policeman of the Ottoman Empire”. Christopher Sykes recorded the fact that years later it was Malcolm again who had rekindled interest in the negotiations between the Zionists and the British government on that subject. One day he advised Mark Sykes:

    “The question is, do you want the help of the Jews in the United States? The only way you can get that help is by offering Palestine to the Zionists.”

    – Two Studies in Virtue, by Christopher Sykes (London, 1953), cited in Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl, by Josef Fraenkel, Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England), Vol. 20, (1959-61), pp. 161-188. link to jstor.org

    The State Department memos to Truman from the Director of Near East and African Affairs, Loy Henderson, and George Kennan’s State Department Policy Planning Staff on the subject of Palestine always predicted disaster and stressed that the biggest hurdle would be appeasing American Zionists who were impossible to please and who would not hesitate to enlist Congressional support to interfere in foreign policy regarding Palestine, e.g.
    * http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1947v05&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1038
    * http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=545

    • American
      April 21, 2014, 4:54 pm

      Hostage says:

      April 21, 2014 at 4:38 pm

      {{”Truman’s prejudice against Jews as selfish was obviously exacerbated by the pressure of the lobby. Still, it was prejudice: it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.”}}

      At some point Phil we have to suspend our sense of disbelief and anachronistic appeals to the Holocaust and accept the fact that the Zionist agenda in Palestine was based upon unabashed selfishness and militarism from day one.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Totally. The holocaust wasnt the beginning of Zionism, it only enabled it.
      And Zionism was never harmless to others, Herzl wrote about the necessity of having to ‘move the natives around within’, if not out, and even what kind of work the natives could be put to for zionist needs.

      • RoHa
        April 21, 2014, 8:18 pm

        “Truman’s prejudice against Jews as selfish was obviously exacerbated by the pressure of the lobby. Still, it was prejudice: it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.”

        But it was not the slaughter of foreign Jews that made Truman think of American Jews as selfish. He had that idea before the slaughter started, so, if it was unfair to hold that idea, it was unfair regardless of the Holocaust. If it was fair, how did the Holocaust make it unfair?

      • American
        April 22, 2014, 10:47 am

        RoHa says:

        ‘But it was not the slaughter of foreign Jews that made Truman think of American Jews as selfish. He had that idea before the slaughter started,’ >>>>

        Did Truman have that opinion before he became President and got strong armed by the zionist?
        If he did I’m not aware of it.
        And it would seem very odd for him to have had a Jew as a business partner and a close friend if that was his opinion.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 4:27 pm

        Did Truman have that opinion before he became President and got strong armed by the zionist?

        Yes, he had spent 10 years, from 1935-45, in the US Senate getting pressure from the American Zionist Lobby. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/harry_truman/410956

        FYI, he led the “Truman Committee” on corruption and fraud in war production at a time when Zionists were busy looting stockpiles in North Africa and Middle East to arm their underground Palestinian militias.

        Rabbis Wise and Silver always worked hand-in-hand with a coterie of congressional leaders, e.g. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v01&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=411

        U.S. Congressmen blackmailed and threatened other countries during the UN vote on partition, not the US State Department delegation to the UN, who had strict instructions from Secretary Marshall not to intervene in any way.

        And it would seem very odd for him to have had a Jew as a business partner and a close friend if that was his opinion.

        Truman was commanding officer of Sgt. Eddie Jacobson’s unit, Battery D, during WW-I. Jacobson was never a member of any Zionist organization. They were only briefly business partners, until 1922, when their haberdasher’s shop in Kansas City went tits-up. Truman like everyone one else talked about “the Jews” and meant the Zionists in this country and abroad who were operating the Jewish Agency for Palestine and their constituents. If you try to discuss historical events and especially the contents of the official verbatim records, you’ll end up doing the same thing too.

      • RoHa
        April 22, 2014, 6:59 pm

        American, you probably know a lot more about Truman than I do, but the following paragraph suggests that his judgement of Jews as selfish predates the pressures of the lobby.

        “It has been objected that Truman’s anti-Semitism is not fully treated in Judis’s book. … Truman was a man of his era with conventional social stereotypes about many groups. … Truman’s prejudice against Jews as selfish was obviously exacerbated by the pressure of the lobby. ”

        And I see that Hostage supports that view.

    • Daniel Rich
      April 22, 2014, 1:58 am

      @ Hostage,

      You are worth your weight in gold. TY!

      • American
        April 23, 2014, 10:23 am

        ‘Truman like everyone one else talked about “the Jews” and meant the Zionists in this country and abroad who were operating the Jewish Agency for Palestine and their constituents. If you try to discuss historical events and especially the contents of the official verbatim records, you’ll end up doing the same thing too.” …Hostage

        Yes. My take on the ‘talk about Jews’ during that period was that many of those using the term , ‘the Jews’, were actually referring to ‘the Zionist Jews’. I cant remember seeing the description ‘Zionist’ used by the objectors to the Israel scheme back then.
        I dont think the term zionist was in use then…..just like you never hear zionism or zionist used now in the public sphere or msm for I-Firstdom.

  14. unverified__5ilf90kd
    April 21, 2014, 4:51 pm

    You write “We can’t talk about them because Jews are simply too important to the functioning of western society and because the media feel that discussing a theory of Jewish influence will only lead to trouble.” I assume that this is your analysis of what Judis is thinking. I think it is a more proactive combination of Zionist suppression and intimidation of the press that results in the lack of discussion of Jewish influence. I appreciate the analogy of salting the fields by Goldberg et al. except that I would call it intimidation.

  15. Jeff Klein
    April 21, 2014, 4:54 pm

    Another point of the “pre-history” of the Zionist Lobby before Truman:

    On June 30,1922, the US Congress unanimously adopted the language of the Balfour Declaration and supported the British Mandate in a Joint Resolution.

    • lysias
      April 21, 2014, 5:16 pm

      And both Houses of Congress in June 1922 had very heavy Republican majorities. And the Republicans were the party that was not internationalist. They had just rejected the Treaty of Versailes and the League of Nations.

    • Hostage
      April 21, 2014, 5:55 pm

      On June 30,1922, the US Congress unanimously adopted the language of the Balfour Declaration and supported the British Mandate in a Joint Resolution.

      We did more than that. The President and the Senate adopted the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention, 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728, which codified the Balfour Declaration and the LoN Mandate in US law. The declaration was recited in the mandate, which served as the preamble of the Anglo-American Convention that annexed eight additional articles. While the exact legal status of the LoN mandate instruments (which were merely resolutions of the League Council) was always hotly debated, there was never any doubt that the terms of the Class A mandates had never lapsed as a result of the collapse of the League. They were each the subject of a separate treaty with the USA. That’s why the USA participated in the Anglo-American Inquiry, the development of the Grady-Morrison Plan, and Truman’s demand that 100,000 Jewish refugees be admitted to Palestine was not treated as a mere suggestion. Ironically enough, although the USA had refused to join the League, it ended up being the only other state party with the necessary legal standing to hold Great Britain accountable for the administration of the Mandate.

      • Boomer
        April 21, 2014, 9:24 pm

        Thanks to you and the others here for the relevant history lesson. Not for the first time, I’m reminded how much we are affected by history many Americans don’t know, myself included.

        After 9/11 the Bush administration told the U.S. media not to publicize bin Laden’s videos “because they might contain instructions to terrorist cells in the U.S.” I was amazed that the media complied. But before the word went out to censor, the Washington Post did publish a transcript of one of Osama’s videos. In it, he referred to events of “80 years ago.” I knew just enough to recognize this as a reference to WWI and its aftermath. That was when I started learning about the history of that era and region by reading books such as “A Peace to End all Peace.” I thought I had become reasonably well-read on that topic. But I hardly scratched the surface, compared with the knowledge some people here display. This site is valuable for several reasons, but certainly among them is the trove of relevant history that is very much relevant today.

        Americans’ relative ignorance of history isn’t limited to the Middle East, of course. It seems evident in the way our leaders and the media talk about Ukraine, for example. I assume our leaders aren’t ignorant, but for some reason prefer not to to share their knowledge with the public. I’m less clear about why the network news I watch seems ahistorical. Whether the reporters know more than they say remains mysterious.

    • James Canning
      April 21, 2014, 7:55 pm

      Bearing in mind Lord Balfour’s letter did not promise the carving out of a state controlled by Jews, from Palestine.

  16. Rational Zionist
    April 21, 2014, 5:01 pm

    A wonderful fact-filled book filled with a fantasy of conspiracy theory.
    To believe that FDR and Truman were opposed to the creation of Israel takes no stretch of the imagination. But the book misses the point that the Israel that was promised by the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, and the San Remo Conference was not the Israel that was accepted in the partition plan. And even this was too much for the Arabs and anti-Semites.
    WWIII? Will never happen. Are you (I mean you) willing to fight for the “palestians”? It means pick up arms, not just writing pearly words on this website? I didn’t think so. And neither will the rest of the world. Accept for the hot heads, most Arabs don’t care about their brothers or they would have allowed them to be absorbed into Jordan (the real Palestinian homeland), Kuwait, etc. The world could care less about the Middle East.
    It just makes great headlines.

    • James Canning
      April 21, 2014, 7:22 pm

      Lord Balfour did not promise the creation of an Israel carved out of Greater Syria.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 2:43 am

        Lord Balfour did not promise the creation of an Israel carved out of Greater Syria.

        In fact he had to promise that would not happen in order to gain approval of the declaration. Declassified documents show that there were War Cabinet sponsors of the Balfour Declaration who interpreted the national home clause as meaning nothing more than assistance in establishing a shrine in one of the main Jewish communities. A week before the cabinet met a number of its members wrote memos pointing out that the term “national home” had no definite or agreed upon 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.

        On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration finally 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”, W. W. Norton & Company, 2008, http://books.google.com/books?id=hcZrEHg4sdsC&lpg=PA120&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false

    • American
      April 21, 2014, 7:57 pm

      Rational Zionist says:

      ‘WWIII? Will never happen. Are you (I mean you) willing to fight for the “palestians”? It means pick up arms, not just writing pearly words on this website? I didn’t think so.’……>>>>

      Hey RZ I’ll take you up on that. Seriously.
      What would be great is if Israel and the Zionist would agree to pit their best Zio man or men against my pick of best US man or men in a winner takes all contest —-and whoever wins gets to settle the Palestine conflict.
      I would take that challenge any day.
      I am drooling just thinking about it.

    • Bumblebye
      April 21, 2014, 8:12 pm

      @Irrational deluded (and incoherent) fool:
      There was no “israel” mentioned, let alone promised in the Balfour Declaration, or by the League of Nations, or at the San Remo Conference!

    • talknic
      April 21, 2014, 8:34 pm

      @ Rational Zionist “the book misses the point that the Israel that was promised by the Balfour Declaration”

      Israel is the state proclaimed effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      No Jewish state was promised under the Balfour declaration 0r the League of Nations or the San Remo Conference. Read Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine.

      “And even this was too much for the Arabs..”

      They agreed to the LoN Mandate for Palestine incl Article 7

      “Are you (I mean you) willing to fight for the “palestians”? It means pick up arms, not just writing pearly words on this website?”

      It’s Palestinians pal.

      “I didn’t think so”

      Answering your own question without knowing is sooooooo cute

      “most Arabs don’t care about their brothers”

      Strange, they’ve afforded them refuge for 65 years.

      or they would have allowed them to be absorbed into Jordan (the real Palestinian homeland)”

      Why? Refugees from Israel and what remained of Palestine in 1948 are not from Jordan or Kuwait.

      • Feathers
        April 22, 2014, 11:51 am

        Leonard Stein was Chaim Weizmann’s friend and assistant for ~20 years. He wrote The Balfour Declaration, a 700-page tour de force chronicling Weizmann’s activities in persuading the British to cede Palestine to zionists. (Weizmann accomplished with the British what Herzl had failed to accomplish in over a decade of negotiating with the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II).**

        Stein explained that one of Weizmann’s chief strategies was to assess the degree of antisemitism in his interlocutor, according to three categories: blatant antisemitism, philosemitic, and “guilty” antisemitic — those who, in Weizmann’s judgment, were antisemitic but trying to hide it. This last category was the most useful for Weizmann’s purposes, and Alfred Balfour fit the category quite comfortably. Stein writes that Weizmann played on Balfour’s latent antisemitism to gain the goals he desired.

        ** interesting factoid: in the 1920s, Sam Untermyer — who participated with Brandeis, Frankfurter, & Rabbi Wise in zionist activism, esp. in the Jewish boycott of Germany — and his son represented the heirs of Abdulhamid II in their claims to vast oil fields in Mesopotamia.

      • lysias
        April 22, 2014, 12:10 pm

        Samuel Untermyer led the movement for a worldwide Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany, until his fellow Zionists doublecrossed him with their Transfer Agreement with Germany, which squelched any prospects of a boycott.

      • American
        April 22, 2014, 2:20 pm

        This why the criticism of DBSers against Israel is so hypocritical. There was a wide ranging campaign among the zionist to boycott Germany.

        http://www.jta.org/1933/09/24/archive/plan-to-coordinate-boycott-on-germany

        Plan to Coordinate Boycott on Germany
        September 24, 1933
        Plans for coordinating the boycott on German products will be formulated at a meeting of the national executive committee of the American Jewish Congress, to be held at 2 P.M. Sunday, at the Pennsylvania Hotel. Dr. Stephen S. Wise, honorary president of the Congress, will be the principal speaker. Dr. Joseph Tenenbaum, chairman of the committee, will preside.

        A mass meeting will be called on Tuesday evening by the Williams-bridge committee of the Congress, at P. S. 96, Olinville and Waring Avenues. Dr. Albert Brandt, German refugee, is scheduled to deliver an address. Z. Tygel, Director of the Federation of Polish Jews of America, will discuss possible American intervention in Germany in the interest of persecuted Jews.”

        Read more: http://www.jta.org/1933/09/24/archive/plan-to-coordinate-boycott-on-germany#ixzz2zdkwIE8H

      • Feathers
        April 22, 2014, 2:45 pm

        I don’t think that’s quite accurate, lysias; the boycott did proceed, it was not “squelched;” there are plenty of photos and histories of crowds picketing Sears Roebuck, Woolworth, numerous shops in USA, and stories of merchants being forced to destroy their inventory if it bore marks of “Made in Germany.”

        Among European states, Poland was especially impacted by the boycott. The furor that promoted boycott action against Germany had the effect of poisoning the possibility of negotiating a nonviolent resolution of of the Danzig problem, for example.

        According to his biographer, Richard Hawkins, Untermyer actively pursued boycott activism until just a few months before his death in early 1940. Untermyer also used themes of demonization of Germany in speeches and assemblies where the purpose was to raise funds to build Hebrew University — then as now, sex sells, and fear opens wallets.

      • yonah fredman
        November 19, 2015, 12:55 am

        talknic- I guess you’re friggin’ Rip Van Winkle waking up a thread from a year and a half ago. It happens to be very time consuming to try to respond to comments upon comments that were made 17 months ago, when this web site makes navigation so complicated.

        recently I asked you regarding your assertion that the people of the west bank asserted their acceptance of Jordan’s rule, where you came up with that on the basis of what. no answer, instead this claim that the Zionist movement had major accomplishments to the point of being called dominant before Balfour based upon the establishment of a bank?!

        In any case, please answer the most recent question regarding your assertion of West Bank Palestinian acceptance of Jordanian rule, tell me the date of the plebiscite or even the Gallup Poll. Instead of going back to threads from a year ago.

    • pjdude
      April 21, 2014, 11:23 pm

      Jordan is the homeland of Jordanians Palestine is the homeland if Palestinians. And none of those documents ever mentioned a state. Also the very moment the un declared that states had to be formed via self determination made them irrelevant. Than the zionists waged a war of conquest and the rest as they say is history

    • Hostage
      April 21, 2014, 11:56 pm

      But the book misses the point that the Israel that was promised by the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, and the San Remo Conference was not the Israel that was accepted in the partition plan.

      @ Delusional Zionist, the Israeli High Court of Justice held in its 10-1 decision in the Gaza Coast Council v Knesset case, that the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations, and the San Remo Conference were completely silent about the territorial extent of “Israel” and that the settlers living in Gaza were only allowed to live there through the forbearance of the military commander, i.e. by sufferance and not by right.

    • Hostage
      April 22, 2014, 1:31 am

      Are you (I mean you) willing to fight for the “palestians”? It means pick up arms, not just writing pearly words on this website? I didn’t think so.

      I think you are out of touch with reality. I spent 21 years in the US military and see very little difference between an order to assist the civilian authorities of Kuwait in ending the illegal occupation of their territory and doing the same thing for Palestinian authorities one day. If you think there aren’t coalitions of a half million people who are willing to do that sort of thing to a delegitimized regime on a moment’s notice, you must have been living in a cave during the First Gulf War. BTW, anything that can be accomplished by one army in six days of war can be always be undone by another one in that same amount of time.

  17. Hostage
    April 21, 2014, 5:02 pm

    Breaking news. File this under “Ya gotta be kidding, you should have thought about that a long time ago”:

    When the US Congress isn’t busy threatening to cut-off funding to the “Palestinian Authority” for behaving like a state, the US Administration is busy bragging about the aid money it supplies to build-up Palestinian state institutions, that must never be allowed to function as such without permission. Now they are singing for their supper, because the Netanyahu government can’t afford to step-in and take over for the PA. They are warning Abbas that shutting down the PA will harm relations with the USA. I guess he must be doing something right. See:
    * U.S. warns Abbas: Dissolving PA would jeopardize our relationship http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.586587
    * US to Abbas: Shuttering PA ‘would have grave implications’: State Department spokeswoman warns ‘dissolving the PA is not in interest of Palestinians’ as Abbas proposal would have implications for US relations, aid. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511739,00.html

    • puppies
      April 21, 2014, 5:45 pm

      @Hostage – I wouldn’t agree about their doing something right (even with all the sympathy I have for Abbas’ smart strategic sense, except for threatening to walk out from a post that cost an entire Oslo conference (and a major war) to build up. If I still were as fond of a paradox as I used to be, I’d say what they did right was to play the perfect puppet all this time so that a walkout would mean a replay for the US-Azraelis recreating the puppet post.
      On the one hand, as Abbas and Co. already showed, they shouldn’t have any trouble: there seems to be no job on earth too dishonoring to have candidates for it.
      The US/Zionists are a of course not stupid enough not to realize that a return to the default situation means a major flare-up of resistance. Too expensive.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 12:41 am

        @Hostage – I wouldn’t agree about their doing something right (even with all the sympathy I have for Abbas’ smart strategic sense, except for threatening to walk out from a post that cost an entire Oslo conference (and a major war) to build up.

        I think Abbas has deliberately gone out of his way in order “to be seen” to have been the best long-suffering partner for peace that Washington and Tel Aviv will ever have. He has patiently jumped through every hoop they have demanded despite the fact that they have broken every agreement they have ever concluded with him or the PLO. He is in a perfect position to “hoist them by their own petards” and either obtain the concessions that were originally promised, or to pivot and take up the demand for one state, one person, one vote because the US and Israel have exhausted the possibility of any other remedy.

        Netanyahu publicly admitted that the Oslo Accords created a de facto Palestinian state:

        The Declaration of Principles, Netanyahu pointed out, recited that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian team recognized each other’s legitimate and political rights. Addressing Rabin directly, Netanyahu asked:
        [W]hat are the legitimate and political rights of any nation? A state. What are the legitimate political rights of the Israeli nation? A state. What are the mutual legitimate political rights with the Palestinians? A state for them too. And you gave this away not as a beginning of an agreement, but even before the negotiations on the permanent arrangements have started.

        Netanyahu said that the Declaration of Principles presumed Palestine’s statehood. Using a colorful analogy, Netanyahu explained:
        When you walk into the zoo and see an animal that looks like a horse and has black and white stripes, you do not need a sign to tell you this is a zebra. It is a zebra. When you read this agreement, even if the words a Palestinian state are not mentioned there, you do not need a sign; this is a Palestinian state.

        – Opposition Leader Netanyahu Criticizes Agreement with PLO During Knesset
        Debate, BBC SUMMARY OF WORLD BROADCASTs, Sept. 23, 1993, ME/1801/MED, at 6, available at LEXIS, News Library, BBCMIR File. Cited in John Quigley, Palestine is a State: A Horse with Black and White Stripes is a Zebra, 32Michigan Journal of International Law 749-764 (2011). Available at: link to repository.law.umich.edu

        Netanyahu just as publicly proved that he is a duplicitous liar: See
        1) “Netanyahu admits on video he deceived US to destroy Oslo accord” http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-admits-on-video-he-deceived-us-to-destroy-oslo-accord
        2) When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially suggested the possibility of Jewish settlers remaining as citizens of the Palestinian state, it was not clear whether this was a bluff or a serious proposal. While Palestinian negotiators were quick to reject the idea, it was members of the Israeli cabinet themselves who revealed the true intention of Netanyahu’s proposal.

        Israel’s right-wing Minister of Economy and Trade Naftali Bennett described Netanyahu’s statement as “very dangerous.” Israeli newspapers said that a trap intended for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas exploded in the face of Netanyahu’s own government.
        http://jfjfp.com/?p=55770

      • puppies
        April 22, 2014, 1:17 am

        @Hostage – “Abbas has deliberately gone out of his way in order “to be seen” to have been the best long-suffering partner for peace that Washington and Tel Aviv will ever have.” No contest.
        “He is in a perfect position to “hoist them by their own petards” and either obtain the concessions that were originally promised, or to pivot and take up the demand for one state, one person, one vote because the US and Israel have exhausted the possibility of any other remedy.” This is not an automatic (even if perhaps logical) consequence of having visibly exhausted all possibilities of negotiation, because it does in real life require an asset to negotiate with, in addition to his admirable patience. The answer he’ll get is “whaddyagonnadoboutit” and some bellyaching in the Europarliament. Yes, it makes for thousands of pages of international body deliberations and additional years of walking in hallways in Geneva, but in the absence of an armed insurrection that keeps costing Azraelian personnel (an insurrection that was his job to suppress) there’s nothing to impart a sense of urgency about implementing anything.
        Certainly, declaring the abolition of the PA and going away is the best ever move for him but not hitting the Zionists hard enough to make concessions; the added expenses to restart Oslo will be paid by you and me anyway…

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 12:43 pm

        This is not an automatic (even if perhaps logical) consequence of having visibly exhausted all possibilities of negotiation, because it does in real life require an asset to negotiate with, in addition to his admirable patience.

        People tend to forget that the PA was just a creature of the Oslo Accords and that the General Assembly just adopted a resolution in November of 2012 which recognized the November 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine and the fact that the PLO Executive Committee has always functioned as the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine ever since then. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/19862D03C564FA2C85257ACB004EE69B

        The Palestinians do not need to have a “PA” to file an Article 12(3) declaration or join the ICC as an occupied, apartheid victim state. In fact it would be an odd result if a Bantustan could not file a victim state self-referral for the crime of apartheid or persecution. After all, the first international convention which called for the creation of a permanent international criminal tribunal was the Apartheid convention. See the UN Rapporteur’s “Final Report on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court for the Implementation of the Apartheid Convention and
        Other Relevant International Instruments” available from Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1361&context=scholarlyworks

        The answer he’ll get is “whaddyagonnadoboutit” and some bellyaching in the Europarliament.

        He might get the slow roll, but the fact that Afghanistan is occupied has not stopped it from joining the ICC or kept the ICC Prosecutor from conducting an investigation. The Palestinians have already started the ball rolling on legal efforts to go after transnational businesses in Europe that aid and abet Israel in plundering their public and private property.

      • gamal
        November 18, 2015, 4:39 pm

        Thanks Hostage. You make me realize why I was always such a crap bureaucrat, you have a real ability to explain the key points of this stuff, thanks.

    • Shingo
      April 22, 2014, 6:37 am

      When the US Congress isn’t busy threatening to cut-off funding to the “Palestinian Authority” for behaving like a state, the US Administration is busy bragging about the aid money it supplies to build-up Palestinian state institutions, that must never be allowed to function as such without permission.

      Yes, the hypocrisy and irony is mind boggling.

  18. mijj
    April 21, 2014, 5:50 pm

    > “Jews are simply too important to the functioning of western society”

    lol .. such self-worship. (And oozing with racism, to boot. But, it’s not anti-semitism, so it’s fine.) Delusions of grandeur: a traditional substitute for intelligence and a grasp of reality.

    • Mooser
      November 16, 2015, 11:36 am

      “Jews are simply too important to the functioning of western society”

      I have always, personally, fought against that type of complicity.

  19. MRW
    April 21, 2014, 6:14 pm

    Great comments here, Hostage. So informative. Thanks.

  20. pjdude
    April 21, 2014, 6:38 pm

    All I got to say it’s never unfair to call people selfish who demand other peoples property and rights

  21. yonah fredman
    April 22, 2014, 1:17 am

    Didn’t have to read far until I reached this: Palestinians “have never gotten a fair break in more than a century of Zionist domination.” 1917-2014, less than a century of Zionist domination. Either this is bad math or bad history.

    • puppies
      April 22, 2014, 1:18 am

      2014-1894 = 120

    • Mooser
      November 16, 2015, 11:38 am

      “Either this is bad math or bad history.”

      And you think you are ready to calculate odds and count cards?

  22. puppies
    April 22, 2014, 1:29 am

    “Still, it was prejudice: it was surely unfair to call a group selfish who had just seen 2/3 of its European population annihilated.”
    Why exactly?
    Are the possible meanings of “fair/unfair”, “group”, “selfish” dependent on the proportions of people killed?
    I suppose the MW readers do deserve some clear accounting of this strange way of reasoning.

  23. Mikhael
    April 22, 2014, 1:29 am

    Harry Truman was opposed to establishing a religious state in Palestine out of the fear that it would lead to endless conflict, and possibly World War III.

    A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine”; a Jewish nation-state declared its independence, with a largely secular/atheistic/agnostic leadership, upon the termination of the British Mandate whence “Palestine” ceased to legally exist. The Arabs of the former British Mandate failed to declare independence and found an Arab state, with the exception of the All-Palestine Government, which was a nominal entity in Gaza, existing at the sufferance of the Egyptians only.

    • Woody Tanaka
      April 22, 2014, 11:38 am

      “A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine”; ”

      You’re right. An etno-religious Apartheid state was created in Palestine.

      “upon the termination of the British Mandate whence “Palestine” ceased to legally exist.”

      Nonsense. The Mandate ended. “Palestine” is the name of the land and and will be till the end of time.

    • eljay
      April 22, 2014, 12:09 pm

      >> A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine”; a Jewish nation-state declared its independence …

      Is Jewish the bureaucratic nationality of this “Jewish nation-state”, a nationality granted to all of its citizens, immigrants, refugees and ex-pats? Nope.

      “Jewish nation-state” was and remains, fundamentally, a religion-supremacist construct.

    • Hostage
      April 22, 2014, 12:19 pm

      A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine”; a Jewish nation-state declared its independence, with a largely secular/atheistic/agnostic leadership, upon the termination of the British Mandate whence “Palestine” ceased to legally exist.

      @Misinformed The British mandate was always intended to be terminated when the former Ottoman communities could “stand alone” with their own self-governing institutions. The Jericho Congress of Arab Palestine declared Abduallah the “King of Arab Palestine” and requested the establishment of a joint kingdom composed of all the remaining Arab territories that had been subjected to the lapsed mandate, including Transjordan. You can read all about that on page 1 of the Palestine Post, 14 December 1948, http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/SharedView.Article.aspx?parm=1c79he82Drut6cJQZ%2Fe1C%2FsHGolXp5ufcbgOHnsucBO9pZ1waZlme6Qro8QHHuG9Yw%3D%3D&mode=image&href=PLS%2F1948%2F12%2F14&page=1

      FYI, a confederation or incorporation of one state or kingdom into another existing one (a union), or its emergence as an independent state are all valid modes of exercising the right of self-determination according to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm.

      So the Congress provided the legal foundation for the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan. The new joint entity was admitted as a full member of the United Nations. During a conference in 1949 Israel pointed out that it was not the legal successor of the former government of Palestine’s debts and treaties. But it also noted that there had not been an orderly replacement of one state by the other and that Israel did not occupy all of the former state’s territory. So Palestine did not cease to exist on account of Israel’s act of secession. See 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) http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/49/410/000/z01/49000410.z01.pdf

      “Judaism”, as defined by the State Rabbinate, is the official public religion of Israel and it determines the personal status and the scope of individual human rights in Israel. The Knesset has adopted a plethora of laws that discriminate against the non-Jewish citizens of Israel. http://adalah.org/eng/Articles/1771/Discriminatory-Laws

      The members of the governing coalition and the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee have refused for decades to adopt a Constitution that legally entrenches the right of equality under the law and explain that democracy and equality are incompatible with “Judaism”. That is the epitome of a religious state, which is both a theocracy and an ethnocracy.
      See:
      * MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution: Religious MKs reject inclusion of ensurance of equality, saying it would contradict Judaism. link to haaretz.com
      * Lapid: Israel’s definition as Jewish and democratic is an unsolvable contradiction: “Judaism is a whole line of values that have existed for thousands of years, but the democratic idea is a new idea, and significant parts of it stand in contradiction to Judaism” link to jpost.com

      Hannah Arendt described the situation during the Eichmann trial:

      Like almost everybody else in Israel, he believed that only a Jewish court could render justice to Jews, and that it was the business of Jews to sit in judgment on their enemies. Hence the almost universal hostility in Israel to the mere mention of an international court which would have indicted Eichmann, not for crimes “against the Jewish people,” but for crimes against mankind committed on the body of the Jewish people. Hence the strange boast: “We make no ethnic distinctions,” which sounded less strange in Israel, where rab­binical law rules the personal status of Jewish citizens, with the result that no Jew can marry a non-Jew; marriages concluded abroad are recognized, but children of mixed marriages are legally bastards (children of Jewish parentage born out of wed­lock are legitimate), and if one happens to have a non-Jewish mother he can neither be married nor buried. The outrage in this state of affairs has become more acute since 1953, when a sizable portion of jurisdiction in matters of family law was handed over to the secular courts. Women can now inherit property and in general enjoy equal status with men. Hence it is hardly respect for the faith or the power of the fanatically religious minority that prevents the government of Israel from substituting secular jurisdiction for rabbinical law in matters of marriage and divorce. Israeli citizens, religious and nonreligious, seem agreed upon the desirability of having a law which pro­hibits intermarriage, and it is chiefly for this reason—as Israeli officials outside the courtroom were willing to admit—that they are also agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which such a law would embarrassingly have to be spelled out. (‘The argument against civil marriage is that it would split the House of Israel, and would also separate Jews of this country from Jews of the Diaspora,” as Philip Gillon recently put it in Jewish Frontier.) Whatever the reasons, there certainly was something breathtaking in the naivete with which the prosecution denounced the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans. The better informed among the correspondents were well aware of the irony, but they did not mention it in their reports. — Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil, Google ebook, page 7

    • talknic
      April 22, 2014, 4:46 pm

      Mikhael A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine”;

      “The state of Israel ….will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel”

      “upon the termination of the British Mandate whence “Palestine” ceased to legally exist. “

      Israel Govt statement May 22nd 1948, Israel had military control of territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”. BTW under International Law, territories under military control are “occupied”

      “The Arabs of the former British Mandate failed to declare independence and found an Arab state”

      A) So what? Israel did and in asking for recognition, stated the legal extent of Israeli sovereignty as being “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

      B) On May 15th 1948 Jewish forces were already occupying territory slated for the Arab state. The Arabs could not have declared independent statehood.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 5:51 pm

        “The Arabs of the former British Mandate failed to declare independence and found an Arab state”

        Well you can’t have it both ways. King Abdullah was an Arab and Jordan was an Arab state formed by the union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

        When the plans were announced for the independence of Transjordan the Jewish Agency complained that it was a indivisible part of the Palestine mandate and that the Jewish people still had a secured legal right to it. See “Mandate is Indivisible Jewish Agency Objects to Severance of T.-J.”, Palestine Post Apr 9, 1946, page 3 http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/SharedView.Article.aspx?parm=VHEVwL3dlJELy9L8zKvysgWV75iUMY14IcECy%2BvDWp%2Fy4ZJBNB%2BOkLjbo4GG6DpuYw%3D%3D&mode=image&href=PLS%2F1946%2F04%2F09&page=3

        The Zionists played the same “recognition of statehood game” back then to block Transjordan’s application for membership in the UN, that they are playing today to block Palestine’s membership:

        In view of application of Trans-Jordan for membership in UN received July 5, we have to establish our attitude without delay and I am sending memorandum to President requesting his views. I should appreciate knowing your thoughts in advance of beginning of SC Committee discussion on membership on July 15.

        As you are aware, we have had correspondence with Senator Myers regarding Trans-Jordan and he has introduced resolution containing request that executive take no action in any way recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state and that US representative on UN be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of status of Trans-Jordan area until future status of Palestine as a whole will be determined.

        We also have received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver [on behalf of the Jewish Agency for Palestine] objecting to independence of Trans-Jordan.

        –See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General; the United Nations Volume I, Page 411 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Sure enough, when Abdullah tried to join the UN in 1946, he was turned down. The President of the Security Council cited advice from the US Secretary State that Transjordan was considered an integral part of the joint Palestine mandate, which had not yet been legally terminated. He recommended that no action should be taken, until the question of “Palestine as a whole” could be addressed by the UN. See The Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to doc.un.org

        Now we’re all supposed to play dumb, rollover, and pretend none of that ever happened.

    • pjdude
      April 22, 2014, 5:55 pm

      They failed cause they were invaded by the religious state of israel

    • talknic
      November 18, 2015, 8:15 pm

      @ Mikhael “A “religious” state was not founded “in Palestine””

      Correct, it was established in Israel “The state of Israel ….will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel

      “a Jewish nation-state declared its independence”

      Specifically and officially ” … as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947″ http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf and was recognized as such. No further territories have ever been recognized as Israeli under any agreement.

      “with a largely secular/atheistic/agnostic leadership, upon the termination of the British Mandate whence “Palestine” ceased to legally exist”

      You’re weird theory is contradicted by the official statement by the Israeli Government to the UNSC 22nd May 1948 the Government of the State of Israel claimed to operate “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

      “The Arabs of the former British Mandate failed to declare independence and found an Arab state”

      Israel by its own admission of the 22nd of May 1948, already occupied territory in what remained of Palestine “outside the State of Israel” One cannot declare independence whilst under occupation. For an example, see the Israel Declaration of independence which only came into effect at one minute after the British Mandate “terminated” http://pages.citebite.com/d2w2m2n6a3mad and http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      ” with the exception of the All-Palestine Government, which was a nominal entity in Gaza, existing at the sufferance of the Egyptians only.”

      Via the Israel/Egypt Armistice Agreement Gaza was under the occupation of Egypt. Independence, by its very nature, is impossible under occupation.

      Try some other Ziocrap, if only for our amusement

  24. talknic
    April 22, 2014, 1:39 am

    @ yonah fredman “1917-“ ? 1897

    • yonah fredman
      April 22, 2014, 2:15 am

      talknic- the zionist movement can be marked as beginning in 1897, the Zionist movement’s first accomplishment was the Balfour declaration 1917.

      • puppies
        April 22, 2014, 2:29 am

        Not a clue. The invasion started in 1882, if you need any precision.

      • yonah fredman
        April 22, 2014, 11:03 am

        phil refers to [Palestinians] have never gotten a fair break in more than a century of Zionist domination. What Zionist domination until Balfour? The movement of immigration and Jewish self definition? That’s not domination. Until Balfour.

      • puppies
        April 22, 2014, 11:12 am

        @Clueless – Don’t try to smuggle more senseless delirium like “Jewish self definition” and you don’t know what immigration means. We’re talking Jewish supremacist colonization covered by the power of the colonial government, in this case Ottoman; a forerunner of colonization not even bothering to don the disguise of refugees and intending to politically self-administer their colonial foothold. Of course it is colonial oppression and domination. You read way too much Sambo literature.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 22, 2014, 11:14 am

        I would say that the fact that, pre-Balfour, Europeans didn’t condemn Zionism in its infancy out of hand, with distain for its nakedly immoral premise and characterize it as nothing less than the plotting of a massive crime against humanity to be carried out against the Palestinians (which, as history has shown, was exactly what it was and what occurred), demonstrates a domination of Zionist ideology and the interests of European Jews over the rights and interests of Palestinians to their own land.

        When the European Zionists started talking about seizing Palestine for themselves, the interests and rights of the land’s sole rightful owners, the Palestinians, did not even rate a blip on the radar screen, let alone the condemnation it deserved. That’s domination.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 2:34 pm

        phil refers to [Palestinians] have never gotten a fair break in more than a century of Zionist domination. What Zionist domination until Balfour? The movement of immigration and Jewish self definition? That’s not domination. Until Balfour.

        No, throughout the 19th century, European and American Jews were already settling in Palestine and purchasing property illegally through local Jewish Ottoman subjects. They enjoyed near legal impunity and freedom from taxes as so-called “Protégés” of the Western Consulates in Jerusalem under the regime of Capitulations. In most cases Ottoman officials couldn’t even make an official visit to an American Jew’s residence, unless they were accompanied by a member of the US Consulate. Ottoman officials had to pursue most routine legal actions through the Consular Courts, which exercised personal jurisdiction over their citizens and protégés. See for example Ruth Kark, American Consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914 http://wsupress.wayne.edu/books/detail/american-consuls-holy-land-1832-1914

        Jews liked the practice so much that they forced the British to pretend to inherit the Ottoman millet system. They in-turn pretended to inherit it from the British. They also mimicked the way individuals carried their own national laws with them into other jurisdictions under the Capitulations, when they began to settle in the occupied Palestinian territories. If a Palestinian wants to pursue a legal remedy against a Jewish immigrant, they can’t resort to their own courts – and it’s been that way since at least the 1830’s.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 3:14 pm

        When the European Zionists started talking about seizing Palestine for themselves, the interests and rights of the land’s sole rightful owners, the Palestinians, did not even rate a blip on the radar screen, let alone the condemnation it deserved. That’s domination.

        The Western powers openly admitted that they intended to facilitate the so-called “restoration” of the Palestine to the Jews. Long before the Balfour declaration, they operated their own Consular jurisdictions as “states within the state” on behalf of their Jewish citizens or foreign Jewish protégés. We’ve discussed that situation here at length in the past.

        In the UNESCO series “International law: achievements and prospects”, editor Mohammed Bedjaoui noted that Turkey was obliged to accept a very clear relinquishment of sovereignty by acquiescing in the regime of Capitulations. Between 1832 and 1925 the United States government established an extraterritorial jurisdiction – called “Palestine”, which had its own US laws, US magistrates, and US Marshalls. It was aligned under the US State Department and submitted annual and daily country reports to the Department and the US Bureau of Foreign Commerce. See for example the annual report for 1884 starting at mid-page here. See also Gabriel Bie Ravndal, “The Origin of the Capitulations and of the Consular Institution”, US Govt. Print. Off., 1921; and Ruth Kark, American consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914, Wayne State University Press, 1994 Kark documents the fact that the majority of Jews in the District of Jerusalem were not Ottoman subjects. It was common practice during the 19th century for them to retain their citizenship elsewhere or for the various consulates in the Levant and in Palestine to extend consular protection to them by designating them as either citizens or protégés. So, there was definitely a legal jurisdiction called Palestine. It did not include the territory of the Vilayet of Damascus east of the Jordan river and a considerable number of the Jews living there were not Ottoman subjects.
        When the Ottoman “Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine” ordered the deportation of resident alien Jews from Palestine, the US government was the only one of the ten western countries concerned that refused to carry out the decree. Our representative advised the Governor of Palestine, Raouf Pasha, that it absolutely would not discriminate against American citizens on the basis of their race or religion. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the fiftieth Congress, 1888-’90, page 1560

        In “The Turkish American Controversy over Nationality”, Leland J. Gordon said

        The capitulatory regime in Turkey and the American doctrine of protecting naturalized citizens upon return to their native land, created a situation whereby Ottoman Armenians and “Syrians” could go to the United States, acquire wealth and citizenship, return to Turkey and live in their native land exempt from all Ottoman laws. It was possible, therefore, to escape from tyranny and poverty and still live in their home land by the simple expedient of a voyage to America. In the first twenty-four years of the twentieth century, it is estimated that 70,000 naturalized Americans returned to Ottoman Asia, and questions regarding their rights have caused endless controversy between the Ottoman and American Governments. See – The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct., 1931), pp. 658-669

        Pending the ratification of a treaty of peace with Turkey (see the case below), the United States continued to demand that its citizens living in Mandate Palestine be immune from taxes and that they be turned over to it for trial in the American Consular Courts in accordance with the Capitulations. It insisted that, under existing treaties, the US had the right to operate consular courts separate from those of Great Britain. See for example the unauthorized firearms case involving Abraham Chaikin in the Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1921, pages 122 & 123

      • RoHa
        April 22, 2014, 9:49 pm

        “Jewish self definition”

        What does this phrase mean? The endless business of deciding who is and who isn’t a Jew, or something else?

      • jon s
        April 22, 2014, 3:20 pm

        puppies, Jews immigrating to the Jewish historic homeland are not invaders. Jews in Israel today are not invaders.
        I am curious as to why you picked 1882.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 5:15 pm

        puppies, Jews immigrating to the Jewish historic homeland are not invaders.

        First of all, ancient Judaism converted members of the indigenous populations of Northern Africa, Europe, and Asia “in-place”. The majority of the members of those communities never stepped foot in Palestine, much less considered it a homeland. Even during the Second Commonwealth, the majority of the Jews chose to live elsewhere in enormous centers of Jewish life, like Alexandria, Babylon, and Yemen.

        People born and raised in other countries by parents whose Jewish ancestors either departed Palestine a 100 generations ago or who never lived there at all were considered invaders by the proper legal authorities. The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman that encouraged the establishment of large Jewish settlements in Syria, but it prohibited Oriental and European Jews from settling in Palestine. Palestine was marked on the maps of the era. The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration. In 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:

        In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine-’that is the only prohibition.

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 22, 2014, 5:31 pm

        “puppies, Jews immigrating to the Jewish historic homeland are not invaders. ”

        If they did it without the consent of the Palestinians who were the sole and only legitimate owners of the land, yes, they absolutely were.

      • puppies
        April 22, 2014, 5:44 pm

        @Jons – because it is the start of organized armed colonization by racial supremacists invading Palestine, which they had absolutely no relationship or claim to, bringing their own colonial pirate sovereignty with them; they are of course the start of your current batch of pirate invaders and illegal immigrants to whom you belong. People defining themselves as Jews of one or the other sort are not to be counted invaders if they or their ancestors personally belonged to the (approimately 7%) Jewish Palestinians before the start of this illegal colonization.

      • pjdude
        April 22, 2014, 6:20 pm

        Wrong on both counts. I’m sorry but entering a foriegn territory with the intent to seize or make it your own by definition makes you an invader

      • Shingo
        April 22, 2014, 6:33 pm

        Jews immigrating to the Jewish historic homeland are not invaders. Jews in Israel today are not invaders.

        Yes they were, just as would be the case of all the world’s Catholics converged on the Vatican and began building units there.

      • talknic
        April 22, 2014, 11:18 am

        The Zionist movement established an effective lobby long before it drafted the Balfour Declaration.

      • yonah fredman
        April 22, 2014, 11:33 am

        talknic- I would prefer some details rather than an assertion on the basis of your expertise.

      • yonah fredman
        April 22, 2014, 11:38 am

        Domination is a historical term and it is inaccurate to use it here, unless you are trying to make a point, which is I believe the definition of tendentious. Disregard for indigenous around the world was the method of the world, but zionism was laughed off by most serious world statesmen until world war I changed things. To call a movement that was laughed at dominant is a serious historical error IMHO.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2014, 4:44 pm

        talknic- I would prefer some details rather than an assertion on the basis of your expertise.

        Nahum Sokolow has a full discussion of the efforts of various Jewish leaders and British officials to restore Palestine to the Jews, beginning almost from the moment that the ban against Jews living in England was lifted. See History of Zionism (1600-1918) Volume 1 and 2:
        * https://archive.org/details/historyofzionism01soko
        * https://archive.org/details/historyofzionism02sokouoft

      • Woody Tanaka
        April 22, 2014, 11:39 am

        “I would prefer some details rather than an assertion on the basis of your expertise.”

        I’m sure that talknic will provide it, unless he wants to avoid spending his morning assaulting his soul with hatred.

      • tree
        April 22, 2014, 1:46 pm

        …the zionist movement can be marked as beginning in 1897, the Zionist movement’s first accomplishment was the Balfour declaration 1917.

        The JNF was formed in 1901. By its charter it strictly forbade any non-Jew from working on the land it bought, or ever reselling its land to a non-Jew. These provisions were enforced starting with the Second Aliyah (1904-1914) with the Zionist ideological concepts of the “conquest of land” and the “conquest of labor”. Palestinian tenant farmers were displaced from the land purchased by the JNF, refused any work on the land and were replaced by Jews, merely because they were Jews, even though the Palestinian non-Jews were usually better farm workers and cheaper labor. Second aliyah leaders boycotted and picketed those Jewish landowners who hired “Arab labor” and in some instances violently attacked non-Jewish Palestinian tenant farmers and laborers. This was all done over one hundred years ago.

        What Zionist domination until Balfour?The movement of immigration and Jewish self definition? That’s not domination.

        When they “self-defined” themselves as bigots who sought to deny land and employment to non-Jews, the Zionist leaders were exercising domination, albeit on a much, much smaller scale than they exercise today. This began at least ten years prior to Balfour. Balfour was merely a further facilitation of their domination.

        It’s entirely fair and true that Palestinian non-Jews never got a fair break from any of these Zionist actions.

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2015, 11:53 am

        “puppies, Jews immigrating to the Jewish historic homeland are not invaders. Jews in Israel today are not invaders.I am curious as to why you picked 1882” “Jon s”!!

        “Jon s”!! Where you been, buddy? Defending Beersheba from Eritrean terrorist attack?

        And you picked up your I-am-sooo-not-an-invader schtik right where you left off before you disappeared, too! Smooth!

        Well, toodle-ooh, and don’t tell any deliberate lies. Not that anybody would know. Did you take a trip home to Medford, Conn. USA ?

      • talknic
        November 18, 2015, 8:26 pm

        @ yonah fredman “the Zionist movement’s first accomplishment was the Balfour declaration 1917.”

        Strange. Long before 1917 the Zionist’s Jewish Colonial Bank was profiting from the interest of loans to Jewish settlers so they could buy real estate in Palestine

      • talknic
        November 18, 2015, 9:01 pm

        @ yonah fredman “talknic- I would prefer some details rather than an assertion on the basis of your expertise.”

        Sure you would … http://www.ijs.org.au/BasleProgram1897/default.aspx

        I have no expertise relevant to the I/P issue BTW. Any lay person can read the official records to see what Zionists/the Jewish Agency and the Israeli Government themselves first have to say, where they contradict themselves and where they blatantly lie

  25. eljay
    April 22, 2014, 8:06 pm

    >> Here’s the Zionist lobby in its infancy…

    From Haaretz: “The pressure Herzl tried to exert on the Americans could be seen to mark the start of the Jewish lobby in the United States.”

    “Jewish lobby”, not “Zionist lobby”. Huh. I wonder if this makes Ofer Aderet an anti-Semite.

  26. tony greenstein
    November 16, 2015, 9:13 am

    Not having read the book it may indeed be impressive, but that doesn’t mean it has got it right.

    What the review is endorsing is the idea that the Zionist lobby is responsible for US support for a Jewish state as opposed to….. It may well have played a part in that decision but as one amongst a number of factors. I don’t buy the idea that it was down to a $100,000 donation. If the decision to support the UN partition plan had been against US interests then no matter how big the bribe it would have been turned down.

    The issue of a religious state in the Middle East is simply wrong. Saudia Arabia was already a religious state in the region. Iran has joined it since and other countries, e.g. Sudan have sharia law. This is where the weakness of not having a Marxist or materialist analysis comes into play.

    Israel is not a religious state. It is a settler colonial state. A state in which the settlers oust the indigenous population, excluding them from the economy and the land. Their ideological justification is religion and because of that the rabbis have occupied a central part in the state in terms of the definition of personal status i.e. the racial definition of the privileged. But it is not a theocracy although it has trappings of such a state.

    Saudi Arabia and Iran are religious states but they are not settler colonial states and in those states religion serves a different function. Not to justify the oppression of another group or people but to justify the repression of their own citizens and in the Saudi case, foreign workers. Once you adopt this analysis much more fits into place.

    Truman was an unprincipled self-serving mass murderer. His decision to murder over 200,000 people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to say nothing of those horrifically burnt and injured was a huge war crime. That is how his decisions should be treated. No doubt he was also corrupt and venal but his primary interest would always have been US imperial interests in the Middle East and if that meant war and conflict in the long term, well in the long term we are all dead anyway.

    Likewise Walt and Mersheimer were equally wrong. The Iran treaty shows the limits of their power when they come up against what is perceived as US interests, despite a large faction of the US ruling circles opposing the treaty.

    As for Stephen Wise and Abba Silver they both followed the Zionist policy of opposing the saving of Jewish refugees from the Nazis if they didn’t go to Palestine. Wise in particular waged a war against anyone who did want to save Jews, in particular Peter Bergson and the Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe which was responsible in January 1944 for the setting up of the War Refugee Board.

    The review says that the book ‘forces one to consider how much violence stems from the west’s decision to establish a religious state’. But the West has always been in favour of much violence if it is necessary to secure its interests. Syria today is a good ex ample of that and Iraq is too. That is no concern to the masters of war in Washington.

    • Mooser
      November 16, 2015, 11:08 am

      “Israel is not a religious state. It is a settler colonial state. A state in which the settlers oust the indigenous population, excluding them from the economy and the land. Their ideological justification is religion and because of that the rabbis have occupied a central part in the state in terms of the definition of personal status i.e. the racial definition of the privileged. But it is not a theocracy although it has trappings of such a state.”

      And the fact the Judaism was so easily suborned for the purpose is a testimony to its weakness and impotence, not its strength.

      • James Canning
        November 16, 2015, 12:59 pm

        In 2015, what is the “race” of the majority of Jews in Israel? And what is the “race” of majority of “Palestinians”?

      • Mooser
        November 16, 2015, 1:32 pm

        “In 2015, what is the “race” of the majority of Jews in Israel? And what is the “race” of majority of “Palestinians”?”

        Gee, hard to answer unless you tell us what the choices for “race” are. Can you do that?

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 1:16 pm

        Mooser – – Has the thought occurred to you that if Jews are Semites, and Palestinians are Semites. it is not “racist” for a Jew to discriminate against a Palestinian?

      • MHughes976
        November 17, 2015, 4:07 pm

        If I started a campaign of vilification and abuse of Germans it would be quite reasonable to call me a racist, since I would be attacking people on grounds of their specific ancestry, even it is true that British and German people generally are all Indo=Europeans of the House of Japhet.

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 4:49 pm

        Were Protestants in Ireland “racist” when they discriminated against Roman Catholics years ago?

      • lysias
        November 17, 2015, 6:34 pm

        Were Protestants in Ireland “racist” when they discriminated against Roman Catholics years ago?

        Yes, they were. At least, most of them were. Most of the Protestants in Ireland were of English or Scottish descent. And they despised the “wild Irish”, on cultural and ethnic grounds.

        The relatively few Protestants of Irish descent tended to share this distaste, as it served to establish their position in the ruling class, the Protestant Ascendancy.

        The Irish language was discouraged, and education in it was prohibited.

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

        The “Old English” in Ireland, who in the main remained Roman Catholic in the 16th and 17th centuries, suffered persecution of the same sort as did RCs of “native Irish” descent.

        The notion of different “races”, by the 19th century, was largely Romantic imagination.

        Not to mention the persecution suffered by Presbyterians, who of course were Protestants, at the hands of other Protestants, in the 17th and early 18th centuries.

      • lysias
        November 17, 2015, 7:00 pm

        Yes, the “Old English” did indeed suffer discrimination, but that is because the later British settlers combined them in their minds with the Gaels. They were, after all, as you point out, Catholic, and by that point they were mostly speaking Irish.

        If you think there was no racism in Ireland before the 19th century, I suggest you read Edmund Spenser’s A vewe of the present state of Irelande. Spenser even expresses horror over the extent to which the Old English were then (in the late 16th century) mixing with the Gaels.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 12:42 pm

        Lysias – – You might find it of interest to study the family histories of English, Irish and Scottish families, in Ireland, in the 16th and 17th centuries. If one brother was Protestant, and the other brother Catholic, the Protestant tended to take the family property. This was not “racial” discrimination.

        The history of the Norman (and English, and Welsh) families in Ireland in earlier centuries is also fascinating. Indeed there was a tendency to “go native”.

      • lysias
        November 18, 2015, 9:51 am

        Spenser’s text is available on line. http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E500000-001/

  27. Mooser
    November 17, 2015, 2:07 pm

    “Mooser – – Has the thought occurred to you that if Jews are Semites, and Palestinians are Semites. it is not “racist” for a Jew to discriminate against a Palestinian?”

    Frankly, Mr. Canning, the idea that the Jews and the Palestinians are both descended from Shem, one of Noah’s sons, is not exactly an idea which would occur to me. I suppose it’s possible, but, wow, he must have got around, when you consider the date of The Flood.

    • James Canning
      November 17, 2015, 2:24 pm

      We agree they are the same race? Or you argue otherwise?

      • YoniFalic
        November 17, 2015, 2:42 pm

        Arabs are descendants of the original ME peoples that were Arabized after the Islamic conquests.

        Jews are people that practice Medieval or later Judaic religion. No modern Jewish community is descended from Greco-Roman Judeans but some are descended from Arabic speaking N. Africans, S. Arabians, and Mesopotamians and are thus properly considered Arabs.

        Native Palestinians are descendants of Greco-Roman Judeans that were Arabized.

        Colloquial Palestinian Arabic is interesting because it is almost certainly relexified Palestinian Hebrew-Aramaic and because it has been helpful in elucidating difficult Palestinian Judaic texts of the Greco-Roman period.

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 4:52 pm

        Interesting comment. Perhaps most “Jews” in Israel today are of “Arab” descent.

      • Mooser
        November 17, 2015, 4:14 pm

        “We agree they are the same race?”

        What are the choices? Which “races” will you accept as choices?

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 4:57 pm

        I think it fair to say most Palestinians are of “Arab” descent, and that most Israelis are too. Semites?

      • gamal
        November 17, 2015, 4:46 pm

        sadly it is neither possible to be of the same “race” nor from a different “race”, it is a signifier with out referent

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 4:54 pm

        You reject the entire notion of “race”? Fair enough. Your preference for alternative term is?

      • YoniFalic
        November 17, 2015, 5:02 pm

        @James Canning

        Interesting comment. Perhaps most “Jews” in Israel today are of “Arab” descent.

        So what? After stealing the country and after destroying or driving out the natives, the racist genocidal E. European invaders brought Jewish N. Africans, S. Arabians, and Mesopotamians to Palestine to serve as ersatz native collaborators.

        N. Africans, S. Arabians, and Mesopotamians have no more legitimate claim to Palestine than E. Europeans — in other words: absolutely no legitimate claim.

        If the natives so wish, all the invaders must be removed or the international anti-genocide and anti-colonialism regimes have no meaning and the concept of democratic self-determination is eviscerated of all meaning.

        Palestine must be restored to the natives — no ifs, ans, or buts.

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 5:38 pm

        Yoni – – My point was that those who claim it is “anti-Semitic” to be hostile toward Israel are arguing falsely. A large element of scam, in fact.

        If you want to say that interlopers have stolen most of Palestine, from the Palestinians, I am inclined to agree with you.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 17, 2015, 5:09 pm

        james, not to be too redundant because i just wrote about this the other day but the definition of race is more fixed than meaning of racist. racial discrimination extends beyond differences in race (more inclusive) and is a legal term. read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Legal

        also, it’s irrelevant if a person is prejudice against someone of their own race if they are prejudice because of their race. it’s still racism. iow, if a black person is more fearful of another black person only because of the race factor then it’s still racism.

      • James Canning
        November 17, 2015, 5:43 pm

        Annie, you make a good point, if perhaps unintentionally: the concept of “racism” is dearly devoid of meaning in the context of Israel/Palestine. We can say that darker people tend to have more problems than people of lighter skin?

      • gamal
        November 17, 2015, 5:45 pm

        “alternative term is?”, term for what it doesn’t exist! you cant conjure it up with one-liners.

        I mean you do know the current controversy about the origin of racialized thinking (racism) being traced by many to the Protestant Ascendancy and their notions about the Gael, you will find the Irish write quite a bit about anti-irish racism coming from their, according to you racial confreres

        Pieter-Dirk Uys once did a hilarious skit that involved nothing more than reading out the latest adjudications of the South African Racial Classification something or other, it was side splittingly funny,

        “Two Malays have been reclassified Chinese,

        Four Coloreds have been reclassified Black

        One Black has been reclassified White

        2 whites have been reclassified Malay

        1 white has been reclassified Black”

        Dirk uys it turns out is part Khoi, you a funny guy Canning, too much time sipping Julips on the Verandah, no doubt, thats what you good ol boys do isnt it, dont get me wrong i dont think i am stereotyping you… any way I’ll be whatever race you want me to be.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 1:11 pm

        Gamal – – Only someone lacking an understanding of Irish history would argue that Catholics and Protestants in that country are different “races”. (In what is understood by educated people in 2015 as constituting “race”.)

      • Mooser
        November 17, 2015, 5:54 pm

        “You reject the entire notion of “race”? Fair enough. Your preference for alternative term is?”

        Excuse me, an alternative term for what??? You tell me what defines a “race”, and we can start inquiring who is of what race

        So if you please: What are the attributes which divide the
        races”? What distinguishes one race from another? Especially the “races” involved in the P-I conflict, of course.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 1:18 pm

        Mooser — I have said many times I think the people in Israel/Palestine are largely of the same “race”. Semitic.

      • echinococcus
        November 17, 2015, 8:57 pm

        Meaning the human race or the rat race, sure.
        It stops there.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 1:03 pm

        Echin – – To be clear, you argue that most Israelis are of a different race, to that of most Palestinians?

      • YoniFalic
        November 18, 2015, 1:18 pm

        @James Canning

        Race has a meaning different in Europe from that in North America.

        The UK one nation four races.

        Serbs, Croats, and Bosnyaks generally seem to believe they belong to different races speaking different languages.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 5:55 pm

        Yes, the notion of race” in the Balkans can be a curious thing indeed. And a person changing religion would be changing his or her “race”.

      • gamal
        November 18, 2015, 1:28 pm

        ” would argue that Catholics and Protestants in that country are different “races” ”

        you are correct, I would not argue that, however, as I live in Ireland and have on and off since 1980, the deep south, and am partially tangentially Irish, may i point you to say see below, of course in humble recognition of your ‘understanding of Irish History”, its really cheap to keep referring to some expertise that you never deign to display and it is not me saying anything but the Scholars in the field, the field of which you are totally ignorant and thus confidently spew nonsense, but its only Irish people speaking, you may need to have a word with them as you do with Arabs.

        http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-culture-of-hatred/

      • Mooser
        November 18, 2015, 1:53 pm

        ,“I have said many times I think the people in Israel/Palestine are largely of the same “race”. Semitic.”

        A “semitic” race? Okay. I still don’t see how Shem, one of Noah’s son’s managed to do all that since the Flood. Less than ten thousand years. Ole Shem, who gave his name to the “race” of Semites (means “Sons of Shem”) and so much else. He got around, he did. Ol’ Shem was no sham! Instead of settin’, he was begettin’, not biding his time. Peoples and languages.

      • Mooser
        November 18, 2015, 2:40 pm

        “(In what is understood by educated people in 2015 as constituting “race”.)”

        Gee, and I thought “Semitic” if it is anything (since any theories based on Biblical congruence are a little suspect, wouldn’t you say?) was a spurious term which has survived, by common definition, as a name for a group of related languages. But not a “race”.

        So what, these modern days, is understood by “educated people in 2015 as constituting race”?
        Please, use the PMS (Pantone Matching System”) if necessary so accuracy can be maintained.

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 5:59 pm

        Mooser – – You may be aware that those who attack Israel’s policies in the US, in public, tend to be accused of being “anti-Semitic”. So, this in your view is grossly deceptive?

      • MHughes976
        November 18, 2015, 3:12 pm

        What definitions of race and racism are we using?

      • James Canning
        November 18, 2015, 6:01 pm

        Good question. Are Egyptians “Arabs”? Culturally, yes.

  28. Mooser
    November 18, 2015, 11:37 pm

    “You may be aware that those who attack Israel’s policies in the US, in public, tend to be accused of being “anti-Semitic”. So, this in your view is grossly deceptive?”

    Yes, grossly deceptive on several levels “Semitic” being one of them. Why? Do you in fact think that people who attack Israel’s policies are anti-Semitic?

    BTW, you are sticking with “Semite” as a race? Quote “I think the people in Israel/Palestine are largely of the same “race”. Semitic. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/judiss-landmark-zionism/comment-page-1#comment-811112
    Are you are still contending “Semites” is a race?

    • James Canning
      November 19, 2015, 12:49 pm

      Mooser – – The term “anti-Semitic” is a clever invention intended to help suppress open debate on Israel, in the US. I favour open debate.

      If you think most Israelis are of a race different from that of most Palestinians, let us know what those “races” are.

  29. Mooser
    November 19, 2015, 6:12 pm

    “mooser, i would just”

    …and moderation, as you said, is backed up. Will do.

Leave a Reply