Trending Topics:

Marc Lamont Hill’s firing by CNN for ‘river to sea’ declaration shows crisis over end of two-state solution

US Politics
on 99 Comments

There is only one story today in our community, the firing by CNN of commentator Marc Lamont Hill, an activist and Temple University professor of media studies, because he gave a speech Wednesday calling for the liberation of Palestine “from the river to the sea.”

The demands for Hill’s head from supporters of Israel that evidently led to his firing as well as expressions of solidarity from Palestinian supporters in the aftermath show that the end of the two-state-solution is bringing about open ideological conflict in the U.S. establishment, with supporters of Palestinians being accused of anti-Semitism, much as they are in the U.K.

Here’s Hill’s speech to the UN (posted by Jadaliyya) in a program of international solidarity with the Palestinian people. The 39-year-old scholar had just returned from a visit to Palestine and said he was thirsty because he was boycotting Israeli water. Hill went on to say that Palestinians have been stripped of their rights for 70 years since the Nakba, described Palestinian persecution with great specificity and said that their resistance must be honored in all forms, chiefly by supporting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS. The speech notes that black resistance in the U.S. was not strictly nonviolent:

Solidarity from the international community demands that we embrace boycotts, divestment, and sanctions as a critical means by which to hold Israel accountable for its treatment of Palestinian people. This movement, which emerges out of the overwhelming majority of Palestinian civil society offers a nonviolent means by which to demand a return to the pre ’67 borders, full rights for Palestinian citizens, and the right of return as dictated by international law.

Solidarity demands that we no longer allow politicians or political parties to remain silent on the question of Palestine. We can no longer in particular allow the political left to remain radical or even progressive on every issue from the environment to war to the economy. To remain progressive on every issue except for Palestine. Contrary to Western mythology, Black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Gandhi and nonviolence. Rather, slave revolts and self-defense and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom. We must allow—if we are to operate in true solidarity with Palestinian people, we must allow the Palestinian people the same range of opportunity and political possibility. If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself. We must prioritize peace. But we must not romanticize or fetishize it. We must advocate and promote nonviolence at every opportunity, but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the fact of state violence and ethnic cleansing.

Hill ends with a call “to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action, and international action that will give us what justice requires. And that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

 

The speech became a flashpoint for Israel defenders to say that anti-Zionists are haters.

Late yesterday CNN issued a terse statement saying that Hill was “no longer under contract,” while Hill defended himself in tweets:

“I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech. I have spent my life fighting these things,” Hill wrote.
“My reference to ‘river to the sea’ was not a call to destroy anything or anyone,” Hill continued in a separate tweet. “It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant.”

Rashida Tlaib, MI congresswoman-elect who supports BDS, supported Hill, in a sign that the clash over anti-Semitism/Palestinian solidarity in the U.K. is coming here and in a hurry:

Calling out the oppressive policies in Israel, advocating for Palestinians to be respected, and for Israelis and Palestinians alike to have peace and freedom is not antisemitic. , we all have a right to speak up about injustice any and everywhere.

Dan Shapiro, the former Obama ambassador to Israel who now lives in Israel and works for a quasi-official thinktank, was disgusted by Hill’s statement.

Until today, I never heard of of @marclamonthill (don’t watch a lot of cable TV). This is disgusting. Calling for the elimination of Israel is anti-Semitic and (being thankfully futile) does Palestinians no favors.

Yousef Munayyer at Huffpo recognizes the moment:

Marc Lamont Hill, a professor at Temple University and a fierce advocate for equality, was perhaps the strongest, most articulate and most passionate voice against racism and bigotry among CNN’s regular contributors. Today, CNN fired him because he believes Palestinians, too, fit into a vision where all people deserve equal rights. For CNN, that was just too much.

Marc was targeted by what can only be described as an organized campaign to silence his principled and consistent advocacy against racism and for the equal treatment of all people, including Palestinians.

IfNotNow, the renegade young Jewish group, defends Hill and is circulating a petition.

. just fired , one day after his speech at the UN advocating for Palestinian human rights. This should not be a fireable offense. Sign and share our petition calling on CNN to reinstate Marc Lamont Hill immediately.

Here is Omar Baddar on the “manufactured controversy.” He points out that Netanyahu has helped to create a one-state reality.

By contrast, Marc supports a one-state vision where everyone has equal rights. Whatever you think of this vision, it isn’t calling for “destruction”, but merely a transformation from a discriminatory state that privileges some over others into an equal state for all.

He notes that an occupied people have a right to resist under international law, including by violent means.

all violence against civilians is despicable & illegitimate. But if you have a problem with the right of occupied people to resist the theft of their lands & the stripping of their rights (NOT thru terrorism), it’s not Marc you have a problem with, it’s international law.

& if u haven’t protested Israel’s atrocities killing thousands of Palestinian civilians (condemned by every major human rights org, including Israeli ones), but are troubled by Marc’s acknowledgment of the right to resist, make an effort to rid yourself of moral hypocrisy.

Mitchell Plitnick calls Baddar’s commentary an “outstanding and important rebuttal to the campaign of falsehoods and character assassination directed against” Hill. Yet a further sign that this is a which-side-are-you-on moment in the awareness of the death of the two state solution.

Elon Glickman, a Birthright bolter, also supports Hill:

This is nothing short of censorship. I was terrified enough to think that I may not be allowed into Israel because I support Palestinians liberation. Now we’re seeing people get fired from their jobs for doing. reinstate immediately!

Israel’s consul general in New York welcomed the news and called Hill anti-Semitic. From the Algemeiner:

Israel’s Consul General in New York, Ambassador Dani Dayan, welcomed the news of Hill’s dismissal. “I welcome CNN’s decision today to end Marc Lamont Hill’s association with their network,” he said in a statement. He also called for “Americans to stand strong against the dangerous anti-Semitic idea that Jews cannot legitimately live as a free people in their homeland. Anti-Semitism and dangerous political extremism cannot be allowed to become mainstream.”

The Zionist Organization of America links Hill’s comments to the attack on the Pittsburgh synagogue that killed 11, saying “anti-Semite Hill… [was] demanding Israel’s violent destruction” — and wants more from CNN and Temple University, too (which has defended Hill only on First Amendment grounds):

We urge CNN to rectify this missed opportunity, and to also strongly condemn Hill’s egregious, Jew-hating, violence-inciting, error-filled rant.

Read Hill’s tweet defending his speech:

My reference to “river to the sea” was not a call to destroy anything or anyone. It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things. No amount of debate will change what I actually said or what I meant.

Here’s Marc Lamont Hill in Nazareth four years ago with the Dream Defenders, dedicating himself to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

“We came here to Palestine to stand in love and revolutionary struggle with our brothers and sisters. We come to a land that has been stolen by greed and destroyed by hate… And we stand next to people who continue to courageously struggle and resist the occupation.”

Solidarity Demonstration in Nazareth : Ferguson to Palestine from Dream Defenders on Vimeo.

We’ll keep this post updated.

99 Responses

  1. Scott
    Scott
    November 30, 2018, 9:45 am

    Ann Coulter tweeted “At least this will put an end to the Jews control the media slander.”
    I laughed.

    • annie
      annie
      November 30, 2018, 1:46 pm

      is this a snark? i fail to see how Marc’s firing would put an end to this impression, quite the opposite actually.

      • John O
        John O
        November 30, 2018, 2:41 pm

        I guess it depends on whether you think Coulter is a rational being.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 1, 2018, 12:31 am

        Anne is, as is her custom, being sarcastic, ironic, and tongue-in-cheek.

    • Eva Smagacz
      Eva Smagacz
      December 1, 2018, 3:40 am

      I think I am stating the obvious when I say that Ann Coulter is being sarcastic.

      • annie
        annie
        December 1, 2018, 9:47 am

        thanks eva and citizen. i went to the tweet and read the responses, that seems to be the assessment of her readers.

    • Steve Macklevore
      Steve Macklevore
      December 1, 2018, 2:15 pm

      For the first time in my life, Anne Coulter made me laugh, and her joke has a serious point.

      Strange days indeed.

  2. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    November 30, 2018, 10:48 am

    What did Mark Lamont Hill do wrong? He simply spoke the truth, this cannot be forgiven by CNN. Last night I watched the BBC’s question time, on the panel was Layla Moran a new UK Liberal Democrat MP, she’s this country’s first British-Palestinian MP – her mother is from Jerusalem – but she wades into the Israel/Palestine debate sparingly “because it’s so emotive”. She made an exception for John McDonnell on Politics Live earlier this month though. “I had to mansplain anti-Semitism to him,” she says. Moran was upset about posters saying that Israel is a racist state. “The people who put it up were called London Palestine Action. As a Palestinian they don’t speak for me, and they are blatantly racist signs. You don’t say a whole country is racist. McDonnell said he’s ‘on a journey’.” She does a droney impression of him. “I was like ‘really?’ You’re 60 something years old, come on. If you haven’t realised by now that this is anti-Semitism no wonder there’s a problem in the Labour Party.”
    “I’ve been attacked by people who say you’re not a real Palestinian and your mum’s not a real Palestinian for raising you that way. But when I see someone who is ‘on a journey about being anti-Semitic’ I’m sorry but I’m intervening. Calling out anti-Semitism doesn’t make me any less Palestinian. There’s a nuance in the argument that has been lost and Corbyn not saying antisemitism is wrong has fuelled the problem. Some responsibility does lie at his door.” https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/the-bright-new-face-of-the-centre-a-meeting-with-layla-moran-a3940011.html
    Moran is an intelligent woman who is well aware of the Israel/Palestinian situation, as a new Lib Dem MP it must be difficult to acknowledge the many crimes the Israeli state is involved in and the second class status of Palestinians living in Israel. A cursory glance at the racist state laws, including its 1950 ‘right of return’ laws [for Jews only] and the recent and racist basic Nation state law prove that the Israeli state is inherently racist, to say otherwise as Layla Moran does, presumably to enhance her career is despicable, like many in the Labour Party, she is a phony.

    • annie
      annie
      November 30, 2018, 4:53 pm

      harry, see Ossinev’s comment to you down thread, he forgot to hit the reply under your comment.

      i have never heard of moran until your (and Ossinev’s) comment so i went to youtube and watched a few videos. my impression of her is that she’s a politician and appears more seasoned than perhaps she is. one that note i think she’s trying to advance her party, the lib dems and advance herself within that party. here’s an interesting video along that line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeYR-TE_sZk and notice the caption underneath the video “Layla Moran is obviously trying to elbow her way to the Lib Dem Leadership” in the video she says (paraphrasing) ‘in the situation as it stands right now i would not join (the lib dems) a coalition with either the tories or labour. ‘ and then they discuss that. so she’s in competition with jeremy corbyn, she’s trying to distinguish herself and her party as more moral or better suited to lead than labour. i would weigh everything she is saying (regarding anti semitism) in light of this. and given the massive continued charges against corbyn as being anti semitic, she is positioning herself as an indisputable expert on the topic — as an aggressive politician.

      i am not saying that in her defense, i am saying it because i think her posture over this is calculated and driven by other considerations, like trying to pull over disgruntled labour members over to her/dem lib camp. first and foremost, she’s acting like an ambitious politician. and i would not be the least surprised if she, in her private thoughts, very much considered israel a racist state. she’s likely calculated that expressing that would not be in her political interest or the interest of her party. she’s ambitious. that’s the key to best understand where she’s coming from.

      • HarryLaw
        HarryLaw
        November 30, 2018, 8:16 pm

        I agree with you Annie she is an ambitious politician who may find it difficult to tell the truth about Israel’s racist legislation and the many grave war crimes perpetuated by Israeli governments of whatever hue in occupied Palestinian territory, never the less I am infuriated by politicians like her giving the Israelis a free pass when it is obvious, even to any casual observer that the state is racist. The IHRA definition and examples were put together to chill debate on this subject, it has worked on her.

      • annie
        annie
        November 30, 2018, 8:46 pm

        i agree, it is infuriating.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 2, 2018, 4:30 pm

        I would understand if LM thinks of herself as tiptoeing through a minefield. But her reported reference to the emotiveness of the subject as a reason for going easy on it ought to be questioned. Outrageous and cruel behaviour must raise strong emotions which do not deserve to be mightily repressed.

    • Keith
      Keith
      November 30, 2018, 6:58 pm

      HARRY LAW- “…like many in the Labour Party, she is a phony.”

      Perhaps you should say that like many REMAINING in the Labour Party, she is a phony. Weren’t several progressive Labour stalwarts including Tony Greenstein kicked out? It is obvious to me that despite small numbers, British Jewish Zionists have immense power and what remains of the Labour Party, including Jeremy Corbyn, are weak, easily intimidated and utterly servile. Another case in point is Labour Party shadow education secretary Angela Rayner (see below).

      Labour Party shadow education secretary apologizes for old tweets referencing “The Holocaust Industry,” by Norman Finkelstein following overreaction by Jewish power brokers. http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/11/29/will-finkelstein-head-up-holocaust-education-if-jeremy-corbyn-wins/

  3. Kay24
    Kay24
    November 30, 2018, 1:36 pm

    This gets ridiculous by the day. I have heard the zionist propaganda machine say terrible things about the Palestinians, as if they were all “terrorists” and they get away with it every time, no journalist on CNN uses the words “occupation” or “land grabs”, suggesting that perhaps if that ended, there could be peace. Now, in the land of free speech, this poor guy is kicked out.
    We should not be surprised, this is the zionist controlled media.

  4. eljay
    eljay
    November 30, 2018, 2:32 pm

    It’s not surprising that a call for justice, equality and respect for human rights in I-P is met with condemnation and disgust by Jewish supremacists (Zionists).

    It’s also not surprising that a similar call with respect to some other injustice would very likely – and quite hypocritically – be supported by these same Jewish supremacists (Zionists).

  5. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    November 30, 2018, 2:44 pm

    Sorry HL I have never heard of this woman before but her comments IMHO don`t make her in anyway an”intelligent woman” but as has been pointed out the Corbyn”Anti- Semite” witch hunt organised by the Ziolobby in the UK has uncovered lots of strange Ziobedfellows. She should have a cosy chat with Tom Watson.

    The claim that JC somehow has not been saying that Anti – Semitism is wrong can only be interpreted at best as a spouting from a dithering idiot and at worst a disgusting hypocritical lie. A simple Google search will bear this out eg(amongst many):
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44940841/anti-semitism-is-simply-wrong-says-jeremy-corbyn

    Also interesting that the same woman for whatever reason has tabled a bill calling for the UK government to recognise a Palestinian State and the very same Jeremy Corbyn has said that if elected a Labour Government would recognise a Palestinian State. In her warped universe presumably she sees her motives as being true to true to her Palestinian roots whereas JC`s motives are “anti – Semitic”.

    She should revisit Zioland and the territories which it is occupying and controlling ,especially the quasi concentration camps where innocent Palestinian men,women and children are detained for months without trial and subject to daily brutalisation on straightforward racist grounds
    then come back and explain to her constituents and the British public at large why she believes that “Israel” is not a racist state.

    “You don`t say a whole country is racist”. Of course you do Ms Moran and lots and lots of respected commentators including lots of respected Israelis have been saying precisely that following the passing of the blatantly racist and Apartheid Nation State Law which she has conveniently ignored.

    It was 100% right and totally justifiable to call Apartheid South Africa a racist state and it is 100 % right and justifiable to call Israel an Apartheid and racist state.

  6. Philip Munger
    Philip Munger
    November 30, 2018, 3:47 pm

    Good to see Temple University isn’t piling on.

    I posted his UN address on Facebook. My accompanying post:

    Marc Lamont Hill was fired as a CNN commentator on Thursday, after he called earlier in the week for a one-state solution in Palestine and Israel. While speaking at a United Nations event honoring international solidarity with the Palestinian people, Temple University Professor Hill stated, “We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action, and international action that will give us what justice requires and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

    I have given up on the notion that a “Two-State Solution” between Israel and some sort of Palestine is actually in the works. The “Peace Process” is gone. Over. All prominent Israeli politicians say as much. The divergence there is in how to deal with the remaining non-citizen Palestinians.

    Increasingly, the possibility of Israel becoming even more apartheid than it already is – both in the Occupied Territories and 1967-era Israel – only grows, as Israeli politics becomes more hard right and pro-settlement expansion.

    Simultaneously, the BDS Movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people is slowly gaining traction, even in the face of political opposition, both in the USA and elsewhere. The British Quakers endorsed BDS just this past month.

    Commentator Brown was fired for expressing the truth: There can only be a one-state solution unless one accepts the suffocation of any rational Palestinian aspirations for a sense of place to replace what has clearly been stolen from them.

    A commenter asked:

    What is it that CNN says he did wrong? I mean, they didn’t like what he said, but are they claiming some kind of breach of contract?

    I replied:

    I haven’t seen details of his contract. His expressing of a wish for unification of the Palestinian and Israeli people into one nation is seen by many militant Zionists as anti-Semitic, as it would end the religious-theological supremacism and racial singularity of Jews in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Why some consider this viewpoint to be anti-Semitic is an important issue in current affairs, both in Israel-Palestine and other countries, particularly, the English speaking countries and Western Europe. Artists, intellectuals and politicians who express solidarity for Palestinians from any viewpoint not pre-approved by some flavor of Zionists risk a lot.

    Prof. Hill isn’t afraid of taking risks. And, he isn’t going away.

  7. Mayhem
    Mayhem
    November 30, 2018, 5:46 pm

    “the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea.”
    is tantamount to getting rid of Israel and turning the area into a cultural and technological Judenrein desert for the benefit of a greater Arabia.
    No wonder CNN turfed this goon.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 1, 2018, 1:07 am

      The slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” is a call for equal rights in all of historic Palestine. It reflects America’s highest values. It also reflects the highest values of Western Civilization.

      • brent
        brent
        December 1, 2018, 12:50 pm

        I’m not for all this labeling. More amenable to political considerations is, “Palestinians will be free from the river to the sea.”

    • ZShaw
      ZShaw
      December 1, 2018, 2:38 am

      Greater who? Rein what? Any other catchphrases?

      Saudi Arabia and Israel are already best friends. The yahoo himself implored the powers that be to keep MbS in power because he’s Israel’s bff, speaking of goons…….

      What are you on about?

    • Eva Smagacz
      Eva Smagacz
      December 1, 2018, 4:03 am

      Mayhem, you said:

      “the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea.”
      is tantamount to getting rid of Israel and turning the area into a cultural and technological Judenrein desert.

      This is not what Mark Lamont Hill meant and he plainly said that this is not what he meant.

      I have no idea how you (or any pro-Israeli) can have chutzpah to claim to know better than person speaking himself what they meant when they said it. 182/197

      Unless the telepathy is a hidden skill that underwrites Zionist claims to Jewish supremacy in Israel (/sarcasm)

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 2, 2018, 4:20 pm

        I think he wants there to be one country in the Holy Land – one where no legitimate permanent resident is disfranchised in respect of the sovereign power.

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      December 1, 2018, 10:31 am

      @Mayhem

      What Marc Lamont was really saying is obvious to any thinking person, i.e., “the liberation of [Palestinians] from the river to the sea.” No one is calling for the expulsion of Jews.

      I remind you that it is the Palestinian Arabs who are the indigenous inhabitants of the lands between the River and the Sea. Indeed, including their ancestors, they have been living there continuously for about 15,000 years. For over 70 years they have been forced to live under the boot of Zionist fascists of foreign origin who in gross violation of international humanitarian law, have dispossessed and expelled them en masse, brutally occupied them, inflicted several massacres and other killings, destroyed their homes and fruit/olive groves, imprisoned them without charge, tortured and imposed collective punishments, etc.

      Fortunately, ever increasing numbers of peoples around the world, including enlightened Jews, are stepping forth and standing shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinians as they learn of the well documented horrors Zionists have inflicted on them and continue to do so at an accelerating rate. The writing is on the wall.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 2, 2018, 4:11 pm

        What sense of ‘indigenous’ is in use here, Mist?

  8. Arby
    Arby
    November 30, 2018, 8:42 pm

    The agents of chaos will use censorship, as they have here. I’m an enemy of agents of chaos and the gangster Corporatocracy that spews them out. Marc Lamont Hill is to be commended.

  9. Jackdaw
    Jackdaw
    December 1, 2018, 1:22 am

    Equality for Palestinians, but no right of self-determination for Jews, no Jewish State.

    Fool on a Hill.

    • Maghlawatan
      Maghlawatan
      December 1, 2018, 12:52 pm

      Mayhem

      Jewish self determination between consenting adults is fine, in theory. Don’t drag anyone else into it.
      If you want to transition to female status you don’t take the neighbors hostage, do you? It wouldn’t be kosher, would it?

    • eljay
      eljay
      December 1, 2018, 6:25 pm

      || Jackdaw: Equality for Palestinians, but no right of self-determination for Jews, no Jewish State. … ||

      Equality, absolutely. But “Jewish State” isn’t about equality – it’s about religion-based supremacism of and for Jews. No group is entitled to supremacism and no state has a right to exist as any type of supremacist state.

      || … Fool on a Hill. ||

      Yes, you really are.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 3, 2018, 3:00 pm
      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 3, 2018, 3:11 pm

        @Keith

        UN Resolution 181 uses the term Jewish State thirty (30) times.

        http://www.1948.org.uk/un-resolution-181/

        Now you say it, Keith. “Jewish State”.

      • Keith
        Keith
        December 3, 2018, 8:22 pm

        JACKDAW- “UN Resolution 181 uses the term Jewish State thirty (30) times.”

        Well, at least you supplied a link so I could check. UN resolution 181 was the original partition resolution never implemented. The actual UN acceptance of the state of Israel as a UN member did not reference Israel as a Jewish state. Furthermore, the acceptance of Israel into the UN was contingent upon implementation of UN resolution 194 which Israel swore to do yet never did, its defiance made possible by US support.

        Your comment was incredibly dishonest. Am I to assume this is typical for you?

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        December 3, 2018, 9:24 pm

        Keith,
        Do you have a link to the place where Israel swears to follow 194? Can you provide a quote for this contingency?
        What see is this, “Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947[3] and 11 December 1948[4] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel[5] before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,”
        The Israeli declarations and explanations. https://web.archive.org/web/20120203124136/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/1db943e43c280a26052565fa004d8174?OpenDocument#Mr.%20EBAN%20(Israel)%20understood%20tha

      • annie
        annie
        December 4, 2018, 12:48 am

        i wish hostage was here. i also really miss the search function in our archives because there’s literally a wealth of information that inaccessible unless one scours literally thousands of pages. anyway, i googled “mondoweiss hostage 194” and there are lots of threads to choose from! this being one of them https://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national/

        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.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 3, 2018, 11:58 pm

        @Keith, Furthermore, the acceptance of Israel into the UN was contingent upon implementation of UN resolution 194 which Israel swore to do…

        This nonsense again? For the record there was no contingency required, implied or otherwise in UNGA 273, the preamble simply “recalled” previous resolutions as well as Israel’s declarations that there were no contingencies.

        Further, it was in the preamble, it was not an operative clause. It “recalled” resolutions that were non-binding in the first place, and have ever since remained non-binding.

        And most importantly: “and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,”

        https://web.archive.org/web/20120203124136/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/1db943e43c280a26052565fa004d8174?OpenDocument#Mr.%20EBAN%20(Israel)%20understood%20tha

        Referring to the jurisprudence of the United Nations relating to the admission of new Members, the representative of Israel stated that it was his Government’s understanding that nothing but the provisions of Article 4 were relevant in the consideration of an application for membership. That conviction, based on the spirit and the language of the Charter, had been confirmed by the General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1948 (197 (III)), which stated that juridically no State was entitled to make its consent to the admission of an applicant dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter.

      • annie
        annie
        December 4, 2018, 1:04 am

        so mondonut, how fine and dandy and we’re all so impressed. but tell me, was Mr. Eban’s statement, that his Government’s understanding that nothing but the provisions of Article 4 were relevant in the consideration of an application for membership, the accepted as the final word on the matter? your link said that “Mr. AL-SWAIDY (Iraq) yielded the floor to the representative of Israel and indicated that Iraq would present its statement after the representative of Israel had been heard.”

        did they all break for lunch at 2:15? did everyone bowl over and say ‘well ok, if israel’s understanding is that nothing but the provisions of Article 4 were relevant in the consideration of an application for membership then we all agree and every other country’s considerations and all previous understandings have now become null and void’ ???? because israel had a different understanding than the main body? i doubt it!

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 4, 2018, 1:19 am

        @annie, so mondonut, how fine and dandy and we’re all so impressed … accepted as the final word on the matter?

        Of course it was accepted, it says so right there is UNGA 273, “and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel”

        Not that it would matter because the false claim was that Israel “swore to implement” UNGA 194, which based on the record is farcical and imaginary.

      • annie
        annie
        December 4, 2018, 4:40 pm

        mondonut, when “taking note” of an objection or a statement it is not even an implication “it was accepted”.

        and i’m not going to get into the swore or not swore wrt each and every point. i think what israel did, as i recall, was evade recognition of certain contingencies while taking advantage of what they wanted and then after the fact claiming what was the case in fact wasn’t.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 4, 2018, 1:51 am

        @annie , i wish hostage was here.

        So do I. Perhaps he could explain how GA Resolutions are non-binding and they never extend rights. Full stop.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        December 4, 2018, 8:20 am

        Annie,
        The question is not whether Israel and the Arab states agreed upon the matter.
        Keith said, “Furthermore, the acceptance of Israel into the UN was contingent upon implementation of UN resolution 194 which Israel swore…”

        This is plainly incorrect. Israel gave its interpretation to the committee and did not agree to this interpretation of 194. The resolution admitting Israel clearly does not require Israeli compliance, but rather takes note of Israel’s position on the issue.
        If Keith can find a primary source stating otherwise I would love to see it.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 4, 2018, 11:22 am

        No fool. My comment was perfectly honest and clear to anyone with an open mind.

        The UN referenced a ‘Jewish State’ right up until the time that the Jewish State was declared by the Zionists, who named the new State, ‘Israel’. Forthwith, the UN referenced the new State, as ‘Israel’.

        You politely call a stranger either sir or madam until they tell you their name, and then you use that name when referencing them.

        Can I dumb it down anymore?

      • Keith
        Keith
        December 4, 2018, 11:44 am

        JON66- “Do you have a link to the place where Israel swears to follow 194?”

        I get what you are saying. Israel utilized deception to mislead the UN that it intended to comply with UN resolution 194 when accepted as a UN member, therefore, everything is hunky-dory. A final note. That Jackdaw, Jon66, and Mondonut all have elaborate copy and paste responses to this particular issue has certain rather obvious implications. I can only assume that this represents the official Israeli position as to why Israel is not obligated to do what everyone thought they agreed to. Okay, you guys win. Israel didn’t swear to do anything. They deceived the UN membership into believing they did. Yet another demonstration as to why international law is a fraud where the weak have obligations which the strong ignore routinely. Some quotes to show why most folks thought that Israel would do what they appeared to agree to.

        “Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations”,2/ http://representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html

        “Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees. Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949 ) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 and Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.” http://representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html

        “The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” https://www.unrwa.org/content/resolution-194

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        December 4, 2018, 3:56 pm

        Keith,
        Israel plainly explained its position to the committee. At no time did it agree with an obligation to fulfill 194. It’s not deception when you state your position clearly.
        Your links do not show any such agreement by Israel. Can you quote a passage in which Israel clearly states its acknowledgement of an obligation with specific regard to 194 as interpreted by you? Everything I have found has been contrary to what you have said.

      • amigo
        amigo
        December 4, 2018, 4:21 pm

        “So do I. Perhaps he could explain how GA Resolutions are non-binding and they never extend rights. Full stop.” mondonut

        Zionists seem to believe otherwise as they keep stealing land belonging to Palestinians and building illegal squats on it.

        Maybe you could provide a link to the UNGA/UNSCR or International (or otherwise ) agreement that legitimises Zionist theft.

        Oh I forgot , Israel officially declared it legal.

        Go back to sleep mondonut , you are just embarrassing intelligent Jews.

      • amigo
        amigo
        December 4, 2018, 4:35 pm

        “You politely call a stranger either sir or madam until they tell you their name, and then you use that name when referencing them.” jackduh

        I doubt too many strangers would stay around long enough to tell you their name.

        Can i dumb it down any further for you.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 4, 2018, 4:44 pm

        @amigo Zionists seem to believe otherwise as they keep stealing land belonging to Palestinians and building illegal squats on it.

        Yet another non-nonsensical reply. Zionists believe otherwise? Which GA Resolutions do Zionists believe are binding?

      • Keith
        Keith
        December 4, 2018, 4:56 pm

        JON66- “Israel plainly explained its position to the committee.”

        Linking to an excruciatingly long report tells me nothing. Since you seem so sure of yourself, how about some quotes from that report demonstrating Israeli clarity on this issue? I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Israel’s intention to never implement resolution 194 (still open, by the way) was made perfectly clear. Israel has always misrepresented its intentions in regards to Palestine and the Palestinians. It is about time that you Zionists provide some relevant quotes and links to back up your assertions. If nothing else, it will demonstrate that you can read.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 4, 2018, 5:04 pm

        @annie when “taking note” of an objection or a statement it is not even an implication “it was accepted”.

        Well the point is, it did not need to be accepted. The false claim is that Israel agreed to contingencies and Israel (prior to the resolution) clearly stated otherwise.

        Which is in addition UNGA 273 not containing any language of contingencies. If you feel that in diplomat language “taking note” does not equal acceptance, it is hard to believe that you think “recalling” something in the preamble constitutes an obligation.

      • annie
        annie
        December 4, 2018, 5:20 pm

        i don’t speak legalese but i have heard this same zionist argument many many times on mondoweiss and it’s been decimated time and again. find someone else to debate with.

        it’s extremely unfortunate the search engine for our commenter archives has been disabled.

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        December 4, 2018, 6:55 pm

        Keith,
        How about this,
        “In order to dispel that misapprehension, the representative of Israel was authorized by his Government to make the following statement of the principles governing its approach to the matter:

        1. The problem of the Arab refugees was a direct consequence of the war launched by the Arab States which were entirely responsible for that as well as for other forms of suffering inflicted by that war;

        2. The ensuing problem had raised a humanitarian issue and also had serious implications for the future peace, development and welfare of the Middle East. The Government of Israel believed that a solution of the problem was inseparably linked with a solution of the outstanding issues between it and the Arab States and that no satisfactory solution was possible except by the restoration of peace in the Middle East. A solution could be found only within a final settlement creating conditions of co-operation between Israel and its neighbours;

        3. The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making. That anxiety proceeded from moral considerations and from Israel’s vital interest in stable conditions throughout the Middle East. Any rehabilitation of Arab refugees in any part of the Middle East, whether in Israel or in the neighbouring countries, involved intricate tasks of resettlement. The two most widely advocated principles were (a) resettlement of the refugees in the places from which they had fled, thus creating a large minority problem and a possible menace to internal peace and stability and also placing masses of Arabs under the rule of a Government which, while committed to an enlightened minority policy, was not akin to those Arabs in language, culture, religion or social or economic institutions; (b) the resettlement of the refugees in areas where they would live under a Government akin to them in spirit and tradition and in which their smooth integration would be immediately possible with no resultant friction. A study of the economic, irrigation and other potentialities of the under-populated and under-developed areas of the Arab States revealed greater possibilities for a stable solution by the latter method than by resettlement in Israel. Therefore, the Government of Israel contended that resettlement in neighbouring areas should be considered as the main principle of solution. Israel, however, would be ready to make its own contribution to a solution of the problem. It was not yet ascertainable how many Arabs wished to return under conditions that might be prescribed by the Assembly or how many Arabs Israel could receive in the light of existing political and economic considerations. Israel’s first objective at Lausanne would be to reach an agreement by direct negotiation on the contribution to be made by each Government toward the settlement of that grave problem. The extent of the contribution of the Israeli Government would depend entirely on the formal establishment of peace and relations of good neighbourliness between Israel and the Arab States;”

        Since you made an assertion that Israel “swore”to implement 194, could you please provide such a reference? I have seen no support for your statement.

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 4, 2018, 8:47 pm

        @annie have heard this same zionist argument many many times on mondoweiss and it’s been decimated time and again.

        Yes, it would be great if you had access to your archives. In which you would discover it has never been “decimated”, as the nonsense you defend is pure invention. But then again if you chose to be honest you could tell from the plain reading of a simple and short resolution, that there is no contingencies or obligation. No legalese required.

      • annie
        annie
        December 4, 2018, 9:11 pm

        no, i had not decimated it, hostage had. or perhaps it was shingo, or talknic, i can’t recall. either way, my point is the same, all those archives are as good as inaccessible without a search function. and we’ve all heard this lame crap about israel claiming after the fact bla bla bla.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        December 4, 2018, 11:46 pm

        Israel was wrong to mothball 194. Violence can’t solve the Palestinian issue. Apartheid is slowly killing Israel

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 5, 2018, 2:18 am

        How absurd to see the Govt. of Israel declaring a moral concern, while lying to deny its moral responsibility! The Zionists started driving out the Palestinians before the Arab States sent their armies to the borders of Palestine.

      • Keith
        Keith
        December 5, 2018, 11:06 am

        JON66- “Since you made an assertion that Israel “swore”to implement 194, could you please provide such a reference?”

        I subsequently amended my comment stating to you that “…Israel utilized deception to mislead the UN that it intended to comply with UN resolution 194 when accepted as a UN member….” I later added that “I find it somewhat difficult to believe that Israel’s intention to never implement resolution 194 (still open, by the way) was made perfectly clear.” I asked for quotes which you provided which demonstrate conclusively that Israel relied on lies and deception to IMPLY that it was seeking to resolve the refugee issue when, in fact, it had no intention of doing so. The ethnic cleansing relying upon a terror campaign began before the British left and before any “Arab armies” entered the conflict to try and stop this terror campaign. Furthermore, Ben-Gurion gave explicit instructions that the Palestinians who fled in terror would not be allowed to return, a situation which exists now 70 years later. (see “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by Ilan Pappe) Your quoted statement that “The Government of Israel was earnestly anxious to contribute to the solution of that problem although the problem was not of its making.” is a blatant lie intended to deceive. So no, Israel didn’t “swear” to implement 194, it merely implied that it earnestly sought to resolve the refugee problem for humanitarian reasons, a blatant deception. Happy? Proud of Israel’s history of terror and deception and ethnic cleansing?

      • amigo
        amigo
        December 5, 2018, 12:52 pm

        “Maybe you could provide a link to the UNGA/UNSCR or International (or otherwise ) agreement that legitimises Zionist theft.”amigo to nut

        response
        “Which GA Resolutions do Zionists believe are binding?”mnut

        How is that an answer to my request!!!.

        In any case Israel doesn,t care about any resolutions, UNSCR or UNGAS or any agreement they sign.

        Btw , what and where is this so called “Jewish State ” you and jackduh keep muttering on about.

        Where are it,s borders and what Binding resolution created your so called “Jewish State”.

        I am aware of the creation of a State Of Israel but cannot seem to find it,s Borders.

        Your problem mondonut is that on the one hand non binding UNGAS have no significance or validity , (when it suits your purpose )but the opinions of Balfour /Churchill et al are Legal and Binding instruments of International Law.

        Me thinks the nonsense is coming from your keyboard .

        Have you had your first shave yet.

      • gamal
        gamal
        December 5, 2018, 2:38 pm

        “Your problem mondonut is that on the one hand non binding UNGAS have no significance or validity , (when it suits your purpose )but the opinions of Balfour /Churchill et al are Legal and Binding instruments of International Law”

        meanwhile at the UN America demonstrates Leadership….

        “At United Nations, Trump’s Attack on Palestinians Rebuffed by 128 Nations

        The UN General Assembly sent a message from the world to the Trump administration yesterday—and it wasn’t pretty. Despite dire threats to countries voting against the United States, a huge majority of countries called Trump’s bluff to condemn Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The vote was overwhelming against the U.S. position—128 countries voted to condemn, only 9 opposed, and 35 abstained.

        The United States, with its uncritical support of Israeli violations, has long been criticized at the UN. But Thursday’s vote reflects the profound global antagonism that the Trump administration has caused and indeed embraced. And once again U.S. protection of Israel is the basis for Washington being so thoroughly isolated at the UN”

        https://ips-dc.org/united-nations-trumps-attack-palestinians-rebuffed-128-nations/

      • mondonut
        mondonut
        December 5, 2018, 3:34 pm

        @amigo How is that an answer to my request!!!.

        Yes, you are correct, I absolutely ignored your off-topic and idiotic request. You will also find that I am not involved with your and others discussions on a “Jewish Sate”, so again please stay on topic.

        As for UNGA Resolutions, they are and always have been non-binding. That is the opinion of the UN, Israel and anyone else who chooses to be honest. And that does not change when it suits my purpose, you will find no history of my stating otherwise.

        As for Israel itself, you will find no binding resolution concerning its creation, as it was not created by the UN. You will also discover no binding resolutions for the creation of any country, as the UN has never created a country and has no power to do so. But if you are concerned that you cannot find the borders of Israel, you obviously have not made the effort. Israel has declared borders with each and every adjacent country. Agreed to with Jordan and Egypt and disputed with Lebanon and Syria.

        And thanks for the throwaway personal attack. Its seems to be de rigueur for the Mondoweiss defenders of Palestine.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      December 1, 2018, 8:37 pm

      We go through this over and over.

      Zionist bleats about “right of self-determination for Jews”.

      Zionist presents no argument that such a thing exists.

      I present a definition for the right of self-determination, and arguments to demonstrate that Jews are not the sort of group that can have such a right.

      Zionist totally ignores the arguments.

      Short pause.

      Zionist bleats about “right of self-determination for Jews”.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 2, 2018, 12:29 am

        @RoHa

        No fool. The right of self-determination for Jews was recognised by the League of Nations, and codified at San Remo, 1922.

        Facts, fool, are stubborn things.

        Stubborn things indeed.

        BTW, how’s the hating today?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 2, 2018, 12:07 pm

        ” the League of Nations, and codified at San Remo, 1922.”

        Don’t mess with the League of Nations! That’s the division the Hebrew Nationals play in.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 2, 2018, 4:03 pm

        We read in Matthew 5:22 that those who call their brother a fool are in danger of the fires of hell and I interpret that, some would say anachronistically, to apply to blog brothers. And we do have a policy against personal attacks.
        The San Remo Declaration does not use the term ‘self-determination’ or the term ‘Jewish state’. The Balfour language of national home for Jews and civil rights for non-Jews, which had been adopted all along with the intention of maintaining a degree of ambiguity.
        Some would say that this language is logically equivalent to a proclamation of Jewish self-determination. My view is that there is no such thing as a right of self-determination for anyone and that the whole idea of s-d makes no sense. It’s hard for me to recognise logical equivalence where I cannot recognise any logic in the first place. Even harder when the specific usage is from a text with an element of intentional deception in its framing. I accept that mine is a minority view.
        I’d hope for a bit more agreement that something wrong cannot become right just because an international committee proclaims it. If the committee suggests good reasons that others can expound and explain that is another matter.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 2, 2018, 5:40 pm

        @MHughes

        RoHa isn’t my brother, and neither are you, so I can call both of you whatever I please.

        Civil rights for non-Jews, but no political rights for non-Jews, because San Remo gave political rights in Palestine exclusively to the Jews. i.e., self-determination.

        Arabs, of course, got Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.

        All the land and wealth of the Middle East went to the Arabs and the Jews were promised a shitty little homeland, which really seems to bother you.

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        December 2, 2018, 8:05 pm

        Jakdaw, you said:

        “No fool. The right of self-determination for Jews was recognised by the League of Nations, and codified at San Remo, 1922.

        Facts, fool, are stubborn things.”

        let me quote Hostage:

        Sorry but there is no such thing as self-determination of a people in a vacuum. Article 1 of the UN Charter was the first codification in a multilateral convention and it speaks only about “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and “encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. The UN Plan for the future government of Palestine actually prohibited the Jews or Arabs from attempting to deny equality under the law to any of the peoples of Palestine or to limit their participation in the new polities on the basis of ethnic or religious distinctions. 183/198

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 2, 2018, 11:30 pm

        MHughes has pointed out that:
        1.Neither the League of Nations nor the San Remo conference explicitly endorsed a legal right to self-determination for Jews, where that term means the right to establish a Jewish state.
        2. Whatever else an international conference can or can not do, it cannot make a moral wrong into a moral right.

        Even if the concept of the right of self-determination is coherent (and I wil leave it MHughes to explain why it might not be) it can only be the collective right of all the legitimate residents of a territory. It cannot be the right of an ethnic, religious, linguistic, or hobby group per se.

        As far as your question about hating is concerned, I have to say you are not doing very well at it. You will need to do more than simply call people “fool” if you want to get even a C- in hating.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 3, 2018, 12:58 am

        @Eva

        The United Nations recognised “The Jewish State”. The PLO recognised the “Jewish State” too.

        What’s your problem, Eva?

        Say, “Jewish State”.
        Say it.

        What’s the matter? Can’t get the words out of your mouth?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 3, 2018, 5:05 am

        Well, I think that to engage in discussion under defined rules, including freedom from personal attack, is to accept a degree of fraternity in the use of the common inheritance of the human family, ie the power of reason. I accept that families can quarrel over inheritances.
        The SRD does not use the term ‘political rights’. All its terminology tends to the ambiguous. However, no matter what anyone or any committee says, the idea of a degree of political right goes logically, as I think Locke showed, with the idea of polity or existence under the laws of a sovereign power.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 3, 2018, 5:20 am

        ‘In a vacuum’ or ‘with no one else around to be affected’ seems to me, with due respect to Hostage and to Eva, like the only situation in which determination of self solely by self makes any sense. But that situation never happens except in wastelands and desert islands.

      • Keith
        Keith
        December 3, 2018, 10:14 am

        JACKDAW- “The United Nations recognised “The Jewish State”.

        I believe that the UN recognized Israel, not “The Jewish State.” Do you have a link to an official UN document which states that the UN recognition of the nation state of Israel is continent upon it being a Jewish state? Are you claiming that if Israel became a state of all of its citizens, that the UN would withdraw recognition?

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 3, 2018, 2:45 pm

        @RoHa

        Apparently, it is morally right for the League to have created the Arab States of Iraq and Syria, and morally right for Mandatories to have created Arab Lebanon and Arab (judenfrei) Jordan, but it is somehow immoral to have created a tiny, poor Jewish State in the Levant.

        I can only guess where your moral compass is.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 3, 2018, 2:52 pm

        @MHughes

        Better to launch personal attacks on one’s political enemies, than assaulting Truth, as you’ve done here.

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

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

        It was clear at the time that the term “national home” really meant a state.
        Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state.” See,Ronald Sanders book, High Walls of Jerusalem, p.652.

        As far as the United States interpretation of “national home”, a U.S. intelligence recommendations drafted for President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference reported that: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” See, J.C. Hurewitz (ed.),The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Vol.2, British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979, p. 132-36.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 3, 2018, 3:50 pm

        @Mooser

        You know what you can do with your Hebrew Nationals.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 3, 2018, 4:38 pm

        Well, I think that it’s accepted that I reported the words of the SRD without falsehood, so I don’t think I’ve assaulted Truth so far. There was indeed dispute and ‘contradiction’ over the meaning of these words, but that is surely an indication of their objectively ambiguous nature. You are absolutely right, Jackdaw, about Balfour’s personal views. He was a Christian Zionist and made no secret of it, briefing the Press In the way that the Zionists would have wished straight after the Declaration. I’ve often mentioned this here on Mondoweiss, it being a disgrace in my view to the good name of my country. Still, the words were chosen to be acceptable to people who did not share his views and so ambiguity was an important element of them.
        Not that any right exists because people, even eminent people, think it does. Not that any proposition is true because people say it is.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 3, 2018, 5:58 pm

        “the idea of a degree of political right goes logically, as I think Locke showed, with the idea of polity or existence under the laws of a sovereign power.”

        I’m sure we will soon discover that Locke was an anti-Semite.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 3, 2018, 6:09 pm

        “‘In a vacuum’ or ‘with no one else around to be affected’ seems to me,…”

        It is considerations of this type that leads me to say (as I have done with tedious regularity) that if the notion of the right of self-determination makes any sense at all, it cannot be an absolute right, but must be limited by the effects on other parties.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 4, 2018, 1:08 am

        Creating Arab states in territories where most of the inhabitants are Arabs is certainly more moral than creating a Jewish state in a territory where most of the inhabitants are Arabs.

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 4, 2018, 9:50 am

        || RoHa: Creating Arab states in territories where most of the inhabitants are Arabs is certainly more moral than creating a Jewish state in a territory where most of the inhabitants are Arabs. ||

        Don’t anti-Semitically blame “the Jews” for the fact that for centuries Ayrabs (and even Mooslims) deliberately and anti-Semitically installed themselves on Jewish “ancient homeland” territory in order to anti-Semitically make Zionist Jews look bad when they “returned” to their “ancient homeland” to establish a “Jewish State”.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 4, 2018, 11:51 am

        @MHughes
        @RoHa

        “The Balfour language of national home for Jews and civil rights for non-Jews, which had been adopted all along with the intention of maintaining a degree of ambiguity.”

        Jewish self-determination, ambiguous to who?

        That the Declaration paved the way for a Jewish State seems to, judging from the press, to have been taken for granted. The headlines in the London newspapers – `A state for the Jews’ (Daily Express) – `Palestine for the Jews’ (The Times, Morning Post, Daily News). The Spectator wrote of `the proposal for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine.’ The Manchester Guardian saw the Declaration as leading to `the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State.’ The Observer wrote: `It is no idle dream that by the close of another generation the new Zion may become a state.’ The Balfour Declaration, by Leonard Stein, at 562, 63.

        What was Woodrow Wilson’s stand on the natural law concept of self-determination in Palestine at the time of the Paris Peace Talks in 1919?

        “When Balfour met Brandeis in Paris in June 1919, he remarked . . . . that Palestine represented a unique situation. We are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to re-constitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future’ . He had, he went on, great difficulty in seeing how President Wilson could reconcile his adherence to Zionism with the doctrine of self-determination, to which Brandeis replied that `the whole conception of Zionism as a Jewish homeland was a definite building up for the future as the means of dealing with a world problem and not merely with the disposition of an existing community. `
        Balfour gave the argument a slightly different turn at his interview with Meinertzhagen a few weeks later. ` [Meinertzhagen was also very pro-Zionist.] He agreed . . . in principle, Meinertzhagen wrote in his diary (30 July 1919), in the principle of self-determination, but it could not be indiscriminately applied to the whole world, and Palestine was a case in point . . . In any Palestinian plebiscite the Jews of the world must be consulted in which case he sincerely believed that an overwhelming majority would declare for Zionism under a British mandate.’ Leonard Stein at p. 649

        Leopold Amery, one of the Secretaries to the British War Cabinet of 1917-1918 testified under oath to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in January, 1946 from his personal knowledge [Tr. 1/30/46, p 112] that:

        1. He believed that the Jewish National Home was an experiment to determine whether there would eventually be a Jewish majority over the whole of Palestine.
        2. He believed that the territory for which political rights were to be recognized was intended to include all of Palestine both east and west of the Jordan River.
        3. He had always assumed that the particular reference to not infringing the civil or religious liberties of Arab population was not so much a safeguard against the British Government infringing those liberties . . ., but a Jewish state infringing those liberties. Therefore, at the time that possibility of a Jewish majority over the whole of the larger Palestine was, he thought envisaged.
        4. The phrase “the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people” was intended and understood by all concerned to mean at the time of the Balfour Declaration that Palestine would ultimately become a “Jewish Commonwealth” or a “Jewish State”, if only Jews came and settled there in sufficient numbers.
        5. Recalled that Lloyd-George had testified earlier [likely in 1939 at the time of the 1939 White Paper]:

        “…There could be no doubt as to what the Cabinet then had in mind. It was not their idea that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty…. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them … and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. The notion that the Jews should be a permanent minority never entered into the heads of anyone engaged in framing the policy. That would have been regarded as unjust, and as a fraud on the people to whom we were appealing.”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 4, 2018, 6:19 pm

        “Jackdaw”, Lord Balfour is dead. And the Colonial Mandate given to Britain for Palestine is long gone.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 5, 2018, 1:49 am

        1. Neither the declarations of statesmen nor the opinions of newspaper editors create a right.

        2. Creating a state does not imply a right to create that state.

        3. If Jews had a right to self-determination, so did the native people of Palestine. They were the residents of the territory, and thus their right to self-determination trumps that of people who were, mostly, not residents of the territory. Neither the British Government nor the League of Nations had a moral right to hand over that territory to Jewish immigrants against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.

        4. If we set aside this rsd nonsense, it is clearly immoral to drive people out of their homes and land in order to set up a state there. It is clearly immoral to set up a state in which the native people have no political rights. Neither the British Government nor the League of Nations could make that moral.

        You seem to have a view of the Middle East as a stretch of empty land, with Arabs and Jews standing outside it, and the League of Nations allocating bits to each group. That is not how it was. The whole territory was occupied by people who lived there and had their homes there. Those people were the ones who already had rights there. And in Palestine, the majority of those people were Arabs.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 5, 2018, 2:32 am

        @frankie

        “Jackdaw”, Lord Balfour is dead. And the Colonial Mandate given to Britain for Palestine is long gone.”

        San Remo, vis a vis the League of Nations, is international law, and that law was preserved, pursuant to Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
        To wit; the Jewish right to self-determination has been enshrined in international law, and denying Jews their right to their state is a violation of international law.

        Lamont Hill’s ignorance, and possible call to violate international law, gave CNN ample reason to can him.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 5, 2018, 3:16 am

        @RoHa
        @elJerk
        @MHughes

        I have demonstrably shown that Lord Balfour, Prime Minister Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, President Woodrow Wilson and Leopold Amery, Secretary to the British War Cabinet of 1917-1918, all believed in Jewish self-determination and the right of Jews to emigrate to Eretz Yisroel to claim a Jewish State.

        Balfour Declaration, wholly incorporated into San Remo in 1922, was recognised by all the contemporary newspapers to mean an eventual Jewish State in Palestine.

        Read it and weep.
        Sorry guys.

        “Creating Arab states in territories where most of the inhabitants are Arabs is certainly more moral than creating a Jewish state in a territory where most of the inhabitants are Arabs.”

        The League of Nations thought creating a Jewish State was more moral.

        Hard cheese.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 5, 2018, 11:31 am

        @RoHaha

        “We Arabs…look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper…we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home…my people look forward to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilized peoples of the world.”—Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi , King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria and King of Iraq.

        Welcome home!!

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 5, 2018, 11:39 am

        || @Jackoff:
        @RoHa
        @elJerk
        @MHughes

        I have demonstrably shown that … ||

        …people who supported Jewish supremacism also supported the establishment of a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. No sh*t, Sherlock.

        …you are indeed the Fool on a Hill.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 5, 2018, 12:23 pm

        “I have demonstrably shown that Lord Balfour…/… Jewish State.” “Jackdaw”

        Great! Let’s hit them up for a contribution.

        Oh, BTW, “Jack” what’s the number of Zionist Jews needed to establish a secure, self-sufficient Jewish State?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 5, 2018, 11:55 pm

        “Lord Balfour, Prime Minister Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, President Woodrow Wilson and Leopold Amery,”

        Do you really think I will take instruction in morality from those slimy buggers?

        “The League of Nations thought creating a Jewish State was more moral.”

        Or from the imperialist thugs who dominated the LON?

        Nor am I impressed by a declaration from an Arab prince who was desperate to get the great powers to confirm his kingship.

        So far you have failed to provide an argument for this idea of Jewish self-determination. All you have done is point out that some people accepted the idea. Do you have an argument?

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 6, 2018, 1:16 am

        @frankie

        ” what’s the number of Zionist Jews needed to establish a secure, self-sufficient Jewish State?”

        Dunno. It’s kinda hard to calculate considering that 1/3 of all Jews were exterminated before the Jewish State was formed, and before Jews could unite to defend themselves.

        Never again!

        BTW, how’s life in the silicon shtetl?
        Working hard for your biddy biddy bitcoin?

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 6, 2018, 10:16 am

        || Jackdaw: @frankie

        ” what’s the number of Zionist Jews needed to establish a secure, self-sufficient Jewish State?”

        Dunno. It’s kinda hard to calculate considering that 1/3 of all Jews were exterminated before the Jewish State was formed … ||

        The # of Zionist Jews required to establish “a secure, self-sufficient Jewish State” is not dependent on the # of Jews alive circa the mid-20th century.

        Konrad Lorenz weeps in his grave…again.  :-(

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 6, 2018, 12:00 pm

        Sorry to have been slow in replying. Jackdaw and I have different ideas of ‘demonstrated truth’, since to my mind there is a lot of poliicians’ ambiguity in many of the words he quotes and – though there are many more bits of evidence that I could bring up if need be – I would still say that the July 1921 conversation at Balfour’s home, which has I think been mentioned, amounts by itself to proof that there were different interpretations of the Declaration, which had been couched in ambiguous language by Christian Zionists to win the acquiescence of non-Zionists. How else can that conversation be interpreted?
        That certain eminent people – those named and others – believed (though others dissented) in Zionism, which in its Christian form was centuries old, is undeniable and a very important historical fact. Some of them were indeed slimy buggers, as RoHa notes, from whom one would not take moral lessons, but maybe some were people of shining honour and sound good sense. All the same they may have been wrong. If they were not wrong we need the arguments, not just the names.
        Faisal was not very typical in this matter. Again there are quotes and proof texts that could be cited. In my view the best overall account available is still Margaret Macmillan’s ‘Peacemakers’ of 2001.
        I can’t see how it can be questioned that setting up an X state amid an X population raises very different questions than setting up a Y state amid an X population, or that any programme of major ethnic change raises very serious and unique moral challenges.
        I still think insuting language – well, not if it’s about dead slimy burgers – is best avoided.

      • Jackdaw
        Jackdaw
        December 6, 2018, 12:21 pm

        @RoHa

        ‘Slimy buggers’ and ‘thugs’.

        Yes. And we have RoHa, that great and reknown moral arbiter.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 6, 2018, 4:56 pm

        “And we have RoHa, that great and reknown moral arbiter.”

        A great and moral arbiter.
        A personage of noble rank and title —
        A dignified and potent officer,
        Whose functions are particularly vital!

        You’d best defer, “Jackdaw”.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 6, 2018, 6:07 pm

        “maybe some were people of shining honour and sound good sense”

        Not politicians, then.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 6, 2018, 11:23 pm

        Asking for arguments is particularly vital. We need more than quotes from a little list of Prime Ministers, Presidents, and similar society offenders who would be better underground, were they not already.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 7, 2018, 11:52 am

        “Not politicians, then.”

        The task of filling up the blanks I’d rather leave to you. You may put them on the list.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 8, 2018, 9:38 pm

        “(though others dissented)”

        I don’t want to accuse them of shining honour, but we did get some good sense from Edwin Montagu (Secretary of State for India) and Sir Isaac Isaacs (first native-born Governor General of Australia).

  10. Maghlawatan
    Maghlawatan
    December 1, 2018, 6:25 am

    Brexit is very like Zionism

    ‪ IF YOU ARE A REMAINER IN THE UK AND YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT DEMOCRACY AND THE RESULT OF A DEMOCRATIC VOTE TO LEAVE THE EU THEN FUCK OFF OUT OF THE UK AND DO US ALL ONE BIG FAVOUR‬

    Polarised. Truth versus indoctrinated bullshit.
    Zionism is bullshit

  11. Elizabeth Block
    Elizabeth Block
    December 1, 2018, 11:02 am

    “He was thirsty because he was boycotting Israeli water. ”
    When I was there, I was told that water meant for Israelis is safe to drink. Water meant for Palestinians is not.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 3, 2018, 5:02 am

      Israeli officials boast that the country currently exploits 95 percent of its available water resources, the highest ratio in the world. This includes the water resources of the occupied West Bank, Golan and Gaza, and river waters originating in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

  12. Hussein Hammami
    Hussein Hammami
    December 2, 2018, 3:37 am

    CNN lacks the moral fiber to fire closet Zionist employees whose professional judgement is warped by an abiding attachment to biblical “Eretz Yisrael” from the river ‘Nile’ to the river ‘Euphrates’. Nor does it have the courage to admit that Palestine from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean is not to be demonized as mere Hamas propaganda. It is now code word for the one-state-solution expressed in an inclusive democratic state for both peoples, Israelis and Palestinians that is slowly gaining ground because Israel is making a mockery of the two-state-solution by colonizing the land of the Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Leave a Reply