Understanding the Jewish National Home

Middle East

This is the first in a series of articles which will examine some of the important historical documents concerning Palestine and Israel. Some of these have been ignored, some misunderstood, some suppressed, and some have had their meaning distorted by propagandists. A just and lasting peace between the two peoples requires reconciliation, and a correct common understanding of their shared history could be an important contribution to this.

The Zionist goal of a “Jewish national home in Palestine” arose in the 19th century. This article traces the development of this initially vague concept into the idea of Palestine as the “common home of two nations, Jewish and Arab” as expressed in the League of Nations Mandate in 1922.

Declaration of the First Zionist Congress (1897)

The first Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897, under the chairmanship of Theodore Herzl, the father-figure of Zionism. The Congress made the following declaration:

Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. For the attainment of this purpose, the Congress considers the following means serviceable:

1. The promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine.
2. The federation of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the various countries.
3. The strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose.

The articles of this “Basel Program” were merely preliminary steps. Herzl made clear in his diary that what he meant by an “assured home for the Jewish people” was a Jewish State:

Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word – which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly – it would be this: At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today I would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.

The Balfour Declaration (1917)

In 1917, towards the end of the First World War, it became clear that Britain, one of the Allied Powers, would end up in control of Palestine. The Zionist leaders asked the British Government to make a declaration of support for their aims, proposing the following draft declaration:

His Majesty’s Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people. His Majesty’s Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of this object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.

Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet, was strongly opposed to Zionism. He suggested that the “reconstitution of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people” implied that Muslims and Christians were to make way for the Jews, who would be put in all positions of preference; and that the Muslims would be regarded as foreigners in Palestine, and that Jews would be treated as foreigners in every country except Palestine (which is why he described Zionism as anti-Semitic).

His views clearly influenced the final version proposed by Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, which gives weaker support than hoped for by the Zionists:

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The “reconstitution of Palestine as the Jewish national home” has become “the establishment in Palestine of the Jewish national home”. Here the word ‘in’ could be interpreted geographically: only part of Palestine is to become the Jewish national home; or it could be interpreted abstractly: there could be other entities which are ‘in’ Palestine, for example the national home of the existing Palestinians. A further change between initial and final versions is the weakening from the British intention to ‘secure’ the objective of a Jewish national home to an intention to ‘facilitate’ it, perhaps indicating a degree of uncertainty about the ultimate success of the project.

The final part of the Balfour Declaration safeguards the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, and the rights of Jews outside Palestine. It does not begin to explain how creating a Jewish national home in Palestine could possibly be achieved without prejudicing the rights of the existing inhabitants.

The King-Crane Commission (1919)

In 1919 President Woodrow Wilson of the USA sent the King-Crane Commission to areas of the former Ottoman Empire to seek opinions about their future government. Its report concerning Palestine and Zionism said, in section 5(3):

If the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to 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 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.” 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, by various forms of purchase.

The non-Jewish population of Palestine, nearly nine-tenths of the whole, are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the peoples’ rights. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms… Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.

League of Nations Covenant, Article 22 (1920)

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations established the principle of self-determination for former colonies, and set up the system of Mandates to help them achieve independence:

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

The word “Certain” at the beginning of the last paragraph indicates that not all such communities were to be provisionally recognized as independent states. We will see later that Palestine was the exception.

Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation (1921-22)

In 1918, while Palestine was under British Military Occupation, a Zionist Commission under Chaim Weizmann, a leading British Zionist, went to Palestine to assist in the the repatriation and settlement of exiled Palestinian Jews. This later became the Palestine Zionist Executive. To counter its influence, political clubs called Muslim-Christian Associations were established in major towns, and these formed a national body, the Palestine Arab Congress. This body sent a delegation to London in 1921 which met with the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill. Later, he sent to them a draft of the Palestine Order in Council, which specified the scheme of government to be adopted by the British administration. This led to a correspondence between the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Colonial Office, in which the delegation expressed their objections to the Jewish National Home policy, the resulting Jewish immigration, and the denial of their independence. In a letter dated February 21, 1922 they said:

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable….[Otherwise] they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

The proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because, in the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council “the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People” is made a basis for this Order. The People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should… provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The Colonial Office replied on March 1, 1922:

His Majesty’s Government have no intention of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. Mr. Churchill has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the “Balfour Declaration”.

The Colonial Office did however try to assuage their fears about “a flood of alien Jewish immigration” by quoting a recent speech in Palestine by the High Commissioner (head of the administration):

These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants.

This was the first and last time that the British Government said that Jewish immigration should be limited by “the interests of the present population”. The Colonial Office also said that “Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.” The Delegation was not convinced that Jewish immigration was benefiting all the country’s inhabitants. In a letter of March 16, 1922 they said:

It is an incontrovertible fact that public security in Palestine has been greatly disturbed by those Jews who have been admitted into the country from Poland and Russia, that arms are continually being smuggled in by them, and that their economic competition with the Arabs is very keen.

In a later letter, on June 17, 1922 they gave further examples:

“Immigrant Jews in the towns are competing with the townspeople for their daily bread, permanently endangering public security and rioting occasionally; Arab railway employees are being turned out of their jobs in order to make room for Jewish employees, who lack experience in railway work and cannot speak the language of the country”.

The letter of March 16, 1922 also suggested that the Jewish National Home policy was inconsistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations, and that the British obligation towards the Jewish people should be renounced:

The object aimed at by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is “the well-being and development of the people” of the land. Alien Jews not in Palestine do not come within the scope of this aim, neither is their association with Palestine more close than that of Christians and Moslems all over the world. Consequently the Jewish National Home policy is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant. We would [also] point out that a large section of the Jews in Palestine and the majority of the Jews of the world are not in favour of the Zionist Movement.

Article 20 of the Covenant states that: “In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.”

Early in June 1922 the British Government produced a Memorandum on British Policy in Palestine, essentially a draft of the Churchill White Paper (see below). This introduced a new point of controversy into the correspondence with the Palestinian Arab Delegation: the role of the Zionist Commission. The Delegation’s letter of 17 June, 1922 said:

The Memorandum says:— “The Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions.”

Any one who is not intimately connected with the actual facts of Palestine cannot but admit that the above exposition of Zionist functions in Palestine is very plausible and appropriate. Those of us, however, who have had four long years’ experience of the activities of this Commission are, unfortunately, unable to subscribe to the above exposition. In Palestine, as everywhere else, deeds speak better than words.

In the first place we would point out that since its establishment in Palestine the Zionist Commission has very much interfered with the Administration of Palestine under one pretext or another, all of which were based on solicitude for Jewish interests. One military Administrator after another, and one British official after another, had to go because they could not and would not govern the country on lines laid down by the Zionist Commission.

We may be allowed here to quote from a statement made to The Times as recently as 3rd June by Mr. Charles R. Crane [of the King-Crane Commission] who has just returned from a visit to Palestine. Mr. Crane says:—”The Zionist Commission which has so much control over the political machinery of Palestine seems to have more power than the authorised Government. Practically all of the official world is under its control, and is more ardent to carry out its instructions than to carry out the policy of the Mandate Government.”

The correspondence ends as follows:

We see division and tension between Arabs and Zionists increasing day by day and resulting in general retrogression. Because the immigrants dumped upon the country from different parts of the world are ignorant of the language, customs, and character of the Arabs, and enter Palestine by the might of England against the will of the people who are convinced that these have come to strangle them. Nature does not allow the creation of a spirit of co-operation between two peoples so different, and it is not to be expected that the Arabs would bow to such a great injustice, or that the Zionists would so easily succeed in realising their dreams.

The fact is that His Majesty’s Government has placed itself in the position of a partisan in Palestine of a certain policy which the Arab cannot accept because it means his extinction sooner or later. Promises avail nothing when they are not supported by actions, and until we see a real practical change in the policy of His Majesty’s Government we must harbour the fears that the intention is to create a Jewish National Home to the “disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population language, and culture in Palestine”

The Carlsbad Resolution (1921)

The Twelfth Zionist Congress was held in Carlsbad, Czechoslovakia in December 1921. It welcomed the decision of the Allied Powers to accept the Balfour Declaration and award the Mandate over Palestine to Britain. It also discussed the question of relations with the Arabs, which had become serious as a result of Arab riots in Jerusalem (1920) and in Jaffa (1921).

The Congress passed a resolution declaring that Zionism “seeks to live in relations of harmony and mutual respect with the Arab people.” To understand what they meant by this we need to look at the full text of the Resolution and the accompanying notes:

We do thereby reaffirm our desire to attain a durable understanding which shall enable the Arab and Jewish peoples to live together in Palestine on terms of mutual respect and co-operate in making the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which will assure to each of these peoples an undisturbed national development.

In the spirit of this resolution the following notes have been drafted:

Taking note of the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, and of its subsequent reaffirmation by His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Principle Allied Powers: Deploring the misconceptions which still exists as to the manner in which the Balfour Declaration is to be construed:

1. The promise of a national home in Palestine made to the Jewish people by His Britannic Majesty’s Government (and concurred in by the Principle Allied Powers) is to be interpreted as a promise to secure the international recognition, under the guarantee of the League of Nations, of the right of the Jews to constitute themselves in Palestine as a national unit.

2. (a) The Jews on the one hand and the Arabs on the other are to be regarded as living side by side on a footing of perfect equality in all matters, including the official use and recognition of their respective languages.
(b) In areas in which there is a mixed population, the rights of the minority are to be fully guaranteed, including the right of representation on the local administrative bodies.
(c) The existence in Palestine of the Jewish National Home is not to be a bar to the recognition of Palestine, when the time is ripe, as a self-governing commonwealth.

3. The Zionist leaders and the Jews of Palestine will support the demand for the development of self-governing institutions on a representative basis, it being clearly understood that the terms of this agreement will remain binding and inviolable, as will also the provisions of the Mandate, so long as the Mandate is in force.

4. The Zionist leaders and the Jews of Palestine will support the demand that non-Palestinian officials, with the exception of the High Commissioner, the Civil, Financial and Legal Secretaries, and the heads of the Principal Departments, shall be gradually replaced by Palestinians, due regard being had, in the case of District officials, to the Arab or Jewish character, as the case may be, of the population concerned.

5. Jewish immigration is to be limited by the capacity of Palestine, from time to time, to absorb it, but not otherwise. It is declared that there is not nor has there ever been any intention to disturb the existing Arab population or any part of it. The right of the Arab inhabitants and their descendants to the secure enjoyment of their homes and prosperity is unequivocally recognised and guaranteed.

6. (a) It is agreed that the Law of Nationality should recognize as citizens of Palestine all persons who being presently resident in the country at a date to be subsequently fixed, do not decline such citizenship, provided that no person owing allegiance to another state shall become a citizen until he has renounced such allegiance.
(b) It is further agreed that facilities should be provided for the acquisition of citizenship by persons who take up their permanent residence in Palestine, the qualifying period to be settled by common agreement with the Mandatory Power.

7. The Zionist leaders and the Jews of Palestine will give all the moral and material support in their power to the various Arab States which have been constituted or are in the process of constitution and will, in general, co-operate whole-heartedly with the Arab people in its efforts to realise its national aspirations. The Arabs, on their side, will loyally work with the Jews in all matters appertaining to the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

It is the intent of both parties to lay the foundations of a generally Arab-Jewish understanding to the advantage of the Jewish people and to the Arab world as a whole and in the interest of the fruitful development of the Near and Middle East.

8. The Zionist Leaders categorically re-affirm their repeated assurances that they do not contemplate and have never contemplated the smallest interference with the religious rights and customs of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, for which they undertake to show the most rigorous and scrupulous regard. In particular, do they recognise the Moslem and Christian Holy Places as inviolable and formally repudiate the injurious and wholly unfounded suggestion that it is desired, directly or indirectly to trespass upon them. The Arabs, on their part, undertake to show an equal regard for the Holy Places and the religious rights and customs of the Jews.

9. All the various Jewish Organisations, which have in view the economic reconstruction of Palestine on an extensive scale, will welcome the co-operation of the Arab inhabitants and undertake to afford them a full opportunity of participating in such economic endeavours as they may initiate.

I expect that most readers will be reading these words for the first time, and with some surprise. The link to the Resolution above is to my own website, and at the time of writing it is the only copy on the internet. This is one of those historical documents considered embarrassing by today’s Zionists, and which they have done their best to suppress. Of the Carlsbad congress, the Jewish Virtual Library says only that “Zionism seeks to live in relations of harmony and mutual respect with the Arab people”.

But there you have it: Palestine as a single state with perfect equality between Jew and Arab; the common home for two peoples, Arab and Jewish; co-operation for them both to reach their national goals; a guaranteed right for the Arab population to the secure enjoyment of their homes and prosperity; limits on Jewish immigration.

Usually the idea of ‘nation’ involves a defined location, but Paragraph 2 makes it clear that no partition of the territory is envisaged. There will be Arab areas, Jewish areas and mixed areas, as occurs naturally in a region with mixed ethnic, linguistic and religious groups.

Paragraph 8 about the inviolability of the Holy Places is surely a response to the report of the King-Crane Commission, which said:

With the best possible intentions, it may be doubted whether the Jews could possibly seem to either Christians or Moslems proper guardians of the holy places, or custodians of the Holy Land as a whole. The reason is this: the places which are most sacred to Christians, those having to do with Jesus, and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.

It is simply impossible, under those circumstances, for Moslems and Christians to feel satisfied to have these places in Jewish hands, or under the custody of Jews. There are still other places about which Moslems must have the same feeling. In fact, from this point of view, the Moslems, just because the sacred places of all three religions are sacred to them, have made very naturally much more satisfactory custodians of the holy places than the Jews could be.

There are two points on which the Carlsbad Resolution differs from the King-Crane report. First, it claims a “right” of Jews to a national home in Palestine: King-Crane says this should not be taken seriously. Second, the Resolution says that Jewish immigration should be limited only by Palestine’s capacity to absorb it: King-Crane says that it should be “definitely limited”.

The Churchill White Paper (1922)

In this White Paper, Winston Churchill, Colonial Secretary, explained the British Government’s view of the Jewish national home policy, which had already been incorporated in a Draft Mandate. The policy was essentially in accord with the Carlsbad Resolution, which it quoted.

The White paper emphasized that it was not the intention to create a wholly Jewish Palestine: “the Balfour Declaration does not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.” Nor did it contemplate “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine… The status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status”.

It described the development of the Jewish National Home in the following terms:

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognised to rest upon ancient historic connection.

For the fulfillment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals.

The White Paper followed the Carlsbad Resolution, and not the King-Crane report, in two matters: recognition of the historic connection between the Jewish people and Palestine as a basis of the policy; and the restriction of Jewish immigration according to economic capacity, not otherwise.

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922/23)

The Mandate for Palestine describes how Britain was to administer the territory of Palestine.

The Preamble repeats the Balfour Declaration, saying also that “recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The Preamble is all about the Jewish national home, and does nothing to clarify the respective positions of Jews and non-Jews under the Mandate, other than in the quoted phrase from the Balfour Declaration about protecting the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

To better understand the Mandate, we need to consider the actual Articles in detail.

ARTICLE 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

Britain is in charge: there is no hint here of “provisional independence”. Britain needed total control in order to establish the Jewish national home without obstruction from any indigenous government. Contrast this with the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon: “The Mandatory is charged with the duty of rendering administrative advice and assistance to the population, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 (paragraph 4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations.”

ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

This article, with its rather complex grammatical structure, has been a source of confusion: the closeness of “Jewish national home” with “self-governing institutions” can suggest that it is the Jews who are to do the governing. This is incorrect, as can be seen by laying out the sentence in the following way.

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

There are two responsibilities, (A) and (B); under (A) there are two separate things to be secured: (1) the Jewish national home, (2) self governing institutions. It is the country, Palestine, which is to achieve self government. Britain had already planned, as a tentative first step towards self-government, a legislative assembly with some elected members: all male Palestinians over 25 years of age were eligible to vote.

Of the remaining 26 articles, only the following two specifically concern Jews:

ARTICLE 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The key phrase here is “subject always to the control of the Administration”. This was an attempt to avoid the Jewish Agency seeing itself as an independent political body. We have seen above, in discussing the correspondence with the Palestinian Arab Delegation, that the Zionist Commission was already out of control. It was the Jewish Agency which eventually formed the Israeli government in 1948.

ARTICLE 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Here there are two significant changes from the wording of the Churchill White Paper. First: as well as the rights of the non-Jewish population being protected, so is their “position”. I suggest that this can only mean their position as a numerical majority. Many Zionists did not conceal their hope that immigration would eventually lead to a Jewish majority and hence a Jewish State. Second: Jewish immigration should be facilitated only “under suitable conditions”. This vague wording gave the British administration greater flexibility in the control of immigration.

This flexibility was put to use later in the 1939 MacDonald White Paper (Section II). The British Government decided that Arab opposition made conditions no longer suitable for unlimited Jewish immigration. A final limit to the Jewish population was set as one-third of the total.

Other articles of the Mandate make it clear that Jews and Arabs would be treated on an exactly equal basis, both as individuals and as communities, for example:

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

ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired

ARTICLE 22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

ARTICLE 23. The Administration of Palestine shall recognize the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.

Author’s comments

Although not using the same words, the Mandate for Palestine is compatible with the concept of the Carlsbad Declaration: a common home for two nations, Jewish and Arab, living in harmony and mutual respect. The essential reason it failed was because Palestine was too small to become the Jewish national home.

In 1922 the total number of Jews in the world was about three times that of the indigenous population of Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine did not object to the presence of Jews; they had accepted Jewish immigrants down the centuries; but they refused to accept the Jewish national home policy of the British Government which was expected to lead to the arrival of alien European immigrants in overwhelming numbers.

There was a possibility in 1939, when the MacDonald White Paper put a final limit on Jewish immigration, that the Arabs could have accepted such a Jewish presence in Palestine. But this did not satisfy the Zionist ambitions. They adopted a campaign of terrorism, illegal immigration and arms smuggling that led to the end of the Mandate, and to the Partition Plan and civil war.

In 1993 there was another possibility of progress towards “harmony and mutual respect” in the Oslo agreement, when Yasser Arafat for the PLO accepted “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security”. But Prime Minister Rabin for Israel did not accept the right of the State of Palestine to exist in peace and security, or even the right of Palestine to live in peace and security, or even the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security. More than twenty years have been wasted on an invalid and fruitless “peace process”.

In 2015 will there be another chance of progress? I believe that there will, and that Zionist Israel will be prevented from thwarting it, by pressure from the international community. But what do readers think? I will respond to all comments.

About David Gerald Fincham

Dr. David Gerald Fincham is a retired academic scientist from the United Kingdom. He now writes about the relationships between religion, science, and peace. His website is religion-science-peace.org.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

401 Responses

  1. Boomer
    April 17, 2015, 2:30 pm

    Dr. Fincham,

    Thank you for this excellent historical review. For the most part, I tend to focus on the present and future, but history is certainly relevant. As for your question, I think that 2015 could be a year of progress if Mr. Obama were willing to make it so. I hope that it will be a year of progress, but after so many years of disappointment I don’t predict it. Truly, with regard to Israel/Palestine, the U.S. never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

  2. atime forpeace
    April 17, 2015, 2:45 pm

    Thanks for all of the historical excerpts, very fascinating. As for 2015 and international pressure being a catalyst for change in Israel i doubt it very much. The Zionist project is very well funded and deeply enmeshed into so many political organizations and gov’t’s that i only expect them to mislead more and continue to shove their (Zionist) project down the throat of its opposition. The Western press will do its part in propagating the Zionist interest and point of view.

    I hope i am wrong and you will be correct in this hopeful expectation.

    • Mooser
      April 17, 2015, 5:56 pm

      “The Zionist project is very well funded and deeply enmeshed into so many political organizations and gov’t’s”

      All that funding and enmeshing can help make a colonial project like Zionism successful. If it is joined by the knowledge of when to stop, and how far is too far. And without that knowledge all the other won’t keep you going forever.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 1:58 pm

      Thank you. I think pressure is beginning to build on Israel and the Zionists, largely due to the attack on Gaza.

      • Kathleen
        April 19, 2015, 9:22 pm

        While awareness has grown the situation on the ground for the Palestinians seems to have gotten much worse.

  3. just
    April 17, 2015, 3:10 pm

    I’ve known the history, but have rarely read such an impressive and clear piece. Thank you, David.

    It’s no small wonder that Southampton University and the High Court refused to allow the conference that was to have begun today:

    “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism”

    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/israelpalestinelaw/index.page

    I wonder what 2015 will bring for justice, peace, respect, and freedom for the Palestinians in and out of Palestine. This tragedy must end. A return to the “table” will be, I fear, a return to the abhorrent status quo. I believe that only sanctions, the withholding of monies and weapons, and an end to the UN veto wrt Israel is the only way forward. An end to the complicity and enabling by the West of Israel’s long criminal history is the starting point.

    • Mooser
      April 17, 2015, 5:52 pm

      “I’ve known the history, but have rarely read such an impressive and clear piece.”

      Yup, the article is quite a piece of clarity. And large piece of work, too.

      Thanks.

    • Boomer
      April 17, 2015, 8:35 pm

      I don’t know anything about the conference or the objections to it, apart from what can be inferred from what is posted at the site you link, but I find it difficult to believe (as the judge claimed to believe) that lobbying to suppress free speech played no part. If security was, in fact, a serious concern, it would seem to imply that the Zionists there are known to be prone to violence.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:03 pm

      Thank you for your comment. I agree very much with your last paragraph. There was never any hope that the Oslo process would be successful. What is required is a Chapter VII resolution demanding the end of the occupation.

  4. Sycamores
    April 17, 2015, 4:30 pm

    hi David Gerald Fincham,

    saving this to favorites

    i’m surprise the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) wasn’t mention.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:12 pm

      Thanks for your comment. The Sykes-Picot agreement is not very relevant to the Jewish National Home project (except in that it does not mention it).

  5. Mooser
    April 17, 2015, 4:58 pm

    This is great stuff! Thanks, Dr. Fincham.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:12 pm

      Thank you, Mooser.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2015, 3:36 pm

        My pleasure! You know what I say, Dr. Fincham, and if you don’t, I’ll say it right now:
        Never confuse what Israel might end up getting away with, with what is just legal or even moral.

        Let me put it this way: Israel may someday find a solution, but I’ll be damned if they get automatic absolution along with it. That, nobody owes them.

  6. eGuard
    April 17, 2015, 5:43 pm

    So I started reading. In the first paragraph it says, of “two peoples”: their shared history Then it went Herzl, Balfour, ‘Palestine Arab Delegation’, etcetera, blablabla. Like reading a 1985 book all over again.

    Has this not been analysed and debunked before? Let me repeat for those new and those still under ziocane: 1. Zionism started as a political movement by Ashkenazis (that is: Eastern-European jews). Sephardic jews, black jews, and Arab jews were not involved. (side note: “Arab jews” is a common name, go google). 2. Not all Ashkenazis supported zionism. The Bund opposed it, and wanted to stay in Europe. The Bund was a major party in the Warshaw Ghetto uprising. 3. Balfour and his position was anti-Semitic: “let those jews go to Palestine, so we are rid of them”. 4. Zionism and the creation of Israel should primarily be seen as a colonial enterprise: Europeans coming to occupy and steal land & resources.

    Mr. David Gerald Fincham: I am sick and tired of those like you re-pushing again that old “two people should solve it” attitude. To start thinking: throw out those Eastern European occupiers. Only then you may start asking and making “claims”. Oh, and don’t forget to give back the stolen property first. Until then: shut up.

    • echinococcus
      April 18, 2015, 1:06 am

      Obviously this person is supporting the efforts to try and salvage Zionism and the main objective of those who do so is generally not to allow, or negotiate away any restitution, return or discussion of the illegal Zionist immigration. To judge by the personal opinion of the author at the bottom mentioning the series of “missed opportunities” the continuous pushing of goalposts may be discounted as “already accepted” or “facts on the ground”, even though there is no clear position. The historical framework is still valuable, though, as a reminder of the constant duplicity and unreliability of the Zionists; given the relatively restricted space it’s hard to know if important things were skipped for the sake of brevity or for other reasons. It does a relatively good job of (indirectly) exposing their aims, too.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:16 pm

      @eGuard, thank you for commenting. I agree with your middle paragraph. I do not understand your first and last paragraph.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2015, 3:39 pm

        Again, there is a huge difference between a solution and an absolution.
        And the one does not necessitate the other. Naturally, the Israelis want both at the price of none.
        And, I might add (try and stop me!) it’s pretty obvious which one Zionists really care about.

      • eGuard
        April 19, 2015, 6:58 am

        Then try one more time to understand. To make it simple: Restart thinking, this time without the presumption that the invading colonizers are equal to the inhabitants. Also include some reasoning on why the invaders should have country, statehood & good taken from and at the cost of others.

      • hophmi
        April 19, 2015, 9:37 am

        So I guess you’re in favor of all of the white people leaving the United States of America and giving the country back to its Native American indigenous population. Good to know.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:06 am

        “So I guess you’re in favor of all of the white people leaving the United States of America and giving the country back to its Native American indigenous population. Good to know.”

        Hophmi, don’t you recognize an idea to your advantage? If we kick all the white people out, we’ll have the place practically to ourselves!

  7. Pauline
    April 17, 2015, 9:20 pm

    The Carlsbad Resolution of 1921 could be the blueprint for what today would be called a ‘one-state solution,’ though today’s Zionists no doubt would denounce it as the harbinger of a second Holocaust. As things stand with Netanyahu’s creeping de facto annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with the two-state solution all but dead, there is no alternative to one single democratic state from the Jordan River to the sea; anything else would be a permanent apartheid regime. Thanks to Dr. Fincham for bringing these enlightening documents to our attention~!

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:21 pm

      Thank you for commenting. I do not agree that the two-state solution is anywhere near dead. The two states already exist as legal entities. All it would take to realize it is a UN resolution demanding an end to the occupation. In my view the best long-term solution involves two nations united within a single state, along the lines of the England-Scotland model. The two-state solution would be a necessary step towards this.

      • Penfold
        April 19, 2015, 1:36 am

        While two states may exist legally it is a physical and logistical impossibility for a Palestinian state to function as a state under the territorial boundaries it would be offered.

        For a Palestinian state to become viable there would have to be a major shift in Israeli policy and I do not believe that is likely.

        I would suggest that it is wishful, perhaps even delusional (no insult intended) to believe that Israel intends to withdraw to the 1967 borders which is the minimum required for a viable Palestinian state.

        I certainly agree with the idea of two nations within a single state but I struggle to see how they would ever be nations of equals but I believe the only way forward is to abandon the two state solution and start treating Israel as a whole as an apartheid state.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 12:09 pm

        @penfold “While two states may exist legally it is a physical and logistical impossibility for a Palestinian state to function as a state under the territorial boundaries it would be offered.” It is not a question of what they might be offered: the problem is that they are asking far too little. For a viable state they need much more territory than the 1949 Green Line would give them. See my previous Mondo article http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/documents-borders-palestine

        “the only way forward is to abandon the two state solution and start treating Israel as a whole as an apartheid state”. Absolutely not, the Palestinians would never allow themselves to be absorbed by Israel, it would amount to a complete surrender to Zionism. The only viable route to a one-state solution would be a voluntary merger of the two existing states, and for that to happen Palestine must first gain its independence.

      • Shingo
        April 19, 2015, 1:39 am

        I do not agree that the two-state solution is anywhere near dead.

        Then you are completely and utterly deluded.

        The two states already exist as legal entities.

        That’s about a meaningful as saying you still own shares in Lehman Brothers because you it says so on the legal document you hold.

        All it would take to realize it is a UN resolution demanding an end to the occupation.

        Wow, you mean like the other dozen UN Resolutions that Israel has happily been able to ignore, including UNSC242?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 11:46 am

        @shingo I mean a Chapter VII Resolution that the US does not veto.

      • Penfold
        April 20, 2015, 2:39 am

        @DGF. “the only way forward is to abandon the two state solution and start treating Israel as a whole as an apartheid state”. Absolutely not, the Palestinians would never allow themselves to be absorbed by Israel, it would amount to a complete surrender to Zionism. The only viable route to a one-state solution would be a voluntary merger of the two existing states, and for that to happen Palestine must first gain its independence. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national#comment-761969

        Palestine will never gain its independence until Israel is pushed into a position of its own destruction and the only thing that will bring that about short of a war (which I am not advocating) is the realisation that for it to achieve its goals of annexing the West Bank it will also receive a giant Palestinian population and lose its “Jewishness”.

        Lets be honest here it is clearly Israels aim to make life in the West Bank and Gaza so inhospitable for Palestinians that they will leave, this is not an occupation it is a parasitic colonisation and the only way it will end is by Palestinians throwing caution to the wind and pushing to become one state thus forcing Israel to choose between its own eventual destruction by becoming a multicultural society or cutting its losses and getting out of Palestinian territories, the world can give it a helping hand by declaring Israel an apartheid state and boycotting it.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 10:48 am

        Pressure from the Palestinians will never force Israel to do anything. Pressure from the USA and the UN could.

      • An American Critic
        April 20, 2015, 11:27 am

        Dr Fincham

        Thank you for an excellent article and your methodical review and presentation of these sources . Although I agree with much of what you say, I cannot morally or ethically support a “2-state” solution, although I would grudgingly accept one if approved by an open plebiscite of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

        My lack of support goes beyond the bald , current reality that such a solution is probably impossible because of the “facts on the ground” (namely, the vast settlement infrastructure that is both unlikely to be abandoned and constitutes a material impediment to any viable Palestinian state).

        What, to me ,makes such a solution hugely problematic is that such a solution would be ethically bankrupt as it would necessarily be based on the very discriminatory ethos that has given rise to the problem in the first place (like solving Jim Crow prior to the civil rights laws by moving all African-Americans to one or two states of the US and having whites live in the other 48 – inconceivable now but discussed by both white separatists and some extreme African-American groups (like the black muslims) prior to the fall of Jim Crow).

        So I see the ONLY possible and ethical solution to be almost exactly the same fix that has proved effective and generally successful in both the US and South Africa – namely one person one vote and a constitutional legislative ban on privileging any ethnic, religious, or racial group – combined with strong, strong protections for the rights of all groups, no matter who is in the majority.

        I don’t see this as an easy fix or without problems – there’s been too much hate, too much bloodshed, and too much bad history. But there is no choice. The eternal perpetuation of a discriminatory and oppressive ethnocracy is an even worse solution. I foresee that the implementation of any such solution would necessarily require a prolonged South Africa-like “Truth and Reconciliation” process and would quite likely require international/UN peacekeepers to enforce the protection of all groups, especially from the fanatics on both sides (the religious zealots of Hamas and Hezbollah on one side and the crazies in the settler camp (like those who perpetuated the 1994 Hebron massacre of Palestinians or assassinated Rabin).

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 12:27 pm

        Thank you for commenting. I don’t agree that a two-state solution is necessarily unethical, but I do not believe it is sustainable in the long term. But I can see no possible political route to the kind of one-state solution you advocate, and I do not believe it is what the people of either community want. I advocate a union of Israel and Palestine as two semi autonomous nations within a single state, with a defined but open border between them, along the lines of the England-Scotland model. The fact is there are two distinct national identities, one Jewish, the other Arab and Islamic, and those identities are very important to those people.

      • An American Critic
        April 20, 2015, 1:12 pm

        Dr . Fincham:

        While I acknowledge (and apparently you do too) that all possible solutions (1 state or 2 state) are filled with practical and political obstacles, I cannot understand how a division based on race, religion, or ethnicity can either work or be ethically based. Yes, many want 2 states — but, in my experience and communications with Palestinians who I’ve met there in my travels, many many want and would accept an egalitarian., bi-national state that celebrates the cultures of all constituient groups. In any event, at this point, all solutions appear equally impeded by our current perception of what is politically achievable – until Israel and the US accept the inherently discriminatory basis of the current Israeli state – a state that contradicts so much of what was (at least publically) contemplated and advanced in the decades prior to its birth (as so well set forth in your article here and such other sources such as Tom Segev’s “One Palestine Complete”), there can be no solution of any type. I submit that Israel has purposefully created a single state from the sea to the Jordan , that the enmity and distrust based on the decades of oppression and consequent resistance is no worse or different in nature than the enmity resulting from either American Jim Crow or South African apartheid and, therefore, because it is no more of an obstacle to an appropriate egalitarian resolution of the conflict, such a solution should not be summarily dismissed as unachievable

      • Bumblebye
        April 20, 2015, 2:47 pm

        @ An American Critic

        Time and time again that solution has been suggested.

        Time and time again the zionist commenters describe it as the destruction of Israel.

        Sadly, the Israel they love is the racist, expansionist, thieving, ethnic cleansing entity that exists now.

      • Penfold
        April 20, 2015, 11:49 pm

        Bumblebye April 20, 2015, 2:47 pm

        @ An American Critic

        Time and time again that solution has been suggested.

        Time and time again the zionist commenters describe it as the destruction of Israel.

        Sadly, the Israel they love is the racist, expansionist, thieving, ethnic cleansing entity that exists now.
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national#sthash.kaehkNP2.dpufBumblebye April 20, 2015, 2:47 pm

        @ Bumblebye

        Time and time again that solution has been suggested.

        Time and time again the zionist commenters describe it as the destruction of Israel.

        Sadly, the Israel they love is the racist, expansionist, thieving, ethnic cleansing entity that exists now.

        This is my argument though, the one thing that may bring Israel to the table looking for an end to this farce is the knowledge that it will not have the choice to maintain the status-quo and be forced to give Palestinians equality within and all encompassing Israel thus bringing about the destruction of the “Jewish” state.

        I think the only genuine fear Israel has is in having to accept Palestinians as equal citizens and it may be enough of a fear for Israel to cut its losses and accept a Palestinian state.

  8. atime forpeace
    April 17, 2015, 10:14 pm

    As i read these separate documents and their chronology it starts to seem as if the Zionist made every expedient declaration in order to usurp power slowly as the wheels of their design turned all power in their favor. Their mask only coming off once power was consolidated in their total favor. International complicity was also gained through subterfuge and a financial tour de force.

    For the Zionist it has been a long and arduous campaign of deceit, the Harry Truman episode just another example of the depth of their project.

    One of the first to confront their project head on were the orthodox Judaic community of that era and the many Rabbis that denounced Zionism as a danger and threat to Torah Judaism, Those Rabbis fears came true. Israel became for many Jews around the world conjoined to Judaism. The golden calf that Moses confronted when he came down from Mt. Sinai in this modern era for the Jews is Israel.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:29 pm

      Thank you for commenting. We need to remember that the Zionists were very argumentative (they still are, hence the “vibrant democracy” in Israel that they keep talking about). It is difficult to know whether the Carlsbad Resolution was a matter of expediency, or expressed a genuine majority view.

      • hophmi
        April 18, 2015, 8:05 pm

        Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them.

      • Hostage
        April 19, 2015, 9:57 am

        Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them.

        I think the record speaks for itself on that particular score. The King-Crane Commission reported that:

        —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 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.” 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”

        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        About the same time as the Calsbad resolution Dr. M. D. Eder, the acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission in Palestine, testified to the British 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 very strenuous British government objections, Eder went on to serve two terms on the Zionist Organization Executive that served as the principal organ of “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.
        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.

        One of the members of the original Zionist Commission to Palestine, Sylvain Levy, warned that the whole undertaking would probably be a disaster:

        The first difficulty lay in the great disproportion which existed between the area of Palestine and the millions of people who might want to go there from Eastern Europe. In the second place, the actual condition of the country, which was at present able to maintain only a small population owing to the climatic and other causes brought about by the action of men and the misgovernment of the authorities. At the present moment, some 600,000 or 700,000 Arabs only dwelt in that country, but it would be impossible for an equal number of Jews to adapt themselves to the same conditions of life, since they had in Europe, and especially in Western Europe, acquired certain methods of life which would not be satisfied by the conditions which were sufficient for the Arabs. In the third place, the masses of people who might wish to return to Palestine, would largely be drawn from those countries where they had been persecuted and ill-treated, and the mentality which such a regime was likely to engender could be easily realised. Those people would carry with them into Palestine highly explosive passions, conducive to very serious trouble in a country which might be likened to a concentration camp of Jewish refugees. . . . Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine. Privileges so obtained as a rule did not profit either the giver or the receiver.

        Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, page 167-8 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        A Royal Inquiry Commission recommended partition and a forced exchange of populations in 1937.
        Ben Gurion responded with an editorial which explained that the only thing that would keep the Jews from taking over all of Palestine was British military force:

        The Jewish people have always regarded, and will continue to regard Palestine as a whole, as a single country which is theirs in a national sense and will become theirs once again. No Jew will accept partition as a just and rightful solution.

        The proposal of the Royal Commission to set up a Jewish State in a restricted area is to put a drastic limit to the possibilities of a Jewish return, and to condemn the rest of the country to stagnation and desolation.
        Anything may be imposed on a defenceless Jewish people by the superior forces of the British Empire, just as the Jewish people had in the past to submit to the destruction of their country by the Roman legions, and in our own times to their persecution by Nazi Germany and other countries.
        But they can never regard the proposal as something which is right and just in itself.

        — See “The Jews”, David Ben Gurion, The Palestine Post, Thursday, July 15, 1937, Page:5 link to jpress.nli.org.il
        The Zionists advised the US government as early as 1943 that they intended to impose a solution on their Arab neighbors by force and were no longer interested in a negotiated settlememt:

        “I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with Arabs, in balance obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be “imposed” on Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter the only realistic line of action to adopt. — Kirk link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Ben Gurion’s initial testimony to UNSCOP called for a Jewish state in all of Palestine established by force and administered as a UN trusteeship by the Jewish Agency. He suggested that Palestinians would have to seek their self-determination in one of the many Arab states.
        link to unispal.un.org

        Nothing changed after 1948:

        In 1956, Ben-Gurion proposed the division of Jordan: “Jordan has no right to exist and should be partitioned. Eastern Transjordan should be ceded to Iraq (then under a pro-Western monarchy), which would offer to accept and re­settle the Arab refugees. The territory to the West of the Jordan should be made an autonomous region of Israel.” As for the Gaza and Sinai, Sharett’s diaries reveal that Dayan and Ben-Gurion began planning a war of territorial conquest against Egypt in 1953, even before Nasser came to power and turned to the Soviet Union for arms.

        — Critical Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship: Books on Israel, Volume III, SUNY Press, 1994, page 185 link to books.google.com

        So, there should have never been any doubt among the members of the international community of states that the Zionists intended to seize Palestine and drive off as many Arab inhabitants as the international community would permit.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 12:31 pm

        @hostage Wow! Good to see you back. The extent of your knowledge is formidable. Could you not write your own series of articles? I am only doing four. Perhaps you could fill in the gaps?

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2015, 4:13 pm

        Could you not write your own series of articles? I am only doing four. Perhaps you could fill in the gaps?

        Certainly. If Phil and Adam would publish them, I’d write them.

        It’s nice to see you’re still here. IIRC, the last time we were exchanging views and information, the Mondoweiss admins were methodically disabling comments after only a few days and we got cut-off in mid-conversation.

        I can see that you’re swamped responding to the comments made here by others. After the dust settles down a little, I’ll post some comments and documentary references that you and the others might find useful.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:08 am

        Thanks, Hostage. For what it’s worth from me, they’re still worth their weight in Au.

      • Donald
        April 19, 2015, 12:25 pm

        “Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them.”

        This is childish point scoring and it goes far beyond the evidence by making sweeping claims based on one statement made in public. In fact we know that at least some early Zionists had racist attitudes towards Palestinians, which is exactly what one would expect from Europeans and white Americans at that time. (See hostage’s comment) Others probably believed in the ideals of the Carlsbad statement. One thing I admire about Fincham is that he seems strongly motivated to stick to facts.

      • Kathleen
        April 19, 2015, 9:51 pm

        Thanks Hostage. Although for some they persist in their denial of the stated intentions of the original Zionist which became a harsh and brutal reality embedded in apartheid legislation and actions. The facts just do not seem to matter to some.

      • pjdude
        April 20, 2015, 9:41 am

        @ hophmi
        Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national#comment-761970

        of course your going to argue pretty words actually mean they wanted to live in peace. sorry hop but wanting to go to a foriegn land with the intent to seek dominion over it is not a desire for peace. the zionist than and now only care about peace so long as it serves their wants.

      • eljay
        April 20, 2015, 9:49 am

        || hophmi: Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them. ||

        Yup, nothing says “vying for peace” like:
        – proposing to establish a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine;
        – using terrorism and ethnic cleansing to realize such a state;
        – spending the next 60+ years (and counting) engaging in theft, occupation and colonization in order to expand that state;
        – refusing to honour obligations under international law (including the repatriation of refugees);
        – refusing to accept responsibility and accountability for past and ON-GOING (war) crimes; and
        – refusing to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.

        But, sure, the rapist has always “vied for peace” with the victims that he has chained in his basement and – shame on them – they have always been unwilling to make peace with him.

      • ziusudra
        April 20, 2015, 11:40 am

        Greetings Hostage,
        ….World Jewry regards Palesetine as its own…….

        Now isn’t that generous of them?
        Their last Kingdom of Judea was an area of 5.0K Sq KM of contiguous Pelestet being of 21K Sq KM in 536BC. They lost to the Baylonians & ne’er again has such an area, not even in Maccabean times.
        ziusudra
        PS Indians agreed to give land to the Pennsylvanian Dutch for the distance that one one of their best runners could cover from sunlight to sunset. Mr Penn instructed his runner to carry a stick and throw it as far as he could at sunset! Yes, the ndians noticed their deception.
        The Palestinaians are not dealing with Judaism or an ideology Zionism, they are dealing with East Europeans that ne’er had a Botte du Chambre to poo in!

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 12:11 pm

        “The King-Crane Commission reported that:

        —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 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.” 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””

        It is true that the King-Crane Commission opposed the creation of a Jewish state in 1919. It is also true that, whatever sympathy they may have had for the “Jewish cause,” they were biased against Jews, at least in part, since their recommendations also include this: “The places which are most sacred to Christians-those having to do with Jesus-and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” They seem not to have been as concerned about the governance of Jewish holy sites by Christians and Muslims.

        Other sources Hostage cites are notable for how wrong they were about Europe. Sylvain Levy complained about Jews seeking a state in Palestine when they were asking for equal rights in Europe. We all know what equal rights in Europe became between 1933 and 1945.

        As he always does, Hostage selectively quotes from Ben-Gurion’s op-ed, which argues that after World War I, Arabs in the Middle East achieved independence in a land mass larger than Western Europe, and that Jews had no other place that they could call home. In that context, Ben-Gurion opposed partition. Ben-Gurion also wrote that “It was never the wish of Jews to dominate the Arabs” and noted the joint economic cooperation between Jews and Arabs. Nothing in Ben-Gurion’s article suggests that British force was the only thing that would stop the Jews from taking over all of Palestine. All Ben-Gurion did was acknowledge that the British had the military power to impose a solution if they wanted, much as the Nazis could impose their will. Ben-Gurion also agreed that the British should govern the holy sites of the Old City, but rejected the plan’s proposal to make the entire city, which by then had a substantial Jewish majority, an international city. Ben-Gurion was writing in a world where Adolf Hitler was ascendant, and at a time when Jews in Palestine were suffering through an Intifada. It is no wonder that he found the Partition Plan unjust.

        Hostage likewise selectively quotes Ben-Gurion’s testimony to UNSCOP, and again draws unwarranted conclusions from it. Here are some highlights:

        “The homelessness and minority .position make the Jews always dependent on the mercy of others. The “others” may be good and may be bad, and the Jews may some time be treated more or less decently, but they are never masters of their own destiny, they are entirely defenceless when the majority of people turn against them…”

        Ben-Gurion also complained about the racist Land Transfer Regulations on 1940, which effectively prohibited Jews from purchasing land in 95% of the Mandate.

        Ben-Gurion also mentions the effect of the 1939 White Paper:

        “Just before the war we applied to the Colonial Secretary for permission to bring over 20,000 Jewish children from Poland and 10,000 youth from the Balkan countries. Permission was refused and those 20,000 Jewish children and the 10,000 youth were put to death. There were times when Jews could still escape from Nazi-occupied territories, but the gates of their National Home were closed by the Mandatory Power and they were sent to their death in Dachau and Tremblinka. I do not know whether you remember the case of the “Struma.” It was a small ship which left Roumania at the end of December 1941, with 769 refugees. Roumania was then under Nazi occupation. The position of Jews there, as in other Nazi-occupied countries, was desperate. Jews, old and young, women and children, were herded into good-strains and dispatched to unknown destinations, which meant death in gas-chambers somewhere in Poland. On many occasions, they were collected in the streets and machine-gunned on the spot. In the city of Jassy alone 8,000 Jews were assembled in the marketplace and machine-gunned in cold blood. Whoever could do so tried to escape to the sea. The “Struma” was a cattle-boat which had originally been built for navigation on the Danube. The 769 refugees who managed to reach it did not care very much about the amenities of sea-travel; to get to Palestine or not meant life or death. The trip from the port of embarkation in Roumania to Istanbul took four days. The passengers were not allowed to land in Turkey, as they had, no visas either for Turkey or for their final destination. All the efforts of the Jew• Jewish Agency to get permission from the Government for them to enter Palestine were of no avail. The Agency was not even allowed to allot certificates in their possession to these unfortunate people, the reason given being that they were enemy subjects. The agony dragged on for more than two months. On 18 February, the Government agreed to allow children below the age of 1 to land, but it was already too late. The boat had to leave Istanbul. On 24 February, the “Struma” went down with 764 passengers. The refugees of the “Struma” were not the only direct victims of the White Paper, nor did all the refugee victims who came in ships die by drowning.”

        Here is Ben-Gurion on the notion of Jewish privilege:

        “Perhaps the most amazing statement made in that memorandum is the representation of the Jews as a “privileged group” as against the Arabs, who are shown as hewers of wood and drawers of water. It would be interesting to know what are the special privileges accorded to Jews in Palestine. Is it that, as His Excellency the High Commissioner has mentioned the other week, that the Jews pay 70% of the taxes while the Arabs get approximately 70% of the services? But the real mischief of that statement lies rather in the second part of the sentence, denying us the privilege of being “hewers of wood and drawers of water”; we consider this as a great, true privilege. It was denied to us in many countries and many generations, when we were forced to live only in the cities, and in the cities we were confined to a limited number of occupations. We were forcibly divorced from work on the soil, and if there was an ideal, in addition to the love for our country, which animated the tens of thousands of Jewish youth who came to Palestine, it was the ideal of becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water, to do all kinds of hard physical work with their own hands, to live by the sweat of their brow. What distinguished the Jewish community in Palestine from Jewish communities in the Diaspora, is precisely that fundamental change in our economic structure, that the great majority of our people here are people who are doing hard manual work in the fields, in the factories, at sea and on the roads. In a Jewish community of some 600,000 there are more than 170,000 organized workers, men and women: that means more than one organized worker for every four persons, including the aged and babies. It is the pride of the Jewish Labour Movement in Palestine, that it raised the dignity of labour in a country where work is despised.”

        Ben-Gurion also discusses the binationist vision of Hashomer Hatzair.

        I can find nowhere in Ben-Gurion’s testimony a call for a Jewish state to created in Palestine by force and to be administered as a trusteeship. He rejects the trusteeship idea as unworkable:

        “What a single Mandatory cannot do, a joint trusteeship will be able to do far less. Intensive development and large-scale immigration require a dynamic administration, constant initiative, quick decisions and continued action. An administration taking directives from different governments can hardly perform a task of this nature.”

        While Ben-Gurion suggested that if a separate state for Palestinian Arabs was necessary, that they could seek it elsewhere, in the vase tracts of land set aside for Arab self-determination after World War I, he also went out of his way to talk about Jewish-Arab cooperation in a Jewish state, in the context of an extended argument for why, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the culmination of the persecution Jews faced in Europe and the Middle East as a minority population dependent on others for safety. This context is, of course, omitted completely from Hostage’s account.

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2015, 11:53 pm

        Other sources Hostage cites are notable for how wrong they were about Europe. Sylvain Levy complained about Jews seeking a state in Palestine when they were asking for equal rights in Europe. We all know what equal rights in Europe became between 1933 and 1945.

        I block quoted Mr. Levy. He didn’t mention a word about a Jewish state. FYI, Weizmann’s remarks during the same meeting indicated that a Jewish national home didn’t even require the establishment of a Jewish government. You’re artlessly misstating Levy’s position. He wasn’t complaining about the Jews asking for a state in Palestine, he was shocked that they were asking for superior rights there, while the rest of the world was about to recognize their entitlement to equal rights, i.e.: “Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine. Privileges so obtained as a rule did not profit either the giver or the receiver.”

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 12:39 am

        As he always does, Hostage selectively quotes from Ben-Gurion’s op-ed, which argues that after World War I, Arabs in the Middle East achieved independence in a land mass larger than Western Europe, and that Jews had no other place that they could call home.

        Hophmi, I’ll let you polish that turd. Ben Gurion lived in New York for nearly three years during WWI. It’s where he met and married his wife. As far as I can tell, nothing, except mean spiritedness and spitefulness, kept him in Palestine after his brief stint in the Mule Corps. If you don’t call the USA home, what’s keeping you here? The notion that the Arabs who had been placed under mandate in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq had achieved independence is simply risible.

        Just to keep the record straight: The 1950 “Entente” agreement between AJC President Jacob Blaustein and Prime Minister Ben-Gurion still reflects the thinking of most American Jews. Most of them would also agree with the restatement in the report issued by the World Jewish Congress’ 33-member international Economic and Social Commission chaired by Baron Guy de Rothschild in 1988. It endorsed the right of diaspora Jews to criticize policies of any Israeli government; rejected the Zionist tenet that diaspora Jews live in exile; expressed the view that aliya from Western countries would not increase substantially in the future; and asserted that Jews who choose not to settle in Israel should not feel guilty or be made to feel guilty. See “WZO Executive Criticizes WJC Report and Accuses Its Authors of Flippancy Toward Zionism http://www.jta.org/1981/02/13/archive/wzo-executive-criticizes-wjc-report-and-accuses-its-authors-of-flippancy-toward-zionism

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 12:50 am

        I can find nowhere in Ben-Gurion’s testimony a call for a Jewish state to created in Palestine by force and to be administered as a trusteeship.

        I can’t blame you, it’s buried in Orwellian double talk:

        CHAIRMAN: If I sum up correctly what you have said, you mean that it would be an administration of the country under supervision by the United Nations?

        Mr. BEN GURION: Yes, The Jewish Agency

        CHAIRMAN: But is that not a continuation of the Mandate in another form?

        Mr. BEN GURION: No, it is not. Because the Mandate means-and you will see the first Article of the Mandate begins: “That the Mandatory shall have full power of legislation and of administration . . . save as they may be limited by the terms of this Mandate. This had to be done because at the beginning there was only a very small Jewish community of some 60,000 and they could not foresee how long it would take to reach the consummation of the purpose of the Mandate. We are now in a different phase. There is only a very short interval between the decision to have a Jewish State and the material and legal consummation of a State.

        CHAIRMAN: Of course, when I asked whether it is not a continuation of the Mandate, that was a contradiction, as there will be no Mandatory. It will be a direct administration by the United Nations. But do you think there is an advantage in such a situation?

        Mr. BEN GURION: There is, because, first of all, there will be a clear-cut, unequivocal decision that Palestine is becoming a Jewish State.

        Sir ABDUR RAHMAN (India): Do I understand correctly that you want a Jewish State to be established, to be forced on the country by the arms of the United Nations? …

        Mr. BEN GURION: Yes. I say that the fact is, first, that force is being used against people exercising their rights. Our right is to come back. To prevent this, force is being used.

        If the United Nations will give a decision in justice and equity that the Jews have a right to come back to their country, then I believe it will be their duty, if necessary, to enforce it.

        I do not know how much force will be necessary, but you have the same problem everywhere in the world. The main question is not whether to use force or not; the main question is whether a thing is right or wrong. That is what the United Nations have to decide: Is it right or is it wrong? If it is wrong, then it is for the United Nations to stop every Jew from coming into the country, and perhaps, as some people here want, to send away those who are here. Such a thing has happened to us. So, this is the question: if the United Nations will say this is right, then they will do everything to enforce that right, the same as they are doing to enforce right everywhere else in the world. It is not a special question applied to us.
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/06728C052629426085256E8B007092DF

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 22, 2015, 12:10 pm

        @hostage

        There is an important point in Ben-Gurion’s testimony that you have omitted, his definition of a Jewish State. “We mean by a Jewish State simply a State where the majority of the people are Jews, not a State where a Jew has, in any way, any privilege more than anyone else.” Not exactly a description of the state his government produced.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 8:31 pm

        There is an important point in Ben-Gurion’s testimony that you have omitted, his definition of a Jewish State. … Not exactly a description of the state his government produced.

        I still intended to comment here, at length, about the subject matter of the article. I’m just busy with other things today. I’m responding to some questions in another thread about the Hillels. I promised someone there that I’d provide some answers. I noticed your link to your first article, and I’ve got some useful information that I can supply there too. It concerns the customary rules that govern the creation of states by international bodies and how they apply to the case of the Mandated States and to both Israel and Palestine. Most people are not even aware of the subject matter or its implications and wouldn’t know where to begin to look for information on the topic.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 2:52 am

        Ben-Gurion also complained about the racist Land Transfer Regulations on 1940, which effectively prohibited Jews from purchasing land in 95% of the Mandate.

        LOL! Shabtai Teveth wrote that economic, social, and geographical partition (i.e. de facto apartheid and Bantustanization) were inherent in Ben Gurion’s conception of Zionism. See pages 10-12, 43-44, 66, 99, and 179-184 of Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985

        You are correct in that Ben Gurion personally testified to the UN Special Committee on Palestine that Jews, were prohibited from purchasing land in 2/3rds of the country, and only owned about 6 percent of the privately-owned land in the remainder:

        Mr. BEN GURION: . . . There are some 600,000 Jews in Palestine and some 1,100,000 Arabs. There are no reliable figures in this respect. There is an even greater disparity than that. The Arabs own 94% of the land, the Jews only 6%. — link to unispal.un.org

        Mr. BEN GURION: “To partition,” according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that.link to unispal.un.org

        But the Churchill White Paper stipulated that the mandatory never contemplated that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home. When the Jews demanded a state in a portion of Palestine, their efforts were rewarded by the 1939 White Paper. It partitioned the country into three administrative zones and allocated 2/3rds of it to the Arab majority and the remainder of the country to the mixed existing population of Jews and an Arab minority. Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Negev, and the Galilee were legally allocated to the Arabs. See the zones in the map here: http://www.plands.org/articles/images/029-02.jpg

        FYI, if you don’t accept the competence of the UN to partition Palestine, then those were the legal borders of the Jewish state at the moment of independence.

        Ben Gurion claimed it was racist and illegal, but the Palestine High Court of Justice disagreed. See the case of Bernard A. Rosenblatt (petitioner) vs. the Registar of Lands, Haifa ; Director of Land Registration, Jerusalem; Edmond N. Levy (respondents) (High court case no. 19/47): in the Supreme court sitting as a High Court of Justice ; before the chief justice Sir William Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice de Comarmond; hearings on 9th May, 1947 and 12th May, 1947.

        If Ben Gurion actually thought that it violated the terms of the Mandate, then he only needed to get one LoN member to agree. But he couldn’t find even one. Article 26 of the Mandate stipulated:

        The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice …

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art26

        Ben Gurion revealed in his memoirs that the members of the Permanent Mandates Commission had privately advised the Jewish Agency Executive in 1937 that the Mandate could not be implemented according to the Zionist Organization’s wishes. See David Ben-Gurion, “Letters to Paula and the Children”, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press Edition, 1971, pages 134-135

        He immediately setup a working group to devise his own racist partition proposal that would keep the majority of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine from buying any property in the Jewish half of the country. Prof Yossi Katz devoted an entire chapter (pages 85-109 in Partner to Partition) to the presentation of the rather ample archival evidence which illustrates the Jewish Agency’s decade long effort to formulate their own plan for transferring the Arab population out of the Jewish state. That was an integral part of the Agency’s Mandate era partition proposal. Katz said it was developed by a staff of over three hundred people and eventually presented to the UN for adoption.

        Just to refresh your memory, in the Boundary Dispute Case (Burkina-Faso v Mali), the ICJ ruled that:

        In this connection it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America, inasmuch as this was the continent which first witnessed the phenomenon of decolonization involving the formation of a number of sovereign States on territory formerly belonging to a single metropolitan State. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power.

        The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term. This is true both of the States which took shape in the regions of South America which were dependent on the Spanish Crown, and of the States Parties to the present case, which took shape within the vast territories of French West Africa. Uti possidetis, as a principle which upgraded former administrative delimitations, established during the colonial period, to international frontiers, is therefore a principle of a general kind which is logically connected with this form of decolonization wherever it occurs.

        It’s hard to see how the customary rule applies in “all cases”, if it doesn’t apply to Palestine. It has been part of customary international law, since 1810, and was an integral part of the Monroe Doctrine cited in Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. So I doubt the ICJ could rule-out its application to Palestine, if it were ever asked to decide.

        All the British government did was draw administrative boundaries to establish the full extent of the Jewish national home in accordance with their own Balfour Declaration and the mandate conferred upon them by the San Remo Conference. FYI, the Chairman of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission advised the representative of Great Britain in 1932 that the Jewish national home had long-since been established. See the verbatim minutes of the 22nd Session, 6 December 1932 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B887C0FE3914081705256616005A499B

        So it’s hard for me to get all worked up over Ben Gurion’s deceitful testimony or your worries that I might be taking it out of context.

      • Keith
        April 20, 2015, 9:44 pm

        HOPHMI- Quoting Ben-Gurion: “But the real mischief of that statement lies rather in the second part of the sentence, denying us the privilege of being “hewers of wood and drawers of water”; we consider this as a great, true privilege. It was denied to us in many countries and many generations, when we were forced to live only in the cities, and in the cities we were confined to a limited number of occupations. We were forcibly divorced from work on the soil, and if there was an ideal, in addition to the love for our country, which animated the tens of thousands of Jewish youth who came to Palestine, it was the ideal of becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water, to do all kinds of hard physical work with their own hands, to live by the sweat of their brow.”

        First of all, Ben-Gurion is a shameless Zionist liar in the Alan Dershowitz mold. Secondly, this description is a parody of historical reality. Are you suggesting, for even a minute, that American Jews have historically been prevented from engaging in farming and other forms of manual labor? That Gentiles forced Jews to become Doctors, Lawyers, Financiers, Educators,etc? Well Hophmi, anytime you want to say goodbye to Wall Street and head west to become a migrant laborer living by the sweat of your brow, don’t let me or any other Gentile stop you! The very notion that Jews would have preferred to be peasants is ludicrous.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 10:48 am

        “First of all, Ben-Gurion is a shameless Zionist liar in the Alan Dershowitz mold. Secondly, this description is a parody of historical reality. Are you suggesting, for even a minute, that American Jews have historically been prevented from engaging in farming and other forms of manual labor? That Gentiles forced Jews to become Doctors, Lawyers, Financiers, Educators,etc? Well Hophmi, anytime you want to say goodbye to Wall Street and head west to become a migrant laborer living by the sweat of your brow, don’t let me or any other Gentile stop you! The very notion that Jews would have preferred to be peasants is ludicrous.”

        Ben-Gurion is talking about European Jews, who were systematically kept from engaging in certain forms of manual labor, and contrasting this with the ability of Jews to work their own land in Palestine. He didn’t say that Jews preferred to be peasants. He said Jews preferred the dignity of building their own country with their hands rather than being subservient to Gentile rulers who persecuted them. And yes, Gentiles restrictions on what professions Jews could pursue forced Jews into certain fields of work in Europe.

        Your antisemitic comment about Wall Street is duly noted. At the time of Ben-Gurion’s statement, of course, there were not many Jews in Wall Street firms. Jews have been able to become more prominent on Wall Street since then, and, surprise, surprise, there are now antisemites like Keith and others who have come out of the woodwork to suggest that Jews are too involved in finance, and that there are too many rich Jews. It’s typical.

      • eljay
        April 21, 2015, 11:14 am

        Keith: … Are you suggesting, for even a minute, that American Jews have historically been prevented from engaging in farming and other forms of manual labor? That Gentiles forced Jews to become Doctors, Lawyers, Financiers, Educators,etc? Well Hophmi, anytime you want to say goodbye to Wall Street and head west to become a migrant laborer living by the sweat of your brow, don’t let me or any other Gentile stop you! …

        hophmi: … Your antisemitic comment about Wall Street is duly noted. At the time of Ben-Gurion’s statement, of course, there were not many Jews in Wall Street firms. Jews have been able to become more prominent on Wall Street since then, and, surprise, surprise, there are now antisemites like Keith and others who have come out of the woodwork to suggest that Jews are too involved in finance, and that there are too many rich Jews.

        1. Keith very clearly did not say or imply that “Jews are too involved in finance, and that there are too many rich Jews.”
        2. You, however, do appear to say it when you point out that “Jews have been able to become more prominent on Wall Street”. (Why do you hate Jews so much?!)
        3. Your ability to consistently “note” anti-Semitism when it’s not present indicates that you’re either a liar, demented or both.
        4. It’s telling that you never condemned JeffB’s blatantly anti-Semitic assertion that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews, even though I brought his comment to your attention more than once. Is anti-Semitism really acceptable when Zio-supremacists do it?

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 5:52 pm

        He’s suggested it elsewhere. I have no clue which JeffB comment you’re talking about.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2015, 1:09 pm

        HOPHMI- “Your antisemitic comment about Wall Street is duly noted.”

        Didn’t you claim to be a lawyer working on Wall Street? My comment was directed specifically at you. If you are not a Wall Street lawyer, let me know and I will drop the Wall Street reference.

        Hophmi- “Ben-Gurion is talking about European Jews, who were systematically kept from engaging in certain forms of manual labor….”

        Certain forms of manual labor? What forms? What he said was: “But the real mischief of that statement lies rather in the second part of the sentence, denying us the privilege of being “hewers of wood and drawers of water”; we consider this as a great, true privilege. It was denied to us in many countries and many generations, when we were forced to live only in the cities….” Hophmi, I am unaware of any period in European history when Jews were denied the “privilege” of being the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Furthermore, the notion that Jews were forced out of the countryside and into cities is preposterous. What next, that Jews were forced to be tax collectors? Throughout their history, Jews have been relatively privileged compared to most of the surrounding Gentile community, a nascent middle class. And it was this which caused the early Zionists to want their own country where Jews, by necessity, would be forced into the lesser occupations permitting a more balanced development. As usual you attempt to interpret privilege as victimhood and to label honest folk as anti-Semites because the bottom line is that you have no intellectually honest argument, only lies and smears.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 2:55 pm

        No. I don’t work on Wall Street. I’m in the public sector.

        I’m really not interested in discussing European Jewish history with you. It generally becomes an opportunity for you to miss the point and tell me about how much better Jews had it than Gentile peasants. Jews were very often restricted from owning land in Europe and forced to live in ghettos. That’s when they weren’t being slaughtered by their neighbors or being expelled and having their property stolen and sold off or being forced to convert.

        But again, you miss the point here. Zionism was about Jews being able to control their own destiny in a country of their own, after hundreds and hundreds of years of these expulsions, takings, slaughters, etc. That meant working the land with their hands, which, as Ben-Gurion said, meant a certain kind of dignity to Zionist pioneers, and indeed, working the land became a major part of Israel’s identity, through the establishment of collective Kibbutzim and Moshavim. So you can read Ben-Gurion’s statement ultra-literally, or you can read it as it was obviously meant.

      • eljay
        April 21, 2015, 8:19 pm

        || hophmi: He’s suggested it elsewhere. ||

        You weren’t addressing an “elsewhere” post of his when you “duly noted” an anti-Semitic comment he did not make in the post to which you were responding.

        || hophmi: I have no clue which JeffB comment you’re talking about. ||

        I don’t believe you, but let me present to you once again (for the fifth or sixth time) his assertion:

        JeffB: There is nothing anti-Semitic with blaming Jews for stuff that Jews institutionally support. … Not holding the Jews responsible for Jewish policy on the excuse that “well some Jews didn’t agree” is denying them agency.

        IOW:
        – Jews are a monolithic group (“the Jews”); and
        – all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews.

        Perhaps you haven’t bothered to condemn his assertion for the anti-Semitism that it is because you agree with it. That’s what he seems to think, anyway:

        JeffB: Hopmi and Yonah are Zionists. They get that Israel is the agency by which Jews as a nation take collective action. … What we do, we do as a people.

        Is he correct?

      • RoHa
        April 21, 2015, 9:11 pm

        “But again, you miss the point here. Zionism was about Jews being able to control their own destiny in a country of their own, after hundreds and hundreds of years of these expulsions, takings, slaughters, etc. ”

        Only they didn’t have a country of their own, so they took the Palestinians’ country by means of expulsions, slaughter, etc. Great destiny.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2015, 10:32 pm

        HOPHMI- “But again, you miss the point here. Zionism was about Jews being able to control their own destiny in a country of their own, after hundreds and hundreds of years of these expulsions, takings, slaughters, etc.”

        No, I don’t miss the point at all. You are peddling a bogus Jewish myth history to justify Zionist power seeking. By and large, the segregation of Jews from the surrounding Gentile community was usually part of Jewish separatism and exclusivity, a group strategy that worked well for the Jewish elites. That the Jews positioned themselves between the monarch and the peasants frequently resulted in conflict, however, when the dust settled, the Jews were still in better shape than the majority of Gentiles. Suggested reading for those interested (obviously not you) is “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” by Israel Shahak. In fact, Israel constitutes the ultimate Jewish self-imposed ghetto.

    • oldgeezer
      April 20, 2015, 1:24 am

      @hophmi
      “Or simply, the Carlsbad resolution suggests that Zionists have always vied for peace, and it is their Arab neighbors who have been unwilling to make peace with them. ”

      Perfidy pops to mind.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 10:48 am

        Perfidy? Funny, that’s the word one British MP used to describe the White Paper of 1939.

      • oldgeezer
        April 21, 2015, 1:31 pm

        @HOPHMI

        What’s funny? Zionists have always been masters of projection. Just another incidence of it.

    • catalan
      April 21, 2015, 11:47 am

      “there are now antisemites like Keith”- hophmi
      His term of preference is “overrepresentation”. I am thinking to become an army general to alleviate that problem, too many Jewish accountants not enough Jewish generals. I figure that would be a good fit since I am also narcissistic ( though Narcissis may have had a bad rap. Possibly he was searching for the shadow of his dead sister, says another legend).

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:12 pm

        Gee, it says “Log in to Reply” and if I click it, it’ll take about 15 seconds to go throught the log-in. All so I can say “catalan” will you please ‘can it’?
        Nah, not worth the wait.

      • catalan
        April 22, 2015, 2:08 pm

        “All so I can say “catalan” will you please ‘can it’?” – mooser
        Well at least nobody can accuse you of “bias and favoritism”. You must be one of these “universalist” Jews. How did you do it? Kabbalah?

  9. Richard Baldwin Cook
    April 18, 2015, 12:28 am

    These valuable documents are depressing to read, demonstrating as they do, the successful, single-minded subterfuge of the Zionist project to neutralize by force the resistance of the indigenous population of Palestine.

    Was a two-state solution ever anything but more subterfuge? A one-state solution? Is this even plausible today? Requiring as it must, the will to enforce an end to the brutal IDF occupation of Palestine, followed by a mechanism of self determination leading to the enjoyment of full and equal political rights by every resident? Who is going it see to this? Who is going to take nukes away from Bibi?

    Israel is a discredit to Judaism. The American Jewish community is cowed into silence, Its current formal representatives are a pale, embarrassing measure of what used to be admired stewards of an ancient communal expression of a courageous, ethical mode of life. This quality of leadership is now virtually disappeared.

    Nothing matters more to American Judaism than showing support for an apartheid regime. Judaism, in a single generation had become a caricature of itself. This, and the continuing torture of the people of Palestine are the two undisputed tragedies of the ascendance of Zionism. A third is the abject surrender to Zionism by the American political establishment.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:33 pm

      Richard, please cheer up. There are some signs of progress. If we feel a cause is hopeless, we will give up and achieve nothing.

  10. FreddyV
    April 18, 2015, 7:39 am

    Dr Fincham.

    Thank you. There are many occasions can think of where these documents would have been useful in debate, particularly the link to the Carlsbad Resolution.

    Bookmarked and saved.

    Many many thanks for this excellent piece.

    Regards

    FreddyV

  11. marc b.
    April 18, 2015, 8:42 am

    Excellent summary, David. This is the sort of background that could be extremely useful in a variety of contexts. The recent Sony wikileaks documents re: Sony’s relationship with the US government brings to mind the evolution of the law on public-private partnerships for state propaganda purposes, the legality of the state employing the private ‘press’, etc. (see the involvement of Judy Miller in military training exercises, for example).

    You mention the embarrassing bits of the Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary) Resolution. There is also the accumulative historical embarrassment of these documents in general, their repeated reference to ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinians’, two non-existent beings according to present day Zionists. From the Carlsbad Resolution:

    “The Zionist leaders and the Jews of Palestine will support the demand that non-Palestinian officials, with the exception of the High Commissioner, the Civil, Financial and Legal Secretaries, and the heads of the Principal Departments, shall be gradually replaced by Palestinians, due regard being had, in the case of District officials, to the Arab or Jewish character, as the case may be, of the population concerned.”

    Note to editors: unless I missed it, you could do the courtesy of embedding links to the websites of guest authors in the end of post mini-biographies.

  12. sklein1953
    April 18, 2015, 9:29 am

    ‘The (Zionist) goal of a “Jewish national home in Palestine” arose in the 19th century….’

    This is simply not true.

    • Kris
      April 18, 2015, 10:43 am

      @sklein 1953: “This is simply not true.”

      The tradition at mondoweiss is that you back up your statements with some kind of evidence. Do you have any?

      • sklein1953
        April 18, 2015, 2:47 pm

        Jews have longed to return to the “Promised Land” for a rcouple of thousand of years of exile. It is part of the Jewish prayer. It is in the Psalms and the prophets.

      • Shmuel
        April 18, 2015, 3:25 pm

        Jews have longed to return to the “Promised Land” for a rcouple of thousand of years of exile. It is part of the Jewish prayer. It is in the Psalms and the prophets.

        There’s longing for Zion and redemption, and there’s modern political Zionism. One longs for the Kingdom of Heaven and the other for Hebrew-speaking thieves and prostitutes (as DBG so aptly put it). Not the same thing.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2015, 3:45 pm

        “Jews have longed to return to the “Promised Land” for a rcouple of thousand of years of exile. It is part of the Jewish prayer. It is in the Psalms and the prophets”

        “sklein” there is an old Hebrew folk-song, one of our best. Please allow for any deficiencies in my translation:

        ” Oh, you can’t always get what you want,
        You can’t always get what you want!
        No, You can’t always get what you want,
        But if you try sometimes, you might find,
        You get what you need!”

        My Mom used to rock me to sleep with that song. Dear old Mom, she was quite the rocker.

      • sklein1953
        April 18, 2015, 4:06 pm

        Sons of Abraham and Jacob are back in the land. There isn’t anything about Zionism that conflicts with providential plan to bring the Jews back into the land.

      • Shmuel
        April 18, 2015, 4:36 pm

        There isn’t anything about Zionism that conflicts with providential plan to bring the Jews back into the land.

        There is actually (the covenant — like the Jordan, in that old Beitar song — has two sides, and a number of prophets had a bunch of stuff to say about the conditionality of the promise), but even if there weren’t that still wouldn’t make them one and the same thing.

      • Kris
        April 18, 2015, 6:16 pm

        @sklein 1953: “Sons of Abraham and Jacob are back in the land. There isn’t anything about Zionism that conflicts with providential plan to bring the Jews back into the land. ”

        Do you mean that God approves of the Nakba (and all that has followed since–the Jewish actions against the Palestinians–like stealing their land, carrying out pogroms against them, ethnically cleansing them, etc., etc.) because God wants “to bring the Jews back into the land”?

        While many Israeli Jews do not actually believe in God, or Judaism, most Palestinian Muslims strongly believe in their religion, and actually pray to God five times a day. Muslims and Jews worship the same God.

        How do you make sense of this? Since God told the Jews over and over again to trust in Him, not in wealth, might, other gods, or themselves, how is it that the Jews today think that God wants them to take the lead in deciding when and how to fulfill His plans? And how is it that God approves of the victimization of the faithful Palestinians by the faithless Jews?

        I’m glad you’re posting here, since you seem to be interested in your faith, and might help to educate me about this issues.

      • hophmi
        April 18, 2015, 8:03 pm

        Why is my comment still in moderation?

      • talknic
        April 18, 2015, 7:16 pm

        @ sklein1953 “Jews have longed to return to the “Promised Land” for a rcouple of thousand of years of exile. It is part of the Jewish prayer. It is in the Psalms and the prophets”

        So go whine a the Zionist Movement for having proclaimed Israel “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” thereby robbing Israeli Jews of the right to settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland in Palestine, aka ‘Greater Israel’.

      • RoHa
        April 18, 2015, 9:47 pm

        “Sons of Abraham and Jacob are back in the land.”

        Wow! People with family trees going back to Abraham. Who are they?

        Did the College of Heralds work out the family trees for them, or did they do it themselves using Ancestry.com?

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:10 am

        “One longs for the Kingdom of Heaven and the other for Hebrew-speaking thieves and prostitutes (as DBG so aptly put it).”

        Yes, those reflections on Israeli society form a chapter in ” Ben Gurion’s Complaint”

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:13 am

        “Why is my comment still in moderation?”

        Hophmi, understanding Moderation is a bit like understanding Jazz. If you have to ask, you’ll never know.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:15 am

        “Sons of Abraham and Jacob are back in the land”

        And I thought they were sons of…., oh, forget it, “sklein”

    • Mooser
      April 18, 2015, 11:57 am

      “‘The (Zionist) goal of a “Jewish national home in Palestine” arose in the 19th century….’”

      Be careful making claims about Jews in the 19th century. After all, that is when we had la difference!

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:38 pm

      @sklein1953 Which century was it?

      • sklein1953
        April 18, 2015, 2:51 pm

        What century was the following written:

        If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
        May my right hand forget her skill.

        May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
        If I do not remember you,
        If I do not exalt Jerusalem
        Above my chief joy.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2015, 3:49 pm

        “What century was the following written:”

        Oh, no. Another Judaism-pimper. That’s right, you just jump in there and use our religion as your human shield. Great stuff. I see your point, why should people just hate Zionists? I really appreciate your attempts to spread that to a wider circle.

      • Kris
        April 18, 2015, 6:33 pm

        @sklein 1953:

        ” If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
        May my right hand forget her skill.

        “May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
        If I do not remember you,
        If I do not exalt Jerusalem
        Above my chief joy.”

        This seems to tell us to “exalt” Jerusalem, but doesn’t say we should drive out the other people who live there and love Jerusalem, too. Do you think the psalmist is saying that your love of Jerusalem entitles you to ethnically cleanse it? Are the Muslims, who are also worshippers of the God of the Jews/Muslims/Christians, not allowed to love and share Jerusalem? What about the Christians?

      • Philemon
        April 18, 2015, 8:07 pm

        What century was the following written:

        “If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
”May my right hand forget her skill…”

        Yada, yada, whatever.

        You do realize that Judaism appropriated lots of myths from older religions. Old Babylonion, for instance. Way before anything like modern or orthodox Judaism was even a twinkle in someone’s eye. And those were great myths, but they were about, you know… well, not humans, anyways.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        April 19, 2015, 11:46 am

        @sklein,

        For many centuries, there were very large communities of Jews in the Middle East, notably in Alexandria, almost within spitting distance of ”the Holy Land”. Yet very very few of these Jews chose to live in ”Israel”, even though they could easily have done so. If Jews have been ‘yearning to return to the promised land’ for so long, why did Jews who lived right next door not feel motivated to do so?

      • MHughes976
        April 20, 2015, 6:03 pm

        Because the theology is so different from what we find elsewhere in the scriptures I would put Ps.137, with its terrifyingly anti-Babylonian ending, into the anti-Iraqi period of the second century BCE. In fact many Jewish people stayed in Babylon or moved there during the Hellenistic period, making it a major Jewish centre.
        Mention of theological differences and developments should remind us that ‘Jewish’, like ‘Christian’, is not a term which we can use with consistent reference over all time.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:15 pm

        “Mention of theological differences and developments should remind us that ‘Jewish’, like ‘Christian’, is not a term which we can use with consistent reference over all time.”

        You don’t say? Well, what do you know! Gosh, the most surprising things happen over the course of several thousand years.

      • RoHa
        April 22, 2015, 6:59 pm

        “I would put Ps.137, with its terrifyingly anti-Babylonian ending”

        I’ve just checked that one up. Nasty. Boney M went over the top when they wrote that one.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 10:09 pm

        “I’ve just checked that one up. Nasty. Boney M went over the top when they wrote that one”

        I’m a big Boney M fan. Love them.

  13. Kris
    April 18, 2015, 10:33 am

    This is such an interesting and informative article, thank you so much!

    I have to confess that I generally find history boring, and tend to avoid reading about it for that reason. (Yes, I am ashamed of that, I do realize the importance of history, and I do keep trying to improve my attitude.) Usually I have to force myself to wade through information about the past. But this article is so well-written that I did not have to force myself to read it.

    Many, many thanks!

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:39 pm

      Kris, thank you.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2015, 3:51 pm

        History, Feh I’ll tell you about history. You want history, okay here it is: 40 years ago, I had a lot more hair, and lots more teeth. Now they’re gone.

      • RoHa
        April 18, 2015, 9:04 pm

        Mooser, history ended in 1946, when RoHa was born.

        Everything since then counts as “Current Events”.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:18 am

        Current events? RoHa, I must say, that is shocking!

  14. Kathleen
    April 18, 2015, 11:51 am

    Thank you. Have read a great deal about the first Zionist congress, the Balfour Declaration, The League of Nations involvement, Jewish Agency. Had never read about the King Crane Commission.

    Section 5(3) ” The fact came out repeatedly in the commissions conference with Jewish representatives looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase” (JA steps in and in a systematic way incorporates apartheid).

    Massacres, theft of land and homes, destruction of agricultural lands, polluting bodies of water, intimidation continues to this day. Massacre summer of 2014. All the while Netanyahu commits human rights crimes and the I lobby in the U.S. congress point at Iran

    So telling that even back then officials were calling the Zionist out on the absurd claim to the land based on historical myths that the land belonged to them. Netanyahu still using this malarkey. Showing the world is ring. Yikes

    Zionism is racist at its very core.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:43 pm

      Kathleen, thank you for commenting. I have to agree with you about the core of ZIonism.

      • hophmi
        April 18, 2015, 4:43 pm

        And therein lies your bias. Zionism, as proved by documents like the Carlsbad Resolution, is in no way racist.

      • eljay
        April 18, 2015, 4:48 pm

        || hophmi: … Zionism … is in no way racist. ||

        But it is supremacist.

      • just
        April 18, 2015, 6:15 pm

        hophmi~ Zionist actions speak loud and clear.

        And, there you have it.

      • Kris
        April 18, 2015, 6:57 pm

        @hophmi: Zionism, as proved by documents like the Carlsbad Resolution, is in no way racist. ”

        Proponents of Zionism have such a long, well-documented history of, well, prevarication in order to conceal their ultimate goals.

        A wise Jew (see Matthew 7) has taught us that actions speak louder than words.

      • talknic
        April 18, 2015, 6:57 pm

        @ hophmi “And therein lies your bias. Zionism, as proved by documents like the Carlsbad Resolution, is in no way racist”

        Zionistas deceitfully going back on their word time and time again has resulted in blatant racism.

      • Donald
        April 19, 2015, 12:34 pm

        Zionism, as proved by documents like the Carlsbad Resolution, is in no way racist.”

        You wouldn’t be this stupid on any other subject. The Carlsbad resolution shows that one could formulate one particular Zionist ideal in a non- racist way, but it happens to be a way inconsistent with how Zionism was actually carried out. You are like someone pointing to the ideals of some communists as proof that communism in practice was in no way inconsistent with basic human rights. I’d defend someone who wanted to argue that some idealized form of communism is on flat contradiction to Leninist practice, but someone who defended the actual record of Leninism by pointing to the words of some idealists who had no power at the time–well, that’s a little bit silly, isn’t it?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 1:49 pm

        @donald
        Of course you are right. The Carlsbad Resolution is certainly atypical of Zionist thinking and practice. Zionists were not a homogeneous lot: there were cultural zionists, political zionists, socialist zionists, capitalist zionists, religious zionists, atheistic zionists and revisionist zionists. I do not know how that Congress came to that formulation, but it did so at a very significant moment, while the British policy and the terms of the Mandate were being finalized.

      • pjdude
        April 20, 2015, 9:47 am

        @ hophmi

        no hophmi they don’t. words do not take precedent over actions. their actions show them to be racists. the only bias here is yours trying to whitewash zionism’s criminal history.

      • Dan
        April 22, 2015, 7:00 pm

        @Fincham
        “I do not know how that Congress came to that formulation”

        There is an account of the 12th conference politics in “Before the Catastrophe: The Distinctive Path of German Zionism” by Hagit Lavsky.
        Herzl had been dead for almost twenty years and the movement at that time
        was split between those who advocated a bi national state,and a more cultural Zionism,
        represented by Buber and others, and those who wanted a more nationalistic Zionism.

        Even though the resolution reflected the thinking of the Buber group, it is reported that he was unhappy with the final
        resolution, in that he thought it didn’t go far enough.
        The resolution reflected the thinking at that early date – as circumstances changed (primarily Nazism), those seeking an independent state gained the upper hand.

        You say that Zionist has tried to suppress this document.
        That is surprising because there doesn’t seem to be anything in it worth hiding.
        The virtual library has a summary page on the several congresses; they give short shrift to
        most of them, except the first, because it is meant to be a quick overview.
        Concluding that someone is trying to suppress it because you can’t find copies on the internet is quite a leap. It’s just not that important a document.

        Also, you seem like a fair person, but I think you present a slanted picture by using the Arab delegation report to assess the state of the economic competition or cooperation between the Zionists and the Arab population.
        They were advocates for their cause. It would be like using a Zionist report to assess the same thing.

    • Mooser
      April 18, 2015, 3:53 pm

      “Zionism is racist at its very core.”

      Gee, if that is so, why are Zionists always trying to convince people that Zionism is religious? Why don’t they go with their strong points?

      • talknic
        April 18, 2015, 6:57 pm

        LOL

    • sklein1953
      April 18, 2015, 5:07 pm

      A nearly four thousand year Jewish presence in the land is not historical myth.

      • Kris
        April 18, 2015, 6:42 pm

        ???? I come from a family with thousands of years of presence in Scandinavia. So why can’t I “return” to Denmark and ethnically cleanse relatively recent immigrants like, say, Pakistani-Danes, off the farms that my ancestors once owned? My bloodlines are impeccable, while theirs…not so ethnically Danish.

        I don’t get it. Is this fair?

      • talknic
        April 18, 2015, 7:07 pm

        @ sklein

        “A nearly four thousand year Jewish presence in the land is not historical myth”

        Correct. However, the far longer period of Jewish history in the region was as Palestinian Jews. About 2,000 years from the Roman era til 1948. Far longer than any Kingdom of David existed or State of Israel. http://wp.me/pDB7k-GO

        BTW the nearly four thousand year Jewish presence in the land is irrelevant to the actual proclaimed sovereign status of the State of Israel and Israel’s 67 years of illegal ‘facts on the ground’ in territories the Israeli Government claimed were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”.

      • RoHa
        April 18, 2015, 9:42 pm

        “A nearly four thousand year Jewish presence in the land is not historical myth. ”

        So what? The presence of Palestinian Jews does not give European Jews any right to enter the land. It does not give any Jews a right to set up a Jewish supremacist state in Palestine. It does not give any Jews the right to expel and subjugate non-Jews.

        And non-Jews have been present in the land for far longer than four thousand years.

      • eljay
        April 18, 2015, 10:43 pm

        || sklein1953: A nearly four thousand year Jewish presence in the land is not historical myth. ||

        Neither is a nearly four thousand year non-Jewish presence in the land.

        Ta dah!!!

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 11:20 am

        A nearly four thousand year Jewish presence in the land is a hysterical myth.
        Archeologists have found ancient gefilte-fish bottles with traces of the Manischevitz label still legible!

      • pjdude
        April 20, 2015, 9:49 am

        evidence of a jewish state in palestine only goes back to around 1000bc where do you get your extra millenium from?

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2015, 1:03 pm

        “evidence of a jewish state in palestine only goes back to around 1000bc where do you get your extra millenium from?”

        Hey, what’s a few millennium among fiends? Don’t be so fussy.

  15. MHughes976
    April 18, 2015, 1:35 pm

    Forms of Zionism, usually known as Restorationism in earlier days, go back quite a long way – the earliest book-length presentation that I know of being by Sir Henry Finch MP – ‘The Great Restauration’ – in 1621. I believe that Finch got into trouble by suggesting that the King of the Jews would be the world’s senior monarch pending the return of Jesus, so his movement, which maybe influenced the earliest British American colonists to found ‘Salems’, had something of New World Order rather than – or as well as – of Zionism about it, just like its Sabatianist successor a few decades later. For a time I think Christians set the pace, Jews being suspicious and saying ‘They’re just trying to get rid of us’.
    In the United States Mordecai Noah wrote a proto-Zionist book in 1844, a Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews – still using the old word and not, as far as I know, using ‘national home’. Perhaps he should be regarded as leading the way to modern Zionism.
    The phrase ‘Jewish National Home’, with its characteristic and abiding ambiguity, has a very 1800s ring to me.
    Margaret Macmillan’s ‘Peacemakers’, which I’ve often mentioned before, makes it clear, I think, that the failure of the promise to respect non-Jewish rights contained in Balfour and its dynasty of successor documents was built in from the very beginning: Balfour acted in bad faith and briefed the Press that the non-Jewish aspect of his promises was not to be taken seriously. That was because he, and even more his boss Lloyd George, were committed, one might even say fanatical, Christian Zionists – LlG making up for his sinful life by doing something that God called for. The idea of National Home lent itself to bad faith: the idea of a home which is specially mine but also yours being really, on slight examination, absurd.
    Just a note on the interesting King-Crane observation – Jewish sovereignty has not been at all bad for Christian holy places. That is because the relationship of Jewish and Christian theology was transformed, for good or ill – for good and ill – in the later twentieth century.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 18, 2015, 2:52 pm

      Mr/MsHughes, thank you for that information. Just a note on Jews and the Holy Places – have you seen the following article which describes some very nasty behavior in 1948 and 1967 – http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/17/grave-desecrations-rabbis-death-show-rare-glimpses-of-israels-religious-fanaticism/2/

      • MHughes976
        April 18, 2015, 6:22 pm

        Thanks, I will check that out. What has happened since 67 has been the massive flowering of the alliance between Jewish and Christian Zionists: not merely the right-wing fanatics but the progressive theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King. – Martin

      • hophmi
        April 19, 2015, 10:11 pm

        I don’t know why you had trouble finding the Resolution on the net. You offer no evidence to show that it was suppressed; it is from 1921 and the older resolutions are hard to find as well. Here is an entire report from the 12th Zionist Congress. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101022407710;view=1up;seq=15;skin=mobile

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 2:44 pm

        @hophmi – “I don’t know why you had trouble finding the Resolution on the net.”

        Thanks for the link. I did not find it, because it is an unsearchable PDF, and I was searching for the actual text.

        If the text of such an important Zionist document is not available on an internet search, I suggest it is a very reasonable conclusion that it has been suppressed.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 3:13 pm

        I disagree. It’s difficult to find most of these early documents. They’re just old.

      • Kathleen
        April 19, 2015, 10:29 pm

        Read the piece at Foreign Policy…brutal.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 10:14 am

        “Mr/MsHughes, thank you for that information. Just a note on Jews and the Holy Places – have you seen the following article which describes some very nasty behavior in 1948 and 1967”

        Have you seen the rest of what’s on foreignpolicyjournal.com? Kerry Bolton is a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier who used to be the secretary of the New Zealand Fascist Union. But you fell for it , yet again. Maybe, perhaps, this brand of antisemitism is a problem in the anti-Israel movement.

        http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/24/dr-joel-hayward-in-the-firing-line-again/

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Bolton

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 11:33 am

        @hophmi “Kerry Bolton is a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier ”

        There you go again, attacking the messenger when you have no argument against the message. Can you prove that the events described in Kerry Bolton’s article did not take place? He gives sources for everything he says.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2015, 11:41 am

        hops, is there anything specifically in bolton’s article that david linked to you’d care to refute? because the zionist harassment mentioned in foreignpolicyjournal.com which you’ve provided sounds all too familiar. i’ve only gotten to the end of page two but it sounds as though 2 people, bing and green, are encouraging students to write their master thesis focusing on smearing their adversaries. that in itself sounds fairly bizarre. if they act anything like some of the cohorts we have here in the US, who frequently lie with impunity, i’m not sure how this builds your (new) case.

        i was just wondering if there was something specific in either of those bolton articles you care to refute? or perhaps another bolton article. since allegations of anti semitism and holocaust denial tossed around so liberally, perhaps you’d care to quote the man himself other than the allegations made against him. your complaint seems to be limited to ad hominem in nature.

      • Shmuel
        April 20, 2015, 12:19 pm

        There you go again, attacking the messenger when you have no argument against the message. Can you prove that the events described in Kerry Bolton’s article did not take place? He gives sources for everything he says.

        I’m with Hophmi on this one. Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer also give sources. I’m still not going to take anything they have to say about Arabs or Muslims seriously — much less cite them.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 12:33 pm

        So I guess you regularly read the work of this neo-Nazi, David. One wonders why.

        Alas, most of the sources of this antisemitic article are a propaganda report published by the Mufti’s Arab Higher Committee in 1948, which is neither a primary source nor a reliable one, and most of the rest are from another report published in 1970 by, surprise, surprise, the “Christian Nationalist Crusade.” The writer of that report, Issa Nakhleh, is also the publisher of the “Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem,” a work that — surprise, surprise, again — denies the Holocaust, calling World War II a “Jewish war.” Nahkleh was also responsible for sending a letter to Senator Fulbright opposing Henry Kissinger’s nomination for Secretary of State on grounds that Kissinger was a German Jewish refugees. He also published articles in the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial journal.

        These are Kerry Bolton’s sources. His article is antisemitic garbage, just like he is, and your reputation as an academic whatever-you-are should suffer for your citation of his work in any respect. But you seem to be a regular reader of that neo-Nazi website; you cited them in another Mondoweiss piece. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/documents-borders-palestine

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 4:05 pm

        Help me understand what you are saying. Let us take the following example.

        Monsignor Thomas MacMahon, secretary of the Catholic Near East Association of New York, wrote to the United Nations on August 20, 1948, “there have been constantly some violations and desecrations of Catholic holy places. The associated Press report of August 19, 1948 confirmed that Jewish forces perpetrated criminal acts against 12 Roman Catholic institutions in Northern Palestine… Seven churches, convents and hospitals have been looted by Jews and others seized by force.”[6]

        The source is [6] Statement of the Committee of the Christian Union of Palestine, (representing the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate, Latin Patriarchate, Greek Catholic Patriarchate, and the Latin Parishes of the Holy Land), Jerusalem, May 31, 1948.

        Do you say these events did not take place? If so, who is lying? Monsignor Thomas MacMahon? Associated Press? Committee of the Christian Union of Palestine? or did Kerry Bolton make it all up?

      • Kathleen
        April 20, 2015, 11:03 pm

        Hop…maybe I did not read far enough. But did you provide links to articles, evidence that demonstrate that Bolton is a neo nazi and a Holocaust denier?

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 11:23 pm

        Entry about Bolton on Wikipedia detailing his past as the leader of a New Zealand fascist party.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 11:04 am

        I do not consider an obscure report (which, by the way, is not available on the internet) written by an antisemite partisan, to be a reliable source, and no self-respecting academic would. See, Mr. Fincham, the Associated Press is not the source of Kerry Bolton’s claim. The report is. And the report is not reliable or searchable. If you’d like to furnish the report to us, or the AP copy it quotes, I’ll be glad to take a look at it.

        Here is the wikipedia entry on Kerry Bolton.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Bolton

        “Bolton was a co-founder of the Nationalist Workers’ Party,[2] and was briefly secretary for the New Zealand Fascist Union in 1997,[5] in which he promoted the ‘patriotic socialism’ of 1930s Labour hero John A. Lee.[6] In 2004 he was the secretary of the New Zealand National Front[7][8][9] and spokesman[discuss] for the New Right group.[10][11] He was also involved for several years with the New Zealand National Front during the late 1970s and in 2004.”

        He’s a neo-Nazi, and it sounds like he’s an adherent of Kevin McDonald’s antisemitic theories about Jewish influence:

        http://nonalignedmedia.com/2014/10/exclusive-nam-interview-dr-kerry-bolton/

        See question 3:

        “Question #3: In Babel Inc. you have a chapter called ‘The Jewish Factor’ outlining the Jewish role in pushing globalization and multiculturalism. Presumably the Jewish motive to promote multiculturalism, as is argued by Kevin MacDonald in The Culture of Critique, is that Jews view traditional European societies with strong ethnic/cultural solidarity as an impediment to Jewish advancement and power. Weakening such cultures would thereby afford Jews a great ethnic advantage and lessen what they erroneously call “anti-Semitism.” How does the Jewish motive tie in with the globalist/capitalist/corporate motive? And is there any crossover seeing as Jews have a dominant position in the financial world?

        KB: Those who were previously usurers, old clothes merchants, market hagglers, or whatever, come to the fore when such traits are seen as somehow marks of success rather than traits of the underclass and the outcaste. In Western society Jews prosper from this cycle of Mammon, because the mark of citizenship is whether one pays taxes and functions as an economic unit. I think the Jewish capitalists and Zionists can have motives that are at times in conjunction with cosmopolitan capitalists and at times in divergent. Jewish interests are not always predicated on what is most profitable, but can be messianic. Kissinger and Soros, for e.g., have at times been in disagreement with Israel from the globalist viewpoint.”

        But, you know, I guess it’s completely OK for you people to quote the guy on Jews. It’s anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, right?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 21, 2015, 2:56 pm

        Hop… did you provide links to articles, evidence that demonstrate that Bolton is a neo nazi and a Holocaust denier?

        not that i am aware of, just the links alleging he was. he also provided a link written by bolton refuting this allegation. i thought neo nazis were proud of being neo nazis. why would he refute it?

        there was reference to some secret 3 hour tape recording him when he was in college with 13 minutes of clips edited from the tape — that allegedly prove he was a holocaust denier. but nobody has provided any quotes of anything. ( as i recall — i have not read all of the comments)

        anyway, i’d never heard of bolton until this thread and don’t know much about him at all. but what i can’t figure out is the massive amount of pushback against the man instead of the (unsurprising) allegations in the link, about the desecration of christian sites. this is still going on today, as well as advocates for blowing up the temple, so none of it is that controversial as far as i am concerned. and the people killed, either they were or they were not. it makes sense to refute the allegations in the bolton article would be to simply find counter narratives about what happened to those dead people. why not just prove he’s a liar by countering the allegations? seems like it would be easy if it was true.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 3:17 pm

        “ust the links alleging he was. he also provided a link written by bolton refuting this allegation. i thought neo nazis were proud of being neo nazis. why would he refute it?”

        Are you serious? Wikipedia article sets out his affiliation with fascist neo-Nazi parties in New Zealand. That’s not something he refutes. The other link sets out his antisemitic views about Jews controlling the world. He’s also written for CODOH, the Holocaust denial website, repeatedly. http://codoh.com/library/authors/2729/

        “it makes sense to refute the allegations in the bolton article would be to simply find counter narratives about what happened to those dead people. why not just prove he’s a liar by countering the allegations?”

        No, it makes sense not to dignify neo-Nazis and their websites. That HURTS the Palestinian cause. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, his sourcing is highly suspect and also unavailable. So that makes things difficult. But the honest thing to do is not to ask me to refute his nonsense. The honest thing to do is not to use neo-Nazi websites and rely on their bad sources for information.

      • MHughes976
        April 22, 2015, 4:21 pm

        There is a thesis by AE Ciani, available on the web and to me, at first sight,fairminded enough, on the Vatican and Palestine.
        Ciani is interesting on the long-standing Vatican opposition to Zionism, though he also makes a point of mentioning strong American Catholic concern over Jewish suffering. The proposal for the internationalisation of Jerusalem he treats as a triumph (soon negated, of course) for papal policy, with the possibility that the Pope might have ended up as very much the senior partner in the international power set over the city.
        Thomas M(a)cMahon was to be the first President of the main Vatican charitable organisation for Palestine and he did take a dim view of Zionism and all its works. The Christian Union was an organisation of Palestinian Christians and it did complain vigorously of Israeli behaviour in 1948. Its testimony is not impeccable but that is not to say that it is worthless.
        It is of course very important not to take the word of prejudiced people on matters concerning their prejudice. On the other hand, they may draw attention to things that others overlook.

    • Mooser
      April 20, 2015, 1:07 pm

      Thanks, “MHugues976”, for all that. If I’m not mistaken (always a fair probability) we could put Disraeli and some of his books in there, too. I think (without checking) some of his novels were considered “proto-zionist” (Maybe “Daniel Deronda”?)

      • MHughes976
        April 20, 2015, 5:20 pm

        I understand Disraeli did have some ideas about a sort of British-Jewish empire but I don’t know much about him or his novels. I have read a bit of Daniel Deronda (George Eliot’s last book) but found it heavy going. It is certainly proto-Z. GE was so progressive she was almost out of sight. Z was really good at spanning the conservative-liberal spectrum and still is.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:22 pm

        Thanks for the gentle correction re “Daniel Deronda”, MHughes. I wasn’t sure (thus the ?) but I could easily have checked.
        Of course, it was that George Eliot fellow who wrote it. Certainly I don’t have to check on that.

  16. hophmi
    April 18, 2015, 3:04 pm

    1. To mention the 1939 White Paper without mentioning the Holocaust is more than a little obtuse. And typical of the myopia of anti-Zionist historians. It is nor possible to understand one without the other, and it is disingenuous to omit the Nazi ties of major Palestinian leaders, and the Jew hatred that was a part of the reason the White Paper was drafted.

    2. There is nothing embarrassing about the Carlsbad resolution. Zionists have always been willing to live in peace with their Arab neighbors. Theirs Arab neighbors have always rejected any organized Jewish presence in the region as a threat to their Muslim and Arab ethnic exclusivity. That is why, even when they were treated relatively well, Jews were still second class citizens in the Arab Middle East.

    • Shingo
      April 19, 2015, 1:57 am

      To mention the 1939 White Paper without mentioning the Holocaust is more than a little obtuse.

      To mention the 1939 White Paper and trying to link it to the Holocaust is more than a exploitation of the Holocaust, seeing as nether were remotely related

      Zionists have always been willing to live in peace with their Arab neighbors.

      So long as they got to expel the Arabs in Palestine.

    • RoHa
      April 19, 2015, 5:44 am

      “Theirs Arab neighbors have always rejected any organized Jewish presence in the region as a threat to their Muslim and Arab ethnic exclusivity.”

      hophmi, recently you’ve pushed this idea that the conflict stems from some sort of Arab refusal to accept Jewish political power. ( The idea of “Arab ethnic exclusivity” seems a bit dodgy, in the face of the fact that most Middle Eastern Jews historically were Arabs, but I’m sure you can provide evidence for this idea.)

      What I am most concerned with is the implication that the Zionist plan to take over Palestine, to expel or subjugate the Palestinians, and all the brutal actions and atrocities that stemmed from this evil ideology, were of comparatively little importance in shaping the conflict.

      In short, you are saying that the conflict comes from pre-Zionist anti-Jewish attitudes, rather than from Zionist plans and actions.

      Do you deny that the Zionists had those plans and committed those acts, or do you acknowledge them, but claim that the Arabs should have (and, were it not for the anti-Jewish attitude, would have) accepted them as Jewish privilege?

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 10:31 am

        “The idea of “Arab ethnic exclusivity” seems a bit dodgy, in the face of the fact that most Middle Eastern Jews historically were Arabs . . .”

        And Jews in Middle Eastern countries were ok as long as they paid fealty to Arab rulers. Once there was a Jewish state, ie, once they developed political consciousness, they were unwelcome and suffered greater persecution, whether they supported Israel or not. That’s not tolerance, and that’s not protection. That’s subjugation.

        “In short, you are saying that the conflict comes from pre-Zionist anti-Jewish attitudes, rather than from Zionist plans and actions.”

        There is no question that quite a bit of the Arab hostility to Israel comes from pre-Zionist anti-Jewish attitudes.

      • RoHa
        April 20, 2015, 9:40 pm

        Of course Arab Jews had to pay fealty to Arab leaders. So did Arab Christians and Arab Muslims. It was support for the social order they lived in. Why should Jews be exempt?

        Serious confusion here.

        1 You seem to equate “founding a Jewish state” with “Arab Jews developing political consciousness”. But these are not the same thing. As far as I can tell, some Arab Jews were politically active before the foundation of Israel, and some were not interested even after that.

        2 You suggest that it was the development of political consciousness that led to the persecution. It seems to me more likely that the claims of the Zionists to represent all Jews, and their appeals to the Arab Jews, led to the Arab Jews being seen as participants in the evil the Zionists perpetrated. Yes, guilt by association, which is wrong. But a result of Zionism.

        So although you say ” There is no question that quite a bit of the Arab hostility to Israel comes from pre-Zionist anti-Jewish attitudes” I have still to see any support for the idea. It still seems to me more likely that the major part of the hostility is a direct result of the evil committed by the Zionists.

    • hophmi
      April 19, 2015, 9:39 am

      I thought the author was answering all comments. He doesn’t seem to have answered mine.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 10:59 am

        Sorry hophmi, I haven’t reached your comment yet. Please be patient.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 19, 2015, 11:25 am

      1. “The Nazi ties of major Palestinian leaders” – I suppose you mean the Mufti of Jerusalem. I would point out that he was imposed upon the Palestinians, against the decision of the electors, by the British administration, and you cannot blame the Palestinian people as a whole for his views. I have seen no evidence of Jew hatred in any of the documents. What the Palestinians always objected to was the large-scale immigration of foreign Jews bent on taking over their country.

      2. If the Zionists were not embarrassed about the Carlsbad Resolution, why was there no copy of it on the internet until I put it there?

      • hophmi
        April 19, 2015, 9:55 pm

        You see no Jew hatred in a document restricting Jewish immigration on the eve of the Holocaust promulgated by the same people who cut deals with Hitler? Then you are truly obtuse.

        Stop apologizing for the Mufti. Most Palestinians don’t, and neither should you.

      • pjdude
        April 20, 2015, 10:10 am

        oh quit being cranky that you called out on your disorting of history. and again so the palestinians should have been willing to accept jewish dominion over them simply because of bad things happening to jews your obtuse and showing the naked bigotry of zionism. the palestinians aren’t required to accept people into their country who are hostile to them. holocaust or no.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 10:26 am

        “the palestinians aren’t required to accept people into their country who are hostile to them. ”

        The Palestinians didn’t write the White Paper; in fact, their leaders rejected it because it didn’t restrict Jewish emigration entirely. In 1939. The Guardian, the paper you all know and love, denounced it as a death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews. Seems to me that the Guardian was exactly right.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 11:48 am

        @hophmi There were plenty of other countries with substantial Jewish communities which would have welcomed incoming Jewish refugees from Europe, and where they would have felt more at home than in Palestine, and would not have affected the democratic balance. For example, the United States.

        But the USA would not let them in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States#Refugees_from_Nazi_Germany

        It was the actions of the USA administration more than the British administration in Palestine that resulted in a “death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews”.

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2015, 8:22 pm

        The Guardian, the paper you all know and love, denounced it as a death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews. Seems to me that the Guardian was exactly right.

        Hophmi, I see that you are living in your usual state of delusion and denial. The Jewish Agency always had unused immigration certificates at its disposal, even after the 1939 White Paper policy went into effect. In any event, the country was usually hosting thousands of illegal refugees. Here is an example from the JTA we all know and love:

        5,000 Unused Palestine Certificates Extended; Total War Entry Reaches 20,000
        December 22, 1940

        JERUSALEM (Dec. 20)

        The Palestine Government has extended for three months the validity of more than 5,000 unused immigration certificates under the former schedule, it was learned today. The action followed appeals from the Jewish Agency. The Jews to whom the certificates were issued have not yet been able to use them because of wartime travel difficulties.

        The Jewish Agency, it was learned, is making efforts to obtain transit for 1,500 immigrants with certificates who are still in the Baltics. The first group, from Sweden and Denmark, is expected to arrive soon.

        A total of 20,000 Jews entered Palestine in the 16 months since the beginning of the war, Elishu Dobkin of the Jewish Agency reported to a conference of the World Union of Poale Zion-Hitachduth at Ayanoth. They included 8,700 in various quota categories and more than 10,000 refugee illegal immigrants.

        Dobkin added that the Palestine Government had turned over to the care of the Agency more than 7,500 illegals after they had served six months internment and that 2,400, including some 1,600 survivors of the sinking of the S.S. Patria on Nov. 25, were still in the Athlit camp.

        The Patria death toll reached 72 today when four more bodies, including Max Zwillinger, 49, of Vienna and three unidentified women, were recovered from the submerged ship.

        The Ayanoth conference adopted resolutions calling for continuation of the organization’s work in occupied European countries, demanding that American Jews increase their assistance to suffering European Jews and asking strengthening of the World Jewish Congress to make it an authoritative representative body.
        http://www.jta.org/1940/12/22/archive/5000-unused-palestine-certificates-extended-total-war-entry-reaches-20000

        So there were plenty of certificates for the passengers of the Patria, but they were left on the ship to suffer and many of them were massacred by the Jewish Agency terrorists for propaganda purposes.

        Even after it learned of the Holocaust, the Jewish Agency was employing its unused immigration certificates in Yemen, not Europe:

        During the early 1940s, the imam’s attitude towards Jewish emigration took a new direction: neither prohibition nor official permission, but rather unspoken consent to the departure of Jews from San a and other central Yemeni settlements. This development was initially noted in 1943, when the Jewish Agency began its active involvement in Yemen. Toward the end of 1942, the fate of European Jews and the horrors of the Holocaust became well known. The Jewish Agency suggested that in order to increase the Jewish demographic presence in Palestine, unused immigration certificates be transferred to Jews from Muslim countries. Accordingly, Yosef Ben David, the Yemeni born Jewish Agency education emissary in Aden, was dispatched to Yemen in 1943, in order to explore the possibilities of Jewish immigration to Palestine. — Traditional Society in Transition: The Yemeni Jewish Experience, By Bat-Zion Eraqi Klorman, page 97 https://books.google.com/books?id=mY-fAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA97&ots=A-FCynI2aK&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false

        The rank and file membership of the Zionist Organization and the WJC were concerned about the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe, but the members of the Zionist Executive were not. The documentary record shows that, long before Israel became worried about being flooded with millions of Palestinian refugees, it was worried about being flooded with millions of undesirable Jewish refugees.
        The Jewish Agency Executive were not concerned with bringing all of the Jewish people, as such, to Palestine or concerned about their fate:

        A representative of the Jewish Agency has stated that in the event of partition the 400,000 Jews in the Arab states outside Palestine may have to be sacrificed in the interest of the Jewish community as a whole.

        link to foia.cia.gov
        Weizmann never considered many Jews to be fit material for the Jewish community he was building in Palestine:

        Dr. Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency, stated that he had come to this country, with Palestine as always uppermost in his mind, to raise $4,000,000 outside the United Palestine Appeal for strengthening the Jewish community in Palestine.
        It was to be anticipated, Dr. Weizmann said, that at the end of the war there would be at least 2,500,000 Jews seeking refuge. Of these perhaps 1,000,000 would represent Jews with a future and the others Jews whose lives were behind them-”who were but little more than dust”. He believed that it would be possible to settle in Palestine 1,000,000 of these refugees, so far as possible those with a future, one-fourth on the land, the remainder as an addition to the urban population.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        Here are a number of cites from Boaz Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260-261 regarding the deliberations and correspondence of the Zionist Executive on the subject of the Evian Conference on Refugees:
        *The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 to discuss the Evian Conference goal of raising Allied attention to the need for efforts and funding in order to resettle endangered Jews in other countries. Evron wrote that: “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing’.
        “We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.”
        *Evron quotes from a letter written by Georg Landauer, the managing director of the Jewish Agency Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, to Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Co-Chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, dated February 13, 1938: I am writing this letter at the request of Dr. Weizmann because we are extremely concerned lest the problem be presented in a way which would prejudice the activity for Eretz Israel. Even if the conference does not propose immediately after its opening other countries but Eretz Israel as venues for Jewish emigration, it will certainly arouse a public response that could put the importance of Eretz Israel in the shade. . . . We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for the aid of Jewish refugees, and these collection efforts would interfere with our collection efforts.
        *There was also the statement made by Menachem Ussishkin head of the Jewish National Fund in the meeting of the Zionist Executive on June 26, 1938 regarding the report of Mr. Greenbaum: “He is also concerned at the Evian Conference. . . . Mr. Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz Israel off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him. . . . The greatest danger remains that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration.”
        The statement by Ben Gurion and the letter to Rabbi Wise were also cited in S. Beit Zvi, Hatzionut Ha-Post-Ugandit Bemashber Ha’shoah (Post-Uganda Zionism and the Holocaust), Tel Aviv: Bronfmann, 1977, page 178, 181, 182

      • pjdude
        April 20, 2015, 11:38 am

        still sticking to your misrepresentation of history i see. anything to protect zionist crimes and strip palestinians of their humanity. again you claimed it happened in association with the holocaust it didn’t plain and simple hop you lied about history yet again

      • RoHa
        April 20, 2015, 9:54 pm

        Hophmi, the Palestinians were already facing a bunch of foreign European Jewish immigrants who were trying to take their country. Do you seriously think they should have welcomed more European Jews to strengthen their enemies?

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 3:09 am

        Why should the Palestinians have felt sorry for the plight of the Jews, when they had their own problems? The Mufti had been deported from his own country in violation of fundamental human rights and his own people had been killed and imprisoned. The British used concentration camps, false confessions obtained by torture, and summary executions to accomplish their aims. See:
        * Matthew Hughes, The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936 – 39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, Oxford University Press, 2009, link to ehr.oxfordjournals.org
        *Prof. Susan Pedersen, The Meaning of the Mandates System: An Argument link to aiscibhistory.wikispaces.com
        *Segev, Shlaim, and other historians document the fact that when Major General Bernard Montgomery was given command in Palestine to put down the Arab revolt, the British forces were given standing orders on how to handle rebels: kill them.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 11:51 am

        1. “The Jewish Agency always had unused immigration certificates at its disposal, even after the 1939 White Paper policy went into effect”

        Unbelievable. You post an article from 1940 – AFTER THE WAR STARTED – which clearly says that the certificates could not be used because the Jews would wanted to use them were unable to secure travel. Just completely unbelievable that you would post this, from 1940, to suggest that the White Paper did not have the effect of condemning hundreds of thousands of Jews to death by denying them the ability to emigrate.

        When it became clear that the White Paper had condemned European Jews to certain death, and that the certificates were going to go to waste, the Jewish Agency looked for other ways to use them.

        2. The people who died on the Patria were NOT killed purposely. The Haganah put a bomb on the ship to disable it so that the British could not deport the passengers, and the explosion was larger than expected, and sank the ship very quickly. This was in the middle of the Holocaust. Your second-guessing of acts like this, meant to save the lives of Jewish refugees, is utterly abhorrent.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_disaster

        3. You (mis)quote a CIA report that cites a “representative of the Jewish Agency” who says that 400,000 Jews in the Arab world may have to be “sacrificed” for the good of the Jewish community as a whole, and claim, based on this, that the Jewish Agency was not interested in their fate. But (a) the source you cite quote a representative, and says nothing about the position of the Jewish Agency Executive itself; (b) the source does not make clear whether sacrifice means leaving Jews to experience persecution in the Arab world, or eventually bringing them to Israel, and (c) the fact that Israel eventually absorb most Arab Jews suggests that whatever the actual position was, Israel ultimately did not leave Jews in Arab lands to be persecuted. I am glad, though, to see this rare acknowledgement that Jews in Arab countries were indeed persecuted.

        4. We’re all familiar with statements of some Zionist leaders suggesting many European Jewish refugees postwar would be poor candidates for aliyah. Of course, Wiezmann’s statement is little more than an acknowledgement of the limits of the resources in view of the land available and the money available to resettle refugees. This source is from 1940. (It’s interesting, given other recent conversations here, that you don’t include Weizmann’s view endorsing partition.) In any event, it is in the most ardent bad faith that people would read Weizmann’s statement as not “considering many Jews to be fit material for the Jewish community.” Nothing of that sort is suggested here, and the great sadness is that Weizmann was very wrong; there were millions and millions more Jews murdered than he anticipated, and by the war’s end, exceedingly fewer refugees than he had expected. In any event, Israel ultimately took in more DPs than anyone else.

        5. You persist again in bringing up old debates over the Evian Conference while omitting the context. The Jewish Agency was ultimately pessimistic about Evian because they were afraid that resettling Jews in the Diaspora would only perpetuate the misery Jews had experienced for centuries. In any event, the point could not be more moot today; most of the conference participants refused to let in any refugees, and the problem went unsolved. Again, to second-guess Ben-Gurion’s views in 1938, on the eve of the Holocaust, when massive Jewish persecution was a reality in Germany and Austria, and was to be followed by the largest crime in human history, and when the true tragedy of Evian is that the countries would not act, is simply revolting.

        It’s no small irony that today, as antisemitism again rears its ugly head in Europe, you criticize Israeli leaders for calling upon European Jews to emigrate.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 12:30 am

        Careful Hophmi, your feigned outrage and lack of common sense are showing again. Try to slow down and read something by Alfred Lilienthal for comprehension. It might help break through the mental fog and clear-up all those delusions of adequacy you’re experiencing.

        The letter to Rabbi Wise from the Zionist Executive helps explain exactly why the US and other countries were reluctant to open their doors to Jewish refugees as a result of the Evian Conference. Morris Ernst, one of the founders of the ACLU, wrote that FDR had told him that the Zionists lobbied against efforts to raise the immigration quotas here in the US to allow in more Jewish refugees. Ernst was tapped by FDR to help lay the ground work for the Evian Conference. See M. Ernst, “So Far so Good”, Harper, 1948, pages 176-77 We all know from many other published accounts that the Zionist and Israeli leadership have made similar demands for other countries to close their doors to Jewish refugees who were desperately trying to flee places like the former Soviet Union.

        Weizmann’s comments were made after the war started, while he was the President of the WZO. I don’t see how you can complain about anyone else’s attitude, if you can ignore his total disregard for the fate of a million or more Jewish refugees that he indicated were worth little more than dust in his estimation.

        Your explanation about the immigration certificates is nonsensical. The JTS reported on many occasions that there were thousands of illegal refugees who were admitted after the White Paper went into effect or interned safely in camps elsewhere, like Cyprus. I’ve commented here in the past about published reports concerning the actions taken by the British to evacuate all of the Struma passengers who held expired visas to Palestine. They used an overland route after the ship docked in Turkey. When they asked the Jewish Agency to agree to reduce the number of its thousands of unused entry permits so that the remainder could be evacuated too, the Zionists stubbornly refused and chose instead to abandon them to their fate. http://archive.org/stream/Ben-gurionScandals–HowTheHagannahAndTheMossadEliminatedJews/

        If you are going to vehemently denounce others for merely “appeasing the Nazis”, then the hypocrisy of the Zionist Organization must literally rise up to the heavens over their subsidiary’s formal business partnership selling the Nazi regime’s manufactured goods for a tidy profit to the neighboring countries. Even when a transaction actually had some plausible connection to an unfortunate refugee’s German deposit account, the Zionist and German banking partners took a hefty thirty percent cut as a currency exchange fee. Then there was the matter of the Irgun offering of a Jewish and Nazi alliance. If these people can all be excused for trying to save other people’s hides from the Germans, then why can’t the Mufti be excused for trying to save his own beleaguered brethren who were being summarily executed or imprisoned in British concentration camps?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 21, 2015, 2:38 pm

        thanks hostage

      • Keith
        April 21, 2015, 2:46 pm

        HOPHMI- “…the same people who cut deals with Hitler?”

        You mean like the pre-World War II Zionists? Have you ever read “Zionism in the Age of Dictators?”

        Hophmi- “Stop apologizing for the Mufti.”

        Start apologizing for Menachem Begin who early on was a highly visible fascist. Begin wasn’t appointed by the British and the Mufti never became a Prime Minister. In toto, Your dishonesty on this thread exceeds anything I have heretofore encountered. Your confidence in your ability to lie and slander with impunity indicates the degree that you are secure in your Jewish Zionist power. A victimizer not a victim.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 5:50 pm

        Zzzzzz. You got anything else, Professor, other than old discredited communist screeds about Zionists and Nazis and complaints about Begin that are 70 years out of days and weren’t true when they were made 70 years ago? Kerry Bolton spends more time with fascists in a morning than Begin did in his entire life.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2015, 10:11 pm

        HOPHMI- “You got anything else, Professor, other than old discredited communist screeds about Zionists and Nazis and complaints about Begin that are 70 years out of days and weren’t true when they were made 70 years ago?”

        The facts concerning Begin are at least as relevant as your red herring about the Mufti, a British appointed marginal figure. Incidentally, I find it curious that Israel would lend support to the Yugoslav Muslims who, as part of WWII greater Albania were aligned with Hitler and contributed one Waffen SS division towards the Nazi war effort. Should we bring up Adolph Eichmann’s first visit to Jerusalem prior to the war as a guest of Zionists? You have heard of Feifel Polkes haven’t you? How about Dr Rudolh Kastner? You know what they say about people who live in glass houses? As far as Begin’s fascist and terrorist credentials, perhaps you think that Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein are lying anti-Semites? I provide a quote and a link to a letter to the editor they sent to the New York Times in 1948 in regards to Begin’s history. I am reasonably sure that you are aware of this and are, once again, deliberately falsifying the historical record.

        “Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

        The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.” (Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, et al)
        https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/albert-einstein-letter-to-the-new-york-times-december-4-1948-protesting-against-zionist-terrorist-leader-menachem-begin-and-the-genocide-of-palestinians/

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:28 pm

        “Hophmi, I see that you are living in your usual state of delusion and denial.”

        Gosh, I had forgotten that in addition to being incredibly, almost unbelievably informative on the history of Zionism, (and other things besides, I would hardly stop there.) Hostage’s comments can be, well, lively, too!

        Thanks, Hostage.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 11:57 pm

        Gosh, I didn’t remember that in addition to being incredibly, almost unbelievably informative on the history of Zionism, (and other things besides, I would hardly stop there.) Hostage’s comments can be, well, lively, too.

        Well I’m no Einstein, but I can usually hold-up my own end of a detailed conversation about the legal meaning and origins of the equality clause in Israel’s declaration of independence, personality disorders, insults, applied physics, methods of lie detection, and Zionist history. See for example this lively and informative exchange with Richard Witty. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/benny-morris-i-want-a-less-arab-israel#comment-414236

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:37 pm

        “thanks hostage” Annie Robbins

        That is going to be a very oft-repeated phrase here, well, if I don’t get banned by the gentleman.
        The trip through Zionist history from Hostage makes me very glad I returned when the comment numbers went up on this thread.

    • pjdude
      April 20, 2015, 9:51 am

      really if they wanted to live in peace why did they start so many wars? its the zionists who were never willing to live in peace. and jews to allied with the nazis. both for the exact same reason they were at war with the british. this is common through out history. the french scots guard for example.

    • pjdude
      April 20, 2015, 10:07 am

      um your chronology is off the knowledge of the nazi deathcamps didn’t happen until late in 41 and the genoicide your refering to as the holocaust didn’t start until than either. so your complaining about them not being able to see the future.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 10:34 am

        “um your chronology is off the knowledge of the nazi deathcamps didn’t happen until late in 41 and the genoicide your refering to as the holocaust didn’t start until than either. ”

        By 1939, hundreds of thousands of German Jews had already been killed or imprisoned. The White Paper cut off one of their main avenues of exit. This is why the Guardian called the 1939 White Paper a “death sentence” for tens of thousands of Jews.

      • Donald
        April 20, 2015, 6:57 pm

        Shouldn’t Britian have allowed all theJewish refugees to come to Britain then? Why should they have to go to Palestine, where their presence would be unavoidably linked with a colonialist movement to take Palestine from the native people?
        There is plenty of blame to go around on who should have helped European Jews in the late 30’s, but ifyou want to talk about being obtuse, blaming Palestinians is like blaming the refugees themselves. The Jewish refugees were fleeing Hitler-1the Palestinians were trying to obtain the right to control their own land. The people to blame here are not the Palestinians and not those fleeing Hitler, but the rest of the world for not absorbing a relatively small number of desperate people–relatively small on a global scale, but not small if they are put into a tiny powder keg called Palestine.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 21, 2015, 7:30 am

        @donald

        I completely agree.

      • tree
        April 20, 2015, 7:38 pm

        By 1939, hundreds of thousands of German Jews had already been killed or imprisoned. The White Paper cut off one of their main avenues of exit.

        No, that is false. By 1939 over half of all German Jews had emigrated to other countries (and only 20 percent of them had gone to Palestine). Of the two hundred thousand left, the ones imprisoned were in the thousands, not “hundreds of thousands”. And the one’s killed were barely one thousand by the time of the White Paper.

        In January 1933, some 522,000 Jews by religious definition lived in Germany. Over half of these individuals, approximately 304,000 Jews, emigrated during the first six years of the Nazi dictatorship, leaving only approximately 214,000 Jews in Germany proper (1937 borders) on the eve of World War II.

        In the years between 1933 and 1939, the Nazi regime had brought radical and daunting social, economic, and communal change to the German Jewish community. Six years of Nazi-sponsored legislation had marginalized and disenfranchised Germany’s Jewish citizenry and had expelled Jews from the professions and from commercial life. By early 1939, only about 16 percent of Jewish breadwinners had steady employment of any kind. Thousands of Jews remained interned in concentration camps following the mass arrests in the aftermath of Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) in November 1938.

        World War II

        Yet the most drastic changes for the German Jewish community came with World War II in Europe. In the early war years, the newly transformed Reich Association of Jews in Germany (Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland), led by prominent Jewish theologian Leo Baeck but subject to the demands of Nazi German authorities, worked to organize further Jewish emigration, to support Jewish schools and self-help organizations, and to help the German Jewish community contend with an ever-growing mass of discriminatory legislation.

        Following the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939, the government imposed new restrictions on Jews remaining in Germany. One of the first wartime ordinances imposed a strict curfew on Jewish individuals and prohibited Jews from entering designated areas in many German cities. Once a general food rationing began, Jews received reduced rations; further decrees limited the time periods in which Jews could purchase food and other supplies and restricted access to certain stores, with the result that Jewish households often faced shortages of the most basic essentials.

        http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005469

        Many of those still stuck in Germany were elderly or with health or diability issues. The Zionist project had a selection process that disqualified those Jews who were not able-bodied. They weren’t interested in saving those folks unless there was some advantage to the Zionists in doing so. As it was, they didn’t even fill the quotas they were allowed by the White Paper during WWII.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2015, 8:29 pm

        You’re just wrong. 30000 people were sent to concentration camps after Kristallnacht alone. Just stop it.

      • pjdude
        April 21, 2015, 12:29 pm

        @hophmi 2 things your inflating your numbers again and even if we accept them which i don’t given your track record that still a far cry short of the hundreds of thousands you claimed. so considering your rampant dishonesty don’t tell others top stop it. you got caught lying is it really that important to you to keep digging a deeper hole.

      • tree
        April 21, 2015, 12:45 pm

        You’re just wrong. 30000 people were sent to concentration camps after Kristallnacht alone. Just stop it.

        30,000 is not “hundreds of thousands”(your quote), hophmi. There were barely “hundreds of thousands’ of German Jews left in Germany in May of 1939 (when the British White Paper was signed) because the majority of them had managed to escape to other countries.

        I quoted from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website. If you got a beef with what I said then take it up with them.

        As to the 30,000 German Jewish prisoners arrested in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, again, according to USHMM:

        As the pogrom spread, units of the SS and Gestapo (Secret State Police), following Heydrich’s instructions, arrested up to 30,000 Jewish males, and transferred most of them from local prisons to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and other concentration camps. Significantly, Kristallnacht marks the first instance in which the Nazi regime incarcerated Jews on a massive scale simply on the basis of their ethnicity. Hundreds died in the camps as a result of the brutal treatment they endured; most obtained release over the next three months on the condition that they begin the process of emigration from Germany. Indeed, the effects of Kristallnacht would serve as a spur to the emigration of Jews from Germany in the months to come.

        http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005201

        And requoting a portion of the link I posted above:

        By early 1939, only about 16 percent of Jewish breadwinners had steady employment of any kind. Thousands of Jews remained interned in concentration camps following the mass arrests in the aftermath of Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) in November 1938.

        “Thousands”, not thirty thousand, were still incarcerated in early 1939.

        Nothing I said was incorrect. You were exaggerating.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 1:21 pm

        “30,000 is not “hundreds of thousands”(your quote), hophmi. There were barely “hundreds of thousands’ of German Jews left in Germany in May of 1939 (when the British White Paper was signed) because the majority of them had managed to escape to other countries.”

        This is tiresome. You stated that Jews were imprisoned in “the thousands.” It was in the tens of thousands during Kristallnacht alone, not in the “thousands”. You also talk about the emigrants. About 100,000 of the Jews from Germany emigrated to countries that Germany would eventually occupy, and most of them were killed, like Anne Frank. Nobody was in the dark about what was going to happen. Jews were systematically deprived of their rights between 1933 and 1939. And you repeat this abomination about Jews being unable to fulfill their quotas under the White Paper, which they were unable to do because Jews were unable to emigrate, not because they didn’t want to. There were roughly 240,000 Jews left in Germany and Austria at the time of the Final Solution. 210,000 were murdered.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 6:10 pm

        And you repeat this abomination about Jews being unable to fulfill their quotas under the White Paper, which they were unable to do because Jews were unable to emigrate, not because they didn’t want to.

        No you repeated the lame canard that their “escape route” was cutoff by the White Paper policy (as if it had been the British or the lack of quotas that prevented them from seeking refuge somewhere else, and not the Nazi regime). Even if there had been a logistical miracle, whereby six million people could have been transported to Palestine, common human decency would have dictated that a few million of them be selected from the other, non-Jewish victims, who had their escape route closed through no fault of the White paper.

        The fact is that it’s you who is committing a blood libel against others, while ignoring the actual role played by the Jewish Agency Executive in making sure that there were no other safe havens available and concentrating their money and efforts on non-European Jews during the Holocaust.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 6:39 pm

        Lol. Yeah. I’m the one making the blood libel. You’re unbelievable, man. Just unbelievable. It’s sad.

      • tree
        April 21, 2015, 6:50 pm

        This is tiresome. You stated that Jews were imprisoned in “the thousands.”

        It’s only “tiresome” to you, hophmi because you got caught lying. You said

        “By 1939, hundreds of thousands of German Jews had already been killed or imprisoned. ”

        I linked to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum which correctly stated that by early 1939 the number of German Jewish prisoners was in fact in the thousands, NOT the “hundreds of thousands” as you claimed and that over half of the German Jews had managed to escape Nazi Germany and the great majority of the rest were suffering, but alive, in Nazi Germany in 1939, which proved your exaggeration of the 1933-1939 death toll to be wrong. Why not just admit that you erred instead of, as pjdude mentioned, digging a deeper hole?

        . Jews were systematically deprived of their rights between 1933 and 1939.

        No one here is disputing that. Too bad that you can’t likewise acknowledge that the state of Israel has systematically deprived Palestinians of their rights since 1948 up through this very moment.

        And you repeat this abomination about Jews being unable to fulfill their quotas under the White Paper, which they were unable to do because Jews were unable to emigrate, not because they didn’t want to.

        So now you have totally contradicted yourself. Why are you complaining about the quotas that weren’t even filled if you acknowledge that many German Jews were unable to emigrate? You insisted that the White Paper was a “death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews” but now admit that German Jews couldn’t emigrate regardless of how many unfilled quotas there were, thus the White Paper was not relevant to their suffering and deaths. You are being completely dishonest with yourself as well as the rest of us if you can’t see the contradiction in the two statements you made.

        About 100,000 of the Jews from Germany emigrated to countries that Germany would eventually occupy, and most of them were killed, like Anne Frank. Nobody was in the dark about what was going to happen.

        Most people in early 1939 had no idea that Nazi Germany would control the fate of almost all of Western Europe by 1941. And the only reason that the Jews in Palestine were spared was because they lived in a country administered by Great Britain. If Sykes had relegated Palestine to Picot (or if Great Britain had fallen in WWII like France did), then the fate of Palestinian Jews would have been no different then the fate of Jews in other Nazi occupied countries. And if you seriously think that “nobody was in the dark” as to what was going to happen, how do you explain the Stern Gang’s offer to collaborate with Nazi Germany in 1941?

        I understand you are emotional on this issue but its no excuse for lying, and certainly no excuse for issuing apologetics for Zionist leaders who showed little concern for European Jews other than as a source of demographics and financing for the benefit of their State.

        BTW, approximately 24,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine from 1939 through 1941. For the same time span, approximately 124,000 Jews immigrated to the US.

        http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1942_1943_8_Statistics.pdf

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2015, 6:56 pm

        I haven’t lied at all. You refuse to accept the truth here, which is that the White Paper, which was promulgated in 1939, before the war started, was indirectly responsible for the deaths of many people, from the German Jews who could not go in 1939, to the Jews in Western Europe who could not go later. You offensively continue to blame the Jews for European sins, and it’s horrible, horrible for you, horrible for this site, and horrible for the Palestinians, who are cursed with activists like you.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 21, 2015, 7:47 pm

        Zzzzzz. You got anything else, Professor, other than old discredited zionist screeds. You’re unbelievable, man. Just unbelievable. It’s sad.

      • gamal
        April 21, 2015, 7:21 pm

        I was going to leave a rude comment on the Slater article, only because of the “claiming all of Palestine for the Arabs” absurdity, but am now too drunk and stoned to find it, and I read Hostages post here, I read every word he posts, so dont take this the wrong way but H you exemplifies just how a good Alim (spiritual scholar) operates, calm, clear, dignified, humorous, to the point and gentle, you are a class act Sir, from the most ignorant and injurious of the Muslims gamal, respect Sir.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 2:27 am

        I was going to leave a rude comment on the Slater article, only because of the “claiming all of Palestine for the Arabs” absurdity

        I’m sorry to hear that you left that undone.

        but am now too drunk and stoned to find it,

        That’s a better reason than I had for ending up here. I’m glad that you thought of it and were brave enough to go first. I’m going to go pour myself a tall one right now and join-in the search for Slater’s reply button.

        respect Sir.

        Back at ya!

      • gamal
        April 21, 2015, 8:11 pm

        “and horrible for the Palestinians, who are cursed with activists like you”

        My GOD he is reaching out (don’t get any on you)

      • oldgeezer
        April 21, 2015, 8:38 pm

        @hophmi

        I dont think you lied either you were just dead wrong and now you are busy trying to deflect instead of being a man about it.

        No one blamed the Jews and you knkw that. That some zionists were willing to treat Hewish people as disposable in reaching for their goal does not blame all Jews. Now you are bing dishonest.

  17. talknic
    April 18, 2015, 5:26 pm

    Historically interesting and an insight into Zionist deceit. However what happened prior to the moment Israel was “proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” became effectively irrelevant as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

    POINT: “The word “Certain” at the beginning of the last paragraph indicates that not all such communities were to be provisionally recognized as independent states. We will see later that Palestine was the exception”

    Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon were all under a class A Mandate and;

    Article 7 of the LoN Mandate leaves no doubt as to the status of Palestine

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

    The Nationality law was adopted in 1925.

    Further reading http://bcrfj.revues.org/6405#tocto1n2

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 19, 2015, 8:50 am

      @talknic History is not irrelevant, because it has produced the present: and the present is the starting point from which we create the future. A knowledge of history can help us to avoid the mistakes of the past, and also sometimes to gain inspiration from what went well.

      Palestine was different to the other middle-east mandates. They had some form of indigenous government from the beginning, and the Mandatory was there to assist and advise. That is why they were called ‘provisionally independent states’. In Palestine, the Mandatory was in total control, until self-governing institutions had been created . I quoted the Palestine Mandate and the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon to illustrate the difference.

      I hope people have not been confused by the use of the word ‘nation’ in the Carlsbad Resolution to describe the Jewish and Arab communities. It is used in the same sense as people talk about the ‘Sioux nation’ or the ‘English, Scottish and Welsh nations’: not in the modern sense of nation-state. It is indeed clear that Palestine was to be a single nation-state, forming the common home of the Jewish and Arab ‘peoples’, or ‘nations’.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:46 pm

        “and the present is the starting point from which we create the future.”

        And to a great extent (okay, maybe not for true historians, but everybody else) the present is the starting point for creating the past.
        Gosh, I wish the Zionists would figure that out.

  18. Avigail Abarbanel
    April 19, 2015, 6:08 am

    “A just and lasting peace between the two peoples requires reconciliation, and a correct common understanding of their shared history could be an important contribution to this.”

    This statement put me off from reading the entire series. I could be wrong but how can I take this seriously when the writer immediately talks about reconciliation when the colonised are still being colonised by the coloniser and are still under its brutal control? Honestly… This should not be published no matter how valuable the documents might be that the article proposes to air…

    • just
      April 19, 2015, 7:32 am

      You have a point, Avigail.

      Thank you.

      wrt Southampton U’s conference:

      “A group of 13 Jewish academics in the U.K. has slammed the recent cancellation of a controversial conference on Israel’s right to exist, saying that the move by the University of Southampton was against academic freedoms and “intellectually lazy.”

      The conference, entitled, “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism,” would have taken place this weekend. It aimed “to explore the relatedness of the suffering and injustice in Palestine to the foundation and protection of a state of such nature,” according to its website.

      A letter in Friday’s Jewish Chronicle signed by the academics condemned “the pressure that has been brought to bear, in our names, on the University of Southampton,” which led to the cancellation. They added that they were “deeply concerned by reports that organizations, including the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council, pressured the University to limit debate.”

      Critics denounced the confernce as one-sided and anti-Semitic, and a petition opposing it, sponsored by the United Kingdom Zionist Federation, garnered over 6,400 signatures. It was also condemned by the Jewish Board of Deputies, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles and several members of parliament. The University of Southampton pulled the plug on the three-day event citing health and safety concerns. …”

      http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.652400

      This conversation is overdue.

    • hophmi
      April 19, 2015, 9:36 am

      Gotta love the extremists. Only they would say that entire pro-Palestinian set of pieces should be suppressed because the author favors peace between Jews and Palestinians.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 12:22 pm

        @hophmi Thank you for your support.

      • Avigail Abarbanel
        April 19, 2015, 1:13 pm

        I find it really funny that I am called an extremist… Please see my comments below. Cheers.

      • eljay
        April 19, 2015, 1:52 pm

        || Avigail Abarbanel: I find it really funny that I am called an extremist… ||

        A Zio-supremacist like hophmi considers you an extremist not because you favour peace (with which he’s OK), but because you appear also to favour justice, accountability and equality (which which he’s not OK).

        It’s a sad – but very typical – commentary on Zio-supremacists, actually.

      • echinococcus
        April 19, 2015, 8:05 pm

        Mr Fincham, that talk of “reconciliation” and “mutual respect” up front is really a very serious turn-off. I had the same reaction as Ms Abrabanel but read it because I am somewhat masochist. In fact, it is the only reaction to be expected, for the reason expressed by Ms Abrabanel.

      • Penfold
        April 20, 2015, 3:03 am

        Gotta love the extremists. Only they would say that entire pro-Palestinian set of pieces should be suppressed because the author favors peace between Jews and Palestinians.”

        Surely you are going to extremes when you claim there is conflict between Jews and Palestinians wouldn’t it be more accurate to say Israeli’s and Palestinians as I am not aware of any issues between Palestinians and Jews outside Israel.

    • Sycamores
      April 19, 2015, 10:08 am

      Hi Avigail,

      reconciliation only works when both sides are equal which is not the case in Palestine/Israel.

      • Avigail Abarbanel
        April 19, 2015, 12:53 pm

        Completely agree Sycamores. That is the point I was trying to make…

      • Avigail Abarbanel
        April 19, 2015, 12:54 pm

        Thanks Sycamores. I agree entirely.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 19, 2015, 10:57 am

      Avigail: “how can I take this seriously when the writer immediately talks about reconciliation when the colonised are still being colonised by the coloniser and are still under its brutal control?”

      Thinking ahead is always worthwhile. To be clear, I believe the colonization project should and could be stopped immediately by a Chapter VII Security Council resolution.

      • Avigail Abarbanel
        April 19, 2015, 12:59 pm

        Hi David and thanks for your comment. I am not disputing a view of a possible future with reconciliation. But your comment so early in the article is potentially misleading to a lot of readers who are not familiar with the history of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. A lot of well-meaning but ill-informed people are under the impression that Israelis and Palestinians simply do not ‘get along’ and that is why there is a conflict there. Israel in particular has worked very hard in its own propaganda to spread the idea that the conflict is symmetrical and that the two sides are equal. Israel has even tried to suggest that it is the weaker side in the conflict and that the Palestinians are the big bad powerful wolf who is the threat to Israel. I also think that talking about reconciliation now, without proper qualification, is profoundly disrespectful to the Palestinians who are right now in the process of being colonised by Israel in a most brutal and ruthless manner.

        I might be over-sensitive to this but being a former Israeli myself and having been an activist for as long as I have I am very aware of the importance of words and narrative.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 2:01 pm

        Hi Avigail, I mention reconciliation first to explain my motivation for writing about the history. As you say, many people really have no knowledge of what the conflict is about, largely because of some very effective hasbara. Truth is a pre-condition for reconciliation.

      • MHughes976
        April 19, 2015, 1:35 pm

        Greater knowledge of the past may well increase resentment rather than good will. The idea or demand that we must study the past with an eye to becoming reconciled to someone whom we now resent is no more objective in its approach to the facts of the past than the demand that we must study these things in order to promote national pride and assertiveness.
        I’m sure that Avigail’s right to say that Israeli propaganda suggests symmetrical conflict in the present but in respect of the 1920s it suggests that the conflict was highly asymmetrical with the ‘Arabs’ having much greater power, whereby they attempted (in vain! remember Goliath!) to reject the Zionists’ entirely reasonable offer of joint development, perhaps as embodied at Carlsbad. The emphasis on Carlsbad seems misleading to me.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 19, 2015, 2:33 pm

        There was nothing reasonable about any part of the Zionist project. As the King-Crane Commission showed, their intention was to dispossess the Arabs of their land. They stepped back from that in the Carlsbad Resolution. How sincere they were at the time is unknown, but it is clear from the correspondence of the Palestinian Arab Delegation that the Jewish immigrants were in economic competition with the Arabs, and not involved in joint development.

        In the 1920s the Arabs of Palestine were completely powerless, since the Jewish National Home policy was forced upon them “by the might of England”. According to the Mandate, the Zionists should have been equally powerless, but in reality “practically all of the official world” was under the control of the Zionist Commission.

    • Mooser
      April 19, 2015, 11:26 am

      Ms. Abarbanel, I’m with you. Out of human decency, and for many practical reasons, we have to strive for a solution.
      But there isn’t a goddam reason in the world why the solution must include absolution for Zionism and Israel.

      • Avigail Abarbanel
        April 19, 2015, 1:04 pm

        Agreed Mooser. Thank you. I am not sure that the colosal and comprehensive crime of colonisation can ever be forgiven. And of course the problem here is that it is not even over but is continuing as we speak. It is colonisation in full progress in Paletstine so I feel that it is in bad taste to speak about reconciliation at this point in time. Palestinias are still trapped and abused by Israel, crimes are committed every hour of every day and there is no letting up with Israel… Talking about reconciliation is one of the most disrepsectful things anyone can do to the Palestinians who are still victimised. I just do not get it. We can most certainly talk about reconciliation when it is really truly over and when there is a one-state for all its citizens in Palestine-Israel. But that does not look to happen any time soon, at least not if we leave it up to Israel…People can talk about the future all they wish, no problem there, as long as they provide a qualifcation there, if anything out respect for the ongoing suffering of the Palestinian.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 2:53 pm

        Thank you, Avigail. Maybe I’ve coined a slogan: “The one-state solution cannot include Zionist absolution”.
        More likely, of course, that I am counterfeiting, I can’t be the first person to see the relation between the two.

  19. NickJOCW
    April 19, 2015, 8:23 am

    Let those Jews go to Palestine so we are rid of them That is indeed the attitude that dominated at the time. The notion that anyone ‘thought’ the Zionists would live in peace with the indigenous inhabitants is as fanciful as the ‘thought’ itself. The process was not thought, it was the abandonment of thought in favour of peace and quiet from relentless importunity. That is how it earned the definition ‘the Jewish problem’, the problem was not finding them a home but ending their persistence.

    And I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him because he is a friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

    Luke 11:1

    I am old enough to remember.

  20. piotr
    April 19, 2015, 8:27 am

    I think that to understand the “holy writ of Balfour declaration” one has to have some picture of the policies and the way of thinking of the British ruling class of the time. For starters, there was a well defined ruling class, to a degree aped by somewhat less defined ruling class in USA. Balfour himself was born in the palace of his noble family (Wikipedia makes no note of silver spoons, but surely there were some in the household). And one of the functions of that class was to rule and expand the Empire, and to treat subject peoples according to their stations. Five years before the declaration South African Act gave the Whites of South Africa the right to rule the country as THEY see fit (whatever the opinions of the disenfranchised Black who promptly got totally disenfranchised). Three years later, democratic institutions were provided for Kenia, only whites were represented (I am lazy to check, but 1-2% of the population). Arabs were viewed as a cut above the Negroes, except for the Beduin that were “savages”, but below the Jews (who were of course inferior to the British, but unlike the British, they had British friend in good social standing).

    And sure enough, the idea that “welfare of the native peoples” should be mentioned here and there was accepted, EVERY colony was supposedly improving the lot of the subjects, but the idea that one should SERIOUSLY consider that welfare was perhaps reserved for jokes in the clubs and some memoranda destined to gather dust.

    That said, “national home” was intentionally an extremely vague phrase, hardly putting any restrictions on ruling the Empire. Support of the Jewish immigration had prominent backers (including Rotschilds) and some critics as it was creating some difficulties in ruling over Palestine, and the settlers, not being British, did not deserve the deference like those in Kenia.

  21. mcohen.
    April 19, 2015, 8:59 am

    nice summary dave but the show started back in 1865…….interesting that lord kitchener served in both israel and south africa………..anyway it,s all history and i prefer to concentrate on the future….did you know that saudi oil will run out in 2025.

    americans are now looking for a new source and the iranians are back in the game……..no wonder they need those s300 missiles…….they will be needing them

    On 22 June 1865, a group of Biblical archaeologists and clergymen financed the fund, with an initial fund of only £300.[2] The most notable of the founders were Arthur P. Stanley, the Dean of Westminster, and George Grove, who later founded the Royal College of Music and was responsible for Grove’s Dictionary of Music. Its founders established the Fund “for the purpose of investigating the Archaeology, Geography, manners, customs and culture, Geology and Natural History of the Holy Land.”[5]
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Exploration_Fund

    Survey of Western Palestine

    In 1874, at age 24, Kitchener was assigned by the Palestine Exploration Fund to a mapping-survey of the Holy Land, replacing Charles Tyrwhitt-Drake, who had died of malaria (Silberman 1982). Kitchener, then an officer in the Royal Engineers, joined fellow Royal Engineer Claude R. Conder and between 1874 and 1877, they surveyed what is today Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, returning to England only briefly in 1875, after an attack by locals in the Galilee, at Safed (Silberman 1982).
    Conder and Kitchener’s expedition became known as the Survey of Western Palestine because it was largely confined to the area west of the Jordan River (Hull 1885, p199-222). The survey collected data on the topography and toponymy of the area, as well as local flora and fauna. The results of the survey were published in an eight volume series, with Kitchener’s contribution in the first three tomes (Conder and Kitchener 1881-1885).
    This survey has had a lasting effect on the Middle East for several reasons:
    The ordnance survey serves as the basis for the grid system used in the modern maps of Israel and Palestine.
    The collection of data compiled by Conder and Kitchener are still consulted by archaeologists and geographers working in the southern Levant.
    The survey itself effectively delineated and defined the political borders of the southern Levant. For instance, the modern border between Israel and Lebanon is established at the point in the upper Galilee where Conder and Kitchener’s survey stopped.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener#cite_note-6

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 19, 2015, 5:33 pm

      Thanks for the information.

      Bye the way, I am David not Dave. If you ever have a chance to see the UK TV Channel Dave you will understand why.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 8:55 pm

        Dr. Fincham, you can stop worrying about Ides of March, don’t give them another thought!
        It’s the “first week in June” we need to worry about. We are on a Kaballistic trajectory headed straight for it!

        “mcohen” can explain.

  22. Jackdaw
    April 19, 2015, 9:06 am

    King-Crane Commission. LOL!

    Charles Crane was a virulent Jew hater and soon to be, Nazi sympathizer.

    http://www.amazon.com/Arabists-The-Romance-American-Elite/dp/0028740238

    He was a dilettante, whose primary goal was Christian missionary.

    The findings of the Commission had zero value, in fact, one of the commissioners dissented and called the Commission a sham.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      April 19, 2015, 5:29 pm

      @Jackdaw

      King was a Christian theologian and educator, Crane was a businessman and a noted Arabist, neither was a missionary. They were the only Commissioners, neither resigned.

      Reading their report, it is clear that they carried out their enquiries in a very thorough manner. You provide no evidence that their report was biased by their personal viewpoints. Their report has great value.

      • Jackdaw
        April 20, 2015, 1:38 am

        @David Gerald Fincham

        Crane’s anti-Semitism and inexperience. See Kaplan, above, at 69-73.

        Commission Technical Assistant WIlliam Yale’s ‘minority report’, and advocacy for a Jewish State. See, http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/kingcrane/id/2621/rec/20

        For the Christian missionary bias of the King-Crane Commission, See Knee, S., below.

        “Far from being an ‘experiment in peacemaking’. the King-Cran Report was a pro-Christian document.”See, Knee, Stuart (April 1977) The King-Crane Commission of 1919: The Articulation of Political Anti-Zionism. American Jewish Archives, p 49-52

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 20, 2015, 10:39 am

        You have still provided no evidence that the report was biased by the personal views of the Commissioners. Your claim that Crane was anti-semitic is based on a book by a Jewish neo-conservative and former IDF member: a class of person who believe that everyone who disagrees with their ideas must be anti-semitic.

        I have managed to read only a few pages of Yale’s report. His conclusions so far are entirely in accord with those of the Commission. The Commission was sent to find out the views of the local population. The Zionists were trying to take over their country, and they objected strongly to it. The history of the last 95 years shows that the Commission were correct in their analysis.

        I do not what you mean by saying the Commission was ‘pro-Christian’. King was a Christian theologian, you could hardly expect him to be anti-Christian. Crane was an Arabist, and Christian Arabs did not differ from Muslim Arabs in their views of Zionism.

      • RoHa
        April 20, 2015, 5:18 am

        Please clarify, with appropriate evidence, what the King-Crane commission got wrong.
        Accusations -or even proof – of anti-Semitism or Christian bias do not count as evidence. They are, at best, reasons for caution.

      • Jackdaw
        April 20, 2015, 10:57 am

        @ Roha
        @Fincham

        King-Crane Commission Report anti-Semitic? You bet.

        The report makes assumptions about Zionist aims and Jewish character. The report states, for example, “that it 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, by various forms of purchase.”

        But, oddly, nowhere in the report does any Zionist say anything remotely like that. Instead, the archival materials show that the Zionists spoke repeatedly of working with, and assisting, their Arab neighbors.

        For example, after a meeting with a Zionist delegation in Jaffa, Captain William Yale, one of the Commission’s technical advisers, made note of the Zionists’ belief that, “Jewish Colonists could mix with the Arabs and could be a help to the Arabs.”

        And two days later, in an address to the Commission at Rishon-le-Zion, a Jewish speaker boasted that the agricultural improvements the Zionists had introduced had been “of use for our native neighbors.”

        How else to explain this except as latent anti-Semitism.

      • Jackdaw
        April 20, 2015, 1:57 pm

        @Fincham

        ‘After a single day in the Holy Land, King and Crane dispatched
        to Paris a telegram which said that it would be impossible to carry
        out the Zionist program without the presence of a large army.’

        It was hardly likely that the Commission had conducted a careful
        inquiry in twenty-four hours. The fact that until June 12th the
        only official they spoke to was Glazebrook, the anti-Zionist and missionary American Ambassador.

        ‘Over a period of two weeks, the King-Crane Commission
        attended a number of anti-Zionist gatherings and, in an informal
        party-dinner atmosphere, socialized with anti-Zionist British
        officers, Arab nationalists, and resident Christians. After calling
        on King and Crane that morning, Glazebrook entertained them on
        the evening of June 14th at a “twelve course dinner, where the
        principal guests were a Frenchman who favored a unified Turkey”
        and two anti-Zionist British officials, Sir Ronald Storrs, the
        military governor of Jerusalem, and General Arthur Money, the
        military governor of Palestine (see below). The sentiments they conveyed were implanted successfully in the minds of the commissioners. Albert Lybyer for one recorded his view of the Zionists; all of them were unscrupulous and “all Americans and Britons oppose them,” he wrote after having been in Palestine only four days.­’

        — Knee, S. at pg. 42.

        The King-Crane Commission of 1919 – American Jewish …
        americanjewisharchives.org/journal/PDF/1977_29_01_00_knee.pdf
        by SE KNEE

        General Arthur Money was another classic British anti-Semite.

        General Money complained of British prime mininster Lloyd George’s “hook nosed friends”, had governmental forms printed in English and Arabic and not in Hebrew, and refused to stand for “Hatikvah”, the Jewish national anthem.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=aMARkGMillcC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=arthur+money+meinertzhagen&source=bl&ots=IKZjRhWVRa&sig=EZKhMQCTZ3psBLT7VZu9EslNjVk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eDs1VbXgEs3lsASyy4HoAg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=arthur%20money%20meinertzhagen&f=false

      • Hostage
        April 20, 2015, 9:44 pm

        Commission Technical Assistant WIlliam Yale’s ‘minority report’, and advocacy for a Jewish State.

        William Yale wasn’t one of the commissioners, he was one of their staff military officers.

        ‘After a single day in the Holy Land, King and Crane dispatched
        to Paris a telegram which said that it would be impossible to carry
        out the Zionist program without the presence of a large army.’

        The two commissioners were accompanied by a full staff, including military officers who already had service experience in the Near East, such as Captain William Yale. — http://www.oberlin.edu/library/digital/king-crane/intro.html

      • RoHa
        April 21, 2015, 12:43 am

        “But, oddly, nowhere in the report does any Zionist say anything remotely like that. Instead, the archival materials show that the Zionists spoke repeatedly of working with, and assisting, their Arab neighbors. ”

        Good. Some progress. You have actually given a reason for doubting the conclusions of the commission.

        Still a lot of irrelevant whining about anti-Semitism, though. The truth of a claim is not affected by the ideology of the person making the claim. Alas, since the educational trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric has been replaced by fluff and waffle, many people have difficult in recognizing that.

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 3:24 am

        “But, oddly, nowhere in the report does any Zionist say anything remotely like that.

        The relevant portion of the report is discussing information supplied in Zionist literature and conferences:

        (2) The commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist program by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. …
        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, by various forms of purchase.

        I’ve already cited one example of a published manifesto mentioned by Ben Gurion’s biographer: “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

      • Jackdaw
        April 21, 2015, 4:53 am

        @Hostage

        “The two commissioners were accompanied by a full staff, including military officers ”

        And Captian Yale, the military man, on hearing of the cablegram, instantly cabled Westermann to discount its alarming feature.

        Great job Hostage!

      • Hostage
        April 21, 2015, 1:34 pm

        And Captian Yale, the military man, on hearing of the cablegram, instantly cabled Westermann to discount its alarming feature.

        Great job Hostage!

        As I pointed out in my comment above, Wilson was a staffer, not a commissioner – and he was not the only military officer assigned. I certainly wouldn’t be bragging about his prescience or lack of alarm if I were a Zionist talkback troll.

        Wisdom is a common theme in the post-biblical Jewish literature. There’s an old Christian proverb of Jewish origin that says “Wisdom is vindicated by all of her children”. Those who optimistically suggested that a large military force wouldn’t be necessary to impose the mandates were in the extreme minority and their rosy predictions were proven to be totally unwarranted in very short order.

        In March 1920, only a few months after the King-Crane cable was sent, Trumpeldor and his fighters were cut-off from outside assistance and laid low. Back home, the British and French governments were contending with public demands for a rapid post-war demobilization. The remaining British contingent in Palestine was unable to handle the Nebi Musa riots in early April. When the Mandates were finally assigned and announced later that same month by the San Remo Conference, there were protests and uprisings in all of the Arab countries concerned, and scores of British soldiers were slaughtered in Iraq. I’ve already provided a link to Dr. Eder’s racist comments during his testimony about the riots the following year, in 1921.

        I’ve commented elsewhere that the LoN Yearbook recorded the fact that the British and French devoted most of their time and effort at San Remo to planning the route of a corridor for the construction of a railway, telegraph, and oil pipelines between Haifa and Mosul. After the imprudent overthrow of the Hashemite regime in Damascus, both Britain and France suddenly realized they could afford neither the money nor the manpower needed to establish and maintain all of the additional military garrisons that would be required to defend those very same rail, communications, and oil facilities in the vast interior of Arabia from the guerrilla warfare tactics the Hashemites had perfected during their operations against the Turks. So, Churchill quickly convened the Cairo Conference and had to come to terms with them. The British Military Intelligence circulated a report afterward on the May 1921 Arab uprising. It was authored by an officer who had served in Palestine ever since 1917. It openly condemned Churchill’s policies and noted the causes of “the Moslem and Christian opposition to and hatred of the British Zionist policy”. Some of the main headings were:
        *The special privileges accorded to Jews.
        *The influence of the Zionist Commission and the openly declared political aims of the Zionists
        *The behaviour and immorality of the immigrants
        *The fall in price of land, trade depression, and the prohibition of export of cereals affecting the peasantry
        *Arrogance of Jews towards Moslems and Christians.
        *No representation in the Government of the country or control of expenditure being accorded to the Arabs, who realise that the money taken from them in taxes is spent on employing foreign Jewish labour instead of native, keeping up Jewish immigration offices and such-like matters.
        *The realisation of the injustice of self-government being given to nomadic savages in Trans-Jordania and refused to Palestine;

        He concluded:

        It is impossible not to admit the truth of the conclusion that if the present British policy in Palestine is to continue unmodified a much larger garrison than the present one will be required to enforce it. The Arab population is so incensed against the Zionists and the British because of their support of the former that we must inevitably give concessions to them. These concessions should be prohibition of Jewish immigration until it can be properly controlled and the present intensive system be definitely abolished, and representative Government for all the people in Palestine.
        We are not faced by a simple outbreak of mob violence, in spite of pillage and other signs of participation of criminals and evil elements of the population. The troubles in Jaffa and other parts of the country are only the expressions of a deepseated and widely spread popular resentment at the present British policy. If that policy is not modified the outbreaks of to-day may become a revolution to-morrow.
        (Signed) C. D. BRUNTON, Captain G.S.
        General Staff Intelligence.

        http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7737542#imageViewerLink

        It’s ironic that Jabotinsky’s interpretation of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration/Mandate and his written assessment of the military situation in 1923 were in total agreement with the initial impressions reported by the King-Crane mission after only one day in Palestine and those of Capt. Brunton:

        Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

        Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.

        All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall.

        http://www.danielpipes.org/3510/the-iron-wall-we-and-the-arabs

        By the time the British government finally decided to abandon the Mandate, their 100,000 man force in Palestine was unable to maintain law and order. The government representative’s report to the UN Palestine Commission described weeks of disturbances, with over 2,000 Arab, Jewish, and British dead . It also remarked that, “were it not for the efforts of the security forces over the past month, the two communities would by now have been fully engaged in internecine slaughter.” — http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FDF734EB76C39D6385256C4C004CDBA7

        The only thing more pathetic than the attempts to portray Crane as an anti-Semite, are the equally absurd reports that he was a Jew-loving communist, fellow-traveler, and friend of Trotsky, who was hell-bent upon waging war against capitalism. e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=79m3tn1Ueu8C&lpg=PA402&ots=eDJjNk6VIf&pg=PA402#v=onepage&q&f=false http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/chapter_02.htm http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

        If you and Hophmi are almost finished trying to teach Grandma how to suck eggs, the rest of us would like to discuss the article now.

      • Jackdaw
        April 21, 2015, 5:52 am

        @Hostage

        “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 ”

        Really??

        In Jerusalem, on June 16th, the King-Crane Commission interviewed a Zionist deputation.
        Among the American contingent were four important Zionists: Dr. Harry Friedenwald, a Baltimore ophthalmologist: Dr. David de Sola Pool, rabbi of Shearith Israel, the Spanish- Portuguese Synagogue in New York City; E. W. Lewin-Epstein, of New York; and a Brandeis lieutenant, Robert Szold, of Washington, D.C.

        The statement of Zionist aims presented to King and Crane was essentially what the Zionist Commission had advanced at Versailles.

      • Jackdaw
        April 21, 2015, 2:56 pm

        @Hostage

        We know what a devotee of Jewish-Christian syncretism you are.

        Anyway.

        “In March 1920, only a few months after the King-Crane cable was sent, Trumpeldor and his fighters were cut-off from outside assistance and laid low.”

        Trumpeldor was killed by marauding Bedouin, a probable victim of the border intrigues of France and England. Nothing to do with Zionism.

        “The remaining British contingent in Palestine was unable to handle the Nebi Musa riots in early April.”

        You mean the Nebi Musa pogrom?

        ‘In early 1920, Army Chief of Staff Waters-Taylor suggested to his and Ronald Storrs’ Arab contacts the desirability of organising “anti-Jewish riots to impress on the Administration the unpopularity of the Zionist policy.”
        A detailed critical report of all these activities was submitted to General Allenby by the political officer of the Palestine administration, Col. Richard Meinertzhagen. Allenby told him he would take no action’–Meinertzhagen, Middle East Diary 1917-1956 (London, 1959), pp. 55-56

        I know the Col. Meinertzhagen was a psychopath, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t witness an anti-Zionist pogrom hatched by the British Military in Palestine.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 1:17 am

        @ Hostage We know what a devotee of Jewish-Christian syncretism you are.

        None required. Unlike my religious brethren, I’m a not a believer in any of the underlying theological claims. So I don’t try to pretend that the so-called “Christian gospels” portray anything other than the redacted tales of yet another competing 1st century Jewish sectarian cult.

      • RoHa
        April 21, 2015, 8:25 pm

        I might add that I do not doubt that some Zionists said all those fine words about “working with their Arab neighbours”, and so forth.

        But the Palestinians looked at what really happened to the parsnips.
        And that (to mix maxims) was the proof of the pudding.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 3:17 pm

        “So I don’t try to pretend that the so-called “Christian gospels” portray anything other than the redacted tales of yet another competing 1st century Jewish sectarian cult.”

        And then look what happened! That “1st century Jewish sectarian cult” ended up as Christianity!!!

        Now, do you see why I’m so concerned about the TU (tribal unity)? “One little spin-off, one little sect, why should we go and kiss their ass and get them back?” is probably what the Elders said, and look what happened! Got to keep the TU intact!

    • irishmoses
      April 19, 2015, 7:03 pm

      Here’s a review of that flawed book cited by Jack Daw, by one of the “Arabists” the book attacked:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20050407183637/http://talesmag.com/tales/books/reviews/arabists2.shtml

      The author of the book you cite, served in the Israeli army. Daniel Pipes was involved in funding the project. Not the most balanced of sources.

      “virulent Jew hater”. Ah, the old a/s Jew hater card. It’s so easy and so convenient.

      Please have the decency to provide specific cites in support of your various defamatory allegations.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 19, 2015, 7:22 pm

        irishmoses, accusations of “jew hater” and “jew hatred” is the mother’s milk of israel hasbara. it’s the big tamale, numero uno ad hominem. they just wear it out, day in and day out. boring ritual.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2015, 8:49 pm

        “irishmoses, accusations of “jew hater” and “jew hatred” is the mother’s milk of israel hasbara.

        And “self-hater” and “traitor to the Jews” are the Nestle’s Quick which makes it so delicious!

  23. piotr
    April 19, 2015, 10:38 am

    I think that to understand the “holy writ of Balfour declaration” one has to have some picture of the policies and the way of thinking of the British ruling class of the time. For starters, there was a well defined ruling class, to a degree aped by somewhat less defined ruling class in USA. Balfour himself was born in the palace of his noble family (Wikipedia makes no note of silver spoons, but surely there were some in the household). And one of the functions of that class was to rule and expand the Empire, and to treat subject peoples according to their stations. Five years before the declaration South African Act gave the Whites of South Africa the right to rule the country as THEY see fit (whatever the opinions of the disenfranchised Black who promptly got totally disenfranchised). Three years later, a democratic institutions were provided for Kenia, only whites were represented (I am lazy to check, but 1-2% of the population). Arabs were viewed as a cut above the Negroes, except for the Beduin that were “savages”, but below the Jews (who were of course inferior to the British, but unlike the British, they had British friend in good social standing).

    And sure enough, the idea that “welfare of the native peoples” should be mentioned here and there was accepted, EVERY colony was supposedly improving the lot of the subjects, but the idea that one should SERIOUSLY consider that welfare was perhaps reserved for jokes in the clubs and some memoranda destined to gather dust.

    That said, “national home” was intentionally an extremely vague phrase, hardly putting any restrictions on ruling the Empire. Support of the Jewish immigration had prominent backers (including Rotschilds) and some critics as it was creating some difficulties in ruling over Palestine, and the settlers, not being British, did not deserve the deference like those in Kenia.

    • Jackdaw
      April 21, 2015, 3:41 am

      @Roha

      “Still a lot of irrelevant whining about anti-Semitism..”

      One Commissioner was a virulent anti Semite, the other was Christian missionary. Their American host, Ambassador Glassbrook, was anti-Zionist missionary. The Commissioners wined and dined exclusively with anti-Semitic British government staff, anti-Zionist Arabs and anti-Zionist Christians. The Commissioners ‘cooked the books’ in favor of Arab Christians and anti-zionist Muslim effendis and willfully misstated the intent of Zionists.

      Was the Arab population of Palestine in favor of Zionist immigration?
      No. But that doesn’t mean the Commission wasn’t biased. It was.

      Here is further proof of bias. Preparatory to his quitting Paris, Commissioner King met with the Syrian Commission, which “instructed” him to fight against a Zionist state.
      The exact citation from Commissioner Lybyer’s diary is as follows: “Kg. [King] and advisers” met “with the Syrian Commission, less Rihbany [an American Arab] who went home. They do not want a Zionistic State-no instructions beyond.”

      It seems that the Commission had been “instructed”
      to fight against a Zionist state. So, by the time of their departure, the commissioners were nothing more than rubber stamps for Arab opinion and that their findings were predetermined days before they left.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 21, 2015, 7:41 am

        “Kg. [King] and advisers” met “with the Syrian Commission, less Rihbany [an American Arab] who went home. They do not want a Zionistic State-no instructions beyond.”

        i’m shocked!!!!

        by the time of their departure, the commissioners were nothing more than rubber stamps for Arab opinion and that their findings were predetermined days before they left.

        and do you think the standing ovations for netanyahu during the last congressional speech were predetermined or a la naturale? and are they all virulent racists because they support the zionist state?

      • RoHa
        April 21, 2015, 7:49 am

        “One Commissioner was a virulent anti Semite, … their findings were predetermined days before they left.”

        No, you’ve lost it again. I’m not interested in whether or not they were biased. I’m not interested in whether or not they were anti-Semites.

        I’m interested in whether their conclusions were true or not. And the truth of their conclusions does not depend on their ideology. It depends on the facts about the Zionists, not the facts about the commissioners.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 21, 2015, 2:17 pm

        I’m not interested in whether or not they were anti-Semites.

        I’m interested in whether their conclusions were true or not. And the truth of their conclusions does not depend on their ideology.

        roha, ahhhh! don’t even go there, it’s clear they are not interested in the conclusions — which are impossible to refute anyway. note how they don’t accuse jabotinsky of being a virulent anti semite. as hostage points out (w/quote):

        Jabotinsky’s interpretation of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration/Mandate and his written assessment of the military situation in 1923 were in total agreement with the initial impressions reported by the King-Crane mission

        all they have is ad hominems.

      • Jackdaw
        April 22, 2015, 11:54 am

        Annie.

        I stopped reading your comments after you alleged that ISIS leader, Omar al Baghdadi, was a Mossad agent.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 22, 2015, 12:18 pm

        excuse me? my archives are available to everyone by clicking on my name. why don’t you try producing that which you allege?

        btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abdullah_al-Rashid_al-Baghdadi

        Hamid Dawud Mohamed Khalil al Zawi, most commonly known as Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi (ابو عبدالله الراشد البغدادي), and also known as Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi and (About this sound pronunciation (help·info) ah-boo oh-mahr ahl bahg-dahd-ee[needs IPA] Abu Omar al-Qurashi al-Baghdadi,[1][2] (died 18 April 2010) was presented as the leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council (also translated as “Council of Freedom Fighters”,[3] “Consultative Council of Mujahedeen”,[2] and “Council of Holy Warriors”[4]), an umbrella organization composed of eight groups that oppose the United States’ military presence in Iraq, and its successor organisation, the Islamic State of Iraq.
        The U.S. however since July 2007 consider this person to be fictional.[5]

        fictional. get it. that means “he” could have been “created” by any number of intel psyops orgs, national or otherwise. (including the cia).

        not to be confused with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

        p.s. ISIS (successor of ISI circa 2013) did not exist when the illusive omar al baghdadi character was purportedly to have existed, therefore he could not have been the “leader” of ISIS.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 12:55 pm

        “I stopped reading your comments after you alleged that ISIS leader, Omar al Baghdadi, was a Mossad agent.”

        I suggest you pay close attention to Annie’s comments. If you don’t read her comments, why should she read yours?

  24. MHughes976
    April 19, 2015, 1:09 pm

    I think that the British ruling and imperial class had some valid ideals and did some good work (not at all to deny bad things too) but as an attempt to find a progressive form of feudalism it had its work cut out. The underlying feudal principles led to alliances with traditionalist forces in many places: this habit would have favoured the Muslim world of the time with its generally traditional rulers. However, Jewish intellectuals, living proofs of British progressive and liberal attitudes, were highly welcome in many high places – Balfour and Weizmann had a strong friendship well before the War. The War brought its own imperatives and its own needs. Meanwhile Christian Zionism made important converts. ‘Intentionally extremely vague’ is true enough as a description of the phrase ‘national home’.
    Intentional bad faith is what marked the Balfour Declaration. It was no doubt believed – reasonably, I suppose – that Jewish immigration would promote the economy of the whole region but it was obvious, if never said, that there would have to be a Jewish space from which ‘Arabs’ would move out, hopefully of course by agreed and well-funded resettlement schemes. Nothing much has changed to this day, except that the cost of the latest stage of resettlement is for the moment prohibitively high.

    • irishmoses
      April 19, 2015, 5:07 pm

      In my view of history, the Balfour Declaration was a quid pro quo for Zionist efforts to bring the US into the war on the side of Great Britain. British Zionists played an important role but American Zionists, in particular, Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, played the most critical role. Brandeis was both a friend and adviser to President Wilson who had pledged to keep the US out of that war. Brandeis convinced Wilson to enter the war.

      This successful Zionist effort was devastating to the German side and led directly to their losing the war and having to agree to very one-sided peace terms. I read recently, but can’t recall the source, that the German public was well aware of Zionist efforts on behalf of the British and may have been a major source of the outbreak of antisemitism in Germany and Austria in the 1920s and 30s. In other words, the fervent efforts of British and American Zionists were attributed or attached unfairly to German Jews who were patriotic Germans and fought bravely during the war.

      I think Christian Zionist and other political support for the Balfour Declaration were secondary at best. The critical issue for Britain in 1916 and 1917 was to get American troops and industry involved in a war that had gone very badly for the Brits.

      In my view, the US had little to gain by entering that war, and if it hadn’t, a stronger Germany might have prevented the victory of the communist victory in Russia and kept Hitler and Nazi fascism from ever taking root.

      • lysias
        April 19, 2015, 5:17 pm

        Yes, one of the main reasons Britain published the Balfour Declaration was a desire to appeal to Jews in the U.S., as well as in Russia, so that they would support the Entente side in the First World War. But another very important reason was that the British wanted a group of colonial settlers to be present in Palestine next to the Suez Canal, to make British defense of the Suez Canal easier. (The British had experienced two Ottoman attacks on the Suez Canal from Palestine during the First World War.) This is discussed very well in the new book The Fall of the Ottomans.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 6:17 am

        Yes, one of the main reasons Britain published the Balfour Declaration was a desire to appeal to Jews in the U.S., as well as in Russia, so that they would support the Entente side in the First World War.

        The War Cabinet Papers covering the 227th meeting to the 308th (Sept. 3rd to Dec. 31st, 1917) establish that the members were interested in obtaining the assistance of staunch American Zionists in getting Wilson to enter the war (227th) when the correspondence between Balfour and Rothschild first came up.

        That was quite a while before it was first noted that the majority of Russian Jews supported the proposal (245th). It was finally pitched as a source of useful propaganda to influence both the Russian and American Jews (261st).

        The first mention of Russian Jews was also in the 227th meeting. But it was a discussion about a separate agenda item regarding “the Jewish regiment”. The cabinet had received a lot of irate correspondence from British Jews serving in regular Army units who did NOT want the Russians in the Zionist Mule corps calling themselves “the Jews” or representing them in any way. Here’s a link to the 125mb pdf from the UK National Archives link to filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk

      • yonah fredman
        April 19, 2015, 5:33 pm

        irishmoses- Please name a historical work (or two or three) that attribute Wilson’s decision to enter WWI on Brandeis’s influence.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2015, 1:04 am

        yonah, here’s a book with a passage that might interest you: Future of the Middle East – United Pan-Arab States
        By Sam A. Cohen

        https://books.google.com/books?id=zWNXBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA357&lpg=PA357&dq=Brandeis+S.S.+Sussex&source=bl&ots=Cc3h5VOnWY&sig=dLwJWKdcLzqbXxqHiBTmnQg2oBo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZTA0VaWTKcWxogStoYDIAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Brandeis%20S.S.%20Sussex&f=false

        http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12468785.htm

        Sam A. Cohen is a naturalized American citizen with deep roots in the Middle East. He earned two master’s degrees and a doctorate before working as a scientist for 50 years. Cohen is now retired living in Montecito, California.

        i have not read the book.

      • echinococcus
        April 19, 2015, 8:11 pm

        Yonah Fredman, how do you invariably manage to pretend to miss the point so conspicuously that not even your pet hamster would believe you?
        The question is not if Wilson’s decision was motivated by Brandeis’ lobbying, but if Brandeis tried to influence him at all.

      • hophmi
        April 19, 2015, 10:33 pm

        “I read recently, but can’t recall the source, that the German public was well aware of Zionist efforts on behalf of the British and may have been a major source of the outbreak of antisemitism in Germany and Austria in the 1920s and 30s.”

        Der Sturmer?

      • irishmoses
        April 20, 2015, 12:41 am

        Ah, the well disguised A/S “Jew hater” ploy. So clever.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2015, 11:53 am

        Yonah, my friend, my landsmann, my bro…. well, my third cousin once removed, I beg of you, you’ve got to learn to understand this: The present changes the past.

        And buddy, we Jews aren’t the only ones with either the privilege or the ability to do that. You’d better figure it out.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2015, 11:55 am

        “The British had experienced two Ottoman attacks on the Suez Canal”

        I might as well be the one to say they were tired of being stepped on all the time.

      • MHughes976
        April 20, 2015, 3:28 pm

        Well, yes – the main imperative was to win the war and Jewish opinion in the United States was an important (and legitimate) element in the scheme of things. But there were other political and moral imperatives at work which remained important when the war was safely won.
        There has been mention of the Carlsbad declaration as atypical etc. – but in a way it was entirely normal. Zionism has always had its benevolent aspect – how could the arrival of so much new human and financial capital not be good for the region? This is the argument of Altneuland and latterly of the likes of Joan Peters. Why not say to the ‘Arabs’ ‘This land is ours by a special and unique right – but don’t worry, it’s yours too! Your rights are safe with us. We sincerely can’t understand why you should resent us.’
        But it doesn’t work, does it? You can’t make illogical ideas into reality even if you really would like to. The special and for unique right, now commonly called birthright, cannot but convert whatever the others have into – at best – privileges held subject to the needs of the true heirs, ie not rights at all: the place is not theirs except provisionally, until reclaimed, so not theirs at all. The tide of capital hitting Palestine has to come at the cost of threat to all non-Jewish ownership, so is not really as good economic deal in the long run.

      • Donald
        April 20, 2015, 7:14 pm

        Adding to what you say, Mhughes is that it is common for colonialists to stay that they have come to help the benighted natives. The way to help people is to respect their rights to their own land, while trading with them and giving them help and assistance if they want it.

        I would guess the early Zionists were a mixed bag, just as white settlers in America were. Some wanted to be fair to the natives, others didn’t. Some genuinely respected the natives, others had a condescending attitude, and some saw them solely as obstacles. (. The majority are probably in the latter two groups.). But if you claim a fundamental right to land you and your ancestors haven’t lived on for centuries, you are headed for trouble even if you think you mean well.

      • yonah fredman
        April 20, 2015, 8:34 pm

        Trying to determine the validity of historical theories regarding World War I is above my pay grade. When someone offers no names of historians or a name of a historian that doesn’t even measure up to a google search, then we are dealing in wisps of air. I will concede to irishmoses superior knowledge to that of my own regarding the causes of World War I. I have meager knowledge of that time frame and almost anyone who shows just a modicum of knowledge probably knows more than me about the causes of that war. Still I will not credit theories of causation based upon mere assertion. Which is what this turns out to be.

      • irishmoses
        April 21, 2015, 11:54 pm

        yonah fredman April 19, 2015, 5:33 pm
        “irishmoses- Please name a historical work (or two or three) that attribute Wilson’s decision to enter WWI on Brandeis’s influence.”
        And,
        “…I have meager knowledge of that time frame and almost anyone who shows just a modicum of knowledge probably knows more than me about the causes of that war. Still I will not credit theories of causation based upon mere assertion. Which is what this turns out to be.”

        Yonah, Brandeis’ friendship and influence on Wilson is no great mystery. Plus, I did preface my remarks with, “In my view…”

        Still, you’re right, my assertion was absent any reference to authority. It was not, however, a “mere” assertion. Unlike some on MW, I am not in the habit of pulling outrageous charges (typically of antisemitism) out of my rear end. I hope the following helps assuage your concerns:

        A good discussion of Brandeis’ influence can be found in Alison Weir’s book, Against our Better Judgment, http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Better-Judgment-History/dp/149591092X on pages 17-21. While Weir is certainly not a neutral voice, her book is very well documented (over 60 percent of the book is end notes and end matter). You’ll find a variety of quotes from original sources like Nahum Sokolow, David Ben-Gurion, Samuel Landman, and by historian Naomi Cohen http://www.amazon.ca/Americanization-Zionism-1897-1948-Naomi-Cohen/dp/1584653469. Historian Bruce Allen Murphy’s http://www.amazon.com/The-Brandeis-Frankfurter-Connection-Activities/dp/0195031229, also discusses Brandeis’ influence on Wilson and his involvement in the creation and promotion of the Balfour Declaration at great length.

        I appreciate your patience and I apologize for my late reply.

      • irishmoses
        April 22, 2015, 12:30 am

        I edited my response a couple of times but the edited version was lost in the ether. The title to the Naomi Cohen book is in the original link, as is the title to the Bruce Allen Murphy book. Another good source is historian James Galvin’s The Israel-Palestine Conflict, http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-Hundred-Years/dp/110761354X

        A fascinating memo from a key British player, James A. Malcolm, can be found at, http://www.mailstar.net/malcolm.html The site seems a bit dubious but the document copy from the British Museum appears authentic.

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 2:07 am

        A fascinating memo from a key British player, James A. Malcolm, can be found at, http://www.mailstar.net/malcolm.html The site seems a bit dubious but the document copy from the British Museum appears authentic.

        Well the story certainly is. I came across it in “Lucien Wolf and Theodor Herzl”, by Josef Fraenkel, in Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England) Vol. 20, (1959-61), pp. 161-188 and have cited it and linked to it here several times, e.g. http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/judiss-landmark-zionism#comment-660884 its available online through JSTOR, which is legit enough for me;-) http://www.jstor.org/stable/29777972

      • irishmoses
        April 22, 2015, 10:22 am

        Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo. My link provided a free copy, however dubious the website (which also links to a speech by an ex-Jew which amounts to little more than antisemitic screed).

      • Hostage
        April 22, 2015, 8:01 pm

        Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo

        Agreed. I only meant to point out that the details of the account were authentic, since the story had been cited and discussed, in a favorable way, in an article that appeared in a reputable Jewish historical journal. I didn’t mean to imply that the JSTOR link contains a full copy of the memo, free or otherwise. It simply offers an independent confirmation of Malcolm’s role. I’m sorry for any confusion.

      • irishmoses
        April 22, 2015, 8:46 pm

        What I found fascinating about the Malcolm memo was that it provided the key to why American Jews (specifically the Zionists who were a very small minority at that point) were critical in getting the US involved in the war. American Jews in general weren’t particularly interested in either getting the US involved, or in supporting Zionist aims. The key (per Malcolm and Landsman) was when Palestine was offered as a quid pro quo for efforts to convince Wilson to come into the war, using Brandeis’ and Frankfurter’s influence.

        So, it was a small minority of US Zionist Jews that made that happen. There were other reasons, but Brandeis’ influence was certainly critical.

      • eljay
        April 20, 2015, 9:50 pm

        || Donald: … But if you claim a fundamental right to land you and your ancestors haven’t lived on for centuries, you are headed for trouble even if you think you mean well. ||

        The trouble’s even worse if you and your ancestors have never lived on the land at all, but you nevertheless believe that you and others like you – and not the indigenous population – are entitled to it.

      • echinococcus
        April 20, 2015, 11:18 pm

        Donald, re

        I would guess the early Zionists were a mixed bag… Some genuinely respected the natives, others had a condescending attitude, and some saw them solely as obstacles.

        Sure, personal attitudes must have been pretty variable but let’s not forget that all that immigration was very extensively organized and directed. And the program, which was uncertain in the 1880s, was crystal clear at the turn of the century for the leaders. The same program as now, i.e. to make a land without people, for people (not “a”) for whom living in an inbreeding cage may be even more important than the land they covet.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 1:07 pm

        “but the edited version was lost in the ether.”

        “irishmoses” I believe there is a ‘time window’ on edits. There is also a rather confusing period when the comment loads in the ‘edit box’, seems to take an edit, and then disappears! From the thread!
        However, if you refresh the window, the comment (as last edited) re-appears, and that edit does not take. And no further edit after that will load for that comment.

  25. Mooser
    April 19, 2015, 8:52 pm

    “Please name a historical work…”

    Look, he said “please”! This is progress!

  26. mcohen.
    April 20, 2015, 8:15 am

    The 1930
    Crane was virulently anti-Semitic. He expressed his animosity towards Jews in meetings with his business and diplomatic contacts as well as in social situations. When Franklin Roosevelt appointed William E. Dodd American ambassador to Germany in 1933, Crane wrote Dodd a letter of congratulation that told him:[10]

    The Jews, after winning the war, galloping along at a swift pace, getting Russia, England and Palestine, being in the act of trying to seize Germany, too, and meeting their first real rebuff, have gone plumb crazy and are deluging the world—particularly easy America—with anti-German propaganda. I strongly advise you to resist every social invitation.

    Crane admired Adolf Hitler and had no objection to how the Nazis were treating Germany’s Jews. He told Dodd: “Let Hitler have his way.”[10]

  27. mcohen.
    April 20, 2015, 9:12 am

    whats the diff…..

    of the first 2 birds one is stoned,the crane ,as in charles crane,look him up on wikipedia.very likable chap,extremely pro israel and a gentleman too boot.

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Richard_Crane

    Pliny the Elder wrote that cranes would appoint one of their number to stand guard while they slept. The sentry would hold a stone in its claw, so that if it fell asleep it would drop the stone and waken. A crane holding a stone in its claw is a well-known symbol in heraldry, and is known as a crane in its vigilance.

    when i was a little boy,growing up on an african farm i asked an old african man what he was making and he said it was a bird trap.birds would come eat seeds he had scattered and it would set the trap off.one day it went off when no birds were about and i asked him why this was and he said that there are things that i cannot see that set it off

    whats the diff

    one could conclude that G-d and relegion are seperate entities….otherwise it would be….. one G-d one relegion for all mankind,as they say birds of a feather flock together

    • Mooser
      April 20, 2015, 9:34 pm

      “one G-d one relegion for all “

      No wonder there’s a “-” in God. He’s not going to take the same chance he did with “relegion” (sic) and come up wrong on that word.

      • gamal
        April 21, 2015, 8:38 pm

        Its always the vowels, bastards.

  28. Mooser
    April 20, 2015, 11:57 am

    We’ll take care of Crane the “first week in June”, “mcohen”! We’ll be bustin’ out all over!

  29. DGH
    April 21, 2015, 11:25 pm

    First, I’d like to say thanks to David Gerald Fincham for an article that shines additional light into the dark corners of the history of the formation of the Jewish National Home. There is much history, unknown by many, and articles like this do a great service in helping people to more fully understand the issue and the political machinations involved.

    I’d like to bring another resource to peoples attention…

    There is a significant wealth of information in the book by Doreen Ingrams called “Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict”

    The book is described here by Sir Anthony Nutting: http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine/

    The book can be purchased here for about $11: http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Papers-1917-1922-Seeds-Conflict/dp/1906011389

    Once you read this book, you will know two things, demonstrably true:

    – Every word out of the mouth of a Zionist is a lie

    – What the Zionist wants, the Zionist takes

    Given the recent performance of Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israeli elections, the first is proven again, and one only has to wait for a further demonstration of the second.

    • Hostage
      April 22, 2015, 1:43 am

      There is a significant wealth of information in the book by Doreen Ingrams called “Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict”

      I have a well worn copy and you’re absolutely correct. I’ve cited it here on many occasions. She wasn’t present at the Creation, but she was at Churchill’s Cairo Conference and had an insiders knowledge of most of the earlier and subsequent classified documentary evidence from the Foreign Office and War Cabinet meetings on Palestine. She provides brief comments and then let’s the original government officials and their written records speak for themselves. If you can only afford one book, this is probably one of the best buys you can make.

      • Kris
        May 7, 2015, 11:25 pm

        Hostage, I’ve been scrolling for what seems like ages in order to find a “reply” button. I just want to say thank you!

        I am so very grateful to you for all the excellent information you share here with us. Many, many thanks!

    • Jackdaw
      April 22, 2015, 11:51 am

      @DGH

      “Once you read this book, you will know two things, demonstrably true:

      – Every word out of the mouth of a Zionist is a lie

      – What the Zionist wants, the Zionist takes

      I’ve read my copy of Ingram’s book cover to cover and I disagree with you.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2015, 1:02 pm

        “I’ve read my copy of Ingram’s book cover to cover and I disagree with you.”

        And which set of standards were you using at the time?

      • David Gerald Fincham
        April 22, 2015, 1:06 pm

        @Jackdaw

        There are six lies in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel:

        In 1897 The First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

        Lie 1. Their declaration did not use the word “right”.

        This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917…

        Lie 2. The Balfour Declaration did not use the word “right”.

        and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction… to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

        Lie 3. The Mandate did not use the word “right”.

        On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel… the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

        Lie 4. The resolution did not “call for the establishment of Jewish State”, it “recommended a partition” into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and the City of Jerusalem.

        Lie 5. The General Assembly did not “require” the inhabitants to implement the resolution, it “called upon them” to do so.

        Lie 6. The UN has never recognized that the Jewish people had a “right” to establish a State in Palestine.

  30. mcohen.
    April 22, 2015, 9:08 am

    hostage

    how come you always got the secret book with the good letters in it,first i find out that israels sacred pip is the iranian pistachio,then this book about seeds…….,then gamal says vowels are missing,stolen by the jews,and flogged to the christians on lake tiberias as holy water words by arab vendors dressed in tight black slacks and white shirts.

    is it a situation and what is taken

    why waste time ….when a storm is gathering in yemen and ethiopia,

    ethiopia is sacred ground to humanity,the garden of eden and must be protected from war at all costs

    that is the end game and that is obama,s legacy ,why he was chosen…..to protect ethiopia

    • irishmoses
      April 22, 2015, 10:31 am

      Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo. My link provided a free copy, however dubious the website (which also links to a speech by an ex-Jew which amounted to little more than antisemitic screed).

    • irishmoses
      April 22, 2015, 10:37 am
    • Mooser
      April 22, 2015, 1:12 pm

      “that is the end game and that is obama,s legacy ,why he was chosen…..to protect ethiopia”

      No doubt in the “first week in June”.

      Gee, “mcohen”, is there something wrong with doing something for Ethiopia? They have had some very rough times. Some reason why they deserve less protection than Israel?

  31. mcohen.
    April 23, 2015, 6:40 pm

    understanding the jewish national home article left out this one crucial fact

    Declaration of the First Zionist Congress (1897)……

    3. The strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national

    67 th independence day in israel (2015)……reality

    The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8,296,000 inhabitants as of the end of 2014.

    • Mooser
      April 28, 2015, 1:07 am

      “The State of Israel has a population of approximately 8,296,000 inhabitants as of the end of 2014.”

      I’m sorry, “mchoen” does the number “8,296,000” have a special Kaballistic significance I should be aware of? It’s enough to fill, oh, maybe, maybe two fair-sized American cities. Is it a magic number or something?

  32. DGH
    April 23, 2015, 7:46 pm

    Incidentally, I just happened to find another book that sheds some light on the early era of Zionism and the American attitude towards it in particular:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=yyBYi2TWO3YC

    You can read most of it in your browser…

  33. Ian Berman
    May 1, 2015, 2:49 am

    First, I would like to thank Hophmi for waging the battle. Without him, we would have no discourse.

    Second, while I find all the detail fascinating, it reminds me of learning to speak a language fluently. You have to learn 5 to 10,000 words so that you are most comfortable with the 5-600 most commonly used words.

    So let’s bring this back to history and morality on the larger scale.

    About two decades before Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Jews were a small minority of the population in Palestine. Yet they had already decided they would build a state for Jews on that land. By this time, it was well known that a decade earlier European Jews had cut a deal with Palestine’s European Ruler to take this land for Jews (the celebrated Balfour Declaration we will return to later). So Jews did not immigrate to Palestine with neighborly intentions. They did not come to build a great country side by side with those already there. They came to take the land for themselves. This was long before the Holocaust mind you.

    So who amongst the so called liberal Zionists would say if they were Palestinian, they would accept this? Does it really matter that Palestinians governed themselves or were ruled by foreigners with the military power to suppress them? This is where they lived. For millennia. Can anyone honestly say that today they would give up their homeland to new colonialists determined to set up an exclusionary government by definition? Of course not. So to expect Palestinians to not react to the Zionist cause is simply a complete lack of empathy and an understanding of the human condition.

    Then, as the members of the newly formed UN try to lessen the shame of a world in which the Holocaust happened, a relatively small number of countries in the world, 33, voted in favor of a resolution to forward to the Security Council the idea of a partition of Palestine, giving 55% of the land to 1/3 of the population, most of whom arrived in the last 20 years. We should also note that not only was it a bad idea to give away someone else’s land, but that the Security Council never acted upon the resolution, meaning it had no legal effect, and there was nothing in the UN Charter that allows for giving away or partitioning of land. The resolution that Israel points to for legitimacy has no legal effect.

    So the Zionists accepted something with no legal effect. As one would expect, the Arabs rejected it. Would any American accept such a granting of 55% of Canada to a third population by the vote of an international body? Would any American accept that of their own home?

    Then came the battles in Palestine between a people with no formal military and the Zionist Haganah and paramilitary forces with far greater manpower and military hardware. The Israelis quickly routed the Palestinian resistance. Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately as Zionist propaganda would have you believe. Only after at least 200,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed did the Arab armies enter. Still, their militaries were only half the size and had inferior military hardware, leading to the Zionist victory.

    So Israel was created not by legal resolution, but by the gun. And during the battle for Palestine, Israel ethnically cleansed at least 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed 500 villages, towns and cities and took 78% of the land. They did not give or leave anything to the Palestinian population. The remaining 22% was promised to Jordan to keep them out of the war.

    http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

    Of course liberal Zionists won’t admit this because they refuse to look at the work of Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Ari Shavit and others. Yet the conclusion is no longer controversial among historians of Israel and Palestine, especially among Israeli historians. So their so called liberal stance is based upon an ostrich strategy of refusing to examine history. A history that is inconvenient to their position of Zionist support which is far more important than their liberal values.

    Those same liberal values would also endorse the right of return for Palestinians, a human right under international law, agreed to by Israel, but always thwarted, because it would create a “demographic problem.” Yes it would. A problem that people would return to their homes or the places where their towns once existed and want to live with a government that treated them as equal human beings. Something the Zionist colonialists could not accept. And so we have 67 years of dispossession and counting. Enforced by the rule of the gun.

    Still, the liberal Zionists say, yes, but, BUT, the British promised us a country of our own with the Balfour Declaration. Yes Great Britain’s Lord Balfour issued a declaration, which was approved by the Cabinet, but was not an act of Parliament, principally stating:

    “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”

    yet the heart of the declaration did not stop there, although liberal Zionists pretend it does. The Declaration continues:

    “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    Similarly, the UN Resolution Israel so readily accepted stated that there would be no transfer of populations regardless of which side of the partition upon which they live.

    Therefore, even if these were legitimate legal foundations for the creation of Israel, what liberal Zionist can say Israel has lived up to any deal that grants it legitimacy?

    • David Gerald Fincham
      May 2, 2015, 8:58 am

      Thank you, Ian, for commenting. Yours is an excellent summary.

      I would just add that, although there was no legal authority behind the creation of Israel, it did not need one. In fact, there is no legal body in existence that has the power to authorize new states, not even the Security Council. The UN did not create Israel: Israel created itself.

      Nevertheless, because it satisfied the requirements of the Montevideo convention, and was recognized by other states, Israel has existed as a sovereign state since May 14, 1948 within the borders it declared on that day. That recognition, of course, in no way legitimates the crimes committed by the Zionist forces before that date, or the State of Israel after that date.

      • Ian Berman
        May 3, 2015, 6:23 pm

        Thanks for the compliment David. First, I have to admit, I posted on the wrong article comments. Accordingly, I have reposted the comment on the correct one “Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends”

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/challenge-zionist-friends

        That being said, your response is quite correct. The point was not to deny Israel’s statehood. That fact is true, and like you, I hope that the state will become a valued member of the community of international democracies with equal treatment for all citizens, including those it now has dominion over, but does not recognize.

        My point is what most Zionist supporters do not appreciate or refuse to acknowledge.

        1. Israel was created on the land of a whole other nation. A land that they took by conducting ethnic cleansing during a colonial war and thereafter, they refused to allow its inhabitants to rightfully return.

        2. Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its “legal” creation.

      • echinococcus
        May 4, 2015, 12:11 am

        David,

        Without losing ourselves in narrow or literal interpretations (stuff for lawyers, let’s say), of course one can say that there is someone (“legal body” or not) with the authority to approve or reject the creation of a state. The inhabitants of the land it is to be on. More specifically, its habitual (as opposed to invading) inhabitants. This is implicit in almost all agreements and declarations relative to colonialism, sovereignty and self-determination, especially from 1945 on. It is the basis of the entire decolonization movement.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        May 4, 2015, 4:03 pm

        I certainly agree with that.

      • hophmi
        May 4, 2015, 12:17 pm

        “1. Israel was created on the land of a whole other nation. A land that they took by conducting ethnic cleansing during a colonial war and thereafter, they refused to allow its inhabitants to rightfully return.”

        I think that’s very inaccurate. There was no other nation on that land. There was certainly a group with an ethnic identity, but not a national group. To call the 1948 Israelis colonists greatly simplifies the history, and it’s simply inaccurate here. This is not some European behemoth marauding around the world plundering resources. This is a collection of refugees who were the victims of European colonists. The terminology is simply inaccurate here, and it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way, should pay some price for colonialism when the Europeans have paid no price for it. That is disgusting.

        “2. Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its “legal” creation.”

        The terms of the documents? You’re being silly. There isn’t a nation on Earth, least of all Western nations, that can offer better justifications for their legal creations.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 7:45 am

        I think that’s very inaccurate. There was no other nation on that land. There was certainly a group with an ethnic identity, but not a national group.

        Neville J. Mandel said that throughout the 19th century the Ottoman Government employed the term “Arz-i Filistin” (the “Land of Palestine” ) in official correspondence, and that it meant, for all intents and purposes, the area to the west of the River Jordan which became “Palestine” under the British in 1922. Likewise the Zionist Congress employed the term Palaestina in the Basel Program. Johann Büssow, “Hamidian Palestine” notes that after more than half a century of regular usage, the Ottoman’s added Palestine (Filistin) to legends of the maps in their official 1907 Atlas. See pages 57 & 58. link to books.google.com

        Mandel also pointed out that one of the pre-war newspapers, the Filastin, frequently carried articles that spoke about Palestine as a distinct national entity. He also noted that in 1914, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. He quotes extracts and provides analysis of its contents, which leaves no doubt that it reflects well established Palestinian nationalist views.

        So it should come as no surprise that the delegation of leaders that went to London in 1922 said that they represented “the Palestinian Arab people”. See The Correspondence from The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies demanding a stop to all alien immigration and the grant to the People of Palestine – who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country – Executive and Legislative powers: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

        Vladimir Jabotinsky was a founder of Keren Heysod in 1920 and its original Director of Propaganda according to the Encyclopedia Judaica article here https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041617/http://www.kh-uia.org.il/us/history.html or here http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2587511046/keren-hayesod.html The disciples of his Revisionist movement are governing Israel today. He was an eye witness and you can hardly deny the fact that he called the Palestinians a living nation in 1923 in his best known article on the subject:

        As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.
        ….
        If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.

        — Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), (1923) http://www.danielpipes.org/3510/the-iron-wall-we-and-the-arabs

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 1:47 pm

        To call the 1948 Israelis colonists greatly simplifies the history, and it’s simply inaccurate here. This is not some European behemoth marauding around the world plundering resources. This is a collection of refugees who were the victims of European colonists.

        The center of Jewish civilization for many centuries was elsewhere in Ottoman Asia, i.e. Syria and Babylon. Why did these persecuted Europeans refuse to settle in the areas the Sultan offered to give them outside of Palestine? It’s a little known fact that the Sultan adopted a statute which provided for the immediate and free settlement on the best lands available, for groups of Jews between 200 and 250 families, everywhere in Ottoman Asia, except for Palestine. In 1882 the American Consul advised a group of Romanian Jews who had requested settlement in the “Pashlik of Palestine” about the ordinance and summed-up by saying “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.” The truth is the Zionists would rather have died than settle anywhere else, so spare us the mental gymnastics.

        The history is pretty simple. You have to talk about a bunch of secular European Jews, to distract attention away from the dozens of small indigenous communities of Jews in and around the four sacred cities of Palestine. They viewed themselves as completely different ethnic nationalities from one another. They had their own officials, courts, and schools and enjoyed their own local autonomy. Even if all of them had wanted a State of their own and banded together, they still wouldn’t have amounted to anything more than a San Marino, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, or Malta.

        None of them were sitting around like Marx, Herzl, or Borochov curning out political manifestos about some sort of state-ism. Pinsker, Herzl, Ruppin, and Jabotinsky wrote racist tracts and pamphlets. They held the same bigoted European views regarding the immiscibility of the races, the mystical connection between blood and soil, hereditary anti-semitism, and the need of us racially inferior Diaspora Jews for genetic improvement through Eugenics programs they intended to carry-out in Palestine to create “the New Jew”, i.e. http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf If Herzl didn’t have a European behemoth marauding around the world plundering resources it wasn’t because he and his colonial companies didn’t envision one. Herzl was really a despot who wanted to found a global empire and assume the role of the head of new royal family:

        “It is precisely the duty of the leader to set the people on the path which, by apparent detours, leads to the goal. You refuse the life which is offered you out of fear, cowardice. Miserable eunuchs that you are, you sacrifice the sources of your power. Look at Britain! It pours its excess popula­tion into the vast empire that it was able to acquire. Are we then so craven as to be frightened of the offer made to us? Starting from their national base, nations have built colonial empires that have made their fortunes. Let us accept the chance offered us to become a miniature England. Let us start by acquiring our colonies! From them, we shall launch the conquest of our Homeland. Let the lands between Kilimanjaro and Kenya become those of the first colony of Israel! They, rather than Edmond de Rothschild’s philanthropic supported refugees, will constitute the real Rishon le-Zion, the first- fruits of Zionism, of the New Israel. If we accept Chamberlain’s offer with gratitude, we strengthen our position, we oblige him to do something wise for us should our commission of enquiry reject the land proposed. In our transactions with this mighty nation we shall acquire the status of a national power. We will not stop there! Other States will follow Britain’s example, new “reserves of power” will be created in Mozambique with the Portuguese, in the Congo with the Belgians, in Tripolitania with the Italians.”

        link to books.google.com

        Arthur Ruppin’s “The Picture in 1907″ graphically illustrates that he disparaged the indigenous Jews and claimed they were practically indistinguishable from their Arab brethren. Another good example is provided by Elkan Nathan Adler, who authored Jews in many lands (1905). It was printed by the Jewish Publication Society of America. He didn’t grasp the tradition of inalienable religious endowments (e.g. waqfs) and considered property owned by the Relief fund as a sort of colonial estate. He explained in the foreword that his

        first visit to the East was a professional one, undertaken by instruction of the Council of the Holy Land Relief Fund. Its object was to clear up certain legal difficulties which had arisen on their estates at Jerusalem and Jaffa in consequence of the death of Sir Moses Montefiore in 1888. At that time their only buildings in Jerusalem were the Judah Touro Almshouse and a windmill. The vacant land adjoining had been “jumped” by about three hundred poor and desperate Jews who claimed that it had been originally intended for the poor, and they were poor. The journey was successful; the squatters were removed, and their place taken by industrious settlers who, through the agency of two building societies financed by the Sir Moses Montefiore Testimonial Committee, have erected some hundred and thirty decent little dwellings in place of the rude uninhabitable shanties standing there in 1888. The experience was exciting and stimulating, and encouraged the author not only to return to Palestine, but to make quite a number of other voyages to Jewish centres in the Old World as well as the New.

        So the Zionists targeted the local Jews with evictions and home demolitions too.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 2:45 pm

        The terminology is simply inaccurate here, and it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way, should pay some price for colonialism when the Europeans have paid no price for it. That is disgusting.

        Your lack of self awareness is duly noted. Zionists that complain about the White Paper of 1939 sound just like the Weimar era Nazi propagandists who utterly rejected the territorial settlement contained in the Treaty of Versailles. They claimed that it had denied the German people self-determination, despite the international recognition of the principle at the end of the War. Despite the fact that there had never been any clear consensus about the territorial extent of so-called German self-determination or any factual evidence to support it. They invented superior “historical claims” to lands that were actually populated by others; drew-up maps of their imaginary “Greater Germany”; and adopted a national anthem solemnizing “Germany above all things” from the Meuse to the Memel, from the Adige to the Belt, & etc. Believe me they were punished for their madness. Count 3 of the Nuremberg Indictment, i.e. “(J) GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES” charged the Nazis as follows:

        In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and introduced thousands of German colonists.

        — See pdf page 73 (printed page 63) of The International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol. 1 at the Library of Congress link to loc.gov or see the Indictment, Count 3 “War Crimes” at the Avalon Project link to avalon.law.yale.edu
        “In their verdict, the four Allied judges found that the main aim of the Nazis, i.e., the conquest of living space, had been amply proven by the prosecution. Therefore, they viewed the atrocities committed during the war as consequences rather than ends— but did not refer to these policies as a program of genocide:

        The evidence shows that at any rate in the East, the mass murders and cruelties were not committed solely for the purpose of stamping out opposition or resistance to the German occupying forces. In Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonization by Germans.

        — See Reassessing the Nuremberg Military Tribunals: Transitional Justice, Trial Narratives, and Historiography page 109-110 link to books.google.com

        Today, Germany pays its Jewish Holocaust survivors better benefits than the State of Israel. Germany paid enormous reparations to Israel and the World Jewish Congress for many years. Israel participated in the 1951 UN Diplomatic Conference on Refugees and spearheaded efforts to continue to hold German civilians collectively responsible as either Nazis, Nazi collaborators, or accessories to war crimes. It argued that such persons should be explicitly excluded from the legal definition of the term “refugee” and that they should be subject to payment of reparations and territorial compensation under the terms of the post war multilateral agreements:

        F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
        (a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

        — See Article 1 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention link to http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

        In addition, Israel was an immediate beneficiary of the initial reparations imposed on the German people by the Allied Powers:

        The Paris Reparation Agreement allotted all non-monetary gold found in Germany, a fund of $25,000,000 from German external assets to be liquidated in the countries which remained neutral during the war, and all assets in neutral countries of victims of Nazi action who died without heirs for the relief and rehabilitation of non-repatriable victims of German action. It was recognized at the time that the overwhelming majority of these victims were Jewish, and immediately thereafter the Five Power Agreement of 1946 provided that ninety percent of the $25,000,000 fund and non-monetary gold and ninety-five percent of the heirless properties should be used for such victims. Furthermore, the Government of the United States notes that pursuant to the agreement between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United Kingdom of March 30, 1950, the latter turned over to the Government of Israel the proportion of reparation in respect of the mandate for Palestine which was received by the British Government under the Paris Reparation Agreement. In bringing to the attention of the Government of Israel the reparations and indemnities thus far received by the Jewish refugees, the Government of the United States does not imply that it regards them as full compensation for their sufferings. It concurs in the view of the Israeli Government that no material compensation can be sufficient. It would point out, however, that many nations and peoples experienced tremendous losses and sufferings at the hands of the Nazis and that none can expect its reparation receipts to reflect compensation in any substantial measure.

        – Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The Near East and Africa, Page 749 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 3:43 pm

        the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its “legal” creation.” … The terms of the documents? You’re being silly.

        No, you are doing what you accused Annie of doing, that’s silly. You know me, I don’t pick and choose my resolutions. You yourself are pretending that the right of every Palestinian to return to their homeland under customary international law, is somehow made null and void through your private interpretation of a clause in resolution 194 (III) of the UN General Assembly. But the Assembly’s own legal experts assigned to look into that situation reported to the Security Council that Israel was under a continuing legal obligation under the terms of resolution 181(II) to let the refugees of 1948 and 1967 come home, without exception, because of Israel’s own unqualified acceptance of the customary terms of the clauses that placed the rights of all Palestinian Arabs living in Israel under UN guarantee. Here is another General Assembly resolution that reaffirms the Palestinian refugees inalienable right to return http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/res/3236%20(XXIX) The only possible good faith interpretation I can figure out is that all three resolutions have always meant exactly the same thing. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/12090

        A simple review of the travail préparatoire for General Assembly resolution 194 (III) reveals that the initial draft supplied by the British government explicitly stated that the property of Arab refugees had been pillaged:

        11. ENDORSES the principle stated in Part I, Section V, Paragraph 7 of the Mediator’s Report and RESOLVES that the Arab refugees should be permitted to return to their homes at the earliest possible date and that adequate compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for property which has been lost as a result of pillage, confiscation or of destruction; and INSTRUCTS the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement, and economic and social rehabilitation of the Arab refugees and the payment of compensation;

        link to unispal.un.org

        Its axiomatic that Israel cannot benefit from its own wrongdoing.

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2015, 3:09 am

        ” Accordingly, I have reposted the comment on the correct one “Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends”

        Good! Well worth posting twice!

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2015, 3:20 am

        “The terminology is simply inaccurate here, and it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way, should pay some price for colonialism when the Europeans have paid no price for it.”

        Shorter Hophmi: ‘The Europeans got away with it, so we should too!’

        What an unbelievably stupid attutude, Hophmi. Europe has paid a price for it’s colonialism, and continues to pay it. The difference is, they might, might be able to afford it. Israel can’t.

        But of course, you don’t care what price Israel pays, it’s no skin off your nose. You don’t care about what kind of life you are condemning Israel’s children too. Israel, the last place in the world that drafts you into an army because you’re Jewish.

      • RoHa
        May 6, 2015, 6:31 am

        Keep questioning the terminology, hophmi. It’s all you’ve got.

        It doesn’t matter whether there was another nation there or not.* What matters is that people were driven out of their homes, and lost their farms and businesses. People were slaughtered; people were oppressed.

        Being refugees from Europe did not give the Zionists any right to take over Palestine and drive out the Palestinians. On the contrary, it gave them a duty of gratitude to the Palestinians.

        The creation of Israel was wrong, and there is no excuse for it.

        (*I would say that the Mandated state of Palestine was a nation.)

      • talknic
        May 6, 2015, 9:30 am

        hophmi ” There was no other nation on that land”

        You’re spouting bullsh*t. Palestine nationality law was passed in 1925, under which Jews could get Palestinian Nationality, buy land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland in Palestine as Palestinians

        “To call the 1948 Israelis colonists greatly simplifies the history”

        Jewish COLONIAL Trust 1897 ring a bell? Long before the Holocaust.

        “This is not some European behemoth marauding around the world plundering resources.”

        True, Palestine is not around the world.

        “This is a collection of refugees who were the victims of European colonists”

        A) The Zionist Federation of 1897 were not
        B) Some Israelis were victims of Nazi Germany. European countries were also victim to Nazi Germany
        C) Now Israel is in breach of Laws adopted in large part because of the treatment of our fellow Jews under the Nazis.

        “The terminology is simply inaccurate here, and it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way”

        There were no Israelis prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) according to the Israeli Government

        ” it is morally offensive to suggest that the Israelis, who were the victims of the Europeans in every way should pay some price for colonialism when the Europeans have paid no price for it. That is disgusting”

        Right. I understand your need, because they did it, you should be allowed to do it too. In that way two wrongs make …. two wrongs.

        //Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its “legal” creation.”//

        “The terms of the documents? You’re being silly

        Well, let’s just take the declaration of statehood. Is there a constitution? NO! Has there been a Government legally elected under that constitution? NO! Is there religious freedom? NO! Were non-Jews asked to stay in the Declaration but already cleansed by Israel, welcome to stay? NO! Is it open to all Jews? NO!

        “There isn’t a nation on Earth, least of all Western nations, that can offer better justifications for their legal creations’

        No state can offer justifications for illegal facts on the ground in territories outside the state.

      • just
        May 7, 2015, 8:00 am

        Thanks Hostage.

        (Why are you still trying to peddle that junk, hophmi?)

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 11:55 am

        “Neville J. Mandel said that throughout the 19th century the Ottoman Government employed the term “Arz-i Filistin” (the “Land of Palestine” ) in official correspondence, and that it meant, for all intents and purposes, the area to the west of the River Jordan which became “Palestine” under the British in 1922.”

        Do you ever quote anything accurately and honestly? The rest of the paragraph makes clear that the Ottomans were simply using the term as a geographic designation:

        “Despite these administrative divisions and changes (referring to the division by the Ottomans of the area west of the Jordan into three administrative Sancaks) the concept of a geographic area called ‘Palestine’ was used by the three main parties figuring in this book: the Ottoman Government, the Arabs, and the Jews. The Ottoman Government employed the term ‘Arz-i Filistin’ (the ‘Land of Palestine’ ) in official correspondence meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became ‘Palestine’ under the British in 1922. The Arabs used the term ‘Filastin’ to designate an area whose limits had varied at different historical periods, and thus their notion of its precise dimensions was necessarily vague, especially in the decades before World War I, given the recent administrative changes that had taken place. The Jews’ use of ‘Palestine’ was equally imprecise, because for them it was a translation of ‘ Erez Yisra’el (the ‘Land of Israel’), the dimensions of which had also varied at different stages of Jewish history. Nonetheless, the Zionist Movement’s programme, adopted in 1897, spoke (in German) of a home ‘in Palestine’ for the Jewish people, and the first Zionist institution established in the country was the ‘Anglo-Palestine Company.’ . . .

        “Nationalism in the European sense was almost unknown among the Arabs at the end of the nineteenth century. Personal loyalties were therefore to family and religion, and, on another level, either to the Ottoman Empire (probably a somewhat abstract concept for most) or to the much more concrete framework of town or village. In the years before 1914 a discrete Palestinian ‘patriotism’ (rather than a full nationalism) emerged, in large part as a reaction to Zionism (bold emphasis mine).”

        So there is nothing in this excerpt to support the idea that a national group existed in Palestine before the Zionists came. It is exactly the opposite. Nationalism was unknown in Palestine before the 20th century, and what nationalism there was in the 20th century was a reaction to the Zionists. The Ottoman designation of the area west of the Jordan as Palestine had nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism.

        “Mandel also pointed out that one of the pre-war newspapers, the Filastin, frequently carried articles that spoke about Palestine as a distinct national entity. He also noted that in 1914, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. He quotes extracts and provides analysis of its contents, which leaves no doubt that it reflects well established Palestinian nationalist views.”

        Again, the book support nothing like Hostage’s claim. The patriotism Hostage speaks of here is the same discrete patriotism Mandel references in the introduction to his book, a reaction to Zionism, and not any organic Palestinian nationalism. Moreover, Hostage conveniently leaves out the excerpts Mandel includes, which makes clear that despite vague references to countrymen, the letter/article was largely a sectarian appeal to Muslims living in Palestine, not to any national group; the “summons” called for Muslims in Palestine to hold “with their teeth” land conquered by Umar ibn al-Khattab and Salah al-Din in the 7th and 12th centuries, and claimed that if you were not Muslim, “God, His Messenger and Angels, and all men will be obliged to punish you.” The summons was a threat to those who wanted to sell land to the Zionists, and it claimed that the Zionists had already purchased most of Palestine.

        “So it should come as no surprise that the delegation of leaders that went to London in 1922 said that they represented “the Palestinian Arab people”. See The Correspondence from The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies demanding a stop to all alien immigration and the grant to the People of Palestine – who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country – Executive and Legislative powers:”

        It requested an end to the flood of “alien Jew immigration,” in point of fact, and makes a craven antisemitic claim that most of the Jews immigrating are Bolsheviks. The letter speaks of a Palestinian people. It appears to define that as everyone who is not an “alien Jew.” Once again, the Palestinian nationalism is not nationalism in any real sense; it’s simply a reaction to Zionism nationalism, and it’s defined largely in sectarian religious terms.

        As far as Jabotinsky, nothing Jabotinsky wrote in “The Iron Wall” suggests that Palestinians constituted any kind of national grouping before Zionism. All Jabontinsky says is that people living in a country naturally regard it as their home and will be patriotic about it, and that the Arabs are no different in that regard, and on that basis, they constitute a nation. So for Jabotinsky, the provenience of Palestinian nationalism is irrelevant, a view with which I largely agree, which is one reason why I support a two state solution, rather than some utopian one-state solution; Palestinian want a state, Jews want a state, and both want to be a majority in control of their state, and that is not possible in a one-state context.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        May 7, 2015, 2:08 pm

        @hophmi

        Nationalism is not the same thing as national identity. To understand you need to read the book “Remembering and Imagining Palestine” by Haim Gerber, a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The book “sets out to explore the history of Palestinian national identity, an identity which stretches back to the time of the Crusades and beyond. In those days it was an identity whose character was more social than political; two of its most significant elements were the community of fear which coalesced around the possible return of the Crusades, and the use of ‘Palestine’ as the name of the country. The nature of this traditional identity came to exert a strong influence on the emergence of Palestinian nationalism following the fall of the Ottoman Empire.”

        Oxford English Dictionary; definition of nation: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory”. By this definition, Palestine has been a nation for at least a thousand years. By this definition, the Jewish diaspora does not constitute a nation. Israel has been a nation for 67 years.

        Hophmi, you Zionists have conquered and subjugated the Palestinian people. Please ask yourself, and let us know, why you feel the need the denigrate them in this way, by denying their nationhood.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 6:02 pm

        So there is nothing in this excerpt to support the idea that a national group existed in Palestine before the Zionists came

        No that’s just your tendentious reading. The three main parties figuring in his book weren’t separate entities, because there were Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Ottoman Government all along. Plus the whole country had already been combined into one administrative unit in the past. In Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003 the authors wrote that Palestinian nationality was definitely evident during the Egyptian-Ottoman war (1831-1833). Israeli Historian Butros Abu Manneh noted that in 1830, on the eve of Muhammad Ali’s invasion the Sanjaks of Jerusalem and Nablus were transferred to the control of Abdullah Pasha the Governor of Acre and that the move had united the whole of Palestine in one administrative unit. See The Israel/Palestine Question: A Reader (Rewriting Histories), Ilan Pappé (Editor) Routledge (April 2, 1999), page 38. The account in the Foreign Relations of the United States confirms Manneh’s account in its discussion regarding the Convention of July 1840. It offered a grant to Muhammed Ali, during his natural life, of the government of the region described alternately as “Southern Syria”, “Palestine”, or “the Pashalik of Acre”. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the forty-fifth Congress, 1879-’80 –page 1019

        Likewise there were 10 western governments with their own consular courts, clerks, and marshals exercising jurisdiction in the country during the 19th Century and calling the whole territory west of the Jordan river “Palestine”. The US Consuls were 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

        All of those people and government officials were obviously living together in the Land of Palestine. The Palestinians and Jews of the Empire had enjoyed full representation in the Ottoman Parliament and in the Porte, which among other things, had established suitable legal conditions for Jewish immigration to the country. Here is a link to a debate on the subject that took place in 1911 between Palestinian and Jewish lawmakers. I suppose they were all familiar with the subject of Zionism by then and their debate about immigration to Palestine. All of that pre-dates the Mandate. See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq http://books.google.com/books?id=4VZ4PcOKzrAC&lpg=PP111&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 1:52 pm

        “You’re spouting bullsh*t. Palestine nationality law was passed in 1925, under which Jews could get Palestinian Nationality, buy land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland in Palestine as Palestinians”

        You mean the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 which declared those residing in Palestine as of August 1924 to be Turkish subjects that was passed because the Mandate required it? Seems like your assertion is somewhat contradicted by Hostage’s citation of a summons promising punishment to any Muslim who sold land to a Jew.

        “Jewish COLONIAL Trust 1897 ring a bell? Long before the Holocaust.”

        You’re evading the point here. No one denies that there was a Colonial trust. But to describe the Zionists as colonists without noting the history of persecution that led to Zionism in the first place is to greatly simplify history.

        “A) The Zionist Federation of 1897 were not
        B) Some Israelis were victims of Nazi Germany. European countries were also victim to Nazi Germany
        C) Now Israel is in breach of Laws adopted in large part because of the treatment of our fellow Jews under the Nazis.”

        You’re comparing the experience of “European countries” at the hands of Nazi Germany to the experience of Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany? In any event, the Laws of War that you allege Israel is in breach of were not all created in response to WWII, and they were certainly not created for use by the international community to bother a small country of refugees defending itself while ignoring real violations of human rights elsewhere.

        In 1897, Jews were still experiencing persecution in Europe.

        “There were no Israelis prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) according to the Israeli Government”

        You’re arguing semantics. Victims of persecution did not become otherwise once Israel became a state.

        “Right. I understand your need, because they did it, you should be allowed to do it too. In that way two wrongs make …. two wrongs.”

        No. Their doing it has consequences for everybody else, and it is more than curious that they spend far more time focusing on Israel than on their own legacies of hatred of murder.

        “Well, let’s just take the declaration of statehood. Is there a constitution? NO! Has there been a Government legally elected under that constitution? NO! Is there religious freedom? NO! Were non-Jews asked to stay in the Declaration but already cleansed by Israel, welcome to stay? NO! Is it open to all Jews? NO!”

        Other states do not have Constitutions. Israel certainly has had legally elected governments. There is certainly religious freedom in Israel today, far more than any country in the Middle East. Israel certainly has many non-Jewish citizens who vote and hold office. And it is open to all Jews.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 10:08 pm

        You mean the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 which declared those residing in Palestine as of August 1924 to be Turkish subjects that was passed because the Mandate required it? Seems like your assertion is somewhat contradicted by Hostage’s citation of a summons promising punishment to any Muslim who sold land to a Jew.

        Not at all, the British Government always had full powers to implement the Jewish national home. Once the Zionist Congress asked to partition the state, they had no room to complain when the British used their authority to establish the administrative boundaries. The Jewish Agency had used the Conquest of Labor to render Arab cultivators landless, and the British had the authority to end that practice as well, by prohibiting land sales outside the area of the national home.

        The Citizenship Order in Council of 1925 remained in effect in Israel until 1952 under the terms of the Law and Administration Ordinance No. 1 of 5708-1948. That retained laws in effect under the Mandate, but repealed the 1939 White Paper and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance. http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israellaws/fulltext/lawandadministrationord.htm

        Israel had long since adopted its decades-long regime of martial law and had started shooting Palestinian Arab citizens as “infiltrators” by the time it adopted the 1952 Nationality Act.

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 2:58 pm

        “The center of Jewish civilization for many centuries was elsewhere in Ottoman Asia, i.e. Syria and Babylon. Why did these persecuted Europeans refuse to settle in the areas the Sultan offered to give them outside of Palestine? It’s a little known fact that the Sultan adopted a statute which provided for the immediate and free settlement on the best lands available, for groups of Jews between 200 and 250 families, everywhere in Ottoman Asia, except for Palestine. In 1882 the American Consul advised a group of Romanian Jews who had requested settlement in the “Pashlik of Palestine” about the ordinance and summed-up by saying “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.” The truth is the Zionists would rather have died than settle anywhere else, so spare us the mental gymnastics.”

        You win another award for attempting to misuse a footnote of history to make a bogus argument that is completely beside the point. Whatever the truth of the Sultan offering the Jews anything (in this case, “unsettled” areas of Mesopotamia as a gesture to Jews suffering from Russian and Romanian pogroms), Jews weren’t particularly safe in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the 19th century. To begin with, the Ottomans didn’t even pass a de jure equality law until 1865; before that, Jews, and other groups, were inferior to Muslims under the law. Here’s a short summary of antisemitic attacks Jews faced in the second half of the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Antisemitism

        The Zionists wanted SOVEREIGNTY and SELF-DETERMINATION because Jews as a minority tended to BE PERSECUTED. Diaspora Jews didn’t lack for offers from leaders like the Sultan. They lacked security. It wasn’t enough to have the favor of some king or Pope. The end result tended to be the same; when the King or Pope lost interest or the Jews were no longer consider useful, or the leader needed a scapegoat, the Jews were persecuted.

        I can just see it. The Jews take this deal, and today, people like you would be accusing them of colonizing wherever the Sultan allowed them to go.

        “The history is pretty simple. You have to talk about a bunch of secular European Jews, to distract attention away from the dozens of small indigenous communities of Jews in and around the four sacred cities of Palestine. They viewed themselves as completely different ethnic nationalities from one another. They had their own officials, courts, and schools and enjoyed their own local autonomy. Even if all of them had wanted a State of their own and banded together, they still wouldn’t have amounted to anything more than a San Marino, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, or Malta.”

        That’s great. These would presumably be the same Jews who lived as inferior Ottoman subjects until 1865. You’re making my point for me.

        “None of them were sitting around like Marx, Herzl, or Borochov curning out political manifestos about some sort of state-ism. Pinsker, Herzl, Ruppin, and Jabotinsky wrote racist tracts and pamphlets. They held the same bigoted European views regarding the immiscibility of the races, the mystical connection between blood and soil, hereditary anti-semitism, and the need of us racially inferior Diaspora Jews for genetic improvement through Eugenics programs they intended to carry-out in Palestine to create “the New Jew”, ”

        Oh please. You mean, they were born in the 19th Century and had some of the views of the time? BFD. The Founding Fathers of the United States believed in slavery. I guess we need to end America now, because if someone believed in slavery, no good idea could come from them at all. That Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence – I mean, there’s just nothing good in it, because the Founding Fathers believed in slavery.

        Nobody in Israel believes in eugenics today. This is a red herring. The Zionists were primarily concerned with finding a way out of the perpetual persecution Jews had faced. The rest is secondary. You are diverting.

        “Herzl was really a despot who wanted to found a global empire and assume the role of the head of new royal family:”

        A despot requires actual power; Herzl was dreamer who had big ideas and died before any of them came to fruition. I’m not aware of anyone who has advocated as a Zionist principle founding a global African empire. So once again, you’re misusing an historical footnote to make a bogus argument.

        In this hyperbolic letter, Herzl was evincing his support for the idea of having a homeland in East Africa after he had seem pogrom after pogrom in the Russian Empire, and trying to convince Max Nordau that taking the British offer was the best way to become established. The letter is clearly hyperbole. In any event, whatever Herzl had in mind, he died in 1904, and no one seems to have taken up the idea of a Zionistic colonial empire in Africa.

        That you glorify the meek life Jews in Palestine had as inferior subjects of the Ottoman Empire before the Zionists came shows just how much you miss the point.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 9:41 pm

        That’s great. These would presumably be the same Jews who lived as inferior Ottoman subjects until 1865. You’re making my point for me.

        You hardly have a point so far. FYI, I’ve commented many times that it was a matter of public record in the Ottoman era that the courts had to handle cases involving the estates of rich and middle class Jewish dhimmis, including those in Palestine, who were slave owners who had children with their concubines. They frequently owned Christian and even Muslim slaves. In fact, many earned their living as slave traders. So it’s ironic that you are shreying about their lack of rights and describing them as being especially mistreated or subjugated by Ottoman rule. You never mention Jewish “slave masters” in your lacrimonious narratives about these poor souls, so I’ll have to keep reminding you, it wasn’t all drudgery. See for example Yaron Ben-Naeh, “Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire.” Jewish History 20.3-4 (2006): 315-332 http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~yaronbn/No.26.pdf

        Nobody in Israel believes in eugenics today. This is a red herring.

        Unless you are one of the millions that Ben Gurion and Weizmann wrote off as human dust, You are a smoked herring. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1940v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=837

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 4:35 pm

        “You yourself are pretending that the right of every Palestinian to return to their homeland under customary international law, is somehow made null and void through your private interpretation of a clause in resolution 194 (III) of the UN General Assembly. ”

        The resolution clearly includes a requirement that refugees returning home must be willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Moreover, whatever customary laws non-binding resolutions GA resolutions might suggest, they are surely overridden by Chapter 7 SC resolutions like 242, which calls for the right of each state in the region to live within “secure and recognized boundaries” and calls simply for a “just settlement” of the refugee issue, not an unlimited right of return.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 10:00 pm

        I don’t understand what a decision by the Ottomans to create an administrative district called Palestine has to do with the nationality of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not gain a nationality by virtue of having been included in an Ottoman administrative district in the 19th century. The two simply are unrelated.

        I guess that’s why Baruch Kimmerling got the PhD in Sociology and you didn’t.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 10:37 pm

        The resolution clearly includes a requirement that refugees returning home must be willing to live in peace with their neighbors.

        The resolution clearly includes a number of unfulfilled requirements. If any of them conflicts with a non-derogable, peremptory norm of international law, then the principle of preemption applies. We are talking about an inalienable right and a serious breach or a war crime. See 100-Year-Old General: We Razed Arab Villages, So What?
        Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Pundak: If we hadn’t done it, there would be a million more Arabs and there would be no Israel. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168912#.VUwg7eS37tQ

        Nothing in the resolution granted the belligerent parties the final say in the determinations regarding return.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 11:02 pm

        Moreover, whatever customary laws non-binding resolutions GA resolutions might suggest, they are surely overridden by Chapter 7 SC resolutions like 242, which calls for the right of each state in the region to live within “secure and recognized boundaries” and calls simply for a “just settlement” of the refugee issue, not an unlimited right of return.

        Nope. You need to bone up one your Law of Treaties. In the Bosnian Genocide case, Judge Lauterpacht advised that, while Article 103 applies to conflicting conventional laws, the Security Council remains unconditionally bound by the terms of customary norms and customary international law. So a Security Council resolution adopted under the terms of a treaty, like the UN Charter, cannot trump a norm or create a legal loophole that would allow a state to acquire territory by war, engage in genocide, piracy, slavery, traffic in drugs, or commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.

        Alexander Orakhelashvili explained:

        Resolution 242 called for ‘a just settlement of the refugee problem’ in Palestine. ‘Just settlement’ can only refer to a settlement guaranteeing the return of displaced Palestinians, and other interpretations of this notion may be hazardous. The Council must be presumed not to have adopted decisions validating mass deportation or displacement. More so, as such expulsion or deportation is a crime against humanity or an exceptionally serious war crime (Articles 7.1(d) and 8.2(e) ICC Statute)

        — EJIL (2005), Vol. 16 No. 1, 59–88 link to papers.ssrn.com

        Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a treaty or instrument conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens) is void if, at the time of its conclusion or adoption, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 4:40 pm

        “Today, Germany pays its Jewish Holocaust survivors better benefits than the State of Israel. Germany paid enormous reparations to Israel and the World Jewish Congress for many years.”

        Today, Germany is a largest economy in Europe. Spare me the complaining about reparations. The Germans have a huge state that no one challenges. Even Hitler didn’t result in the Germans losing their statehood. But people here suggest that Jews should lose the right of self-determination all the time.

        This is all one large red herring on your part.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 9:54 pm

        Even Hitler didn’t result in the Germans losing their statehood. But people here suggest that Jews should lose the right of self-determination all the time.

        The Germans did loose their state and had to establish a successor on the bases of equal protection under the law, respect for minority rights, and payment of reparations. It’d be great if the same thing happened to Israel. They were also occupied and kept out of the UN until they were considered rehabilitated.

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 6:09 pm

        “No that’s just your tendentious reading. The three main parties figuring in his book weren’t separate entities, because there were Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Ottoman Government all along. Plus the whole country had already been combined into one administrative unit in the past. In Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003 the authors wrote that Palestinian nationality was definitely evident during the Egyptian-Ottoman war (1831-1833). Israeli Historian Butros Abu Manneh noted that in 1830, on the eve of Muhammad Ali’s invasion the Sanjaks of Jerusalem and Nablus were transferred to the control of Abdullah Pasha the Governor of Acre and that the move had united the whole of Palestine in one administrative unit. See The Israel/Palestine Question: A Reader (Rewriting Histories), Ilan Pappé (Editor) Routledge (April 2, 1999), page 38. The account in the Foreign Relations of the United States confirms Manneh’s account in its discussion regarding the Convention of July 1840. It offered a grant to Muhammed Ali, during his natural life, of the government of the region described alternately as “Southern Syria”, “Palestine”, or “the Pashalik of Acre”. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the forty-fifth Congress, 1879-’80 -page 1019”

        I don’t understand what a decision by the Ottomans to create an administrative district called Palestine has to do with the nationality of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not gain a nationality by virtue of having been included in an Ottoman administrative district in the 19th century. The two simply are unrelated. Mandel’s text is really quite clear; Palestinian nationalism in the 20th century was largely a reaction to Zionism. Again, I’m willing to concede for the purposes of progress that whether the Palestinians base their nationalism on some Ottoman colonial creation or whether it was just a de facto reaction to Zionism, as Mandel clearly says, they have an authentic claim to a state, which is why I favor the two-state solution.

      • eljay
        May 7, 2015, 6:17 pm

        || hophmi: But people here suggest that Jews should lose the right of self-determination all the time. ||

        That is a bald-faced lie. People who self-determine as Jewish have every right to self-determine as Jewish, and no-one here has ever suggested otherwise*.

        But self-determining as Jewish does not entitle people to a supremacist “Jewish State”, any more than self-determining as Wicca (which people also have a right to do) entitles people to a supremacist “Wicca State”.
        _________________________________
        (*Actually, that’s not entirely correct: I have noticed that Zio-supremacists occasionally question the self-determination of some Jewish people. Interesting.)

      • RoHa
        May 7, 2015, 8:52 pm

        “Please ask yourself, and let us know, why you feel the need the denigrate them in this way, by denying their nationhood.”

        It seems to me that hophmi has some idea like this:

        “Nations have rights, and particularly the right to establish a state.
        Those rights outweigh the rights of non-nations.
        Jews were and are a nation.
        Palestinians were not a nation.
        The national right of the Jews to establish a state outweighed any rights the Palestinians might have had.
        Therefore, the establishment of Israel was not wrong.”

        Obviously this argument falls apart if he acknowledges that the Palestinians were a nation.

        For my part, I think the first three premises are wrong.

        But hophmi should speak for himself, and actually address this point.

      • RoHa
        May 7, 2015, 9:00 pm

        “But people here suggest that Jews should lose the right of self-determination all the time. ”

        No, people here present good arguments to the effect that Jews, qua Jews, do not have a right of self-determination to lose. (Where that is interpreted as the right to set up a state.)

        Mutas mutandis, those same arguments also show that no ethnic, religious, linguistic, or hobby group has that right of self-determination.

        That includes Germans, if “Germans” is interpreted as some sort of ethnic group.

        If “Germans” is interpreted as “legal residents of the territory called Germany”, then they may have that right.

      • RoHa
        May 7, 2015, 9:19 pm

        @Hostage

        “The only possible good faith interpretation…”

        What are the chances of seeing any good faith applied?

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 8:22 am

        What are the chances of seeing any good faith applied?

        With Hophmi. none. The ICJ has ruled in a number of cases that the General Assembly can adopt legally binding resolutions within its own functional areas of competence, e.g. the word “decision” in Articles 4 and 18 have exactly the same treaty meaning as the word decision in Article 25, 27, and 41. The words “resolution” and “non-binding” do not even appear in the UN Charter.

        Nothing in the UN Charter prevents a decision from being announced in a Security Council President’s press release rather than a resolution. Nothing limits the scope of a resolution to just one article or chapter at a time. The treaty obligation to obey a General Assembly resolution comes from Article 103, 104, the “every assistance” clause of article 2, articles 4, 17, 18, or any other particular Article that assigns a treaty power or function to the Assembly. When its resolutions mention rights that are compelling law, jus cogens, they are not merely suggestions. They create treaty obligations that are erga omnes, i.e. owed “towards all” or “towards everyone”.

        In several cases the ICJ has dispelled the myth that Security Council resolutions are not legally binding unless the are adopted under the auspices of Chapter 7. In fact, that suggestion was rejected during the San Francisco Conference and it was pointed out then, that members treaty obligations to the Security Council flow from Articles 24 and 25 of Chapter V and the same general ones mentioned above, 103, 104, and the “every assistance” clause of Article 2, together with any other particular clause assigning the Council a treaty power or function. The Transitional Arrangements in Article 106 have become permanent, since no countries have concluded treaties with the UN Security Council to turnover their armed forces lock, stock, and barrel. In effect, it works through coalitions of willing members when it takes enforcement actions by delegation. Nothing prevents the General Assembly from doing the same thing under a “Uniting for Peace” enforcement action like the original one in Korea. Its powers to authorize military missions and deployments and make assessments to pay for them were affirmed in the “Certain Expenses” case involving the UNEF mission. It should also be obvious that nothing prevents the General Assembly from calling for the establishment of a Special Criminal Tribunal for Palestine, in exactly the same way it wrote the draft statute and called for the establishment of the ICC. So even a “suggestion” in a UN General Assembly resolution can have legal consequences.

      • Mooser
        May 8, 2015, 4:34 am

        “SELF-DETERMINATION because Jews as a minority tended to BE PERSECUTED. Diaspora Jews didn’t lack for offers from leaders like the Sultan. They lacked security. It wasn’t enough to have the favor of some king or Pope. The end result tended to be the same; when the King or Pope lost interest or the Jews were no longer consider useful, or the leader needed a scapegoat, the Jews were persecuted.”

        hophmi, I thought we agreed we would not discuss the fate of Jews in America, where the were a tiny, tiny minority with no recognition at all by the government. There may be Jewish kids, or young adults reading, and we wouldn’t want to give them nightmares and emotional upsets. Of course, they are just like the results in all the European countries when they relegated Jews to the position of ordinary citizens Yes, Hophmi, we all knows what happens to the Jews when they are a tiny minority with no recognition from the government and no protection, as happened in America and finally developed in European countries. But I think we should let parents decide when their kids are old enough to handle this tragic story, with its inevitable end in extinction.

      • Mooser
        May 8, 2015, 4:43 am

        “Unless you are one of the millions that Ben Gurion and Weizmann wrote off as human dust”

        That’s me, or rather, that’s where I come from. Of course, knowing where you come from is not a privilege us dust motes get. My dog’s bloodlines go back much further than mine.

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 1:40 pm

        My dog’s bloodlines go back much further than mine.

        Well Ben Gurion and Weizmann were just a Pole and a Russian whose historical roots in Palestine were never any deeper than the legs of their chairs.

      • hophmi
        May 8, 2015, 9:31 am

        You need to read carefully, Mr. Fincham. I haven’t denied Palestinian nationhood. I’ve denied that any organic Palestinian nationhood existed before the Zionist era, and I also deny that that nationalism is not ethnically and religiously based; Palestinian nationalism is based on Arab ethnic identity and Islamic religious identity.

        I’ll say it a third time: I will concede that there is a Palestinian Arab/Muslim nationalism that developed as a reaction to Zionism in the 20th century, and that is why I support a two state solution, and you should be willing to concede that a Jewish nationalism also exists, rather than denying it or suggesting that it has no legitimacy.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        May 8, 2015, 2:47 pm

        @hophmi

        You still seem to be confusing ‘national identity’ with ‘political nationalism’. You have also muddied the waters further by introducing the words ‘organic’ and ‘nationhood’ without explanation.

        There has certainly been a Palestinian national identity, in the sense of a common descent, history, culture and language, within a particular territory, as in the OED definition, for a thousand years. If your phrase ‘organic Palestinian nationhood’ means the same as my phrase ‘national identity’ then you are quite wrong to deny it.

        Although there can be ethnic and religious elements to national identity, I suggest their importance is less than those elements mentioned in the OED definition. For example, in Britain substantial proportions of the population are of Asian or Negro ethnicity, but these are not considered any less British than the white European Britons. Nor are Jews and Roman Catholics considered less British than members of the established church. It is the same in Palestine: local Christians and Jews were considered to be, and considered themselves to be, members of the Palestinian nation.

        I agree that Palestinian political nationalism (i.e desire for independence) only arose in the 20th century. There were two main factors in this development: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which made it certain that new politcal structures would be required; and the Zionist plans to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine.

        I said that, according to the OED definition, diaspora Jews do not constitute a nation. But the word ‘nation’ is used in various ways, and if the Jews of the world consider themselves to be a nation, I have no objection to that. And I consider their desire to establish a National Home somewhere on the Earth’s surface to be perfectly legitimate. But as I said in the article, Palestine was the wrong place, because it was far to small to hold even half of the world’s Jews without displacing the existing population. The USA would have been ideal, because it had plenty of space and resources, a history of welcoming incomers, and an existing Jewish population of European origin.

      • hophmi
        May 8, 2015, 9:33 am

        “Obviously this argument falls apart if he acknowledges that the Palestinians were a nation.

        For my part, I think the first three premises are wrong.

        But hophmi should speak for himself, and actually address this point.”

        I’ve acknowledged several times that the Palestinians are a nation. So are the Jews. That is why we need a two state solution.

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 10:02 pm

        I’ve acknowledged several times that the Palestinians are a nation. So are the Jews. That is why we need a two state solution.

        No, you want to exclude Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 and 1967 from returning to Israel and keep those in the Palestinian State from enjoying freedom of transit and their share of the natural resources in violation of solemn UN guarantees and GOI treaty declarations .

        That’s the apartheid solution. It violates Israel’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, and the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II) At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how many states you try to setup in the territory of the former Palestine mandate, they will all still be required to provide equal protection under the law for all of their inhabitants, not just the majority.

      • hophmi
        May 8, 2015, 1:44 pm

        “Well Ben Gurion and Weizmann were just a Pole and a Russian whose historical roots in Palestine were never any deeper than the legs of their chairs.”

        And if they had stayed where they were, they would probably be two dead Jews, one almost certainly a victim of the Nazi genocide, the other perhaps a victim of Stalin.

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 5:01 pm

        And if they had stayed where they were, they would probably be two dead Jews, one almost certainly a victim of the Nazi genocide, the other perhaps a victim of Stalin.

        LoL! Your concern for those two war criminals is touching. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then those two Zionists couldn’t have done a better job of sucking up to their Nazi business partners. I’ve already described the twin lamentations about others denying their right of self determination under Versailles or the White Paper; how they both created fantastic maps and legends about their historical connection to other peoples lands that they called Greater Germany and Greater Israel; and how they both planned illegal wars of aggression to rid themselves of those others though pograms of Germanization or Judaization, i.e. eviction by armed attack, occupation, colonization, apartheid, and genocides.

        The Head of the Jewish Agency Political Department traveled in safely to and from Germany and concluded a formal corporate business partnership with the Nazi Reich’s Finance Ministry. I imagine Ben Gurion or Weizmann could have done the same. In the end the WZO took over the business of selling Nazi manufactured goods, after it was learned the Jewish Agency was selling stuff on the side to third parties that had nothing to do with any refugees. We all know that Hannah Arendt was persona non-grata after she wrote about all of the Zionist leaders, like Ratzner, who she considered to be infamous Nazi collaborators. I think your concern about Stalin is probably misplaced too. He was the first to recognize Israel and Golda Meir managed to survive her mission as ambassador to the USSR under Uncle Joe.

  34. Mooser
    May 6, 2015, 3:03 am

    Jeez, Hophmi, you never stop. Do you think repeating the same bullshit over and over makes it true? Are you just going to go on repeating the same equivocations, and the same prevarications, ad noisier?

    Oh, BTW, how’s Phil doing today. Is he a “gentleman” or a “self-hater”?

  35. Ian Berman
    May 6, 2015, 10:24 am

    Hophmi, the most telling thing about your comment is that you focus on the least important issues and when you finally make a point on one of the greater points, your response is a dismissive “You’re being silly”

    One of those key points is that Zionism was the product of seven decades of work to create a secure homeland for Jews. As Ilan Pappe says, a noble idea.

    Yet the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land. It was a conscious effort for most of those seven decades to take this land, by lobbying and deal making in Europe and by force (for which preparations began with sending troops to the first World War). So even if we ignore the conscious taking of the land by force, which was conducted with decades of planning and the inclusion of acts of terrorism, the legal efforts that “granted” Palestine to Israel all, ALL, required that the human rights of Palestinians not be affected.

    Yet we all know from the work of Israelis Morris, Pappe, Shevit & others that not only did the Zionists deny these human rights, they ethnically cleansed Palestine. This is the second worst crime after genocide.

    http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

    So just three years after the world learned the horrors of the Nazi genocide of Jews, Zionists implement the horrors of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. They implemented plans that had been in conception before the Holocaust. So even if one were to grant a legitimacy to Israel by virtue of the documents, something it wasn’t as shown in the analysis above, the Zionists had planned and executed the second worst crime against humanity from a plan they had conceived before the Holocaust even happened.

    One other point on the Holocaust and Israel’s creation. If it was so directly connected, how come only 10% of Holocaust survivors moved to Israel, of which many left afterwards? Further, why did Ben Gurion despise these “weak” people who could help his cause?

    Last as I won’t address every one of your minor points, a nation is not only a country.

    na·tion ˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun

    a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

    E.g., the Cherokee nation. A nation does not have to have internationally recognized statehood.

    • just
      May 6, 2015, 11:10 am

      Ian~ thanks again for your valuable and insightful comments here.

      Brilliant.

      • Mooser
        May 7, 2015, 4:34 am

        I’m glad I came back to check, I didn’t know Mr. Berman had posted further on this thread.
        It’ll be a pleasure to read.

    • hophmi
      May 6, 2015, 1:03 pm

      “Hophmi, the most telling thing about your comment is that you focus on the least important issues and when you finally make a point on one of the greater points, your response is a dismissive “You’re being silly””

      That’s because you’re being silly when you talk about Israel’s legality as a nation as being based on documents that have little legal effect. This is always a central contradiction in pro-Palestinian activism. You always like to pick and choose with international law. The Partition Plan was *only* passed by 33 countries. But you want UNGA 194, which has no more legal standing than UNGA 181, enforced. You cite the Balfour Declaration’s clause about not prejudicing the rights of the indigenous Palestinians. You ignore UNGA 194’s requirement that returning refugees must live in peace.

      “Yet the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land.”

      I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is that most countries, particularly Western countries, have little historical legitimacy; their borders have been set by centuries of war and their populations are the product of many centuries of persecution of minorities, including and especially the Jews. Today, to assuage their historical guilt, they’ve made Israel into a scapegoat, even as most of them continue to persecute their minorities. The Palestinians themselves have had a succession of bad leaders, from the ones that supported Hitler in the 1940’s to the ones who endorsed hijacking airplanes and shooting Israeli schoolchildren in the 1960’s and 1970’s, to today’s Hamas terrorists.

      And don’t act like Zionism would have been ok for you if Zionists went to some uninhabited Island. Most people here hate the idea because they can’t forgive those Jews who decided that universalism was not a complete answer to the Jewish question. They are the same people who insisted that the USSR didn’t persecute Jews and the same people who are underplaying antisemitism now.

      “So just three years after the world learned the horrors of the Nazi genocide of Jews, Zionists implement the horrors of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians.”

      Yes, in the context of a civil war, where Jewish communities were also ethnically cleansed, and, as Morris points out, acts of ethnic cleansing were neither centrally planned, nor particularly unusual in the context of a war. The same year, millions of Muslims were ethnically cleansed from India, and millions more Hindus and Sikhs were ethnically cleansed from what became Pakistan.

      “They implemented plans that had been in conception before the Holocaust.”

      That is total nonsense. There is nothing in the literature to suggest that there was some great plan to kick the Palestinians out in before the war. Even if you believe Pappe’s fanciful ideas about Plan Dalet, Plan Dalet was drawn up in March 1948.

      “One other point on the Holocaust and Israel’s creation. If it was so directly connected, how come only 10% of Holocaust survivors moved to Israel, of which many left afterwards?”

      You’re conflating two things and your facts are either wrong or misleading. The Holocaust helped the Zionists gain international sympathy for their campaign for a state. The reasons are obvious.

      As far as survivors that went to Israel after the war, I’m not sure where the 10% figure comes from. Regardless, more DPs went to Israel than anywhere else, and the number would doubtless have been higher without the British immigration quotas. That is why Israel has the largest population of Holocaust survivors today.

      “Further, why did Ben Gurion despise these “weak” people who could help his cause?”

      I’m not sure which decontextualized quote of Ben-Gurion you’re referring to (or what evidence you have that Ben-Gurion’s views as you state them on this matter were the majority view amongst Zionists), but generally, as the head of the Jewish Agency and the future leader of a state with poor finances, Ben-Gurion prioritized Jews who could help with the hard work of building the state and working the land over those who would be unable to meaningfully contribute. In any event, however Ben-Gurion felt, it is clear that his views did not dominate, because Zionists worked hard to bring Holocaust survivors to the Mandate and then to Israel, passed a Law of Return in 1950 granting citizenship to any Jew, including Holocaust survivors, who wished to live in Israel, and also took in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who had been ethnically cleansed from Arab countries, all of whom Zionists had not really planned to include before the war.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 6, 2015, 1:11 pm

        That’s because you’re being silly when you talk about Israel’s legality as a nation as being based on documents that have little legal effect.

        shorter hops: laws don’t matter if israel doesn’t follow them.

        “Yet the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land.”

        I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is that most countries, particularly Western countries, have little historical legitimacy… Today, to assuage their historical guilt, they’ve made Israel into a scapegoat, even as most of them continue to persecute their minorities.

        never mind that “most countries”, unlike israel, are not in the process of ethnically cleansing people from their homes and land. never mind that! let’s pass off all the criticism as “historical guilt”!!!

        “They implemented plans that had been in conception before the Holocaust.”

        That is total nonsense.

        denial denial NAKBA denial.

      • hophmi
        May 6, 2015, 1:19 pm

        “shorter hops: laws don’t matter if israel doesn’t follow them.”

        No Annie. Laws don’t matter if you’re going to selectively apply them for political purposes. That’s what’s happening here. You want to apply one UN resolution, but ignore another. You want to apply one part of a law (and UN resolutions are not “laws” to begin with), and ignore the other part that doesn’t serve your political purpose. And you want to apply it to a small state that faces a real threat from the privileged position of a large state that has killed far more people in response to a smaller threat, and faces no real consequence for it.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 6, 2015, 1:29 pm

        that’s bs hops. ian specifically referenced “key points” that you avoid…like “the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land.”

        so you counter that by claiming selective application for political purposes by referencing events that happened hundreds of years ago? you’re avoiding the topic, diverting. israel is currently expanding and preventing any resolution to the fact there are millions of people w/no rights being represented by a gov they have no say in. and you’re just diverting by claiming victimhood, poor lil isrsel is picked on and we have historical guilt.

        it’s a transparently stupid diversionary argument. you’re making excuses for crimes against humanity. take the last word, i’m not interested in debating while you’re beating a dead horse.

      • eljay
        May 6, 2015, 1:25 pm

        || Annie Robbins: shorter hops … ||

        …would be a blessing. But because Zio-supremacists have no valid, just or moral defence for their oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” project, they appear to thrive on assaulting MW members with posts comprising many large paragraphs of blather and bullsh*t.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 6, 2015, 1:33 pm

        exactly

      • irishmoses
        May 6, 2015, 2:25 pm

        Tell me about it!

      • Ian Berman
        May 6, 2015, 1:35 pm

        1. Plans before the Holocaust to take the whole of Palestine

        In 1938, Ben Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

        “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

        2. Where does the 10% of Holocaust survivors come from?

        Doubting the number is hardly dispositive. Look it up.

        3. The persecution argument.

        “And don’t act like Zionism would have been ok for you if Zionists went to some uninhabited Island. Most people here hate the idea because they can’t forgive those Jews who decided that universalism was not a complete answer to the Jewish question”

        I don’t want to blow my own horn, but I’m quite well read and never heard of universalism. The term and its implication in the discussion may be relevant, but certainly not in the context of “most people.”

        More importantly, you are playing the persecution card with this argument. Most people who do care about this issue wouldn’t think twice if Israel had formed on an uninhabited island or some uninhabited desert or tundra or forest. The issue is ethnic cleansing of 1948, the refusal of the right of return and military occupation of Palestinian territory ever since the creation of Israel through this day. (Yes, internationally recognized Israel was militarily occupied from the Palestinian point of view since 1948. That occupation turned towards the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.)

        In essence, what you are saying is Israel’s crimes are justified because “look, we’re being persecuted by global anti-Semites.” No you’re just alleging persecution to change the subject.

        Most critics, especially knowledgeable, vocal and articulate ones are ANTI-ZIONIST, not anti-Semitic.

      • hophmi
        May 6, 2015, 1:39 pm

        “denial denial NAKBA denial.”

        Oh please. It is not Nakba denial to suggest that the Nakba was planned during the 1948 War period, rather than before the Holocaust.

        “that’s bs hops. ian specifically referenced “key points” that you avoid…like “the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land.””

        I didn’t avoid Ian’s point. I just don’t agree with the premise. Americans chose an inhabited land as well. You live in it.

        “so you counter that by claiming selective application for political purposes by referencing events that happened hundreds of years ago?”

        I love how you pull my statements apart. The Holocaust did not happen hundreds of years ago.

        “israel is currently expanding and preventing any resolution to the fact there are millions of people w/no rights being represented by a gov they have no say in. and you’re just diverting by claiming victimhood, poor lil isrsel is picked on and we have historical guilt.”

        Israel is not greatly expanding. The “settlement growth” you all like to go on about is mostly about population growth in settlement blocs; there have been very few new settlements in the last 20 years. In any event, right now, despite your naysaying, a two state solution with a contiguous Palestinian state is certainly still possible.

        “it’s a transparently stupid diversionary argument…take the last word, i’m not interested in debating you.”

        Really, Annie, namecalling is not going hurt me. It only highlights your inability to engage with anyone who doesn’t already share your perspective. You don’t want to debate because your mind is closed.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 4:39 pm

        Oh please. It is not Nakba denial to suggest that the Nakba was planned during the 1948 War period, rather than before the Holocaust. … Sorry Ian, but an oft-repeated quote from a controversial letter Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937 is not proof that the Zionists collectively planned to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians before the Holocaust; this quote is not even proof Ben-Gurion favored such an outcome, and certainly is not proof that the Zionists “conceived a plan” to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in 1938.

        No, its just completely dishonest. If we leave off the crossed out parts of the controversial letter the rest of it clearly says that he planned to use military force to colonize any territory given to the future Arab State and to colonize Transjordan either with, or without, the Arabs consent. He published that while he was still living. so it’s incontestable.

        Yossi Katz is a full professor in the Department of Geography and Environment at Bar-Ilan University. He is incumbent of the Chair for the Study of the History and Activities of the Jewish National Fund. His research focuses on the history of the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel and Zionism. He’s the author of 24 books and 140 articles, he also chairs Bar-Ilan University Press.

        Katz devoted an entire chapter (pages 85-109) in “Partner to Partition” to the documentary evidence about the Jewish Agency’s efforts to formulate their own plan for transferring the Arab population out of the Jewish state or depriving its members of access to their lands. That was an integral part of the Agency’s partition proposal, which was continuously developed and refined by a staff of over three hundred people for more than a decade. It was finally presented as the Jewish Agency’s plan for the future government of Palestine. It was submitted to the UNSCOP and General Assembly Ad Hoc Committees as Israel’s maximal position by the same people who began working on it in the era of the Peel Commission.

        Ben Gurion wasn’t just the Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. He was also its Defense Portfolio Minister. He had instituted compulsory military service and controlled the Haganah. Its official published history claims that in the summer of 1937, ten years before the UN Partition plan, David Ben Gurion directed the Haganah Commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Slikowitz (“Avnir”), to draw up a plan to take over the entire country after the British withdrawal.

        The Introduction of Plan Dalet itself indicates that: “This plan is based on three previous plans:

        1. Plan B, September 1945.

        2. The May 1946 Plan.1

        3. Yehoshua Plan, 1948.2
        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html

        That means that Plan B above was based upon the “Avnir Plan” that had been drawn-up in 1937.

        The “settlement growth” you all like to go on about is mostly about population growth in settlement blocs; there have been very few new settlements in the last 20 years.

        When you say settlement blocks, you are talking about the vast areas in between settlements that amounted to excess expropriation in the first place. Growth of the population in the settlement blocks doesn’t mean the wide open spaces in between are getting larger, it means that they are getting smaller due to urban sprawl.

      • just
        May 6, 2015, 1:44 pm

        +1, Ian.

        (I appreciate your FB page, too. May she RIP, never forgotten.)

      • hophmi
        May 6, 2015, 2:01 pm

        “1. Plans before the Holocaust to take the whole of Palestine

        In 1938, Ben Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

        “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)”

        Sorry Ian, but an oft-repeated quote from a controversial letter Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937 is not proof that the Zionists collectively planned to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians before the Holocaust; this quote is not even proof Ben-Gurion favored such an outcome, and certainly is not proof that the Zionists “conceived a plan” to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in 1938.

        “2. Where does the 10% of Holocaust survivors come from?

        Doubting the number is hardly dispositive. Look it up.”

        I did. That’s why I asked your source. I can’t find the reference.

        “I don’t want to blow my own horn, but I’m quite well read and never heard of universalism.”

        Really? Then I doubt you’re as well-read as you say. This site discusses it fairly frequently. In any event, those who criticize Zionism from the left usually pillorize its instinct toward tribalism, and suggest that Jews would be better off promoting a more universalist vision of Judaism shorn of its status as a nation. That’s a generous reading of Phil Weiss, and also of Marc Ellis. Jews are successful, Jews have a lot to contribute, and instead of focusing on themselves and Israel, they should apply themselves to the societies in which they live. I would argue that universalism and tribalism are not mutually exclusive, and that both are necessary for the survival of a people and a multicultural civilization, but that’s the debate in a nutshell.

        “More importantly, you are playing the persecution card with this argument.”

        LOL. Yeah, I’m playing the persecution card. Actually, I’m playing the history card. The history is that in most places, Jews have either been periodically persecuted or otherwise have been made to live as second-class citizens, and the Enlightenment didn’t prove to be an antidote to the barbarous instincts of the civilized Europeans. So the Jews diversified their options, and stopped depending on Gentiles for safety and security.

        “Most people who do care about this issue wouldn’t think twice if Israel had formed on an uninhabited island or some uninhabited desert or tundra or forest”

        This is a meaningless hypothetical argument. People did not oppose Zionism in the 1930’s and 1940’s principally because there were other people in the Mandate. They opposed it in the West because they wanted to protect their relationship with Arab dictators, and the Arabs themselves opposed it because they opposed the idea of Jews holding political power in the Middle East. The Arabs themselves have shown no inclination in the last half-century to treat minorities well or to stop ethnic cleansing in their own countries. Neither have people in West shown much interest in the issue of ethnic cleansing outside of the Israeli context. So I simply disagree with the assumption that it’s the ethnic cleansing most people really care about. There are too many other examples around the world.

        “Most critics, especially knowledgeable, vocal and articulate ones are ANTI-ZIONIST, not anti-Semitic.”

        Actually, I think the most knowledgeable and articulate critics are liberal Zionists, because unlike the anti-Zionists, they make an effort to understand both Palestinians and Israelis. Anti-Zionists are just partisans for the Palestinian cause, and they take that cause on with all of its mythology and propaganda.

      • eljay
        May 6, 2015, 2:47 pm

        || hophmi: Really, Annie, namecalling is not going hurt me. It only highlights your inability to engage with anyone who doesn’t already share your perspective. You don’t want to debate because your mind is closed. ||

        Shame on you, Annie, for not “opening your mind” to injustice and immorality and engaging with hophmi. Why, he was *this* close to abandoning Zio-supremacism in favour of justice, accountability and equality…but now he won’t, and it’s all your fault. :-(

      • RoHa
        May 7, 2015, 1:41 am

        “suggest that Jews would be better off promoting a more universalist vision of Judaism shorn of its status as a nation.”

        Neither Jews nor Judaism are a nation in any conventional sense. What do you mean by “nation”, and why is it important for Judaism to have that status? How does it give European Jews any right to take over Palestine?

        “ instead of focusing on themselves and Israel, they should apply themselves to the societies in which they live.”

        And what is wrong with that?

        “ I would argue that universalism and tribalism are not mutually exclusive, and that both are necessary for the survival of a people and a multicultural civilization”

        There is no moral necessity or duty for Jews to “survive as a people”. If the activities necessary for “survival as a people” are immoral, then it is wrong for Jews to “survive as a people”. This applies to other groups as well.

        (Note for the hard of thinking: The fact that there is no moral duty for Jews to “survive as a people” does not imply that it is morally permissible to prevent Jews from “surviving as a people” if the activities necessary for the survival are not immoral.)

        “The history is that in most places, Jews have either been periodically persecuted or otherwise have been made to live as second-class citizens, and the Enlightenment didn’t prove to be an antidote to the barbarous instincts of the civilized Europeans.”

        But this did not give European Jews any right to take over Palestine.

        “ People did not oppose Zionism in the 1930’s and 1940’s principally because there were other people in the Mandate. They opposed it in the West because they wanted to protect their relationship with Arab dictators”

        Lord Montagu and Sir Isaac Isaacs were exceptions. But even if you can support your assertion, that still does not give European Jews any right to take over Palestine.

        “and the Arabs themselves opposed it because they opposed the idea of Jews holding political power in the Middle East.”

        And I am still waiting for you to support this claim. (Unless, of course, you mean that the Palestinians opposed the idea of a bunch of foreigners pushing into their land and taking over.)
        And even if it is true, that still does not give European Jews any right to take over Palestine.

      • Mooser
        May 7, 2015, 4:42 am

        Hophmi, you think there’s a “Jewish question”? Wow, talk about internalizing persecution!

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 10:28 am

        “Neither Jews nor Judaism are a nation in any conventional sense. What do you mean by “nation”, and why is it important for Judaism to have that status? How does it give European Jews any right to take over Palestine?”

        I really don’t care what your personal view is on whether Jews constitute a nation. We Jews say we constitute a nation, and we have said it for a long time. Our status as a nation would be less important if our historical experience in the Diaspora was better. But it is generally bad, and 50 or 75 years of relative success and calm in the United States does not wipe out centuries of persecution and societal antisemitism.

        “And what is wrong with that?”

        As I said, nothing. Jews did this exclusively until the 20th century. But it cannot be the only strategy. When it’s the only strategy, Jews become a vulnerable minority.

        “There is no moral necessity or duty for Jews to “survive as a people”. If the activities necessary for “survival as a people” are immoral, then it is wrong for Jews to “survive as a people”. This applies to other groups as well.”

        You’re from Australia, right? Are you indigenous? If not, your view on morality as it pertains to nationhood is meaningless.

        “But this did not give European Jews any right to take over Palestine.”

        You can repeat this ad nauseum, but whether you agree that Jews had a right to take over Palestine or not (and I would argue that they did for historical reasons and moral reasons), they are there now, and it would be immoral to remove them, and it is worse than immoral for people in actual settler societies like the United States and Australia to lecture a refugee society like Israel about the proper way to start and maintain a country.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 5:17 pm

        and it is worse than immoral for people in actual settler societies like the United States and Australia to lecture a refugee society like Israel about the proper way to start and maintain a country.

        Okay, you can’t possibly have passed a bar exam of you really believe that. Have you experienced a recent blow to the head? It was, and still is, perfectly acceptable for all of the international community of states to listen to the grievances of colonial and minority peoples and to finally take steps to codify legal prohibitions to outlaw the abusive and immoral practices that Zionism still insists on perpetrating against the people and territory of Palestine.

      • Hostage
        May 7, 2015, 4:59 pm

        P.S. Hophmi everything in this comments section, from the Jewish Agency spokesman telling the US Ambassador in Cairo in 1942 that it was useless to talk about negotiations with the Arabs, because the Jews will just take what they want by force, to Ben Gurion’s plans for a war of aggression against the neighboring states in order to colonize their territories by force was already illegal under customary international law. Those are the very same offenses the International Military Tribunals dealt with.

      • just
        May 7, 2015, 5:21 pm

        Hostage @ 5:17 pm

        Smart and lol funny!

      • RoHa
        May 7, 2015, 8:03 pm

        “We Jews say we constitute a nation, and we have said it for a long time. ”

        There are two standard meanings for “nation”. Since neither of those meanings apply to Jews, either (a) they are mistaken, or (b) they are using a non-standard meaning for “nation”.

        If (b), what is that non-standard meaning?

        “Our status as a nation would be less important if our historical experience in the Diaspora was better. …”

        You haven’t told me why the status as a “nation” is important in the first place.

        “ When it’s the only strategy, Jews become a vulnerable minority.”

        Minorities are vulnerable anyway, but less likely to be so when they show they are committed to supporting the majority society.

        “You’re from Australia, right? Are you indigenous? If not, your view on morality as it pertains to nationhood is meaningless.”

        Nice ad hominem evasion. The point still remains, even if you will not face it. There is no moral necessity for Jews to “survive as a people”. If you disagree, present an argument.

        ” I would argue that [Jews had a right to take over Palestine] for historical reasons and moral reasons”

        That would be interesting. I have never seen a convincing moral argument for it. All the attempts at a moral argument I have seem turn on the assumption that Jews are more important than other people.

        “they are there now, and it would be immoral to remove them”

        I do not advocate removal. I advocate changing the society and the attitudes.

        “and it is worse than immoral for people in actual settler societies like the United States and Australia to lecture a refugee society like Israel about the proper way to start and maintain a country.”

        I like the way you slipped “refugee” in there, as if that were an excuse. But if Israel is doing wrong, then it is wrong no matter who points it out.

      • Sibiriak
        May 7, 2015, 9:53 pm

        RoHa: “We Jews say we constitute a nation, and we have said it for a long time. ”

        There are two standard meanings for “nation”. Since neither of those meanings apply to Jews, either (a) they are mistaken, or (b) they are using a non-standard meaning for “nation”.
        ————————–

        I disagree. For centuries Jews have been considered a “nation” under an older standard understanding of the term.

        Cf.

        http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11332&lang=en

        “11. The meaning which is given nowadays to the word “nation” in many countries is far removed from the original meaning.

        12. Historically, it would seem that use of the word dates back to the Middle Ages; it comes from the Latin natio, a substantive derived from the verb nascere (to be born), and denotes origin, membership of a community, a relationship to an entity within which one was born. ”

        ———

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

        “Nation has various meanings, and the meaning has changed over time.[1] The concept of “nation” is related to “ethnic community” or ethnie. An ethnic community often has a myth of origins… and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests.[2]

        The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an “imagined community”[3] and by Paul James as an “abstract community”.[4] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections.”
        ————–

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

        “Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[33][34][35] Converts to Judaism typically have a status within the Jewish ethnos equal to those born into it.”

        ” Brandeis, Louis (April 25, 1915). […] ‘Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member'”

        ” Einstein, Albert (June 21, 1921). […] ‘The Jewish nation is a living fact'”

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 9:15 pm

        I disagree. For centuries Jews have been considered a “nation” under an older standard understanding of the term.

        Cf.

        http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11332&lang=en

        But the only meaning relevant to the right of self determination is the one that’s a territorial entity or polity. It is a rank violation of international law and Article 1 of the the UN Charter to draw boundaries around communities of more than one national ethnic group, like Israel has done, and then try to exclude any of them from equal participation in the economic, political or social life of the country on the basis of nationality or any other charateristic. Here’s an example from your COE paper: Poland recognises thirteen national and ethnic minorities : Armenians, Belarusians, Czechs, Germans, Gypsies, Jews, Karaites, Lemks, Lithuanians, Russians, Slovaks, Tatars, Ukrainians;

        Those are all legally protected groups under European public law. Poland, and all of the COE countries provide each of their citizens equal constitutional rights, Israel does not. None of the Polish national or ethnic minority groups have the automatic right to demand their own state in part of Poland, as Hophmi suggests, just because they consider themselves to be a nation. There are three modes of exercising the right of self-determination outlined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Only one of them entails establishing an independent state.

        Here is the UN position on the subject:

        All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

        Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.

        In accordance with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, this shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Vienna.aspx

        Polish Jews and the other groups were protected by a minority treaty that was an integral part of the treaty which created the country in the first place. Those minority treaties have been a requirement under customary law ever since the mid-19th century.

        None of them had an unqualified right to emigrate to Palestine under the terms of the Mandate without obtaining the normal permission from the country’s government. It was only required to permit immigration under suitable conditions.

      • RoHa
        May 8, 2015, 12:14 am

        @ Siberiak

        Yes, an older meaning which is not standard any more. If that is what hophmi means, he should say so.

        The quotations prove only that Jews have claimed Jewishness is a nationality in some sense or another.

      • Sibiriak
        May 8, 2015, 7:51 am

        RoHa: Yes, an older meaning [ of “nation” and “nationality” which is not standard any more. If that is what hophmi means, he should say so.
        ———————

        Again, I must disagree. The definition is older but it is not “non-standard.” I’ve read quite a few books on European history by contemporary writers who have used the term “nation” with that standard older meaning.

        Benedict Anderson, referenced above, is one of the most influential modern writers on nationalism; many of his ideas are widespread, if not dominant. His concept of a nation as an “imagined community” of extended and shared connections is perfectly applicable to Jewish people who have such an “imagined” shared identity (“imagined” meaning its basis is ultimately subjective, not that it is false.)

        So, the meaning Hophmi is invoking is a fully standard, widely recognized one (especially in academic writing), although secondary in contemporary usage.

        —————————–
        RoHa: ” The quotations prove only that Jews have claimed Jewishness is a nationality in some sense or another.”

        No. The widespread categorizing of Jews and many other “imagined” (self-identified) ethnic-communites as “nations” is in no way simply a “Jewish claim”—its standard historiography, historical sociology etc.

        More importantly, I don’t see the political-rhetorical effectiveness of trying to prove what will for many seem be a quite problematic proposition– that Jews do NOT constitute a nation (or people).

        I humbly suggest that you would be better off not trying to invalidate centuries of standard historiographic, political and cultural usage of the term “nation” in regards to Jews and other groups, and instead relentlessly pose the clear, simple and entirely unanswerable question: how the hell does the fact that Jews might be a “nation” with “imagined” roots in ancient Palestine give them any moral or legal right to take over modern Palestine and cleanse that land of its non-Jewish residents, or subject them to an evil apartheid regime?

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 9:47 pm

        Again, I must disagree. The definition is older but it is not “non-standard.” I’ve read quite a few books on European history by contemporary writers who have used the term “nation” with that standard older meaning.

        Because that older meaning was employed under the regime of the Capitulations where everyone carried their own ethnic or national (am personam) rights and immunities around with them wherever they happened to take-up residency. The Jewish Diaspora still didn’t enjoy the right to self-determination in Palestine under the Capitulations. They were explicitly revoked by the Palestine Mandate Article 8:

        The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine. – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art8

        FYI, the 1930 Hague Convention Diplomatic Conference was working on several codification projects and one of them on the Rights and Duties of States would have prevented States from granting foreigners any rights or privileges superior to those of a country’s own citizens. The LoN observers to the Montevideo Conference working on the same subject recommended that it be considered in the laws of the Inter-American system.

        The preamble of the Mandate also preserved the civil and political rights of all sorts of Diaspora Jews in other countries that were under the protection of LoN mandates or minority treaties. The Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention (1924), 44 Stat.2184; Treaty Series 728 even applied that clause to Anti-Zionist and Zionist Jews in the USA during the era when the Reform Pittsburgh Platform was de rigueur. It said “We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community.”

      • RoHa
        May 9, 2015, 7:22 am

        Siberiak, you have convinced me. That is a standard concept of “nation”, and Jews are, in that sense, a nation.

        It seems very similar to the “gnation” concept I used in a couple of posts long, long, ago, when the world was young and the blue paint had only just dried on the sky.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/obama-consulted-no-palestinians-for-his-rendition-of-history#comment-368387
        http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/israel-to-deport-100s-of-children-what-say-open-border-neocons#comment-221882

        And I did ask how being a “gnation” gave Jews any rights over Palestine.

        Got no answers, of course.

        This concept seems to open up the possibility of Aikidoka, stamp collectors, and Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy fans constituting “nations”.

        I don’t know whether it is the concept hophmi uses, because he, like most of the Zionist apologists we get here, never explains what he means. This reticence makes it much easier for Zionists to play fast and loose with the various concepts.

        To clarify things, I’ll call the concept you are using “c-nation”. The other two main concepts I will call “p-nation” and “n-nation”. (I refuse to discuss the “tar-” variety.)

        P-nations are the sort of things that are members of the UN, ASEAN, etc. They are sovereignish states, with governments and the other usual accoutrements. Australia, China, Monaco, Slovakia, Chad, Uruguay, and even Canada are p-nations.

        N-nations are those groups which Nineteenth Century romantics made such fuss over. They are similar to the c-nations, but with two important additions.

        1. The majority of the members live in a single territory, and the majority of the population in that territory are members of the group.
        2. The majority of the members of the group have a single, specific, language as their common language.

        P-nations are political institutions [insert joke here] and, as such, have rights and duties under international law. (The right to exist is not one of those rights.) The members of p-nations also have rights and duties to the p-nation as a whole.

        I claim that n-nations and c-nations have no rights or duties whatsoever, and that the members have no rights or duties to the n/c-nations.

        However, I am aware that there is a strong current of opinion that every n-nation is entitled to set up its own p-nation. (Claimed as a right of self-determi-.) Since the n-nation has a territory in which it is the majority, this opinion does have a certain surface plausibility, since in those cases where an rsd is acknowledged, it is acknowledged as the right of the people inhabiting the territory.

        The Zionist, ignoring the difference between c-nations and n-nations, claims that the Jewish c-nation is also entitled to set up its own p-nation. The territory for this is chosen on the grounds of historical and sentimental significance. (One would presume a c-nation of Aikidoka would choose at least the Iwama district. A c-nation of Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy fans might choose Arthur Dent’s house, Magarathea and Golgafrincham, or perhaps the entire Galaxy.)

        It is in order to forestall this fallacious, amphibolous, argument that I take the line that Jews are not a nation.

        I would certainly prefer to ask, “how the hell does the fact that Jews might be a “nation” with “imagined” roots in ancient Palestine give them any moral or legal right to take over modern Palestine and cleanse that land of its non-Jewish residents, or subject them to an evil apartheid regime?”

        And I suppose I might as well. The question would be ignored.

      • Hostage
        May 9, 2015, 10:53 am

        I would certainly prefer to ask, “how the hell does the fact that Jews might be a “nation” with “imagined” roots in ancient Palestine give them any moral or legal right to take over modern Palestine and cleanse that land of its non-Jewish residents, or subject them to an evil apartheid regime?”

        And I suppose I might as well. The question would be ignored.

        Nope. The COE paper explained it: The term “nation” is deeply rooted in peoples’ culture and history and incorporates fundamental elements of their identity. It is also closely linked to political ideologies, which have exploited it and adulterated its original meaning.

      • RoHa
        May 10, 2015, 12:47 am

        Ignored by the Zionists, Hostage.

  36. Ian Berman
    May 6, 2015, 11:34 am

    Thank you Just

  37. Ian Berman
    May 6, 2015, 12:51 pm

    Thank you Annie. If anyone is interested, I typically write on Facebook under Ian Berman, New York, New York

    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004204367067&fref=ts

    • just
      May 6, 2015, 1:17 pm

      Drat! I am not a facebook-er.

      I hope you’ll make MW a frequent stop, though.

  38. Ian Berman
    May 6, 2015, 2:05 pm

    Hopmi, the first thing I wrote was to thank you for the participation in the comments because we learn so much more from discourse.

    Your last post included this though:

    “Israel is not greatly expanding. The “settlement growth” you all like to go on about is mostly about population growth in settlement blocs; there have been very few new settlements in the last 20 years. In any event, right now, despite your naysaying, a two state solution with a contiguous Palestinian state is certainly still possible.”

    The entirety of that paragraph is false. So outrageously false, I won’t waste my time disproving it.

    So participate, but please don’t insult our intelligence.

    • Mooser
      May 7, 2015, 5:27 am

      “So participate, but please don’t insult our intelligence.”

      Mr. Berman, just a friendly tip. Please, keep this in mind:

      “Phil agrees with me, by the way, that I put up with a lot of nonsense here; I’ve written him a number of times, and he’s always been a gentleman. I think he’s repulsed by a good deal of the commentary here.” “Hophmi” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi/70#sthash.xwu5kVhk.dpuf

      “Phil knows who I am…. You really are a piece of work, Annie.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi?keyword=Phil#sthash.iKWlbg48.dpuf

      I’ve been watching my step ever since then. Hophmi pulls a lot of weight with the Editor,
      Of course, I guess that’s only right, when he can see into Phil’s soul like this:

      (March 1, 2015, 7:30 pm)

      “This analysis is nothing new. It is typical of Phil’s writing, which suggests, as it always does, the Phil has internalized anti-Jewish hatred, and like those secularist Jews in Europe who looked down upon their brethren or converted to Christianity to escape their Judaism, Phil adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater. Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And Phil is afflicted with it, as many Jews have been in the past. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is.

      American Jewry, and the American-Israel relationship will survive the Phils of this world. American Jews, long a positive force in American society, will continue to be, far into the future, and Israel will endure, far into the future. The Phils will fall away, as they always do.”– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/netanyahus-speech-israel#comment-751062

      I was foolish enough to doubt Hophmi’s facts about self-hate and he replied

      “The claim is well-supported by easily-accessible sociological data.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi?keyword=sociological#sthash.ZBmB8fFJ.dpuf

      I don’t know about you, Mr. Berman, but I know a guy who is headed for the top floor, corner office at Mondoweiss Plaza Tower #2, when I see one.
      I’m staying out of his way.

      • Ian Berman
        May 7, 2015, 2:10 pm

        I think you’re being sarcastic Mooser, but I’m not sure.

        Not worried about Hopmi’s standing. He is articulate while he conveys all the Zionist apologies, so he serves a useful purpose to present the propaganda that must be debunked.

        Typically, I ignore anyone who calls me name or challenges my reasons for my posts. I let my critical analysis stand as the basis for discussion.

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 3:13 pm

        “Not worried about Hopmi’s standing. He is articulate while he conveys all the Zionist apologies, so he serves a useful purpose to present the propaganda that must be debunked.”

        I’m not serving as an apologist for Zionism. There is really nothing to apologize for. I do defend the effort as a reasonable and pragmatic response to persecution, based on a collective nationalism that has a firm basis in Jewish history. It is not perfect, but neither should it be disparaged any more than any other national liberation movement is.

      • Ian Berman
        May 7, 2015, 4:05 pm

        Hopmi, it doesn’t really matter what your are doing. What is telling is that you are willing to argue when the plan of ethnic cleansing was conceived, but you don’t concede this crime against humanity as morally troubling.

        It tells us a lot about your bias in that you view Israel of incapable of doing any wrong. I am (admittedly) guessing this is because such an admission would lead to the conclusion that there is no excuse to deny Palestinians a right of return.

        Just a guess though and in the scope of the discussion, rather meaningless. No one here will ever convince you to change your position. Yet you provide useful insight to the pro-Zionist position and how it fails.

    • hophmi
      May 7, 2015, 10:41 am

      “The entirety of that paragraph is false. So outrageously false, I won’t waste my time disproving it.”

      That’s because you can’t, and your feigned offense is not fooling anybody. When people talk about settlement growth, they’re primarily talking about population, not land. Most of the settlements that are not contiguous are isolated outposts of at most 1200 people. But no, land-wise, settlements have not grown very much in a while, and no, the settlements as currently constituted do not make a two-state solution impossible.

      • Ian Berman
        May 7, 2015, 1:59 pm

        One look at a map of the settlements, settler controlled lands and the Jewish only roads shows how the absurdity of your assertion.

        Besides, what makes you think Israel will give up any land? If they would, why did they start taking it in 1967 and continue ever since?

        No matter what you assert and what YOU think should happen, the reality of what Israel has done and is willing to do means it will never give up land. See Bibi first ever honest comments about the peace process when he was in danger of losing his job.

        Nor has any offer to the Palestinians ever contained sovereignty. Israeli control of water, power, cell phones, military bases, etc. That’s not sovereignty, that’s living under permanent occupation.

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 3:10 pm

        “One look at a map of the settlements, settler controlled lands and the Jewish only roads shows how the absurdity of your assertion.”

        I think you’re missing my point. There are roads, mostly built after suicide bombing started. But the settlements themselves, in terms of land, have not undergone great expansions in the last 25 years.

        “Besides, what makes you think Israel will give up any land? If they would, why did they start taking it in 1967 and continue ever since?”

        Because they’ve been negotiating on this basis for more than 20 years, and most Israelis have said, repeatedly, that they would give up land in exchange for peace. The vast majority of the settlers live on land contiguous to Israel, most of which Israel took because of how vulnerable it had been before 1967. Most of the far-flung settlements are ideological, and came later. Israel didn’t take land in 1967 just to take it. There was a reason.

        “No matter what you assert and what YOU think should happen, the reality of what Israel has done and is willing to do means it will never give up land. See Bibi first ever honest comments about the peace process when he was in danger of losing his job.”

        It really means nothing of the sort. Israelis will give up land if it will bring peace. If it becomes a launching pad, as Gaza and Lebanon did, then they’ll be less willing to give it up.

        “Nor has any offer to the Palestinians ever contained sovereignty. Israeli control of water, power, cell phones, military bases, etc. That’s not sovereignty, that’s living under permanent occupation.”

        That’s why people negotiate. Olmert and Abbas were quite close to an agreement a few years ago. I have no doubt that it’s possible we may see an agreement in the next decade or so.

      • Ian Berman
        May 7, 2015, 4:56 pm

        Hopmi, I really appreciate how you deny even the most obvious statements like Netanyahu made just before his re-election. That’s why I can only take this exchange so far.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 7, 2015, 5:43 pm

        Ian, hops always has a comeback. he’s a swift operative. in hops world 20 years of endless talks that go nowhere except more israeli expansion and demolished homes is a sign israel is willing to make peace. it’s completely absurd but that’s the upshot. you’d be better off to just ignore him. soon he’ll be accusing you of arguing in bad faith.

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 5:38 pm

        “Hopmi, I really appreciate how you deny even the most obvious statements like Netanyahu made just before his re-election. That’s why I can only take this exchange so far.”

        Ian, I really appreciate how you deny that politicians can be politicians and say things to get elected. George Bush I got elected President of the United States in 1988 because he promised not to raise taxes. He raised them. And frankly, suggesting that I denied what Netanyahu said when that is not the subject we were addressing – come now, Ian. Argue in good faith.

      • Ian Berman
        May 7, 2015, 5:52 pm

        The difference being that Israel was supposedly seeking peace since before its creation. So the problem with your justification is history.

        So Netanyahu’s statement reflecting over 67 years of history. Yeah, I think that is more credible than a campaign promise. Especially since Israel has taken Palestinian land the entire time.

      • Ian Berman
        May 8, 2015, 3:29 pm

        You can see the link without being a member. Guess if the page or profile is open to the public, you can do so. Good to know.

        Thanks Annie

  39. hophmi
    May 7, 2015, 5:54 pm

    “Ian, hops always has a comeback. he’s a swift operative. in hops world 20 years of endless talks that go nowhere except more israeli expansion and demolished homes is a sign israel is willing to make peace. it’s completely absurd but that’s the upshot. you’d be better off to just ignore him. soon he’ll be accusing you of arguing in bad faith.”

    And in yours, 20 years of talks where the Palestinians continued to incite against the Israelis and committed dozens of acts of terrorism against them, many at the very height of the negotiations, indicates that it’s only the Israelis that deserve blame.

    • Ian Berman
      May 7, 2015, 8:00 pm

      Every day of military occupation is terrorism. Every piece of land taken is terrorism. Every military condemnation of land is terrorism. Every tree burned by a settler is terrorism. Every demolished building, over 28,000 as of 2012, is terrorism. Every “administrative detention” is terrorism. Every lie about search for what the government knew was dead boys is terrorism. Every incident breaking a cease fire with Hamas is terrorism.

      Ethnic cleansing is terrorism.

      So go lick your wounds from the act of the desperate and spend a moment thinking from the point of view of displaced Palestinians, you state sponsored terrorist supporter.

      • just
        May 7, 2015, 8:05 pm

        Absolutely spot- on!

        +10, Ian!

      • hophmi
        May 7, 2015, 8:54 pm

        And Ian Berman resorts to name calling.

      • Mooser
        May 8, 2015, 4:13 am

        “And Ian Berman resorts to name calling.”

        Now, some of you misguided people might think the quotes I posted from Hophmi describing Phil’s “self-hatred” disabilities were name calling. Don’t be drawn into error by emotion. That was not name-calling, that was clinical diagnosis! And proven by “easily accessible sociological data”, too!

      • Ian Berman
        May 8, 2015, 1:03 pm

        I wrote “Every day of military occupation is terrorism. Every piece of land taken is terrorism. Every military condemnation of land is terrorism. Every tree burned by a settler is terrorism. Every demolished building . . . . . . ”

        To which Hopmi replied “And Ian Berman resorts to name calling.”

        How is that name calling? Identifying the acts of the Israeli State or its citizens is a description of criminal acts.

        Calling Hopmi a moron for making such a stupid comment is name calling.

      • hophmi
        May 8, 2015, 1:19 pm

        So far, Ian, you’ve called me a “state-sponsored terrorist supporter” and a “moron.” The worst I did was call your argument silly. So Ian, your comments stand on their own. And of course, you’re making them in a room full of people that you know already agree with everything you say. I’ll leave it up to you whether you want to continue to do what everybody else does here, with moderator support, of course, which is spend most of their time attacking anybody who dissents from their point of view. I suppose, if you’re the type who needs sunshine constantly shined up your backside, you’ll continue in this vein, since the more ad hominem you post, the more +1s you’ll get from people here, and if you’re a little more secure than that, you’ll change your approach.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 8, 2015, 1:36 pm

        nice try, but he didn’t call you a moron. he gave an example of what name calling is. you’re right about one thing hops, Ian’s comments stand on their own. Israel’s actions amount to state sponsored terrorism. time and again you’ve demonstrated support for that state and those actions. an ad hominem attack “means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

        Ian has consistently attacked the content of your arguments, even here: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national#comment-766367 in effect demonstrating support for israel amounts to state sponsored terrorism. hence, it’s not by definition an ad hominem.

        your latest gambit: ‘if you’re more secure than needing “sunshine constantly shined up your backside” you’ll change your approach’ is pathetic. So go lick your wounds from the act of the desperate and spend a moment thinking from the point of view of displaced Palestinians.

        Ian, your fortitude is stunning.

      • hophmi
        May 8, 2015, 1:40 pm

        “nice try, but he didn’t call you a moron. he gave an example of what name calling is. you’re right about one thing hops, Ian’s comments stand on their own. Israel’s actions amount to state sponsored terrorism. time and again you’ve demonstrated support for that state and those actions. an ad hominem attack “means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.”

        Ian has consistently attacked your arguments, even here: link to mondoweiss.net hence, it’s not by definition ad hominem.

        Ian, your fortitude is stunning.”

        LOL. See, Ian, the moderator is on your side, in case there was a question in your mind. Be careful your behind doesn’t burn from all of that sunshine.

      • Annie Robbins
        May 8, 2015, 1:57 pm

        hops, why bother copy/pasting my comment and supporting link without addressing the argument contained within it? that’s the definition of ad hominem. and my comment here has nothing to do w/whether i am a moderator or not, it’s my opinion. but that’s the crux of your argument i see. that i am a moderator? the fact most people here will agree with a solid argument is no reason to not make it. this thread is almost a month old. so i don’t know what kind of “sunshine” you’re talking about anyway. it sounds like you’re just finding something to pat yourself on the back about while avoiding all argument that’s on topic. do you think it’s somehow intimidating to point out people here will agree with Ian? that argument could be made about virtually every thread. of course this is a place that supports palestine. your argument boils down to ‘people here support palestine therefore you like sunshine up your ass if you do too or argue such.’ pff. hypocrisy much.

      • Ian Berman
        May 8, 2015, 2:17 pm

        A couple of quick thoughts. I will admit that phrasing the conclusion of the point about Israeli state terrorism was worded as an attack and should have read “Hopmi, face up to what to you support, a state that regularly conducts terrorism against its own inhabitants.”

        Yet again, Hopmi takes the most minor point and focuses on it to divert attention from the larger issues. What Israel does is a multiple of crimes against humanity and/or against international law that essentially terrorize the Palestinian population. So while I may have offended your delicate sensibilities with name calling, you still don’t address what you support.

        As another example, I used the word “nation” to describe the Palestinians in a commonly acceptable form. Yet Hopmi would rather focus on that word than address what was done to that group no matter how you refer to it. Hostage has made some incredibly well researched arguments to counter Hopmi’s challenge, all well worth reading, but the point is Israel has terrorized the Palestinian people since 1948.

        And Hopmi does not address that at all.

        Last, before I forget, thanks for the support Annie and a big thanks for an excellent article in the first place, David.

        For those of you who can see Facebook, here is a point to consider about racial supremacy which someone else raised before. For me, it just makes me shake my head and say, how do you “never forget” the Holocaust and support what is done to Palestinians?

        (Sorry Just, but you really should set up an account just to see a wealth of sources, information and ideas, even if you don’t post.)

        https://www.facebook.com/SpiritOfJBulworth/photos/a.494329413929325.133572.494320497263550/1086903568005237/?type=1&theater

      • Annie Robbins
        May 8, 2015, 2:38 pm

        Ian, i am not a member of FB either. but i can follow links (like the one you just posted). once you’re a member of FB they can track your readership. it makes me uncomfortable.

        thanks for your participation.

    • Hostage
      May 8, 2015, 12:50 am

      And in yours, 20 years of talks where the Palestinians continued to incite against the Israelis and committed dozens of acts of terrorism against them, many at the very height of the negotiations, indicates that it’s only the Israelis that deserve blame.

      Well duh, yeah. You can’t even dignify what the USA and Israel are doing with the word “negotiate”. 1 in 10 illegal settlers is a US citizen and a 28 billion dollar a year Jewish Public Charity Industry is sending most of its money to Israel. See 26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered http://forward.com/news/israel/194978/26-billion-bucks-the-jewish-charity-industry-unco/ The American settler you don’t know http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/the-american-settler-you-don-t-know-1.388640

      You started the lizard-brained wars of aggression by invading Palestine in the first place and then imposed this onerous “negotiations” regime. You just can’t go on dictating the terms of its internal governance, collecting its customs, demanding that it be demilitarized, and allow you permanent bases in the Jordan Valley, put its ports under quarantine forever and call that “negotiations” you dumbass. Let me give you some clue, that shit went out with the Platt Amedment, Elihu Root, Teddy Roosevelt, General Leonard Wood, General Smedley Butler, and all of those High Contracting Pan American Banana Republic States that signed the Montevideo Convention in 1933. If Gitmo and Cuba under the Platt Amendment in 1933 or Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, Spanish Honduras, et al were “independent” “sovereign states”, then Palestine has already got statehood in spades and damned sure should have been admitted along side those others when they joined the League of Nations and the UN.

      For example: the US Government commentary on the Draft Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States begins on page 66 and repeatedly dismisses the idea that it is any sort of codification of international law for use in the real world. It doesn’t mind the references to juridical equality, so long as the authors don’t go too far and suggest how that would ever be implemented. References to an international organization or tribunal to settle disputes were just as unacceptable then as they are now. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1933v04&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=66

      Despite his Good Neighbor policy announcement in the inaugural address on 4 March 1933, F.D. Roosevelt never for one moment considered renouncing claims to Gitmo. Reservations to Montevideo reflect that the 1903 treaty would not be completely abandoned – and our claims to Gitmo under the new treaty required mutual consent for any changes. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1933v04&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=203

      But even the Nobel folks know that Root and Roosevelt only gave that treatment to the uncivilized people. They setup the Permanent Court of Arbitration for the civilized folks and its treaty allows any party to end the negotiations and ask for a ruling from the Court. . You don’t negotiate borders for 20 years, you go to international arbitration after two or three at the most. This Israel conflict is the only border conflict I’ve ever heard of where one side has the right to eternal negotiation:

      From Secretary of War to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

      Elihu Root was the brilliant lawyer who became US Secretary of War and Secretary of State between 1901 and 1909. He subsequently became a Senator and the first president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Root was awarded the Peace Prize for having pursued the aim that conflicts between states must be resolved by arbitration. After World War I he participated in the development of the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague.

      As President Theodore Roosevelt’s Secretary of War, Root helped to bring Pacific and Latin American territories under US control. The Philippines, Cuba and Panama were occupied. Both Roosevelt and Root believed that the US was entitled to lead and govern people whom they believed to be uncivilized.

      As Secretary of State, Root sought to alleviate Latin American fears of an imperialistic USA by arranging peace conferences. This led to good relations with the international peace movement, and several former Laureates nominated Elihu Root for the Peace Prize. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1912/root-bio.html

      Milestones: 1899–1913
      The United States, Cuba, and the Platt Amendment, 1901

      The Platt Amendment, an amendment to a U.S. army appropriations bill, established the terms under which the United States would end its military occupation of Cuba (which had begun in 1898 during the Spanish-American War) and “leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people.” While the amendment was named after Senator Orville Platt of Connecticut, it was drafted largely by Secretary of War Elihu Root. The Platt Amendment laid down eight conditions to which the Cuban Government had to agree before the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the transfer of sovereignty would begin.

      The Platt Amendment’s conditions prohibited the Cuban Government from entering into any international treaty that would compromise Cuban independence or allow foreign powers to use the island for military purposes. The United States also reserved the right to intervene in Cuban affairs in order to defend Cuban independence and to maintain “a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty.” Other conditions of the Amendment demanded that the Cuban Government implement plans to improve sanitary conditions on the island, relinquish claims on the Isle of Pines (now known as the Isla de la Juventud), and agree to sell or lease territory for coaling and naval stations to the United States. (This clause ultimately led to the perpetual lease by the United States of Guantánamo Bay.) Finally, the amendment required the Cuban Government to conclude a treaty with the United States that would make the Platt amendment legally binding, and the United States pressured the Cubans to incorporate the terms of the Platt Amendment in the Cuban constitution. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/platt

      Currently pending Cases at the ICJ are mostly boundaries:
      1. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)

      2. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)

      3. Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
      .
      4. Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

      5. Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)
      R
      6. Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

      7. Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)

      8. Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-­Leste v. Australia)

      9. Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)

      10. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan)

      11. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom)

      12. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)

      13. Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya)

      See “Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)” link to icj-cij.org

      See also “Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)” 2011; “Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)” 2010; “Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)” 2005; and “Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)” 1986.

      Contrary to popular belief among Zionists, most international boundaries are established, after national plebiscites, and through binding international arbitration or adjudication, not through negotiations conducted at gunpoint during a belligerent occupation.

      Here are a few of the other boundary cases that have been submitted to the Courts since Palestine declared its independence in 1988:
      *Eritrea/Yemen boundary dispute at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. link to pca-cpa.org
      *Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary
      link to pca-cpa.org
      *Guyana v. Suriname boundary link to pca-cpa.org
      *Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago economic zone/continental shelf link to pca-cpa.org
      *The Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
      *Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)
      link to icj-cij.org
      *Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) link to icj-cij.org
      *Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger) link to icj-cij.org
      *Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) link to icj-cij.org
      *Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) link to icj-cij.org
      *Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) link to icj-cij.org
      *Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) link to icj-cij.org
      *Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) link to icj-cij.org
      *Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) link to icj-cij.org
      *Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) link to icj-cij.org
      *Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) link to icj-cij.org

      • Mooser
        May 8, 2015, 4:18 am

        I’m glad I checked back again to read the contributions from Hostage, too. Thanks, Hostage.

      • hophmi
        May 8, 2015, 10:55 am

        “1 in 10 illegal settlers is a US citizen and a 28 billion dollar a year Jewish Public Charity Industry is sending most of its money to Israel.”

        You see, it’s really important to read something other than the headline of an article. First of all, it’s more like a $13 or 14 billion apparatus, not a $26 billion apparatus. The article makes clear that the $26 billion number is based on a lot of double counting, i.e, counting a donation a large organization gives to one agency, and the donation that agency gives to a smaller organization twice. Second of all, 38% of what’s doled out goes to Israel-related causes, not “most.” And that 38% is not 38% of $26 billion dollars. It’s 38% of the $3.7 billion the “functional agencies of the communal apparatus” gives out. So, once again, you’re either being intentionally misleading here, or you didn’t bother to actually read the article. Since you appear to be intelligent, and since again and again I catch you distorting your sources for polemical reasons, I’m going with the former.

        It’s also “difficult, if not impossible, to compare the Jewish communal network with networks of charities built by other ethnic and religious groups” because no one keeps tabs on other giving by religious groups, so there is no point of comparison here. What we do know is that Jewish non-profits “make up a tiny fraction of the total not-for-profit sphere”, roughly 2% of the contributions recorded on IRS 990 forms. So despite the fact that Forward, a Jewish newspaper, talked about Jewish Charity Industry, and not a “Jewish Public Charity Industry,” the “industry” is really not much bigger than the percentage of Jews in the US population. What is that term for people who take something that is routine and unremarkable and put a label on it to make it look like some scary conspiracy? I think the generous one is demagogue.

        “You started the lizard-brained wars of aggression by invading Palestine in the first place and then imposed this onerous “negotiations” regime.”

        Israel imposed the negotiations regime? I believe that was the international community, Hostage. Madrid, Oslo, Quartet – that’s not Israel. Israel’s position has always been that the best thing is for the parties to negotiate bilaterally, not internationally. In any event, the negotiations regime got the Palestinians self-rule in the West Bank and near a settlement several times. Yes, both sides violated the accords repeatedly. But so what? It’s routine for these accords to be violated; we’re going to sign a deal with Iran that I’m sure they’ll violate, and we’ll continue working with them, just as we did with North Korea. But it’s better than all-out war. You see what happens when we try to move things without an accord; we get Gaza.

        ” You just can’t go on dictating the terms of its internal governance, collecting its customs, demanding that it be demilitarized, and allow you permanent bases in the Jordan Valley, put its ports under quarantine forever and call that “negotiations” you dumbass.”

        Israel doesn’t dictate the terms of internal governance, and customs collection is something that is part of Oslo. You want a militarized Palestinian state? Why? For what? You think giving the Palestinians weapons is going to make for a more peaceful situation? It will just encourage belligerence, which the Israelis will be forced to confront with their superior weapons. Palestinian ports won’t be quarantined forever. But they will be monitored if they’re repeatedly used to smuggle weapons into Gaza. In any event, yes, that’s negotiating. The Palestinians don’t have as much leverage as the Israelis have. That’s life. If I have a million dollars and you have a billion dollars, you’re going to be in a superior negotiating position to me. I can’t ask you to give me $500,000,000 of your money just to make us more equal. The Palestinians have endeavored to even the scales by trying to avoid bilateral negotiations and using the international community to bludgeon Israel. So be it; they’ve been doing some version of this for, oh, 60 or 70 years. We’ll see if that approach bears fruit.

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 8:18 pm

        Israel imposed the negotiations regime? I believe that was the international community, Hostage. Madrid, Oslo, Quartet – that’s not Israel. Israel’s position has always been that the best thing is for the parties to negotiate bilaterally, not internationally.

        Let’s keep the record straight. The international community drafted Security Council resolutions and was adopting Chapter VII sanctions against Israel for its illegal annexations of the Golan, East Jerusalem and the Jewish settlements. In each and every case, the United States used its veto to prevent that from happening. It claimed that declaring the annexations and settlements illegal and adopting sanctions was counterproductive to its own private Camp David framework peace initiatives and that the legal status of the annexed territories, and settlements was not permanent because their final status was still somehow magically open for negotiation. That always triggered Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly which condemned the United States and either called for an arms embargo and an international peace conference, ala Versailles, to impose a political solution or an ICJ Advisory Opinion. In each and every case, the US and Israel opposed those efforts and derailed or mooted those international actions by initiating private back-channel negotiations. Finally after Sadaam Hussein tried to tie withdrawal of his armed forces from Kuwait to IDF withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, the US backed the Madrid process. But it was preempted by Israel’s back channel Oslo deal. The Middle East Quartet Performance based Road map was eye candy adopted midway through the ICJ deliberations in the Wall case. The GA 10th Emergency Special Session stepped-in and requested the Opinion when the US prevented the Security Council from stopping the construction of the illegal wall. The Road Map contained a black letter requirement for the the USA and the other Quartet Members to promote recognition of the Palestinian State and UN membership starting in June of 2003 in exchange for adoption of the constitution, creation of the Prime Minister’s post, and improved security cooperation. The responsible World Bank and IMF monitors and the Secretary General’s personal Representative, Robert Serry reported that Abbas had more than fulfilled his end of the bargain and that his institutions exceeded those required for statehood.

        Even after the ICJ advised that all UN members states have a duty to remove any impediments to the exercise of Palestinian self-determination and the international community of states, represented by UNESCO and the General Assembly, acknowledged Palestine’s status, the USA refused to honor its commitment under UN SC resolution 1515 and the Road Map, e.g. “Kerry: US doesn’t recognize Palestinian gov’t because there is no Palestinian state” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4526965,00.html

        In any event Palestine is finally a state party to the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Treaties. So it can no longer conclude a special agreement, during an occupation or otherwise, that would renounce the right of the refugees and prisoners to be repatriated to Israel and compensated. See Articles 6, 7, and 8 of the 4th Geneva Convention and Articles 52 and 53 of the Law of Treaties. So there’s nothing left to negotiate if Abbas wants the IDF gone right now. The provisional boundaries established under Article 40 of the UN Charter are legally enforceable without prejudice to any final settlement and UN SC resolution 62 and 73 have never been repealed. The ICJ cited 62 in it analysis of the status of the Palestinian territory in the Wall case and its determination that the settlements and the portions of the wall beyond the green line are illegal.

      • Hostage
        May 8, 2015, 10:43 pm

        You see, it’s really important to read something other than the headline of an article. First of all, it’s more like a $13 or 14 billion apparatus, not a $26 billion apparatus

        I did read the article and everything I said appeared in the text verbatim. You’re just trying to minimize the scale of what amounts to a joint criminal enterprise in any event. I’m not. It’s really not important, because it still illustrates why the USA should not be allowed to mediate, while it gives its own citizens a free hand to contribute and even take part in an illegal situation. If those settlers were Muslims going to Syria, Iraq, or Pakistan to take part in criminal activities they would be arrested when they tried to come home. That doesn’t happen to illegal Jewish settlers yet, but it damn sure should.

      • just
        May 8, 2015, 10:47 pm

        +1, Hostage!

        One day, somehow, some way!

  40. just
    May 8, 2015, 8:29 pm

    Thanks Hostage!

    So is this the “internationalization” that Wendy Sherman spoke about?

    ““U.S. reproaches new government over East Jerusalem construction

    ……A week ago Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman warned that if the new Israeli government does not demonstrate its commitment to the two-state solution, the United States will have a difficult time continuing to assist its efforts to halt international initiatives on the Palestinian issue at the United Nations.

    Sherman’s statement followed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement in the days leading up to the elections that if he were elected prime minister, a Palestinian state would not be created.

    Sherman said the U.S. administration “will be watching very closely to see what happens on this issue after the new government is formed. If the new Israeli government is seen to be stepping back from its commitment to a two-state solution that will make our job in the international arena much tougher…it will be harder for us to prevent internationalizing the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict.”””

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.655509?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • Ian Berman
      May 8, 2015, 9:17 pm

      Did Sherman make the comment just before or just after the last shipment of the minimum $2.1 billion of US made military supplies sent to Israel each year? (70% requirement of $3 billion plus aid each year.)

      Just, I assume you know better than to believe any US government rhetoric

      • just
        May 8, 2015, 10:09 pm

        “Just, I assume you know better than to believe any US government rhetoric”

        I really do Ian, but this was the first time that I remember reading anything about the US working to “prevent internationalizing the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict.”

        I thought it WAS internationalized. But then again, what do I know except that it’s obvious that there are even more nefarious methods/agendas afoot to prevent justice, peace from breaking out, or an end to the violent Occupation?

Leave a Reply