The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel

The popular belief that Israel was established by the United Nations is rooted in falsehood and prejudice against the rights of the Palestinians.

This essay is available for download in PDF format at the author’s website.

There is a widely accepted belief that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 “created” Israel, based upon an understanding that this resolution partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority or legitimacy to the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. However, despite its popularity, this belief has no basis in fact, as a review of the resolution’s history and examination of legal principles demonstrates incontrovertibly.

The U.N. General Assembly, November 29, 1947Great Britain had occupied Palestine during the First World War, and in July 1922, the League of Nations issued its mandate for Palestine, which recognized the British government as the occupying power and effectively conferred to it the color of legal authority to temporarily administrate the territory.[1] On April 2, 1947, seeking to extract itself from the conflict that had arisen in Palestine between Jews and Arabs as a result of the Zionist movement to establish in Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people”,[2] the United Kingdom submitted a letter to the U.N. requesting the Secretary General “to place the question of Palestine on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular Annual Session”, and requesting the Assembly “to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine.”[3] To that end, on May 15, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 106, which established the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to investigate “the question of Palestine”, to “prepare a report to the General Assembly” based upon its findings, and to “submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine”.[4]

On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly declaring its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”, and even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs constituted a majority.[5] Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs.[6] In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land,[7] while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]

Despite these facts, the UNSCOP proposal was that the Arab state be constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state.[9] The UNSCOP report acknowledged that

With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.[10]

In other words, the report explicitly recognized that the denial of Palestinian independence in order to pursue the goal of establishing a Jewish state constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination. And yet, despite this recognition, UNSCOP had accepted this rejection of Arab rights as being within the bounds of a legitimate and reasonable framework for a solution.

Following the issuance of the UNSCOP report, the U.K. issued a statement declaring its agreement with the report’s recommendations, but adding that “if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”[11] The position of the Arabs had been clear from the beginning, but the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement on September 29 reiterating that “the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status”. It instead

advocated freedom and independence for an Arab State in the whole of Palestine which would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law, and would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.[12]

The U.K. followed with a statement reiterating “that His Majesty’s Government could not play a major part in the implementation of a scheme that was not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews”, but adding “that they would, however, not wish to impede the implementation of a recommendation approved by the General Assembly.”[13]

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem and make recommendations. A sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11. It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise “that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity”, which was “not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.” With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, “there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state”, which “would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate” and the Covenant of the League of Nations. It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.” It concluded that “no further discussion of the Palestine problem seems to be necessary or appropriate, and this item should be struck off the agenda of the General Assembly”, but that if there was a dispute on that point, “it would be essential to obtain the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue”, as had already been requested by several of the Arab states. It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not

deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.[14]

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Jeremy R. Hammond

HomepageFacebookTwitterLinkedInGoogle+
Jeremy R. Hammond is an award-winning political analyst, editor and publisher of Foreign Policy Journal, and author. His new book is Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Read the first chapter FREE at ObstacleToPeace.com! 

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • Alex

    This is a very explicit and factual summary on a matter that has been habitually marred by blatant propaganda.

    • Barry Lubotta

      Alex, as IF you know all the facts on this matter. There are plenty of errors on the part of the author and you subscribe to his thoughts without making a single statement to show why. Here’s the call. You are disqualified from having any input of value.

      • Barry, you are welcome to try to substantiate your assertion I’ve made “plenty of errors” by pointing out even a single one.

        • Dov Bear

          Here is an error. You say: ” while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase.”

          Prove it! Prove that growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. You know that you cannot prove it, but you offer it up as a given. I know for a fact that the most common last name in Gaza is Masri, which means Egyptian. I know that the British officially ignored Arab immigration from Syria and Egypt because they had no political reason to keep track of it. The borders were very porous during the time of the Ottomans and the British Mandate. The Arabs came for obvious reasons: good paying jobs that came along with the Jewish immigration to the region. You cannot disprove this, and you know it.

          Secondly Jews outnumbered Arabs in Jerusalem since 1840. This is a known statistical fact.

          Here are just two “mistakes” in your article out of a whole bunch of others. Yet, I am sure these are not simple mistakes. Israel is the only country in human history that has to defend its existence after sixty years of independence.

          • Marvelous info can be found on UNispal site. Wonderful source for the facts. This one in a report dd 3 Sept 1947 re population growths in Palestine: “15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to IMMIGRATION. 16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.”

          • Indeed, UNISPAL is a wonderful resource.

        • Barry Lubotta

          Let me take you up on that Jeremy. In fact, I already have. Despite your painting yourself as a know it all expert, in fact you are not. Your reasoning re: article article 242 is way off. Show me where the French version of an article is deemed to be as law binding as a final draft English version.

          Your lack of understanding of the intent of the article, or perhaps your ingrain bias, shows you not to be an expert of any kind. I will write again later with more details but it’s always informative to dissect the bravado of someone who thinks he knows it all when in fact he can’t see the forest for the trees. In short, you will fool many but not those who know.

          • Barry, the facts are as I’ve stated them. The French representative to the U.N. Security Council, Armand Berard, stated during the session immediately after the resolution was adopted: “We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential – the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces – the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal “des territoires occupés”, which indisputably corresponds to the expression “occupied territories”.”

            The concept that authorized texts in multiple languages are equally authentic was codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”, which stipulated that “When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language”. The U.N. Charter states explicitly that “the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts” of the Charter “are equally authentic”, establishing French as an official language of the U.N. Security Council. This fact was emphasized under the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, which state that “Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be both the official and the working languages of the Security Council.” The U.N. Joint Inspection Unit report, “Implementation of Multilingualism in the United Nations System” observes that, “Similar to Article 111 of the Charter of the United Nations which stipulates that ‘the Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic’, the texts of constitutive acts of treaty-based organizations or the texts of treaties administered by them have been signed in one or a given number been signed in one or a given number of languages and such texts are considered as authentic texts.” Michael C. Wood, a member of the International Law Commission, a U.N. body, has observed that “there are six official and working languages of the Security Council, and resolutions of the Council are adopted and published in all six. In principle, all six language versions are authentic.” Professor Michael Lynk has similarly observed that “Since English and French have equal and primary status at the Security Council, a legal interpretation must strive for a meaning that harmonizes any possible distinctions between the different linguistic texts of a resolution. Plainly, the harmonious meaning would be the complete-withdrawal reading, which is also … the only reading that is consistent with the inadmissibility principle.” The equal authoritativeness of the French text under international law is indisputable, despite such vain attempts to suggest otherwise.

            References:

            United Nations Security Council 1382nd Meeting (S/PV.1382), November 22, 1967, http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255e950050831085255e95004fa9c3/9f5f09a80bb6878b0525672300565063.

            Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.

            Charter of the United Nations, Article 111, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml.

            Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council (S/96/Rev.7), http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm.

            Implementation of Multilingualism in the United Nations System, Joint Inspection Unit, United Nations, 2003, http://www.unjiu.org/data/reports/2002/en2002_11.pdf.

            Michael C. Wood, “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Volume 2, 1998, http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pdfmpunyb/wood_2.pdf. The website of the International Law Commission is: http://www.un.org/law/ilc/. Wood has also presented “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions” in lecture format, the video of which is available on an official website of the U.N., http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ls/Wood_PS.html.

            Michael S. Lynk, “Conceived in Law: The Legal Foundations of Resolution 242”, Social Science Research Network, July 2, 2007; p. 13, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1411698.

          • Barry Lubotta

            Jeremy Jeremy, with regards to our ongoing debate on article 242, you are once again incorrect and I must admit, I’m getting a little tired of trying to get you to see the truth.

            For example, in the box below, Oct. 30, you mention the French rep to the UN Security Council, saying, blah blah blah, which was his right to say, but it carried no weight. “we must admit”, WHO must admit, he was “pleading” but not “reading” the law. And the codification at the 1969 Vienna Convention was two years after article 242 was drawn up so it had little bearing on 1967.

            To my knowledge, while France and Russia both wanted THEIR versions to be the legal one, neither was. Only one final version of article 242 was voted on – the English one – and that subsequently became the legal draft. Why don’t you know that?

            You certainly could not have two different versions of the law, yet that is what you are saying happened, if the French version had as much validity as the English.

            You are guilty of high schticking, 30 minutes in the corner with a dunce cap on.

          • Barry, the facts on 242 are precisely as I’ve stated them. To each of your arguments: a) The Vienna Convention, as I said, “codified” the principle, it didn’t create it. The principle existed in 1967. French is both an official and a working language of the UNSC under the U.N. Charter and the Provisional Rules of Procedure for the UNSC, both of which, you will observe, predate the June ’67 war. As the U.N. Joint Inspection Unit has noted, as an official and working language of the U.N., the French text of UNSC resolutions are equally authentic. Michael C. Wood is an authority on international law and member of the International Law Commission, a U.N. body, and he has observed that under international law, the French text of UNSC resolutions is equally authentic. Michael S. Lynk, a law professor at the University of Ontario, has similarly observed that both texts are equally authentic under international law. b) The French delegate was observing the fact that the French text is equally authentic. You will observe that nobody – not even Abba Eban – challenged that statement of his. Why not? Because every delegate there knew he spoke an elementary and totally non-controversial truth.

        • Barry Lubotta

          I’ll give it to you Jeremy, you are full of bluster and self confidence but like so many of your kind, it is misplaced and far from accurate. We’ll stick with article 242 for now and I’ll write more later as well. Israel has most definitely fulfilled its part of Resolution 242. When you deny that you are letting us know that you live in a world of fantasy and scholarship, a dangerous combination in any culture to be sure.

          http://www.varimail.com/asp/broadcast/ILIST/israel%20fulfilled%20its%20part%20in%20resolution%20242%20when%20it%20returned%2090.pdf

          • Barry, this argument is premised in turn upon your incorrect interpretation of 242. See comments above and below.

          • talknic

            Barry Lubotta. ” Israel has most definitely fulfilled its part of Resolution 242.”

            Twaddle — Israel has fulfilled only part of it’s obligations, peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. It still occupies Sovereign Syrian territory and arguably Sovereign Lebanese territory.

            The resolution was to end hostilities between “states”. All states in the region had defined, acknowledged boundaries in 1967. All the “states” in the conflict were to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r

            The resolution leaves Israel as the Occupying Power over territories outside the extent of the Independent Sovereign States involved in the conflict. I.e., Palestinian territories. Under the UN Charter Chapt XI Occupying Powers have an obligation to protect the occupied, their territory, their rights until such time as they are able to govern themselves. At which time, occupation must end.

        • Barry Lubotta

          Let’s debate article 242 on which you are a self described expert. I pointed out that the omission of the word “the” meant something substantial and somewhere below in these comments, you negated that. Well, I supposed you know more than these fellows. Sure you do.

          Professor Eugene Rostow, then U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, went on record in 1991 to make this clear:
          “Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

          Professor Rostow continues and describes:

          “Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines [‘Green Line’], but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries …

          ”5
          Lord Caradon, then the United Kingdom Ambassador to the UN and the key drafter of the resolution, said several years later:
          “We knew that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the ’67 boundaries must be forever.”
          Referring to Resolution 242, Lord Caradon added:

          “The essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border
          It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary … “6
          In a 1974 statement he said:
          “It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That’s why we didn’t demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to.”7

          • Barry,

            Firstly, such an interpretation as you claim for 242 is irreconcilable with the emphasized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.

            Secondly, readers will observe that all the quotes you offer to support your interpretation were made ex post facto. The relevant documentary record is that prior and up to the adoption of the resolution. There is nothing from that record to support your interpretation. Moreover, these quotes are cherry-picked from the record, and proponents of your argument simply ignore others from the same individuals that contradict their claims. For example, Lord Caradon also stated:

            “[I]t is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the ‘inadmissibility of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war.”

            According to the then Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Gideon Rafael, Lord Caradon actually tried to insert the definite article “the” before “territories” in the draft resolution, but the Israelis and Americans rejected this wording. It was not Caradon’s view at the time Resolution 242 was passed that the absence of the definite article meant Israel could unilaterally choose to retain some of the occupied territory, but rather that there should be a final settlement on borders that involved minor and mutually beneficial revisions to the 1949 armistice lines.

            Similarly, British Foreign Secretary George Brown stated explicitly prior to the adoption of Resolution 242 that any peace settlement must derive from the principles of the U.N. Charter, which leads to the conclusion that Israel must withdrawal from the territories it occupied: “I see no two ways about this; and I can state our position very clearly. In my view, it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement.” He later reiterated, also prior to the adoption of the resolution, “I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw.”

            Thirdly, the absense of the definite article “the”, as I already noted, has no bearing grammatically on the meaning. It simply means the noun “territories” is plural — the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai, plural. This is also a moot argument since the French text, equally authentic, does contain the definite article (see above).

            Fourthly, by your logic, 242 calls upon Egypt to permit Israeli shipping through some but not all of the international waterways, since there is no definite article before the noun in sub-clause 2 of the first operative clause of 242.

            Your argument false flat no matter how you want to look at it.

            References:
            Lynk, pp. 10-11.
            UNSC 1382nd Meeting (S/PV.1382)

          • Barry Lubotta

            Wrong again, Jeremy, you’ve got to stop telling your readers things that are just not true. Allow me to elaborate.

            Your first sentence, concerning the “emphasized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by was” sounds good until you realize that Israel fought a defensive war even though it launched a pre-emptive strike (yes, that can happen and does). There were months of belligerent declarations coming from the Arab side which went beyond mere power projection. The Arab states did not wish to just defeat Israel but to destroy it.

            • “We intend to open a general assault against Israel. This will be total war. Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel.” (Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, May 26, 1967)
            • “The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.” (Egyptian Radio, ‘Voice of the Arabs,’ May 18, 1967)
            • “I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.” (Syrian Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad, May 20, 1967)
            • “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. … Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.” (Iraqi President Abdur Rahman Aref, May 31, 1967).

            That is why the UN Security Council recognized that Israel had acquired the territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria not as a matter of aggression, but as an act of self-defense. That is also why Resolution 242 was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter rather than Chapter VII. As explained above, UN resolutions adopted under Chapter VI call on nations to negotiate settlements, while resolutions under the more stringent Chapter VII section deal with clear acts of
            aggression that allow the UN to enforce its resolutions upon any state seen as threatening the security of another state or states.

            Although Resolution 242 refers to “the inadmissibility” of acquiring territory by war, a statement used in nearly all UN resolutions relating to Israel, Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles:

            “… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

            Resolution 242 immediately follows to emphasize the “need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security.”

            So the above destroys your first premise. Case closed.

            And I should like to point out again that you, Jeremy Hammond, do not understand the true meaning of article 242 despite your protestations to the contrary.

            Let me state this again. The absence of the definite article “the” has a lot of bearing on article 242. Why the heck to you think it took six months to create a one page document????

            That word, and others, were fought over for lengthy periods and the final legal version, the English version, does not contain the word “the” before territories for a sound reason, which I’ve previously provided.
            To those who have not read previous posts, Mr. Hammond asserts that the French version of 242 was just a valid as the English version. The French did indeed want that, but they did not prevail. ONLY the English version was voted on and that is the version that pertains to International Law. And the reason the French wanted THEIR version t be accepted is that it contained a few different words than the English version, words which could change the meaning of article 242.

            I do agree with you that Lord Caradon did try to insert the word “the” before territories but it was rejected – for reasons I’ve stated. For those tuning in late, “the territories” could be interpreted to mean “all the territories” but that was not the intent of article 242 in it’s final version, the one that was voted upon.

            By leaving off the word “the” to read (i) Withdrawl of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” the drafters of the article meant that Israel had to withdraw from some of the territories, which in fact that did within months, about 90% to be exact. If the drafters had meant “all of the territories”, which the French and Arabs wanted included but did not get, they would have done so.

            Finally Jeremy, I find pathetic the example you gave in your fourth point, that you argue there is similarity in clause 2 (a), which reads “For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;”. You see, waterways can be either international or not, but territories cannot be territories or not. When one specifies “international waterways” in the area, one refers to all waterways, therefore, there is no need to say “the” it is implied. Refering to territories however, has no such delicate inferences. Territories are either “all the territories” or “territories” which implies some of the territories.

            And why would you discount the quotes from those who actually drafted the article when they said in their own words that they meant “some of the” and not “all of the”. Is that not picking the bone a little too closely? The fact that they said it afterwards does not diminish what they meant during the six month drafting process.

            You were put on this earth Jeremy, to use your common sense and the knowledge you have learned to come up with sound thinking. I have no qualms with your desire to make a difference in the world provided you get it right most of the time. Unfortunately, you appear to have an inbred bias that finds every fault lies with Israel. There is no sense of balance to your writing, no real objectivity other than to support your already made up mind, and certainly not enough common sense. You are hereby requested from now on to use your God given brain to present the truth about which you write. There are two sides to every story, quit burying your head in just one of them.

          • Barry, even if we assume your argument is correct, that the war was “defensive” (it wasn’t), it doesn’t change anything. The emphasized principle is NOT “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, except by a war of self-defense“. Acquiring territory by war is illegal under international law. Period.

            You falsely accuse me of telling readers things that aren’t true, then write: “the UN Security Council recognized that Israel had acquired the territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria not as a matter of aggression, but as an act of self-defense.” That is a lie, and your hypocrisy is instructive.

            As for your suggestion that sub-clause (i) of the 1st operative clause of 242 is conditioned upon sub-clause (ii), that is also false. The resolution states that both withdrawal and non-belligerency and secure and recognized boundaries are required. It does not condition one upon the other. That is yet another lie.

            The French text is equally authentic as the English. So the argument over the “the” is moot anyway, but even if we forget that fact for a moment, as I’ve already gone over:

            (a) the absence of the definite article has no bearing on the English grammar, and does not define the extent of withdrawal. The absence of the “the” simply means “territories” is a plural noun. The Golan, West Bank, Gaza, and Sinai — “territories”, plural. The extent of withdrawal is not defined by the existence or absence of an article before a noun, but by the complete phrase, “from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. So a simple litmus test is to ask: Is it a territory occupied in the ’67 war? If yes, then, under 242, Israel must withdraw. It is not possible to read the text as meaning “some of the territories”. Thus, in plain English, 242 calls upon Israel to totally withdraw. Also, your argument on why the same logic wouldn’t also apply to sub-clause (ii) of the first operative paragraph is nonsense. Clearly, the absence of the definite article “the” before the noun phrase “international waterways” does not mean Egypt could blockade Israel’s passage through some of those waterways. This logic defeats itself on all counts.

            (b) Such an interpretation is irreconcilable with the emphasized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and thus prima facie invalid.

            (c) The meaning of UNSC resolutions is for the UNSC to decide, and member states made it clear in the discussions over 242 that their intent was that Israel should fully withdraw in accordance with the emphasized principle.

            Your insults serve only to embarrass yourself, Barry. You’d do well to refrain from such.

          • Barry Lubotta Twaddle.

            The debate over ‘the’ and or ‘all’ simply delayed the passing of the resolution. The meaning is not altered.

            Both Caradon & Rostow actually DISPROVE your notions.

            DO you have some odd reading comprehension problem?

            “Resolution 242….calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ it occupied during the Six-Day War – not from ‘the’ territories nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”

            Likewise with Caradon. Nowhere in UNSC Resolution does it call for negotiating any boundary/border/frontier. The parties to the conflict were all stats. They had already recognized boundaries.

            http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r

        • Barry Lubotta

          And Jeremy, just in case you don’t follow what I’ve submitted below, let me lay claim once again to the word “the” which you argued against and also your words saying the French version was as valid as the English version of article 242.

          Jeremy’s words “Also, as a simple point of fact, grammatically, all the absence of the definite article means is that “territories” is a plural noun. The Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai — “territories”, plural, from which Israel must withdraw.

          Also, as another simple point of fact, the French version, equally authoritative, does contain the definite article — so your argument is moot on that count as well.”

          Really, is that so? The following is at odds with your findings. Let’s see, who should we trust. Someone who was there and who participated or you, who years later wishes to revise history.

          “It is true, as Arab leaders correctly note, that certain suggested drafts of Resolution 242 exist that contain that tiny controversial “the” in reference to territories. Arab leaders say this proves that Israel must withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. However, those versions of the resolution are in French. Under international law, English-language versions are followed and accepted as the conclusive reference point, and French versions are not.”

          Arthur J. Goldberg,8 the U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 1967 and a key draftee of Resolution 242, stated:

          “The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967 lines. I refer to the English text of the resolution. The French and Soviet texts differ from the English in this respect, but the English text was voted on by the Security Council, and thus it is determinative.

          In other words, there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.”

          • See my previous comments, to which I will add that, again, these quotes from Goldberg were made ex post facto and are thus irrelevant. Again, the relevant documentary is that prior to and up until the adoption of 242. That record includes agreeing in the General Assembly between the U.S.-USSR on jointly drafted resolutions calling for Israel to fully withdraw all its forces to the pre-June 5 armistice lines. Goldberg was the head of the U.S. delegation when it agreed in principle with those two draft resolutions. Goldberg repeatedly reassured the Soviets throughout the drafting process at the UNSC that the U.S. had not moved fundamentally from that position.

            Furthermore, it is not for the U.S. to unilaterally interpret UNSC resolutions. UNSC resolutions are for the UNSC to interpret, and the majority of UNSC members explicitly noted their view that 242 meant Israel must fully withdraw.

            Resolution 242 was adopted unanimously by all 15 members of the Security Council, most of whose representatives were explicit in their interpretation of the draft text as calling for Israel to fully withdraw from the occupied territories. As already noted, this understanding on intent was reflected in George Brown’s statements that “war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement” and “Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of a war. This means that Israel must withdraw.”

            Lord Caradon reiterated that position of the U.K. during deliberations over the draft resolution, stating that “As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear.”

            Two days before the vote, Caradon again reiterated: “If I had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago. These were his words: “I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of war. This means that Israel must withdraw. But equally, Israel’s neighbours must recognize its right to exist, and it must enjoy security within its frontiers….” In our resolution we stated the principle of the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and in the preamble we emphasized “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear.”

            The French position that the resolution required a full withdrawal and that there can be no mistake on that point, since “the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity”, has already been noted.

            Vasili Kuznetsov, the Soviet representative at the Security Council, expressed his government’s intent in supporting the passage of the proposed resolution by saying: “We know from the statements of Israel statesmen, and in particular from that made yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel and just published in The New York Times, that Israel makes a definite claim to keep some of the territories seized from the Arab States. Consequently, the United States draft leaves open the possibility that Israel’s forces may not be withdrawn from all the Arab territories they have seized and that part of these territories may be kept by Israel. If this is not so, we hope that the United States representative will give us a clear and unambiguous explanation to the effect that the United States supports the withdrawal of Israel’s forces from all the occupied territories to the positions occupied prior to 5 June 1967. It is obvious that the provision for the withdrawal of troops must be so clearly formulated as to leave no loopholes whereby anyone can interpret it in his own way.”

            The U.S. never responded to this request for a clarification for the U.S. position by expressing any clear and unambiguous intention that Israel should be permitted to acquire any of the occupied territory, apart from minor and mutually agreed upon revisions to the 1949 armistice lines. Two days before the vote, Kuznetsov reiterated his government’s position: “As long as Israel troops occupy the Arab territories they have seized, as long as no stop is put to the colonialist appropriations of these lands by the aggressor, and as long as he is not forced to leave them, there will be, and there can be, no peace in the Middle East…. During Security Council debates, the Soviet delegation has repeatedly drawn attention of all members of the Security Council to the fact that the key question, the crux of the problem in the Middle East is the question of the withdrawal of Israel troops from all the Arab territories they have occupied, i.e., the question of removing the main consequence of, the Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. The statements, of a number of Council members have shown that this view is widely shared in the Security Council. It cannot be denied that only the withdrawal of the aggressor’s troops from the territories he has seized, from all the territories he has seized, can pave the way for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. Any other assertion would be opposed to the most elementary rules governing relations among States, rules which must be respected if there is to be peace in the world.”

            Again, on the day of the vote, Kuznetsov declared: “However, we voted for the United Kingdom draft resolution, as interpreted by the representative of India, whose views we share. Thus, in the resolution adopted by the Security Council, the “‘withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” becomes the first necessary principle for the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Near East. We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967. This is borne out by the preamble to the United Kingdom draft resolution [S/8247] which stresses the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”…. It has been made clear, both from representatives’ statements in the Security Council today and from the many statements made during the preceding days, that this is the basic content of the resolution and that it has thus been interpreted by all the members of the Security Council.”

            His reference was to the statement by Mr. Parthasarathi, the Indian representative at the Security Council, who had earlier that day expressed his government’s intent in supporting the resolution:
            Members of the Council will recall that during the fifth emergency special session an overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations, whether they voted for the Latin American draft resolution 2/ or the non-aligned, Afro-Asian draft resolution, had reaffirmed the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest and had supported the call for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967. On this point there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations…. The principle of the inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal…. It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories–I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. In other words, the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River and the Syrian territory. This being so, Israel cannot use the words “secure and recognized boundaries”, contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution.”

            The President of the Security Council and Mali representative to the U.N., Mamadou Boubacar Kante, stated his government’s position by saying: “The immediate stumbling block in the crisis is the withdrawal of the Israel forces from the territories of the United Arab Republic, Jordan and Syria which they occupied following the aggression of 5 June 1967. Their withdrawal is a prerequisite for any political solution to the crisis. The first task of the Council is therefore to secure, in application of the provisions of the Charter, the withdrawal of the Israel forces to the positions they held before the aggression.”

            He again reiterated on the day of the vote: “My delegation therefore wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text, namely: first, that the withdrawal of all the armed forces of Israel from all the Arab territories occupied since 5 June cannot be made subject to any condition whatever…. For all those reasons my delegation, in voting for the draft resolution on the Middle East submitted by the United Kingdom, was anxious to record its unshakable adherence to the principles of the Charter. My country therefore continues to believe more than ever that the withdrawal of forces from territories occupied by military conquest is a prior condition for any solution of any armed crisis.”

            The Ethiopian representative, Endelkachew Makonnen, stated on the day of the vote: “With regard to the principles that need to be affirmed, we deem it most essential that due emphasis be put on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and hence on the imperative requirement that all Israel armed forces be withdrawn from the territories occupied as a result Of military conflict, and likewise on the need to ensure conditions of permanent peace in which all States in the area can live in security free from threats or acts of force. It follows from this that we seek the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and consider that there should be, mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and, political independence of all States in the area.”

            The Bulgarian representative, Milko Tarabanov similarly stated his government’s position: “We note with satisfaction that in the resolution adopted, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, proclaimed in the preamble as a general principle, is clearly and explicitly confirmed in the first operative paragraph, which calls for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. Thus it is a definite call for the withdrawal of Israel’s troops from all the territories occupied since 4 June 1967. That is a practical application of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war stated in the preamble to the resolution.”

            Even the U.S. position was that the text finally adopted reflected a consensus among members of the Security Council, thus at least tacitly acknowledging that its intent was that Israel fully withdraw from the occupied territories. Arthur Goldberg stated two days prior to the vote that: “The States, although adhering to the views expressed in its draft resolution of 7 November [S/8229], will vote in favour of the United Kingdom draft resolution for two principal and prevailing reasons. First, the United Kingdom resolution commands, in our opinion, a substantial con-sensus in the Council and is entirely consistent with the policy of my Government as set forth by President Johnson in his statement of 19 June and as stated by me in the several interventions I have made in the Council, I reaffirm that policy without any reservation today.”

            References:
            Foreign Relations of the United States, Volume XIX.
            UNSC Meeting Verbatim Records, November 1967.

  • Raphael

    As a Zionist, I couldn’t agree more with this article’s conclusion that the UN did not create Israel. The truth is that Israel created itself by declaring independence and then successfully defending that independence through force of arms, which is exactly the same way that the United States created itself in the American Revolution.

    I find it ironic than a leftist, anti-Zionist website like this one would come to such a conclusion. Anti-Zionists frequently claim that Israel owes the UN system some kind of special obedience because of the supposed role of UNGAR 181 in its creation.

    In fact, Israel has no such obligations. Like any other General Assembly resolution, Resolution 181 was nothing more than a non-binding recommendation. The Arabs were legally entitled to ignore it and launch an invasion (although they’ve since come to regret that decision). Similarly, Israel is entitled to ignore Resolution 194 — the oft-cited basis for the so-called right of return of Palestinian Refugees — as well as the numerous other resolutions it doesn’t agree with.

    • Yes, you are right, the U.S. was also created through ethnic cleansing and genocide. I find it ironic that a self-declared Zionist would point that out as though the similarity somehow suggested legitimacy for the state’s creation.

      You are wrong on Israel’s obligation to the U.N. Israel requested membership, and that request was granted. As a party to the U.N. Charter, Israel has a legal obligation to comply with Security Council resolutions. Israel is in perpetual violation of international law by failing to uphold it’s responsibilities and obligations as a member state, along with violating other relevant bodies of international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is also a party.

      As for the ’48 war, the Arabs didn’t invade. One can’t “invade” one’s own land. It was the Zionists who invaded the Arabs’ land, and who ethnically cleansed Palestine. Israel is legally obligated to recognize the right of return and comply with 194 and any and all relevant resolutions of the Security Council, such as 242, which calls upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories.

      • Raphael

        So then it seems you agree with me that Israel’s founding was as legitimate as that of the United States of America. I don’t know, maybe out on the fringe sectarian Left you find the U.S. lacking in legitimacy, but that only serves to show how marginal you are. The overwhelming majority of decent, patriotic Americans on both the Left and Right are proud of the Revolution and the founding of the Republic. You’re not going to win many converts to anti-Zionism by likening Israel to America.

        As for the assertions about international law, your hypocrisy is laughable. You just wrote a long article justifying the Arabs’ right to reject UNGAR 181 as a non-binding recommendation. And you know what? You’re absolutely right on that score. However, if that’s the case, it should be glaringly obvious that Israel is equally within its rights to reject UNGAR 194 as a non-binding recommendation. You can rant and whine all you want about the right of return, but you’ve already negated your own argument. Israel has no binding obligations in this regard, and it certainly doesn’t care about your fringe opinions.

        As the Iraqis say, “soak it in water and drink it, for all the good it will do you.”

        • No, I agree with you that the U.S.’s founding was as illegitimate as Israel’s. One may be proud of the Revolution and espouse a sense of patriotism and still recognize that the U.S. was founded as a result of shameful and criminal acts of racism and violence. There’s no sense denying the facts, and acknowledging the truth does not make one unpatriotic.

          As for your claim of hypocrisy on my part, what is laughable is this claim itself. On 194, as I noted, I thought you were referring to a Security Council resolution. As I said, Israel is legally obligated to comply with any and all Security Council resolutions. You are correct, any UNGA resolution is non-binding. However, the Zionists nonetheless had an obligation under customary international law NOT to commit acts of ethnic cleansing, and Israel as a party to the Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, and other relevant bodies of international law is legally obligated to respect the internationally recognized right of return of refugees. Your attempt here to somehow legitimize both Israel’s ethnic cleansing and its rejection of the right of return is not laughable, though. It’s not funny in the least bit. It’s simply morally and intellectually cowardly and shameful.

          • Raphael

            You mention customary international law. Let’s take a look at the two cases of mass flight that were the most recent and relevant precedents at the time of the First Arab-Israeli War:

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

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_india#Refugees_settled_in_Pakistan

            Notice anything similar? What was recognized in the aftermath of these events was the new political and territorial reality, not any sort of right of return. Israel doesn’t have to start recognizing anything just because some other countries subsequently started paying lip service to the idea. Israel cares about what’s actually binding, not whatever comes to be “internationally recognized.”

          • Raphael, in reply to your comment of 10/27 7:43 pm:

            Relevance?

      • Barry Lubotta

        The weight of your arguments are weak throughout, so allow me to pick just one aspect to show you why.

        You mention that article 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories. This shows that you either haven’t read the article carefully, or even worse, have not understood what it says. Article 242 calls upon Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories. NOTE that the word “the” does not appear before the word occupied. This was done intentionally by the writers of the article, in fact, it took them six months to end up with a one page document. The final version, in English, the only one that counts under International Law, leaves off the “the” because there was no expectation that all the territories would be returned and it was assumed that only when a just settlement of the issues occurred would mutually agreed upon land be returned to the Arabs. In fact and in law, Israel has already met this obligation because it returned the Sinai to Egypt, which constituted a very high percentage of the land conquered.
        Furthermore, the reason the creators of the document wrote it this way was they saw the Arabs as the belligerent parties and not the Israelis. Israel may have struck first but there can be no doubt that the war was started by Arab leaders who called for the destruction of Israel and closed the straights of Hormuz. Let’s not forget the armies surrounding Israel and the Arab cries for war.

        Anyway, this is meant to show someone like yourself who righteously thinks he knows what he is talking about that in actuality, he has not learned much to this point and needs to learn his history more accurately.

        • Barry, it’s you who clearly hasn’t read 242 carefully. You’ll observe that the preamble emphasis the principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Your interpretation irreconcilable with that emphasized principle.

          Also, as a simple point of fact, grammatically, all the absence of the definite article means is that “territories” is a plural noun. The Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai — “territories”, plural, from which Israel must withdraw.

          Also, as another simple point of fact, the French version, equally authoritative, does contain the definite article — so your argument is moot on that count as well.

          Also, as another simple point of fact, your argument is irreconcilable with the actual intent of the Security Council, which is manifested in the emphasis on the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The U.S. alone wished to condition withdraw upon a final settlement. But even the U.S. closest ally in the Council, the U.K., held that position that war cannot lead to territorial aggrandizement, and therefore Israel must withdraw (George Brown).

          You should do your research before suggesting others are ignorant, Barry. I’ll match my knowledge of Resolution 242 against yours — or anyone else’s — any day of the week.

          • M.R.

            Hammond is wrong about Resolution 242. again, most readers are too young to remember the context of this resolution. This resolution passed after a struggle between the Soviets and their patrons the Arab states, and the U.S. being supportive of Israel. There were no “Palestinians” organized as a polity then (and there hardly is one now.) Egypt, Syria and Jordan had once again gambled to knock off Israel and suffered a stunning military loss that absolutely nobody expected. Israel, a country of less than 3 million people, had defeated armies from combined populations exceeding 100 million people!

            The US was not the major patron of Israel at that time. Most military equipment fielded by the Israeli Defense Forces was British and French. It was only after this war that the U.S. became a large arms supplier. Witness the assissination of Robert F. Kennedy, the first U.S. citizen to be murdered by an Arab terrorist named Sirhan Sirhan. He claimed to have done the deed because of Kennedy’s vote as a Senator approving the U.S. sale of 50 F4 Phantom fighters to the State of Israel, the first large U.S. arms sale to that country. Sirhan acted because of the perceived injustice and victimization suffered by his family that hailed from Jerusalem.

            Sirhan and Hammond have a common cause, to rectify a perceived injustice suffered by the Arabs of Palestine. Hammond argues that this injustice includes what I might describe as an absurd concept of “national theft” of Arab land by the Jewish Zionists and their international supporters. Hammond argues against reality but fails to advance the cause for which he advocates. Sirhan’s act of terror and murder never interfered with the relationship between the US and Israel. Revisionists now advocate that Sirhan never pulled the trigger, that he was framed… i.e. another ‘dastardly’ act against an innocent Arab murderer. But no one in their right mind believes this.

            And Hammond digs deep to deny reality, and in order to read what is black on white English, furiously resorts to a French translation in an attempt to revise reality. Do you see a similarity, an ideology of denial shared by both Sirhan and Hammond?

            For some reason, no matter how the Israel – Arab issue is framed or characterized, there is no intellectual progress achieved by the Arab side that allows them to take part in the dialectic that will allow for an accommodation between the parties. The Arab brief is like an old phonograph arm, that hits a defect in the record groove and makes no progress toward completing the play.

            Raphael and B. Lubotta have the correct interpretation and the Arab’s and Hammond’s 242 gymnastics have have had no practical effect. Only Hammond and his ilk want to believe that the Israeli military is to withdraw from every inch captured in 1967 which will not happen. Hammond and his kind go through all kinds of maneuvers in an attempt to get the result they want, but simply stated, they are not persuasive and they have failed to achieve anything.

            On the other hand, and as time marches on, the Israeli presence in the captured (not occupied) West Bank territories will only grow. There are over 600000 Israelis now living in captured parts of Jerusalem and the West Bank. This number will only grow with time. Hammond can argue that this is a violation of 242, and that the settlements are illegal and that Israelis are mean to olive trees. These complaints will go nowhere. Besides, the settlers see no reason why Jews should not be permitted to live in Hevron or any where else in historical Palestine and they have substantial international support. This, my dear Hammond, is the so called “big picture”.

            Many Israeli governments have attempted to seek an accommodation with the Arabs. Treaties have been concluded with both Egypt and Jordan (in spite of the perceived grand Zionist theft.)
            To make progress, the remaining belligerant Arab leadership will have to completely drop their claims of injustice and right of return and become pragmatic and learn to compromise. The belligerant Arab leadership will have to get over their specialized ideology of collective humiliation. Simply stated, getting a specific ruling in this or that forum, or changing a specific rule or adding a protocol, or reading a resolution in French to justify a failed position, or calling Jesus a Palestinian will not allow for a changed result.

          • M.R., the facts about 242 are precisely as I have stated them, and I would observe that you didn’t actually challenge any of them other than to simply declare me as being “wrong”. Gotta do better than that.

    • M.R.

      Raphael is generally correct, and H. Weizmann states so much in his autobiography. In fact, the U.N. with U.S. backing was contemplating a take over of trusteeship of Palestine upon vacation by the British prior to the declaration of independence by the Jewish Agency. Weizmann stated that no one or country granted another independence, that independence had to be taken and seized. Upon such declaration, the relevant Jewish organizations and their leadership demonstrated their ability to function as an organized polity and succeeded, both diplomatically (through obtaining recognition) and militarily (by repelling Arab aggression) in establishing a state, where the Arabs simply did not. The Arabs as a whole, today, suffer from the same failures as witnessed by the debacles in Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Yemen. Simply stated, these are warrior peoples.

      I say generally correct since Resolution 194 refers to the repatriation of ALL refugees seeking to return in peace to their homes, including Jewish refugees who originated from Arab countries. 194 does not specifically refer to Arabs from Palestine.

      In another vein, one should consider the foolishness of the argument of Hammond who argues that a minority took from the “majority” and there should have been a democratic resolution to determine the political make up of Palestine. Hammond ignores the reality of the existence of the Jews in Palestine, a large minority, that would be absolutely victimized by the majority Arabs. What fool would consider submitting to something like that? Sane world leadership had already witnessed the victimization of a vibrant Jewish population in “enlightened” Europe and was not prepared at that time to allow the same to happen again in Palestine. As such Hammond ignores the holocaust parameter in the historical context of the Jews in Palestine. World leadership, including the U.S. and the Soviet Union, was not about to allow the slaughter of even more Jews by the Arabs. The common rejoinder of Arab sympathizers is to argue injustice for having to pay for the sins of Europe with respect to the Jews. However, historical FACT shows that the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Iraqi and other Arab and Muslim leadership were collaborators with the Nazis. As such they had a hand in the holocaust in Europe and such claims of innocence should be eschewed. Indeed, Arab sympathy with the Nazis was not helpful at all and underscored their express motives with respect to the Jews of Palestine.

      In a broader sense, however, the conflict in Palestine should not be viewed in isolation. The U.N. does have a role to play where nations consent to live by recommendations of such a forum. The recommendations form time to time prove useful, even though recently the U.N. has been proven to be relatively useless. Accordingly, a more appropriate view of what is happening in ‘Palestine’ should be put into the context of India, Pakistan, Kashmir, Bangla Desh, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.

      • M.R., inasmuch as you acknowledge that Israel was founded on the principle of “might makes right”, we are in agreement. Our disagreement there is that you seem to accept this philosophy as having legitimacy, and I do not.

        As for the democratic solution, your argument that Jews would have been “absolutely victimized by the majority Arabs” seems to be founded on the premise of an inherent anti-Jewishness of the Arab inhabitants. This is also a myth, however. The Arab population was not opposed to Jews, but to Zionism. In non-Zionist Jewish communities, Jews lived in harmony with their Arab neighbors.

        • M.R.

          Really? What about the Mufti of Jerusalem? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE MUFTI OF JERUSALEM? (Was he a mythical person?) Wasn’t this Arab leader a collaborator with Hitler? You don’t deny deny this fact, do you? How tolerant was he? Wasn’t he an anti Semite?

          And if the Arabs were so tolerant of Jews, why were the Jews kicked out of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen after the creation of the State of Israel? Do these refugees have claims against the governments that kicked them out?

          You don’t deny that half of the Jews who live in Israel are refugees or the progeny of refugees from Arab countries,do you? (And by the way, today’s ‘democrat,multicultural’ standards that you seem to advocate should classify Jewish refugees from Arab countries as being just as ‘Arab’ (by virtue of their native birth) as any Egyptian or Syrian or Iraqi who migrated to Palestine to live. Do you hold that a Jew from Egypt has the same right to settle in Palestine as a Muslim from Egypt? Should all so called Palestinians who are Muslim and whose families/ancestors hail from Syria, Iraq, Egypt have to leave Palestine since they really are not native Palestinians?)

          You have no proof that the Arab leadership in Palestine was tolerant of the Jews, this is YOUR assumption, and given the objective political facts, a politically motivated assumption. The Arab Mufti of Jerusalem who typified the Arab political leadership was an ant Semite and a war criminal and participated in conspiring with the Nazis for the extermination of the Jews in Europe. He lived in Berlin during WWII. He was friend of Hitler and Eichmann.

          Finally, your might makes right assertion is another form of anti Jewish double talk, a favorite mantra of aggressors who lose. The Jews were attacked by Arab armies, they defended themselves and defeated the Arab armies. Vanquishing an enemy attacker in self defense is not a “might makes right” event.

          You might advocate for civilians who were victims of the foolish decisions of their leaders and argue that they should not have to pay for their leaders’ mistakes, especially if they were not parties to and did not take part in or support ‘aggressive action’, but “might makes right” does not apply in a war of self defense. Try a better line.

          One final question: If a Jew is a Zionist, does this excuse his or her murder by an anti-Zionist? Certainly, I am opposed to communists and Muslim fascists. I don’t want to eat dinner with them. Does this give me a cause to murder one? Cut off his head? Shoot his baby and blow up his bus?

          • M.R.

            The facts are not as you have stated them and you have refused to acknowledge that the Arabs in Palestine were lead by the Grand Mufti Husseini/Husayni. He was a Nazi collaborator. He had no intention of living peacefully with any Jews, be they Zionist or non-Zionist. The real myth of your tale is the idea of a democratic bi-national state with the Arab Nazi collaborator Hysayni in charge of the Arab community (Arab Higher Committee.) What fool buys this rubbish? Why do you ignore this fact. The Arabs in Palestine were led by a Nazi sympathizer war criminal who lived in Germany during WWII. He should have been tried and hung. His progeny and successors espouse his philosophy and continue to rule the Arabs in Palestine to this very day.

          • The facts are precisely as I’ve stated them. We could discuss the matter of Husseini, but it is irrelevant to what I said, as nothing he said or did changes the fundamental fact that Jews from non-Zionist communities lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors. As I already noted, the indigenous Jews lived peacefully with the Arabs for a long time before Zionism.

            The British Commission of Inquiry into the riots in 1921 noted that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” On the contrary, Arabs “would welcome the arrival of well-to-do and able Jews who could help to develop the country to the advantage of all sections of the community.” The Arabs were opposed to Zionism, not to Jews.

            As the Shaw Commission report of 1929 noted, “In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.” Representatives from all sides of the conflict had testified to the fact that before the First World War “the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine.” The causes of the violence, the Commission determined, were Arab resentment towards Britain’s immigration policies and denial of self-determination. “The Arab people of Palestine,” the report noted, “are today united in their demand for representative government.”

            In 1930, Sir John Hope Simpson was commissioned to write a report on immigration and land settlement issues. He remarked on the differences between the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), founded by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, and the colonization that took place under the Zionist Organization: “All the cases which are now quoted by the Jewish authorities to establish the advantageous effect of Jewish colonization on the Arabs of the neighborhood, and which have been brought to notice forcibly and frequently during the course of this inquiry, are cases relating to colonies established by the P.I.C.A., before the Keren Heyesod [JNF] came into existence. In fact, the policy of the P.I.C.A. was one of great friendship for the Arab. Not only did they develop the Arab lands simultaneously with their own, when founding their colonies, but they employed the Arab to tend their plantations. . . . It is also very noticeable, in travelling through the P.I.C.A. villages, to see the friendliness of the relations which exist between Jew and Arab. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.”

          • M.R.
            October 28, 2010 – 9:52 am

            “HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE MUFTI OF JERUSALEM?”

            Indeed. He was never elected by the Palestinians to any representative position.

            ” Wasn’t this Arab leader a collaborator with Hitler?”

            He wasn’t an Arab leader when he met Hitler. He’d been removed from any office he held. The Grand Mufti of NOWHERE. No Palestinians served for him in the Balkans.

            The Palestinians of today were very likely not even born when he was booted out of office.

            http://wp.me/pDB7k-m1

        • M.R.

          Also, what “non-Zionist Jewish communities” where Jews lived in “harmony” with Arabs are you talking about? Specific examples, please.

          • M.R., the facts are as I’ve stated them. As a valid generalization, Jews from non-Zionist communities lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors in Palestine. Again, the Arabs were not against Jews, but against Zionism. Nothing concerning the Mufti changes those basic facts. This is not my opinion. You wanted one example. The Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA) settlements are an example. The indigenous Jewish population is another. If you want documentation of that matter, I defer to my essay, “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination”. You can get the PDF free at my website, http://www.jeremyrhammond.com. Or buy it at Lulu.com or Amazon.com in print or PDF form.

            We’re discussing Palestine, not Iraq, Syria, Egypt, or any of the other states you mention. That argument is irrelevant.

            Your charge of me being “anti Jewish” is baseless and merely a reflection of your own moral and intellectual cowardice.

            The war of ’48 was a war of self-defense, yes. But not for the Jews. The Arabs took up arms to defend their rights and their property when the Zionists unilaterally, and with no legal authority or legitimacy, claimed Arab land their own and subsequently waged a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Arab population.

        • M.R.

          The mission against Zionism is part of the old Soviet nomenclature just as the single democratic state idea is. Anti Zionism has the proven and unmistakable aroma of anti Semitism. There are probably as many anti Zionist Jews as there are Zionist Arabs, and both exist.

          However, the facts are contrary to your assertions. ALL Jews were expelled by the Arabs from the Old City in Jerusalem, all synagogues were destroyed. The Mt. Scopus campus was shut down. Jewish settlements in areas taken over by the Arab Legion were destroyed, their inhabitants either killed or expelled. No Jew of any type, Zionist, religious, reform, orthodox, European, American, in other words no Jew from anywhere was allowed to visit the old city and worship at the Western Wall until the liberation of Jerusalem in 1967. This treatment belies your assertions. Jews were hardly tolerated by the Arab leadership and this continues to this day. This is a fact that cannot be denied.

          It is this knowledge, and experience with the Arab leadership and actual behavior of the Arab leadership, and their proven anti Semitism a la the Mufti that provided for international support for a Jewish state and that support continues today among people of good will.

          I note that where the Arabs actually took over in Palestine there were absolutely no Jewish rights whatsoever. So much for the ‘democratic’ and tolerant sympathies of the Arab leadership. Note that this is the only example that the rest of the world has to go by.

          Further, Mahmoud Abbas states there will not be one Jew left in the Palestine he envisions. What’s that all about? Tolerance? The Palestinian Authority prohibits sale of land to a Jew upon penalty of death. Only more examples of what the Arab leadership would have done to the Jews in the so called democratic state. I don’t think Arabs who lead governments know how to guarantee anybody’s minority or individual rights. This type of animal simply does not exist!

          The objective facts are that the Arabs did not demonstrate and have not demonstrated any tolerance towards Jews in the areas they rule or took over. (Look at how they treat each other!) This is proof of the hostile motives of the Arab leadership that cannot be denied.

          Add these facts to the horror of the Mufti of Jerusalem and a reasonable person can be justified in viewing the idea of a single state in Palestine being fair to the Jews as a joke.

          As an Arab and an Arabist I can see how the success of the Jews in establishing their state in Palestine would be difficult to swallow. But the Arabs were not deseized of anything and have not suffered any objectively measurable change or injustice. The individual Arab land owners remain, as a rule, the land owners. There was a mandatory political authority of western orientation (the British) replaced by the same sort of system – no real loss, only a change in authority. Truly the Arabs have fared better under so called ‘occupation’ by Israel than they did under the Jordanians and Egyptians.

          Further, exactly what did the Arabs lose by the creation of Israel? Absolutely nothing! They did not lose a country because one did not exist. They did not lose the right to self government because they had non – they were under the British. Absolutely nothing was taken from them. Simply stated, they lacked political sophistication and institutions necessary to engage.

          The problem with the Arabs is their leadership and their education toward hatred toward Jews all of whom are viewed as Zionists. Perhaps one day the Arab leadership will become reasonable and the education to hatred of Jews will moderate. At that time they will view Zionism as a positive reality

          • So, basically, M.R., your entire argument relies on what you see as an inherent barbarity and anti-democratic, intolerant nature of all Arabs as human beings? This type of worldview is synonymous with racism.

            Your defense of Zionism and the continuity of Israel as a “Jewish State” that discriminates against its Palestinian citizens is apparently constructed upon the premise that – in your view – Jews and Arabs cannot possibly live together under a democratic, representative government with equal rights guaranteed for all under a constitution and within defined geographical borders. Therefore, you believe, Israel should be exempt from all international law that prohibits institutional racism, apartheid, and discrimination and demands that Israel abide by the international conventions, treaties, and declarations to which it is legally bound.

            Can you please just admit that you oppose international law, human rights guarantees, and basic tenets of equality and self-determination when it comes to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians so we can all be clear about where exactly you stand, without your silly equivocating and awful justifications getting in the way?

            Being honest about your own call for Jewish exceptionalism and superiority is the first step to admitting that you are, in fact, a textbook racist who believes that Arabs are biologically, culturally, and intellectually inferior and require colonial domination by Jews (and Westernized Christians, presumably), regardless of the inalienable Palestinian right to self-determination and common humanitarian decency.

            That would clarify things a whole lot as well – it would also be the first truthful thing you’ve said so far.

          • kgbgb

            Well said!

          • M.R.

            Nima Shirazi is a complete idiot who resorts to ridicule instead of reason. I am not a racist but I am prejudiced against those who deny the holocaust, call Jews the sons of apes and pigs, falsely accuse Jews of poisoning Arab drinking water, accuse Jews of using the blood of Arabs to make matzah, accuse Israelis of going to war so they can harvest organs of the dead, and on and on. By any objective standard Israel is a free country where Arabs and Jews live together in spite of these provocative accusations. You have a problem with a Jewish state because you hate Jews, pure and simple. Also, the ONLY place in the middle east where Arabs are treated as human beings in in Israel. I’ve been there and have seen it. I also have the pleasure of knowing Afghanis, Kurds, Iraqis (Shiite and Sunni) Syrians, Egyptians and Arab Palestinians who completely agree with me. They despise their governments. The Palestinian Arabs despise Arafat and his holocaust denying successor Abbas (who received a PhD from a Soviet institution with a thesis on holocaust denial, in case you didn’t know.) You spew out blather about racism and discrimination but you know nothing about it. Jews and Arabs live in Israel as equal citizens. The Arabs are a minority. But they are allowed to live there. Abbas has declared there will not be even 1 Jew left in the state of Palestine he envisions. Who is the racist here? I have heard nothing but support of this position from other Arabs like yourself.

            But there are some former Arabs who have straightened themselves out and are trying to wake people like you up to your tragic illusions. These are Walid Shoebatt and Mosab Yousef. These sane and normal Arab people agree with ME and not you. Do you know who they are? You should read their books Nima Shirazi. Or are you afraid of the truth?

            Look at your people, look at yourself? Where is your pride as a human being? Why do you support suicide bombing of people riding on the bus? Do you think Daniel Pearl should have lost his head simply because he was a Jew? Tell me, is this racism or what?

            It is because of dupes like you that Arab society cannot move forward. May I suggest a web site for you: aifdemocracy.org

            I am prejudiced against you if all you can say is a Jewish state is racist . This is pure ignorance. First, of all Jews are not a race. There are black Jews, white Jews, Arab Jews (yes, Arab Jews!), Chinese Jews – the truly multicultural people. So get educated and quit calling Jews a race. Remember, even you can become a Jew!

            Also, what is this nonsense about Jewish exceptionalism? Give me an example. And exactly what international conventions has Israel violated?

            Finally, Arabs do deserve the rights of all human beings, “common humanitarian decency” as you call it. One of the basic rights I would say is not to be blown up in a market place because I happen to be a Shiite Moslem Arab and some Sunni Moslem Arab dude hates me. Or because Hamas hates Fatah. Look at what you Arabs are doing to each other, and then look how much better things are for Arabs inside Israel! Personally, I sympathize with you because of the way your brain has obviously been perverted, and because of the culture of hatred and death (i.e. death to America and death to the Jews … have you heard this stuff before?) and holocaust denial and Jew demonization that you and your people have to endure. Do you really want death to the Jews? To America? The big satan and the little satan? Do you want your mother blown up when she goes shopping for cucumbers? Do you want to be executed for selling your home to a Jew? You poor thing! Quit blaming the Jews and Israelis for the Arabs’ problems! Why don’t you speak out against the sickness of hatred and violence in Arab society? This is a true embarrassment to normal people. Yes I said NORMAL. Anyone who accepts the Arab culture in Palestine or Iraq or Syria or Lebanon of murder, assassination and market place bombs and bombs in the other sect’s mosque is really sick. And those who point the finger at Israel and Jews while refusing to speak out against the sickness in their own family first only adds to the sickness.

          • M.R. begins his comment by stating, “Nima Shirazi is a complete idiot who resorts to ridicule instead of reason.” Yet Nima is not the one who feels it necessary to call anyone a “complete idiot” to make his arguments. He rather stated the facts. Which is the only response this comment of M.R.’s requires.

          • M.R.,

            Pretty much the only correct thing you’ve written is that Jewish people around the world do not constitute a “race.” Please spread the word (Netanyahu won’t be too happy!).

            Additionally, as your entire attack on me (and “my” people) is premised on your assumption – or insistence – that I myself am of Arab descent, I feel the need to let you in on a little secret: I’m not an Arab, nor am I a Muslim. But hey, all of us with crazy, foreign-sounding scary names must be Arabs, right? Wrong. Sorry to disappoint. (http://www.sadtrombone.com/)

            Now, in lieu of addressing any of your myriad irrelevant statement and accusations, I will just try and use my perverted mind to contemplate why you ended the following demand with a question mark:

            “Look at your people, look at yourself?”

            Best of luck, M.R., with whatever.

        • M.R.

          Hammond sets up a straw man argument positing by deduction that UN Sanction is necessary for the existence of the Jewish state in Palestine (Israel.) This argument is nothing but folly and tells us nothing new. Of course the Arabs were against the creation of this state, but to claim there was collective theft by one group from another is a strange idea.

          Let’s get the setting correct here: Only one unified group of people who were politically organized made a coordinated and sophisticated claim to establish a state on a specific territory. A declaration was made at a politically ripe moment, in part induced by the the POLITICAL resolution (UNGA 181) in support of partition advanced by the U.N. Upon the declaration of independence, the new government of the Jewish state sought RECOGNITION from the international community.

          Thus as President Truman declared:

          “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof.

          “The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.”

          Note the phrase “de facto authority”, meaning in this context that the authority is recognized as a matter of fact and not as a matter of law. This, in pure essence, is political reality and not a matter of jurisprudence.

          To attempt to make the matter one of law instead of politics is a form of windmill tilting. States exist by virtue of their organized polity on the ground and not by judgment and order. They are created and declared by their citizens and not by any judge weighing the virtue of national proposition.

          One can debate the meaning of a certain event, such as the adoption of UNGAR 181, and how the same may have been misconstrued, such as Hammond seeks to do in furtherance of, yes, his political views. The thesis in this article is that 181 has been misconstrued and utilized for a legal basis for legal legitimacy, not political legitimacy.

          However, there is no such thing as a legal basis in the context of the partition of Palestine, since all the members of that community did not establish a legal framework among themselves to determine how they would partition the land they shared and inhabited. These are complex issues that require a modicum of cooperation between the population as a whole to work out in situ but this did not happen.

          Take for instance the situation in Quebec, where there is a movement for an independent French state in Canada (Parti Quebecois.) There have been several votes organized by the citizens of Quebec where the creation of a new state has been proposed. The existing government has responded to this political issue and a procedure to resolve this POLITICAL issue has ended up in referendum, and has been rejected by the population as a whole. Does this mean that the French nationalist movement in Canada is illegal or racist? Perhaps in the future there will be a movement to partition Quebec into French and English sectors, but this is a political issue and not a legal one. However, the movement for French independence in Canada remains alive to some degree.

          Or take the situation of the American Civil War. No European power recognized the Confederate States of America (CSA), a political entity that declared independence, but they continued to trade with the confederacy. The USA declared secession to be illegal. The CSA claimed de jure status also. But the POLITICS of the situation prevented Great Britain from recognizing the CSA. The USA enforced its position militarily (might makes right?) in a war that lasted from 1860 – 1865. However, the issue with respect to the legitimacy of the CSA was not a legal matter but a political and military one. However, even in defeat, there are those in the US who remain loyal to the confederacy (a dead political movement) and you can still see the ‘stars and bars’ flying throughout the south, with diehards echoing the old mantra “the south will rise again.”

          Or, more recently, take the India/Pakistan/Kashmir partition which occurred at the time that Israel declared independence. There are continued border disputes between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and there have been wars between the two countries. East Pakistan was invaded by India, with the creation of Bangla Desh being the result. The question of whether the actions of India and native Bengalis were legal is irrelevant. Countries outside of the region urged the parties to settle their differences peacefully.
          The Islamic Republic of Pakistan refused for several years to recognize Bangla Desh and enlisted Chinese POLITICAL support to keep BD out of the UN. Finally, POLITICAL pressure exerted on Pakistan resulted in the recognition by Pakistan of BD, a country created by force of arms. Again a POLITICAL and not a legal issue.

          The POLITICAL decision of the US and the Soviet Union to recognize the newly created State of Israel was a substantial POLITICAL victory of the Jews and a POLITICAL defeat for the Arabs in Palestine. Indeed, many Arabs attacked the Arab Higher Command for its POLITICAL failures in addition to its military failures after defeat of the Arab armies by the nascent and fragile state. Of course, this POLITICAL success would be meaningless had the state been crushed as was hoped for by the Arabs. Some Arab countries continue to withhold their recognition of the State of Israel while others have executed peace treaties with her, again a POLITICAL act.

          Hammond’s thesis in this article is part of a continuing attempt to cast the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine as illegitimate and his latest argument is based on a false premise – that the state of Israel is illegal since UNGAR 181 was not a basis for the establishment of the state and as such, any claim for legitimacy to independence based on 181 is also illegal and misguided. But this thesis is irrelevant. The impetus to the establishment of any political entity, be it village, city, county, state or country is POLITICAL in nature ab initio, and dependent first upon its citizenry who conform to a national consciousness and matching and functional political institutions, and then upon other parties for recognition. Whining about legalities and justice is simply irrelevant.

          Finally, there are those who complain that the Jewish State of Israel is the only country in the world that must continuously defend its legitimacy. However, this is simply not the case. Defending legitimacy is a normal POLITICAL function of every viable state! Look for instance at other countries in the area, such as Iraq (is it Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish) or Lebanon (is it Shiite, Lebanese, Christian or Syrian?) Each and every country in the world constantly faces challenges to its identity and legitimacy. Granted, this takes place on various levels (i.e. to Euro or not to Euro, border and immigration issues in the U.S., identity politics in Germany, minarets in Switzerland, Wilders in the Netherlands) but debates that form the national consciousness, racial, religious or otherwise, of EVERY nation, happen everywhere, every day and on many, many levels. The POLITICS of nationhood is a continuous and ongoing struggle everywhere. We have recently witnessed the “integration” of Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the POLITICAL disintegration of the eastern bloc countries. Was the revolution and summary execution of Ceausescu in Rumania legal? Carried out by standards that would be approved by the International Court of Justice? DOES THIS MATTER? Of course not, this was pure POLITICS!

          The State of Israel is a successful and young country. The future success of the country depends on vigorous debate to shape its national consciousness and POLITICS. It is a polity that has a stable democratic process and judiciary that is respected. Its citizens are loyal and dedicated to the success of the country, and participate and respect, to a necessary and practical degree, the political and judicial processes. The justice system protects individuals, businesses and property and there is a healthy economy. The citizenry of country defends its borders against aggressors and has an effective foreign political and military policy (some whine and call it aggressive and expansive.) These are the ingredients that make up a successful and legitimate POLITICAL entity. This is strictly a matter of POLITICS and will never be a matter of law, not even for the Jewish State of Israel, my dear Hammond.

          • Barry Lubotta

            I’ve read Jeremy Hammond’s article and his following comments throughout the debate underneath. And I’ve read the posting my M.R.

            I would like to believe that any sane and credible person would more closely subscribe to M.R.’s well thought out treatise than Mr. Hammond’s dry and unimaginative words, which always seem to finish with something like “reader, you are welcome to try to substantiate your assertion I’ve made “plenty of errors” by pointing out even a single one.

            Well, I for one have pointed out factual errors as have others. That doesn’t seem to matter. Mr. Hammond is 100% correct and everyone else, while entitled to an opinion, better not count on their factual reporting being thought correct.

            Jeremy Hammond is undoubtedly a bright boy, learned and well researched. None of this means he is correct. History has been strewn with the ashes great orators and writers who could convince followers of their brilliance. And yet those who think of themselves as infallible are so often wrong.

            At the end of the day, he is professional propagandist. Self anointed and self important. His writings are fun to read but should not be taken too seriously.

          • M.R., what I argued is that the U.N. neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any kind of legal authority or legitimacy upon the Zionist leadership to unilaterally declare the establishment of the state of Israel, and, additionally, that the U.N. did not have the authority to do either anyhow.

            I don’t see that you’ve actually challenged those arguments in any way.

    • Raphael

      A) Read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. “and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ” Israel obliged itself before becoming a UN Member. BEFORE illegally claiming any territories outside of the extent of it’s declared sovereignty.

      B) http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL On May 14th 1948 Israel’s borders were defined.
      On May 22 1948 and June 15th 1949 the Israeli Government confirmed it’s borders in correspondence to the UNSC!

      May 15, 1948 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp

      May 22, 1948 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973

      June 15, 1949 http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/2+Israel-s+position+on+its+frontiers.htm

      May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
      “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” Also available as PDF from the Truman Library

      May 22, 1948 The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.

      Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
      “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.”

      June 15, 1949 Israel-s position on its frontiers VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974
      “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”

      Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III
      “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “

      C) Israel is a UN Member State, it is obliged to the UN Charter IN IT’S ENTIRETY

  • Moe

    “One can’t “invade” one’s own land.”

    By your logic, the UK can legally attack Canada or Australia because it’s “English” (or ‘white’, depending on how you look at it) land. You are suggesting that internationally-legal sovereign rights are less legitimate than ethnic nationalism? If that’s true, Europe is in a lot of trouble. Not to mention, the Middle East where states were established with arbitrary borders that divided countless ethnic groups (eg, Kurds, DRuze etc.) You’re generalizing that “Arabs” are a homogeneous people with appropriate nationalistic rights. In case you haven’t been paying attention, the many segments of the Arab world – which is really the Arabic-speaking (mostly) world – are incredibly fragmented along religious, ethnic, linguistic and cultural lines, and have been fighting amongst themselves for hundreds of years. When Jews began to return to Palestine, they were certainly in a minority, but since when do we believe that a minority group has NO rights simply because the majority says so. And they were a minority as a result of an expulsion and centuries of discrimination and massacres. To refuse an exiled group a right of return is to punish the victims twice. Indeed, this right of return is precisely what the Palestinians are reasonably demanding.

    And the Arabs themselves were very split at the time, some identifying as Turkish loyalists, others supporting Arab nationalism and still others supporting Zionism, which they felt would benefit the region. In any event, the argument is irrelevant. Arab residents of the region didn’t have sovereign rights (which are different than civil and religious rights) any more than English-speaking Americans have the right to attack Canada to prevent Vancouver from becoming too Asian ; the Ottoman Empire ruled until it was defeated by the British, which was conferred all legal rights by the international community. The Arabs might not have liked that (they didn’t) but such is the world.

    The fact is the UN recommended partition as the only viable solution after decades of fighting. The alternative was a continuation of a this civil war. and even more deaths. So the Jews said ‘yes’ and the ‘Arab’ world said no. If you want to criticize Israel for ignoring Security council resolutions you must also concede that this mess began with an Arab refusal to accept Security Council Resolution 181. There could have been a Palestinian state 62 years ago. It was not Israel that prevented that. Would it have been better if Arabs and Jews could have laid down their guns and created a single state in which all faiths and peoples were respected? Of course. Did that look like it was going to happen in 1947-48? Not a chance. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is a choice between bad and worse. That doesn’t make it any less legitimate.

    • I’ve employed no such logic as that which you attribute to me, Moe. I’ve no interest in debating strawman arguments.

      No, the partition plan was in no way viable. Such an injustice as the plan consisted of could never be a solution. The only viable solution was that proposed by the Arabs, an independent Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority were recognized and protected under a Constitution establishing a representative democratic government that would include Jewish representation. No, the mess did not begin with the Arabs’ most reasonable rejection of General Assembly Resolution 181 (not a Security Council resolution). It began with the onset of the Zionist movement to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, well before 1947, which was premised upon the rejection of the rights of the native population of Palestine.

      • Barry Lubotta

        Jeremy, you continue to speak the double talk that is not accurate (see my post above on article 242). The Zionist movement to establish a Jewish state was finally recognized in San Remo, Italy in 1920 where the Principle Allied Powers, who had the rights of disposition, gave the Jewish people the right to their homeland in the area that was largely known as Palestine. The Jewish people did not reject rights of the native population, and in fact, the Principle Allied Powers explicitly mentioned that the civil and religious rights of the native population must be observed, though there was no mention of political rights. This is important because the very next line said that the political rights of the Jewish people had to be observed in Arab countries. The result? Israel has lived up to it’s part of the bargain but the Arab countries have not.

        The incorporation of the Balfour Agreement was adopted in San Remo and by 1922 became a part of International Law by the League of Nations that is still valid to this day. If you are so entrenched as believing in International Law, then perhaps you had better bone up on this one because it’s on the books.

        • Barry, see my reply above re: 242. Your interpretation is unsustainable.

          Also, vis a vis San Remo, the Mandate, etc., you are wrong on that count, as well. The notion that Party A has some kind of legal right to take land from Party B and give it to Party C is asinine, prima facie invalid. I would observe that the International Court of Justice has pointed out that , the creation of a Mandate under the Covenant of the League of Nations “did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty.”

          As a final observation, your arguments rest on the assumption of rejection of the Arab Palestinian’s right to self-determination. That speaks for itself.

      • Barry Lubotta

        I suppose you would rather the Turks be back controlling large swathes of the mideast.

        On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

        “Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

        “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.”

        On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

        Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.

        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

        1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

        NATIONAL HOME
        FOR
        THE JEWISH PEOPLE

        JUNE 30, 1922

        HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
        (Rept. NO. 1172)

        Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
        (1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
        (2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
        (3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

        “Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:

        His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors 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 the Jews in any other country.

        “If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for themselves.

        “I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given official standing to the Moslem religion.

        “In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people.

        “Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000 people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of the wealthiest landowning races on the earth. Therefore, I contend that if they will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi], Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart’s content. After all is said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration, without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and of justice.

        “I shall probably be told that, regardless of the question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just, there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs out altogether.”

        • Barry, as I’ve already noted, the International Court of Justice has observed that the establishment of a Mandate under the League of Nations did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty. Thus, the whole premise of your argument is false.

          • M.R.

            Tell me something Hammond, if the UN did not consider UNGAR 181 as being substantively legitimate, why then did the UN as a body admit the Jewish State of Israel as a member of the UN pursuant to passage of 181? You’re not going to argue that the vote to admit Israel to the UN never took place are you? Certainly the member states of the UN understood the meaning of 181 and this was confirmed by the admission of Israel to that body.

            Indeed, the fact that at that time of the declaration, before the whole world to see, and with the clear expression of the declaration of independence making reference to UNGAR 181, the UN conferred legitimacy on Israel by admitting her and thereby accepting the declaration in itself as being LEGITIMATE, n’est pas? (That’s French for “correct” or “isn’t this so” in case you didn’t know, and to help you understand my dear Hammond.)

        • Barry Lubotta

          “Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
          (1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.”

          The arrogant jerk had obviously not bothered to read the Mandate Article 7

    • Moe

      UNGA Res was non binding. It outlined the legal conditions (binding) under which either party could declare Independent Sovereignty (binding on the entity declaring and on the surrounding states), The resolution itself could not possibly be binding. Independence by it’s very nature is UNILATERAL. No one can force an entity to be or declare Independence

      Furthermore there is no article requiring co-singing, this too would have been against the very basic notions of independence.

      Either party could declare, independently of the other. No party was obliged.

      The Arab States had a right to completely ignore it. Israel chose to define itself by it. May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
      “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#look

      Israel was recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations based on this notification, over riding any Arab States legal objections. Proven by the fact that Israel is recognized as an Independent Sovereign State & UN Member State

      Israel CONFIRMED it’s frontiers May 22nd 1948 and June 15th 1949 in statements to the UNSC, BEFORE it illegally claimed any territories outside of it’s recognized frontiers. http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL

  • Freddy

    The Israeli Declaration of Independence was not a legal pleading, but a political announcement. In any event, I agree that it erred in attributing the legitimacy of Israel to the UN General Assembly.

    The actual legality of Jewish control over Palestine comes from acts of the League of Nations, the ‘Palestine Mandate’ and the ‘San Remo Conference of 1920’. Acts of the League were absorbed into the UN by the UN charter.

    As the lands of the defunct Ottoman Empire were distributed, national rights went to Arabs in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Later, a piece of Palestine was cut off to make the Arab monarchy of Jordan. The Jews were given Palestine, by international law, provided they protected the “Civil and religious” rights of others. Despite massive Arab violence, Israel has endeavored to protect the rights of Arabs. Arab citizens of Israel have more prosperity and freedom than the Arabs in the camps in Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, or the citizens of Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

    See: http://www.netanyahu.org/inlawreglano.html
    See: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm

    Of course, all of the above means only that Israel, and the West Bank settlements, are legal under international law. But international law does not make history. History is made by economics, natural events, military confrontations, human nature, and possibly class struggle. Israel has a strong economy, great people, and an excellent military, long may it wave.

    Also, of course, history is influenced by essayists and their ideas. Here I think Israel is not really doing so well.

    • Your argument is incorrect, Freddy. As the highest court in the world, the International Court of Justice, has noted, the creation of a Mandate under the Covenant of the League of Nations “did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty.” As the ICJ has also observed, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is “occupied Palestinian territory”.

      • Freddy

        1. The ICJ doesn’t have jurisdiction, their advisory opinions are as binding as yours or mine. It is not the “Highest court” unless they are smoking something illegal.

        2. The Mandate did not create ‘cession’ as Palestine was already split off from the Ottoman Empire, yet outside the sovereignty of any state.

        3. The clear and unambiguous purpose of the Mandate system was to create sovereign states. Which it did. If Israel is not legally sovereign, then neither is Syria or Iraq.

        4. The West Bank cannot be occupied “Palestinian” territory, as there is no such nation, and there was no such nation at the time of its takeover in the 1967 war, when the West Bank was wrested from Jordan.

        • The ICJ most certainly did have jurisdiction in the case in which it judged that the creation of a Mandate under the Convenant of the League of Nations “did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty.” And it most certainly did have jurisdiction, and was duty-bound to comply with the U.N. request to issue an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the wall, in which it judged that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are “occupied Palestinian territory”.

          I’m afraid it doesn’t bode well for your argument that the ICJ is a more credible legal authority than Freddy.

  • Ephraim

    Let’s talk about self-determination.
    Iraq (up until recently at least): An illegitimate state that negated the self-determination of its majority Shiite population.
    Jordan: An illegitimate state that negates the self-determination of its majority Palestinian population.
    Syria: An illegitimate state run by an Alawite hyper-minority that negates the self-determination of its majority population.
    Lebanon: Actually run by Syrians/Iranians which negates the self-determination of its majority population.
    PLO: Founded by The Arab League, and not Palestinians. At the time, the organization was only interested in negating the self-determination of the Jewish majority in Israel. It had little ambitions for the self-determination of Palestinians in Egyptian Gaza, or those in the Jordanian West Bank. Recently, PA President Abbas requested from the Arab League instructions on whether to renew peace talks with the Israelis. Why didn’t Abbas go to his own people- why did he negate the self-determination of the Palestinians?
    Israel: Majority of the population is Jewish- the civil rights of Arabs are protected. The principle of self-determination thus legitimizes the State of Israel.
    Clearly, Hammond’s interest in self-determination is limited to his desire to delegitimize Israel. Indeed, Hammond’s interest in law is how it can be used to promote lawlessness.

    “Israel is legally obligated to recognize the right of return”

    Not quite:
    1)The Right Of Return is generally based on non-binding UNGA resolutions. 2) The Right Of Return does not include descendants of refugees.
    3) Israel had invited refugees to return, but they refused and thus, have waived their rights. The resolution does not call for the return of refugees, but rather calls on Israel to “permit” the refugees to return. The Israelis have already complied.
    4) Resolution 194 conditions the right of return to those “wishing to.. live at peace with their neighbours”. The PLO’s demand of the Right Of Return is manifestly a non-peaceful one. It’s in their documented official policy.
    Hammond’s interest in this right, is not based on compassion for Palestinians who are discriminated against by Arab gov’ts, but based on his animosity towards Israel.

    • Ephraim, the question is one of recognizing equal rights to self-determination for both Arabs and Jews. Your comments are meaningless inasmuch as they are premised upon an assumption of rejection of the right to self-determination of the Arab Palestinians.

      • Freddy

        The League of Nations did not call for equal rights for Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Arabs got their own nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Jews got sovereignty over Palestine.

        If unequal rights were really your issue, you would be up in arms at the exclusion of Jews and Christians from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

        • The League of Nations did not confer “sovereignty over Palestine” to the Jews, nor could it. As already noted, the International Court of Justice has observed that the creation of a Mandate under the Covenant of the League of Nations “did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty.”

          The rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination is the issue. As for your logic to the contrary, it’s a non sequitur: my government doesn’t support such policies of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as it does the policy of rejectionism of the Israeli government.

      • Ephraim

        Jeremy, there were two distinct comments within a single post. The first, related to the lack of self-determination within Arab countries and questions why (some) pro-Palestinian activists are not concerned about those Arabs (which include Palestinians). That comment was based on facts and not on any premise.
        The second comment was regarding to the nature on Israel’s obligation under resolutions calling for the Right Of Return. Not a single one of the four points was based on a premise of rejecting anyone’s self-determination.
        In any case, you argue that the “comments are meaningless” because they are based on a premise. It could be that the premise is wrong, but the conclusion is correct. In terms of basic logic: The law of Modus Tollens states that if a conclusion is shown false, then so is the premise false. However, proving the premise false doesn’t disprove the conclusion.

        • Ephraim, Israel was founded on the premise of the rejection of the Arab Palestinian’s right to self-determination. It continues to reject that right today, illegally occupying Palestinian land, including East Jerusalem, and building illegal settlements contrary to it’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter.

          • Ephraim

            Your language: Translation: “Bla bla bla bla. I can’t refute a single point of fact or logic you’ve presented. Bla bla bla bla bla.”

            My language: Had the Arabs accepted partition in 1947, they would have had 7/8 of the land under the Palestinian Mandate, and equal rights within Israel. Explain how keeping 7/8 and sharing 1/8 is a violation of self-determination. Self-determination does not mean exclusive plenary political control. Self-determination is not identical with full sovereignty.
            You have shown lack of concern for self-determination for Arabs elsewhere in the region. I doubt you actually believe in the concept.

          • Ephraim, the Arabs owned 85% of the land of Palestine and the Jews just 7%. Had the Arabs accepted the partition plan, it would have meant surrendering their right of self-determination and handing over most of their property to the Jews for their state. This plan was outrageous, unjust, and otherwise totally unreasonable. Characterizing it as somehow being a missed opportunity is simply asinine. No people in their right mind would accept such a plan as the Arabs were asked to do.

            It’s the Jews who rejected the only just solution proposed, which was for the world community to recognize the independence of Palestine and establish there a single democratic state in which the rights of the Jewish minority were recognized and protected under a constitution that would also guarantee them representation in the legislative assembly. It’s the Jews who missed the opportunity in this case, not the Arabs.

          • Ephraim

            “Ephraim, the Arabs owned 85% of the land of Palestine”

            Not true. Most of the land was state-owned.

            The rest of your comment is not revelant to the point I made- which it seems you have ignored: Self-determination does necessarily imply sovereignty. Recall that Arabs received 7/8 of Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs on the remaining 1/8 were given equal rights. It’s a tough sell to prove that a denial of self-determination. And you haven’t done so.
            Another point, (though it be peripheral): You claim that the Arabs proposed a democratic state. Given that the Arabs never established a democratic state for their own people, have continuously violated Palestinian rights in particular, were allied with anti-democratic movements- how can such a proposal, (assuming it did exist) be taken seriously?

          • No, much of the land was state owned, but Arabs were in possession of 85% of it. Self-determination is the exercise of sovereignty. By definition. The Arabs were denied their right to self-determination. By definition. The Zionists rejected the Arab proposal for a democratic solution. You can dismiss that fact, but you can’t change it.

    • Ephraim
      October 27, 2010 – 5:44 pm

      “Iraq (up until recently at least): An illegitimate state…”

      Iraq became an Independent State in 1932 by the same Customary International Laws under which Israel became a State in 1948.

      Why do you spout complete rubbish?

      “Jordan: An illegitimate state that negates the self-determination of its majority Palestinian population”

      Same. BTW all citizens of Jordan are Jordanian

      “Syria: An illegitimate state..”

      Same You’re spouting drivel

      “1)The Right Of Return is generally based on non-binding UNGA resolutions.”

      RoR is based on the UNHCR Statute, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Charter and Customary International Law. The same rights apply to Jewish folk if they have not forgone their right by becoming a citizen of a country other than that of return

      ” 2) The Right Of Return does not include descendants of refugees”

      Correct. The Palestinians have never claimed RoR for lineal descendants. Their claim is based on UNGA Res 194. UNGA Res is based on the UNHCR definition of refugees.

      “3) Israel had invited refugees to return”

      Twaddle Israel was denying RoR by Aug 1948, based on the spurious and, according to the Declaration for the Establishment of the State pf Israel, the mathematical impossible notion of a demographic threat . (If they were to have stayed per the Declaration there was no mention of a demographic threat. Yet if they were to have returned a few weeks later (Aug 1948), they would be a demographic threat)

      “..but they refused and thus, have waived their rights.”

      It wasn’t EVER offered. They maintain their rights by not taking citizenship in a country other than that of return.

      ” The resolution does not call for the return of refugees, but rather calls on Israel to “permit” the refugees to return.”

      Point out the word ‘permit’

      ” The Israelis have already complied.”

      They have not. Family unification is not RoR for refugees.

      “4) Resolution 194 conditions the right of return to those “wishing to.. live at peace with their neighbours”. The PLO’s demand of the Right Of Return is manifestly a non-peaceful one.”

      RoR is an indivdual right. It ihas NOTHING to do with the stance of entities. The PLO can only really argue that the right be recognized.

      Furthermore the UTTER STUPIDITY of your argument lies in the fact that were they to return and undertake to live in peace in Israel, THEY WOULD NOT BE A PART OF Palestine under the PLO or any other regime in Palestine. How &*(*^% stupid can you be?

      “Hammond’s interest in this right, is not based on compassion for Palestinians who are discriminated against by Arab gov’ts, but based on his animosity towards Israel.”

      Hammond has based his stance on the laws and conventions.

      You base your replies on completely stupid waffle.

  • Jerry

    I am horrified by this discussion. Mr. Hammond, it is your failure to justify the existence and acceptance of Israel that makes you a source of motivation to prevent compromise. It matters not one wit to a single Jewish mother or father whether your reasoning is right or wrong. It is the peaceful future for their children that matters. There is more than sufficient reason to believe that Jews need a place of safety from Arabs, Muslims, Leftists and raw anti-Semites. Israel is that place. Anything else denies Darwin’s insights, thus making your own thinking more than irrelevant. Frankly, if you insist on a zero-sum game, then I prefer for the Jews to win.

    • Jerry, for any just solution to the conflict to be found, a proper understanding of its roots and recognition of the injustices which occurred in the past is crucial. Ignorance of the truth will only result in more hatred and violence.

      • Jerry

        Roots are interesting, Mr. Hammond, but they constitute a child’s game when stacked against the future consequences of “justice.'”

        Allow me to recall to you a catch-phrase of the 1960 Civil Rights – “No Justice, No Peace.” That idea was essentially a threat of violence – as in the Middle East today. The way things turned out in the United States was the consequence of the opposite of the phrase – “No Peace, No Justice.” Racial peace in the United States has stemmed from the 1950s government decision to integrate the races. The call for Justice in your sense would surely have resulted in a different United States and may still result in chaos. I am not sanguine about the perversion of the Voting Rights Act to apply only to “minorities” in the current culture of the Department of Justice.

        The bottom line is that Israel is safest with the broadest geographical basis. Let the Arabs swallow its current boundaries for the sake of Peace. Being able to accept Israel in the Arab geographical center means that Islam can change and adjust. If Islam cannot adjust, the world, not merely Israel, is in for a hell of a time in the near- and intermediate-future. And, I reiterate, a small bit of that future rests with people like you who insist upon draconian justice for the Jews only. Your current call for Justice for the Palestinians is sophist in light of your inability to foresee or even consider the future meaning of a “just” world for the Jews. Thus, your words defy reality, which includes the future.

        • So you want peace without justice? If that’s not what you’re trying to argue, you lost me. And if that’s what you’re saying, its asininity speaks for itself.

          • M.R.

            I am struck by this demand for ‘justice’ by the Arabs and their fellow interlocutors. Especially since they had an equal if not a greater hand in creating their own ‘stew’. Certainly justice demands that Arabs take responsibility for their actions mostly motivated by blind hatred of the Jews and waging war from a presumed position of strength by numbers (i.e. Arab majority.) But when a group wages war and loses, even if they are a majority, the group loses! This is justice! The Arabs gambled since they were the majority and thought they could murder and drive out the Jews with war. This is a fact that only the Arab losers want to deny, by demanding a ‘re-do’ or ‘second chance’ in some supposed “court”. They want the land and the ‘marbles’ they lost back! Hammond wants them to get a do-over.

            The appeal for justice comes as a result of defeat after a military gambit (more than one to be sure) pure and simple, and plays the refugee card, the ‘stolen land’ card and the ‘trampled rights of the majority’ card.

            Hammond argues for justice based on a majority / minority spectrum.
            He argues under the pretense of one state with protected rights for all, the old, tattered Soviet tool position. By deduction, he argues that since there were more Arabs than Jews in Palestine, the Jews were not entitled to a state of their own (and perhaps they should have been driven into the sea and murdered by ‘majority rulers’.)

            Clearly, UNGAR 181 did not create the Jewish state of Israel or the Arab state of Palestine. To allege so is to make a straw man argument and deny the context of the resolution and reference in the Israeli declaration of independence. Naturally, only people can create a state and this is what happened with Israel. UNGAR 181 merely demonstrated that at that moment in history, the idea of a state for Jews in Palestine resonated with the UN General Assembly as being valid despite Arab protestations. The Arab leadership had a say in the debate and their say was rejected! This was a political opinion and not a legal one, but since the Arabs had a voice in the debate, and since their leadership engaged in the debate and since they engaged in the system that conducted the debate representing member states, they should be held to abide by the decision! THAT IS JUSTICE. However, failing to obtain the result they wanted in the debate at the UN, the Arab leadership rejected the decision of the UNGA, and continued to resort to violence and war and lost. Making war has consequences, and that, too, is justice. Now, what would have been different at that time if, after some ‘trial’ where the Jews and Arabs of Palestine had participated, some ‘court’ had found for the Jews and people of Israel? Would the Arabs have accepted that form of justice? I think not. (And neither would Hammond for that matter!)

            Justice was served when the issue was submitted to the UN, all parties had their say and participated, the matter was debated, and a decision was rendered!

            Being pragmatic, the Jews of Palestine seized the moment and declared their right to create a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine and this act was recognized by the international community, including the two great powers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This also, is justice.

            Today, the Arab leadership and their advocates continue to complain, demand do-overs, but they had their chance. However, they are not served well by their violent tendencies and ‘justice seeking’ apologists as history has shown. By any fair and objective standard their governance as a whole is a model for failure and misery. Arab governments are thuggish and their politicians murderous (i.e. Lebanon) promote holocaust denial and Jew hatred. The leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are nothing but shake down gangsters and haters. They find succor with holocaust denying and Jew hating leaders in Islamic countries (i.e. Iran.) This is not to say that there are no Arabs that would co-exist with Israel and Jews. There are some reasonable, freedom seeking Arabs. But apologists for the thugs, like Hammond and his ilk, don’t like them and conspire to eradicate them.

          • M.R., yes, Arabs must take responsibility for their actions and end the hatred — just as must Jews.

            The argument that I argue “for justice based on a majority/minority spectrum” is false. I argued in my essay for justice based on the principle of equal rights, nothing more, nothing less. You say I argue “the Jews were not entitled to a state of their own”. What I argue is that the Jews were not entitled to take Arab land by force and expel the native inhabitants to create a Jewish state. See, it’s you, not I, who reject the rights of others.

            As for your comments regarding 181, it only demonstrated that the idea of a Jewish state was “valid” inasmuch as there was a naive assumption the Arabs would accept the plan. They rightfully rejected it. You say the Arabs “should be held to abide by the decision!” By what decision? What is it you say “IS JUSTICE”?

            As for the resort by the Arabs to force, I would remind you that Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes the right of people to use force in self-defense. When Israel declared that Arab land now belonged to the Jews, the Arabs had a right to take up arms to defend their rights and their property. That is self-defense.

            As for your hypothetical in which some court found for the Jews, that is unrealistic, since the Jews had no legal claim to the land. Stick to reality, not worthless hypotheticals.

            You say: “Justice was served when the issue was submitted to the UN, all parties had their say and participated, the matter was debated, and a decision was rendered!” Yes, the decision was that the partition plan could not and would not be implemented! Perhaps you should try actually reading the article.

          • Jerry

            Yes, Mr. Hammond, I would require peace without justice rather than your justice without peace for the Jews. Frankly, the Palestinians already have peace, for which they have had to pay nothing. You underestimate severely the value of the peace that Israel has supplied the them. I will state here that one reason that a Palestinian state has not come into existence is because the people and their leaders prefer the status quo, both for the international support which has made them rich and for the quality of life they have attained that is unknown in the general Arab world. The propinquity of a vibrant Israeli society serves them better than any other possible arrangement. Their willingness to govern themselves in the way of other nations is in doubt, at least to those who have considered their current performance, as can be seen in Gaza where the merely radical vie with the severely radical for power and glory on a daily basis.

            By the way, your characterization of my remarks as “asininity” is simply a matter of name-calling and transmits no real information. For the sake of the conversation, it might be better to eschew such remarks, don’t you agree.

          • I have by no means proposed “justice without peace for the Jews”. I’ve no interest in debating strawman arguments. If you want to have an honest discussion, let me know.

      • Freddy

        Justice is not on earth. Justice is in heaven. Nobody got justice for the events of the 1940’s. There is no justice for the Chinese after all the Japanese did to them. The hell visited on the Soviet Union could never be balanced. Did Germany get justice for the crimes of the Nazis? The annihilation of the Jews can be redressed somewhat, but there is no justice on earth.

        The Arab view of justice requires the elimination of Israel, a cruel injustice. Justice for only one side is not justice. The call for justice is a call to eliminate compromise, it is a call for war, not for peace. The Arabs in the “Refugee” camps can have peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity, but not in Israel. They may feel that is an injustice.

        If you want to fight injustice, let the Arabs in the camps become citizens of the countries they live in, and mostly, were born in; and give them the same emigration rights as all other Arabs, who can move from state to state. The Arab states imprison the camp residents as a way of keeping pressure on the Jews, no matter how hard it is on the “Palestinians”.

        • Freddy,

          Why is it that your sense of “justice” explicitly excludes the possibility of Israel/Palestine as a state of all its citizens, not just one that confers special rights to Jews and denies equal rights to Palestinians?

          If the “elimination of Israel” as a discriminatory state that treats 20% of its population as second-class citizens is, in your words, “a cruel injustice,” then in what way, pray tell, is the maintenance of such an ethnosupremacist state that retains its power through military might, aggressive expansion, brutal occupation, and an apartheid legal system? Is that justice?

          • Freddy

            Because the Arabs, and especially the Islamists, clearly don’t believe in peaceful co-existence. Or equality. They require supremacy. The Arabs have about 20 states, and Jews and Christians are rarely equal, and sometimes excluded entirely. Yet they are outraged by the existence of one Jewish state.

            Israel maintains its existence through military might, like all other nations, when it is attacked. The rest of your accusations are just slander.

            A one-state plan would put the Jews in the same position as the Christians of Lebanon or the Copts of Egypt. Equality is not available. Except perhaps if the two populations separated, but that has difficulties of its own.

          • If I follow your logic correctly, Freddy: The Arabs have “about 20 states”; therefore it is okay for Israel to steal land from the Arabs in Palestine. Is that about right?

          • M.R.

            The UN admitted Israel as a member based upon a finding that it is a “peace-loving” nation, as follows:

            Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,

            Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

            Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

            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”,

            Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

            The General Assembly

            Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

            1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

            2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

            This entirely refutes your statements.

            Q.E.D.

          • M.R.

            The UN admitted Israel as a member based upon a finding that it is a “peace-loving” nation, as follows:
            Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,
            Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
            Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
            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”,
            Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
            The General Assembly
            Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
            1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
            2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
            This entirely refutes your statements.
            Q.E.D.

            Incorporated into the language is the express reference to UNGAR 181. The Hammond thesis is pure bunk. Further, the express finding that ISRAEL is a PEACE LOVING COUNTRY refutes all expressions to the contrary, including those irregular rulings of the ICJ.

            What we see with the Arabs and their anti Semitic and radical Islamic patrons is the perversion of the UN to a specific purpose, that is to disparage a member state. This has ultimately poisoned the UN and rendered it ineffective.

            So Hammond want another do-over looking back at the decision his people do not like. I would suggest a change to a forward looking posture in order to achieve some improved results. The UNGA acted in a just fashion based upon the determination that Israel was peace-loving. This determination has not been repealed. This shows that the UN saw no relationship or connection between population numbers and mass of land ownership and to inject that proposition 68 years later as a retrospective measure for so called “justice” seems foolish at best. This measure or standard for fairness has nothing to do with expression of personal rights to collectively organize as a political group for self determination. Remember, revolting peasants and serfs in Russia and France owned hardly any land, if any at all, and the crown and ruling class owned everything.

            One more point on 242 and war and acquisition of territory. The rule is not absolute and does not apply to acquisition of territory in a war of self defense. Also, Israel isn’t the only country to have gained territory under the present UN regime, and probably won’t be the last. Even Hammond seems to concede the validity of military acquisition of territory, since the armistice lines he considers when referencing to 242 exceed the suggested boundaries for Israel in a myriad of partition plans. Remember, these were armistice lines determined at the position of forces at cease fire in the 1948 Israel war of independence.

          • The fact that Israel was later admitted into the membership of the U.N. does nothing to refute anything I’ve said, and it certainly doesn’t contradict any rulings I cited from the ICJ.

            I do not “concede” the point you say I do. Again, the inadmissibility principle under international law is “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Period. The armistice lines were just that.

        • So, Freddy, is your “Justice is not on earth. Justice is in heaven” argument a tacit acknowledgment of the injustice perpetrated against the Arab Palestinians?

          Again, you simply have your facts wrong. The Arabs proposed a democratic solution with a constitutional government recognizing and protecting the rights of the minority Jews and guaranteeing representation in its legislative body.

          As for the right of return, it is non-negotiable. The Jews committed the crime of ethnic cleansing. The way to remedy that injustice is for the universally recognized right of return to be recognized, respected, and implemented. Those who wish not to return may be otherwise compensated. We are in agreement that the states in which the refugees reside should similarly recognize Palestinian rights and offer citizenship for those who so choose.

          • Freddy

            The “Democratic solution” you describe would be some version of “One person, one vote, one time”. Or maybe two times. And it would be as peaceful as Lebanon. That is to say, extremely violent and unstable.

            Hamas and other Islamists believe Jews must be dhimmis, and that is a sort of second or third class citizenship that is simply not acceptable, yet could be voted in democratically. Half of Israeli Jews are from the Muslim states, and know exactly what that would mean.

            The injustice against the Palestinian Arabs was done by the Arab leaders, far more than by the Israelis. Even the camps in the West Bank under PA control restrict the rights of the residents, and they cannot even vote in PA elections.

            Nobody gets justice on earth, not even Arab Palestinians.

            And if the right of return is non-negotiable, then the negotiations are going nowhere. This is yet another call for war.

          • Jerry

            As with others who hold your opinions, you seem incapable of dealing with the need for safety of the Jews. The logical fault is all yours since you expect a solution without accounting for the clear danger to the Jews of any contraction on their part. The Jews will be safe if they just disappear, correct?

          • I disagree with your opinions, Freddy.

          • Jerry, it’s not a question of opinion, it’s a question of fact. The facts are as I’ve stated them. Your argument here is a non sequitur. And the implication of anti-Semitism on my part is merely a moral and intellectual cowardice on your part.

          • M.R.

            The democratic solution is a Bolshevik ruse – it was never considered seriously given the violence and threat of violence of the Arab gangs and countries. The serious parties who considered how to wrap up the mandate knew there would be no peace. Communists always favor elections in unstable settings with bombings, assassinations and murder. As a group, the Arabs were a disorganized bunch and had no plan for Palestine except for war, plunder and murder of the Jews. This is their history of the 20th century. Note that the violent intent of the Arabs was taken into account in UNGA Resolution 181 where the Security Council was asked to consider any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisioned by the resolution. In other words, EVERYONE knew of the Arab threat of war and took it seriously. This was no war of self defense, since what dog did Syria or Iraq or Jordan or Egypt have in the fight? This so called democratic solution is pure foolishness, impractical pie in the sky.

          • I would remind you, M.R., that the first terrorist organizations in Palestine were not Arab but Zionist groups. You can dismiss it all you like, but the fact remains that the Arabs proposed the democratic solution I described above. I disagree with your opinion about the merit of that most just and reasonable solution.

          • M.R.

            Tell me my dear Hammond, where did the Jews take the land that was “stolen”? Have they hidden it or something? Isn’t it just where it always was, there on the ground? How do you steal land? I guess only the Jews can do something like that!

            No the land was not stolen. It was vacant and then settled and then developed. The Arabs that had land stayed put. There were no refugees, only welfare rent seekers who wanted to go on the dole and refuse to work, or those who attacked Jews and then ran away, but individual Arabs who owned land stayed put. And they are living in Israel to this very day with full civil rights and they are citizens of Israel.

            Also, there is no proof that any Arabs were cleaned or cleansed… how do yo do that anyway?

          • M.R., taking something and claiming as your own something which is the rightful property of another is “stealing”. By definition.

            Again, Jews owned 7% of the land, Arabs 85%. The Zionists created Israel by ethnically cleansing over 700,000 Arab Palestinians, stealing their land, and refusing to permit them to return to their homes. This is non-controversial.

      • Barry Lubotta

        Please look in the mirror and repeat your last sentence.

        Yours is a one sided view of the events and it bolsters your predetermined perspective. I and many others stand by what we have learned over the years as a truer picture than what you present. You were not there at the time Jeremy, you’ve only read books by authors that already agree with you. That alone does not constitute the truth. The fact that you can stream together a bunch of words that support your case means nothing. By and large, it is your interpretation of events that you use to support your arguments, but there is another side that has looked at the events and come to different conclusions. And ‘fraid to say it, but I feel these other legitimate are more honest than you are. They don’t hold that “I am right and the rest of you are wrong” attitude you display while still sounding smarter than you do.

        • Translation: “Bla bla bla bla. I can’t refute a single point of fact or logic you’ve presented. Bla bla bla bla bla.”

          Thanks, Barry.

          • M.R.

            Hammond is wrong about 242 and acquisition of territory. This is part of his faulty analysis about UNGAR 181. UNGAR 181 was never intended to create a state in the first place and was a recommendation only. There was no myth created.

            As set forth above, and not refuted by Hammond, the RATIFICATION of 181took place by the admission of Israel to the UN by the UNGA as a “peace-loving” country. Hammond ignores this fact.

            Hammond is wrong about UNSC 242. Accretion of lands by war is accepted in the international community. Even in the case of Israel, the state was admitted to the UN, in spite of Hammond’s contentions about accretion of lands by war, AFTER expanding territory by war in 1948 beyond the recommended partition boundaries written into UNGAR 181. Accordingly, the UN ENDORSED acquisition of land by war, all to the contrary of Hammond’s assertions. If the UN was opposed to acquisition of territory by war the state of Israel would not have been admitted to the UN, since the admission took place AFTER Israeli conquest of lands designated in 181 for the Arab state!

            This isn’t the only instance that conquest by war of territory was recognized by other sovereign states. Hammond is wrong on this point.

            Indeed, Israel

          • The facts about UNSC res 242 and UNGA res 181 are precisely as I’ve stated them. The acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible under international law. Period. The fact that Israel was admitted membership in the U.N. doesn’t change anything I’ve stated. The U.N.’s recognition of the reality of the existence of the state of Israel was not an endorsement of the land theft and ethnic cleansing that occurred in order to create it.

  • Wow! It seems the Zionist shills are coming out of the woodwork on this one. Apparently these threatening facts really ruffle their feathers, eh, Jeremy?

    All of these hysterical commenters scrambling to regurgitate the tired arguments of Zionist apologia are embarrassing (though, at least some of them openly admit to the ongoing Israeli contempt for international law and human rights, the explicit disregard for and disinterest in Palestinian self-determination, and the creepy ethnosupremacism explicit in statements like “I prefer for the Jews to win”).

    The garbage spewed forth (and probably stolen from hacks like Howard Grief) regarding the legality of both the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate are devoid of validity, for reasons that even go beyond the offensive notion that white colonial superpowers have the legal aegis to carve up the Middle East to their liking and disregard basic elements of self-determination of indigenous people.

    By stating that a few European colonial powers were “in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” neither the San Remo Resolution nor the Palestine Mandate supported the creation of a “Jewish State” encompassing all of historic Palestine. “National rights” and a “national home” are two different things.

    Nor did these documents guarantee (let alone authorize or encourage) political dominance or governmental control of Jewish inhabitants (or immigrants) over the native Palestinian population.

    Not only that, but those concepts were (and have since been) absolutely rejected by the British government – whose Mandate it was – in the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations in 1930 and by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947.

    The constant need for these hasbarists to insist that an inherently discriminatory and militarized expansionist ethnocracy (which a “Jewish State” of Israel incontrovertibly is) is a legally legitimate entity – sanctioned no less by international law! – is ridiculous and demonstrably bereft of any shred of evidence. Quite the contrary.

    • Well said, Nima.

      • Dov Bear

        Prove again that the Palestinian population was “native” to the land. What percentage of the Palestinian population immigrated in? 40%, 60%, or 80%. Are they truly and indigenous people? Do you have facts to back up your assertions?

        • Define “native”. After all, native Americans once also immigrated to North America. I’m not interested in semantics debates. The point is that the Arabs had long been living there, and 85% of the land of Palestine was in their possession. Immigration accounted for negligible population growth on the part of the Arabs. As noted in the article, population growth was almost entirely due to natural increase.

          • Levi

            Define the word “possession” please?

        • Dov Bear

          The majority of Arabs were native to the region. Never the less it is completely irrelevant. Under the mandate anyone who immigrated to Palestine was required to become a citizen of Palestine.

          BTW ‘Real estate’ is not territory. Territory belongs to the citizens of an entity, whether they own ‘real estate’ or not, whether they rent a dwelling or premises or be a landless bum living under a bridge

          individuals who owned ‘real estate’ in Palestine but were not citizens of the entity of Palestine, had no territorial rights in Palestine. Institutions such as the Jewish Colonial Trust, can not be citizens, even if they do own real estate.

          BTW How many Jewish immigrants were native. I’m sure you thought you had a point…seems not.

  • Ephraim

    “As for the resort by the Arabs to force, I would remind you that Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes the right of people to use force in self-defense. When Israel declared that Arab land now belonged to the Jews, the Arabs had a right to take up arms to defend their rights and their property. That is self-defense.”

    1) It wasn’t self-defense. It was an attempt at annihilation. That was the stated goal of the Arab League.
    2) How were the Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudis and the rest acting in self-defense?

    Look at the text of Article 51:
    “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”
    a) Self-defense is declared legitimate when under armed attack. The Article doesn’t condone genocidal acts in response to a declaration of independence.
    b) I don’t recall that Palestine existed as a U.N. Member in 1948.
    c) I would like to see a more thorough analysis of Article 51. It appears that your understanding would allow it to be invoked under any international dispute. The declaration of independence of Israel was legitimate under the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, the League of Nations Mandate and the U.N. Partition vote. Whether the UN vote and the rest were illegal under international law is another question. But it’s a legal question. How can Article 51 be invoked for a dispute based on a legal controversy? Did the Arab armies make such legal arguments when they began their genocidal campaign?

    • 1) It was self-defense, for the reasons I already explained.
      2) They were acting to defend the rights and property of their Arab brethren in Palestine.

      a) The closest thing to a genocidal attack that occurred was committed not by the Arabs, but by the Zionists, who ethnically cleansed 700,000 Arabs from their homes, stealing their property for the creation of the “Jewish state”. The Arab actions were self-defense against this aggression.

      b) Moot point. The U.N. does not grant states the right to self-defense. It recognizes their inherent, inalienable right to self-defense.

      c) Neither the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution, nor the League of Nations Mandate conferred any kind of legal legitimacy upon the Zionist leadership to unilaterally declare that Arab property was no part of a “Jewish state”. The idea that Party A has a legal right to take land from Party B without consent and give it to Party C is nonsense. No such right exists, or existed, as the International Court of Justice has observed in noting that the establishment of a Mandate under the League of Nations did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty. Sovereignty resided in the people, whose right to self-determination was rejected by the Zionists. You simply cannot legitimize this injustice.

    • Ephraim

      “:1) It wasn’t self-defense. It was an attempt at annihilation. That was the stated goal of the Arab League.”

      Here is part of the OFFICIAL STATED goal of the Arab States http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki#democracy-equal-rights can you point out where your assertion is stated? thx (the whole is linked to the Jewish Virtual Library BTW)

      Perhaps this bit “in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed. ”

      Democracy!! Equal rights!! How dare they!

      “2) How were the Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudis and the rest acting in self-defense?”

      The Arab States were defending what remained of Palestine from Jewish forces, according to the UN Charter Chapt XI and arguably Article 51. It was their ward and they were and still are, Regional Powers

      The two official parties were the Zionist Federation and the Arab States. The Arab States officially represented Palestine. The Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, were UN Member States. Iraqi forces were deployed under Jordanian control, quite a legitimate coalition under the UN Charter. The Arab forces were all from UN Member States

      Israel was not a UN Member state until 1949. It was never the less obliged to uphold the principles of the UN Charter, as described in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. “it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. ”

      Under the UN Charter, the moment the Israeli declaration came into effect, the Arab States, as Regional Powers, had a right to attempt to expel foreign forces from the territory of their ward, what remained of Palestine once Israel Declared itself independent of Palestine.

      Jewish forces, under the preemptive, pre-State, pre-declaration Plan Dalet, were already outside of the extent of Israeli Sovereignty even as it was being declared.

      The moment the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.came into effect, “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL what was a civil war, became a war waged by the State of Israel on Palestine, in Palestinian territory. NOT IN Israel.

      “The declaration of independence of Israel was legitimate under the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, the League of Nations Mandate ”

      A) None mentioned a separate Jewish State. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#jews-can-live-anywhere

      B) The Balfour Declaration was not law, it was a declaration by a politician ONE country.

      C) Re the Mandate,/San Remo…. Have you ever read the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, FIRST LINE? Check it out http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#ignorance …. You have a feature spot

      “. How can Article 51 be invoked for a dispute based on a legal controversy?”

      Article 51 depends on the legality of entities actions.

      “Did the Arab armies make such legal arguments when they began their genocidal campaign?”

      A) there was no ‘genocidal campaign’ There is no official Arab States declaration advocating genocide.

      B) Read the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine it is in it’s entirety the legal argument for Invading Palestine, not Israel.

      Israel was independent of Palestine by it’s own Declaration as of “..one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” according to the notification the Israeli Provisional Government issued of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

      AFIK The Arab states declaration was the last legitimate declaration of war ever lodged with the UNSC. The UNSC issued no condemnation as is customary when a UN Member state attacks another state (See UNSC Resolution 660 on the invasion of Kuwait for an example. )

      You’re repeating Hasbara bullsh*te. Easily dis-proven by carefully reading the UNSC resolutions. None say Peace in Israel. They say “peace in Palestine”. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html

      Israel has never been a part of Palestine. Israel didn’t exist until May 15th 1948, when it’s Declaration became effective. Independent states are not a part of any other entity.

      Furthermore Israel was not a democratic state until it held it’s first election. No law passed in Israel before 25 January 1949 was passed by a democratically elected Government. No Israeli Government has been elected per the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. Israel has not yet fulfilled the requirements of statehood it agreed to undertake, elections per a constitution. It has none.

      Israel is illegitimate according to the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. // “WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”. ” // Israeli election on 25 January 1949

  • Paul C. Roberts

    Jeremy Hammond is a careful scholar who is correct in everything he says about the Zionist theft of Palestine. Truth always outrages the criminals that it exposes, and we see that in the Zionist screams of pain at the sight of the truth that Hammond has presented.

  • Paul C. Roberts

    Hammond, a careful scholar is correct in his every point. Any time criminals are
    exposed, they scream accusations, and that is what we have seen from the Zionist responses to Hammond’s correct scholarship

  • Dov Bear

    I have asked you to respond to my comments. Please respond to what I wrote:

    Here is an error. You say: ” while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase.”

    Prove it! Prove that growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. You know that you cannot prove it, but you offer it up as a given. I know for a fact that the most common last name in Gaza is Masri, which means Egyptian. I know that the British officially ignored Arab immigration from Syria and Egypt because they had no political reason to keep track of it. The borders were very porous during the time of the Ottomans and the British Mandate. The Arabs came for obvious reasons: good paying jobs that came along with the Jewish immigration to the region. You cannot disprove this, and you know it.

    Secondly Jews outnumbered Arabs in Jerusalem since 1840. This is a known statistical fact.

    Here are just two “mistakes” in your article out of a whole bunch of others. Yet, I am sure these are not simple mistakes. Israel is the only country in human history that has to defend its existence after sixty years of independence.

    • Dov, you are welcome to check my sources. The facts are as I stated them.

      • By the way, Dov Bear, the common propaganda bullet-point that “Jews outnumbered Arabs in Jerusalem since 1840…is a known statistical fact,” is false. Did you get that line from the “Freeman Center for Strategic Studies” or the aptly-named “Israel Hasbara Committee”?

        You should grab a calculator and do some simple math. The charts those “organizations” present alongside their own claims don’t even match up – quite embarrassing, really.

        Let’s take a quick look:

        According to the Mendon Association’s 1824 census estimate, published in “The Christian Magazine,” Jewish residents of Jerusalem numbered about 6,000, whereas Arabs (Muslims and Christians combined) numbered about 14,000.

        Twenty years later in 1844 (note, this is after 1840), Jews numbered approximately 7,120 and Arabs numbered 8,390. These demographics are taken from Manashe Harrel’s 1974 article “The Jewish Presence in Jerusalem through the Ages,” which are cited repeatedly on Zionist websites.

        According to a 1980 population study by Yigal Shiloh, it was found that in 1850 (ten years after 1840) the city of Jerusalem contained a total of 2,393 people, 1,763 of whom were Arab (1,025 Muslims and 738 Christians) and 630 of whom were Jewish. In the countryside surrounding Jerusalem of 116 towns and villages (and part of the greater Jerusalem district) lived 7,320 Arabs, 6,118 of whom were Muslim and 1,202 were Christian. No Jewish residents were reported.

        Twenty-five years later (and almost three decades after 1840), according to a 1870 travel guide, the populations of Jews and Arabs were about even at around 9,000 each.

        Seven years after that, in 1876 (36 years after 1840), according to Harrel, the Jewish population was about 12,000 in contrast to an Arab population of just over 13,000.

        The Ottoman census of 1878 found that the total population of the Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre districts was 472,455. Only 5.3% of the residents were Jewish (15,000 native-born Jews and about 10,000 foreign-born Jewish immigrants), as opposed to 94.7% of the residents who were Muslim and Christian Arabs (403,795 Muslims and 43,659 Christians).

        Harrel then reports that in 1896, after years of massive Jewish immigration from Europe, 28,112 Jews lived in Jerusalem, along with 17,308 Arabs (8,560 Muslims and 8,748 Christians). This marked the first time – backed up by available records and reliable estimates – that Jews actually outnumbered Arabs in Jerusalem.

        As for your hysterical assertion that there was massive Arab immigration shortly before Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence and the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Palestinians from their native homeland, you should read the scholarship of American historian Justin McCarthy and Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath (by the way, he’s a right-wing supporter of Likud).

        All in all, you’re suggestion is bogus and unsupported by facts that even your fellow apologists acknowledge and use.

        Still, your point is meaningless. The demographics of Jerusalem do not reflect the broader population statistics of Palestine as a whole, nor does any statistic by anyone at anytime ever excuse ethnic cleansing or the denial of self-determination. I merely thought your lies needed exposing, but your core argument is built on an absolutely racist and exceptionalist foundation that seems to suggest that one group of people has the right to subjugate another group of people.

        Neither Jeremy nor myself has ever suggested that Palestinians should control Jews in Palestine because of their status on the land or because of any sort of superiority/inferiority inherent in their cultural or ethnic group. A democratic, representative government – that respect international law, human rights, and the self-determination of the entire resident population – is the moral, legal, and necessary answer.

        Any suggestion to the contrary – especially one that suggests that Jews have/had a “right” to displace, dispossession, and disenfranchise Arabs or vice versa – is offensive, immoral, illegal, and racist.

        • Ari M. Eden

          Even by your figures, which can be disputed, sounds like a largely barren area. I have a feeling that you don’t have the same outrage when it comes to 800,000 Jews who were displaced from Arab lands. Call it a hunch.

          • They aren’t Nima’s figures. He named the sources.

            I assure you that your “hunch” that Nima Shirazi is a bigoted hypocrite is a gravely mistaken one.

            Please stick to the facts and spare us your ignorant “hunches” intended to slander others’ character in lieu of substantively addressing their arguments. This is a violation of the terms of use of the comments, and a repeat offense will result in your privilege being revoked.

          • Hypocrite

            Yes, but your argument falls apart when we mention why they were expelled. And when the cause is more important, your sticking to the reaction is somehow related to my name (hypocrite)

          • Ari M. Eden

            I don’t understand what you’re saying

          • Ari M. Eden

            They were treated by crap there long before the rebirth of Israel if that’s what you’re getting at. Research the history of Jews in Arab lands, which, ironically, were set up in the exact same way that Israel was, much worse actually.

          • Chris. K Cook

            I’m sure that’s just ‘Hasbara lies’. ;)

          • Ari M. Eden

            Yes, Chris, that is usually a retort when they can’t discuss facts, lol. ;)

          • MuslimJew

            Here’s a “fact”: Zionism rots the brain.

            Discuss.

          • MuslimJew

            No, “Hasbara lies” is a tautology.

          • Olivia DavidaBernstein

            Dear Ari, With respect I cannot agree. The eviction of the indigenous Palestinians cannot be compared. UN Resolution 194 does not refer to the “800,000” Jewish people or acknowledges “displacement”. Moreover there are over 150 UN Resolutions and none of them accept Israel’s control over the Palestinian Territories or over East Jerusalem. The International Criminal Court condemned Israel’s monstrous 421 mile and the EU as well as the UN agreed with the International Criminal Court. The EU have imposed Settlement Guidelines warning EU citizens of trading with colonies. UN Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478 reject Israel’s “eternal capital” claim to Jerusalem. Palestine is a STATE and was recognised (again) in 2012 by a massive 138 countries. Palestine has bilateral relations with over 130 countries.

          • Ari M. Eden

            Frankly, the UN is blatantly anti-Semitic and hates Israel. Muslim majority countries pass resolution after resolution condemning the sole Jewish state for comparatively minor infractions, while ignoring the abuses of true dictatorships and large areas of land that have fallen to monsters, such as ISIS. Anyway, there are some good articles and papers out there that give a strong legal basis for Israel’s right to Jerusalem. Jews even made up a majority of the city in the 1800s, well before Israel’s rebirth and there is a strong Jewish population now in even East Jerusalem. There is really no practical way to divide the city. Israel may be willing to give up other parts of the West Bank and Gaza, but I don’t think they should ever give up on a unified Jerusalem. At the very least, East Jerusalem can be a shared capital. The IDF protects the city and keeps things peaceful, for the most part, and that was never the case when it was under Muslim control. Appreciate your point of view, however.

          • One could reply, “Ari M. Eden is blatantly anti-Semitic and hates Palestinians”, but where would that get us? As Ari actually attempted to support his opinion with an assertion of fact, let’s look at it:

            there are some good articles and papers out there that give a strong legal basis for Israel’s right to Jerusalem

            No, there aren’t.

            It is completely uncontroversial that East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory under international law.

          • Ari M. Eden

            The law was written by the blatantly anti-Semitic UN and that’s a fact too. Look up the legal papers. They convince me, but you are entitled to your own opinion. How can they be occupied Palestinian territory when there never was an independent Palestinian Muslim state? The territories formerly belonged to Jordan and Egypt respectively. Nobody forced them to attack Israel again, as they did on day 1 for that matter, and lose. That’s their problem. I also don’t see Jordan and Egypt wanting the land back. It’s disputed territory, not a foregone conclusion as belonging to the Palestinians as deluded liberals and terrorist sympathizers would have you believe. Jerusalem has also been the capital of one state and one state only in it’s entire history and the whole city had a Jewish majority as recently as the 1800s. For a final point, guess what. Even a majority of Arabs in East Jerusalem want to stay part of Israel according to a recent poll. You think they really want to be part of a country that will be taken over by ISIS, Hamas, or other radicals. That might work in national pride theory, but it will not be viable economically, etc. You and the liberals trying to force a unilateral solution vs. Israel don’t know better than the majority of Jerusalem residents Nice try. Get another cause to support.

          • MuslimJew

            “Look up the legal papers.”

            Come back when you’ve learned to read.

          • ammanianamerican

            Jews are supposed to be smart and well-informed. How come you are so stupid? Read Shlomo Sand’s THE INVENTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE and get your facts straight.

          • Ari M. Eden

            I’m aware of Sand’s work and it’s lousy, false, and purely lazy research. If that’s your basis for facts, you are clearly a moron. Take a hike.

          • ammanianamerican

            I am not a “moron” and you should not insult handicapped people. I hold a Ph.D. from Oxford University. The prophets railed about people like you – you are a disgrace to Judaism.

          • Ari has been banned for violating the terms of use of the comments section.

          • Syd Baumel

            Wow. Ammaniamerican (on your side of the argument) race baits Ari by saying: “Jews are supposed to be smart and well-informed. How come you are so stupid?” Ari (on the other side) replies that ammaniamerican’s choice of Middle East authority suggests she “is clearly a moron,” and poof: Ari is banned; ammaniamerican, not so much. I am not suggesting you ban ammaniamerican, too, but as someone embroiled in disagreement with you elsewhere on this site, I feel like my survival here is very tenuous indeed.

          • I only saw Ari’s comment at the time, which did violate the TOU. Seeing Ammaniamerican’s earlier comment now, she has also been banned for likewise violating the TOU.

          • MegaFalloutFan

            Ari, whats the point of this discussion and arguing?
            There is no need for Bible or other fairy tales to prove that Israel is Jewish land when every historical city and village has Hebrew names, Judea cant be arab, its
            Judea and been so for thousand of years, so is Hevron and Jerusalem and Beyt-Lehem the so called Jesus birth place that right now is under “palestinian” autonomy control is Hebrew and so is hundreds of others.

            The Invaders can rename Yerushalaim to Al-kuds, it wont change the fact that its Yerushalaim and been named so for thousands of years.

            We dont need to prove that Israel was Jewish, Romans did it for us, the records of 3 Roman-Jewish wars are not some mythical bible stories, but recorded History.

            The 2000 years old Arch of Titus in Rome has depictions of Menorah and Trumpets looted from the Jewish Temple.

            There is no such ting as palestinians, Roman emperor Hadrian renamed Judea to palestina to punish the Jews after the failed Bar Kohba Revolt.
            The funny part is that these Arab people telling everyone that they are named using a Latin word that they cant even pronounced in Arabic, they will be the first ever nation that is calling Themselves using a foreign unpronounceable word, Filistin is not palestina, the original Latin name.

            Israel exists and its a fact, Israel has the strongest army in the ME its also a fact, so far Israel won every war with combined Arab forces and based on some sources Israel has Nukes.

            So whats there to discuss?

            Countries with Nukes dont just dissapear, no one is suicidal enough to fight a loosing war for some muslims that most people around the world dont really like and sees them as terrorists.
            Its not gong to change, its gong to be worse: the flood of so called “refuges” into EU is not going to end and the more “refuges” move in the more people will dislike arabs, we can see it by the Rise of the right-wing parties in EU that since WW1 was center leaning left or left also the horrible Paris terrorist attack is just a little taste of things to come, Europeans finally getting to feel what Israelis felt for the last 60 years.

            From economical standpoint, well thank the force Israel is leader in many industries and there are very rich Jews all around the world, so we are covered, the “bds” is just a joke, its just free advertising for Israel and shows the level of hypocrisy in the muslim and euro ultra left coalition, none of them so far boycotted any Israeli invented or Israeli made medicine or medical technology.

            So when i see these delusional “pro-palestinians” i just crack a smile.

            P.S. You know what the biggest joke is? Is when ultra leftist, pro-LGBT people support the most violent anti gay religion: Islam, 50 Muslims countries and all have zero LGBT rights, in most its still illegal to be gay.

            I mean even in UK Muslim communitiews they get a horrible treatment, basically if youre muslim and gay and you live with your community, IF by chance they get to know about you, your only option is to run.
            People getting beaten and harassed on daily basis and thats just for suspecting that you gay or live some sort of immodest life and that in 2015 EU.

          • MuslimJew

            Frankly, you are blatantly anti-semitic and care only about Israel.

          • Mike Thompson

            You should know Ari, that The Israeli Government implemented “Operation Flying Carpet” in 1948.

            Flying to RAF airports throughout the M.E. Israeli aircraft transported between 200,000 and 250,000 Jewish Arabs from Arab countries into Israel (Israeli Government figures).

            The inducement was free furnished homes (belonging to some 750,000 Palestinians who had been forced to flee), and a cash payment, to those Jewish Arabs who accepted Israels offer.

            No luggage or pet`s were allowed to be placed on Israeli flights, hence the cash payments, however the RAF objected to “rubbish” being left on their airfields so in practice all luggage was carried.

            There is no evidence of Jewish Arabs being “displaced from Arab lands” by Arab countries. Several examples of Synagogue bombings exist, as does Israeli documents confirming Baghdad Synagogue bombings were carried out by Israeli agents.

            I have read comments by Zionist supporters, of Arab Jewish forced expulsions from Arab countries, ranging from 500,000 to 2 million, these figures have no validity whatsoever, nor would it have been possible for so many Jewish Arabs to pass through so many Arab borders, or indeed to enter Israeli borders, they would have been shot had they attempted to approach Israeli borders as “refugees”!

            As was Col. Mickey Marcus, the American soldier sent to Organise Israeli military forces, he was shot dead in 1948 by an Israeli soldier, who assumed Col Marcuse was an Arab infiltrator, as he returned to Israeli border positions.

            Risky, Ari, to quote figures and situations that did not occur, simply to reinforce your opinion, the internet will always correct such attempts.

        • Sturgeon

          Hello Jeremy. Dov is absolutely correct. It is a known fact that the British did not pay much attention to Arab immigration. Having said that, we do not know how many Arabs illegally immigrated to Palestine and therefore we do not know if the increase in the Arab population was mainly due to natural increase.

          • Ahem:

            “On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly
            declaring its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned
            into separate Jewish and Arab states. It noted that the population of
            Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with
            1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of
            the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while
            growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural
            increase.”

            You can check the source.

        • “””Twenty years later in 1844 (note, this is after 1840), Jews numbered approximately 7,120 and Arabs numbered 8,390. These demographics are taken from Manashe Harrel’s 1974 article “The Jewish Presence in Jerusalem through the Ages,” which are cited repeatedly on Zionist websites.””

          Actually Those numbers are from the First OTTOMAN Census. 1844.

          More

          CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)

          “…5. Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

          Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
          Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population…””

          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

          Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

          ……. Jews Muslims Christians Total
          1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
          1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ….. … . The First Official Ottoman Census
          1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 …. …..Second “”””””””””
          1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ……. Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
          1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
          1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
          1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

          http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm
          Link expired but the Ottoman Census figures, which form it’s backbone, and I noted were from the Ottoman counts, are not in dispute.
          The later numbers widely available.

        • fuster

          no, that IS a fact. Jews in Palestine were restricted to Jerusalem for centuries under Ottoman rule and they were indeed a majority of the city’s population while the areas just outside the city were all forbidden to them.

      • Ken Kelso

        Jeremy your a liar and a Pallywood propagandist.

        This article rebukes all your lies.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/597264/posts
        The Myth Of The Palestinian People
        Yehezkel Bin-Nun
        26 December 2001

        • Please quote me where I wrote a single lie. Thanks.

        • Murlin Evans

          Great job Jeremy. Thank you for your thoughtful research which brings clarity to a situation muddied by propaganda on both sides.

          • You’re welcome! Stay tuned for my forthcoming book, Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Subscribe to my free newsletter at http://www.jeremyrhammond.com to keep updated.

          • Murlin Evans

            Please stick with this issue to the bitter end! Israel is only going to launch more frequent and aggressive attacks in the future behind “the war on terror” which in this case is actually a war on the Palestinian people. Thnx!

          • I certainly will!

          • Murlin Evans

            Quick question: I’m running into a question of Jordan being the Palestinian State drawn from the Palestinian Mandate: Edward B. Hausman · Follow · Top Commenter
            Like Jordan! Three-quarters of the British Mandate for Palestine was established as an Arab state. The rest was left as a Jewish State, then the UN insisted Israel share some of that, too. Treacherous UN … Jews won the wars of extermination the Arabs started anyway. Should have transferred the Arabs back across the Jordan and held that line.
            Reply · Like · 1 · 4 hours ago

            Now I looked at the resolution, but haven’t studied the mandate, I suspect this is just the latest rewriting of history by Israeli trolls, but did you come across anything like this in your research?

          • a question of Jordan being the Palestinian State drawn from the Palestinian Mandate

            Yes, this is common Zionist hasbara. Also complete nonsense warranting no further comment than to point out it is complete nonsense.

          • Murlin Evans

            I found this piece but it’s sourcebook is not completely digitized. http://www.danielpipes.org/298/is-jordan-palestine

          • Murlin Evans
          • I hadn’t, no, thanks.

          • Murlin Evans

            Another fallacious “academic”? using SSRN to plug his agenda. Says Mallison ignored that all of Palestine west of the Jordan River was recognized by some 53 states in 1922 as being owned by the Jews…

            I’m not sure what “source” he’s referring to, maybe you’ve seen his work on the database. More than one person has directed me to it. No mention of Hussein Letter. What is the appropriate gauge of academic “rigor” to publish on SSRN verses say in Foreign Policy Journal. Lot of muddied waters and my academic credentials in this field are weak. Anyway….do you know what he is talking about?

            Anyway, this non-published scholar is akin to God-head in certain circles. Heard of him:

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2385304

          • One need only read his title declaring that Arab Palestinians have no right to self-determination in Palestine to recognize his arguments’ absurdity and to deduce that the guy is a racist.

          • Murlin Evans

            Are you keeping up with this, Jeremy. I’m trying but I don’t speak french. First English speaker is about 40 minutes in. Tomorrow Day 2 will be live streamed, I am supposing from this same site. http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/extraordinary-session-brussels

          • No, unfortunately. No time.

          • Murlin Evans

            Has Alan M. Derchowitz told you your book is wrong yet? When he does you can use the quote on the jacket. My copy just arrived and very excited to read it. Two things:

            1. Is a democratic Palestine even possible after the unequivocal rejection of Hamas’ by the western powers. For legitimacy he/she/it must have USA-approval. That also inherently causes a credibility problem. How’s about that Pelel(?) guy? The son of a celebrated IDFer? I think his daughter speaks on the Russell Tribunal.

            2. Gas? I am curious to see if the coastal gas fields are brought up. Is there truth to those claims. I have a report that seems to indicate but I can’t speak to its authenticity.
            Would the Pallies accept de-militarization with a covenant and swearing to peace, like Japan, and flooding with Israeli and US cash to preserve its healthy fishing industry/income and create new industry around the gas industry, would be a worthwhile compromise for sovereignty? Israel must swear also by convenient to be her sworn protector militarily. Palestinians will never disarm with they? Ending the occupation and blockade and clearing the checkpoints. All troops removed in 3 years. Keep established (more than 2 years? settlements. Return last 1000 acres. Provide continuity between West Bank Palestinians and Gaza Strip. Access to holy sites restored. Israel provides the infrastructure pipe and sell the gas and PLO/(hopefully not)Hamas take 75% Israel gets the rest. All crimes of violence and otherwise handled by the system where crime committed, though laws must be fair. Hey, how could anyone say no to that?lol

          • Nope, haven’t heard from the Dersh about it. Yes, I think a democratic Palestine is possible. I’ll discuss this in the conclusion to my forthcoming book. Incidentally, I just posted this talk by Miko Peled (the general’s son) at my blog:

            http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2014/09/24/miko-peled-ruins-myths-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

          • aaron1313

            If you really believe a democratic “Palestine” is possible,then you will believe anything.

          • You haven’t read my book.

          • AntAloy

            Dear Contributor

            You made no mention of international law and
            specifically the ruling of the International Court of Justice or UN Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478 concerning the illegal occupation of the
            Palestinian Territories. There are over 150 UN Resolutions plus the ruling of the International Court of Justice in the Hague with respect to the 421 mile
            illegal “wall” which the EU and UN both condemned.

            Likud reject the right of Palestine to exist and
            reject the international status of Jerusalem (as per UN Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478).

            What about the charters of Nafatali Bennett’s Home
            Party? This gentleman is part of the coalition that supports Mr Netanyahu.

            Members of the Knesset advocated sustained massacres
            against the Palestine people – inflammatory comments by Ayelet Shaked are brought to mind. We should not forget – Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, who had published a plan for the total
            destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

            Baruck Goldstein who had sprayed Palestinian people with his automatic Galil rifle in the Palestinian city of Hebron. Goldstein is revered by settlers.

            http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/settlers-remember-gunman-goldstein-hebron-riots-continue-1.263834

            http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.620734

            West Bank mosque torched in suspected settler attack. Eyewitnesses said Israeli settlers arrived at the Nablus-area mosque after midnight and carried out attack.

            Also see: http://www.btselem.org/topic/settler_violence

            Israeli Supreme Court upholds law allowing housing discrimination against Palestinians:

            http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/allowing-discrimination-palestinians#sthash.VyHJMcK9.dpuf

            Palestine is occupied and has Israel has not
            complied with the International Court of Justice or over 150 UN Resolutions. Palestine was recognised again in 2012 by a massive 138 countries.

            The new Palestinian Government is made up of
            technocrats and has been acknowledged by the EU and US.

            Incidentally the EU have implement Settlement Guidelines warning EU citizens of trading with illegal colonial settlements built on stolen indigenous Palestinian Christian and Muslim lands.

            Thank you.

          • Chris. K Cook

            ‘Zionist Hasbara’

            Congratulations you just torpedoed what little credibility you had with that conspiracy theory bullshit.

          • Montelatici

            The territory subsequently named Trans-Jordania was, in fact, part of the short lived Emirate of Damascus ruled by the Hashemite Feisal. The French invaded Syria and conquered Damascus. Feisel fled to Amman. The British negotiated with the French to allow the Hashemites to retain the area (Trasn-Jordania) under their rule. The British named Trans-Jordania. The territory was added as part of the territory mandated to the UK. It was never a part of the territory of Palestine, just a separate territory added to the Mandate, a legal instrument, not land. This is made clear in the first report of the Mandatory in the separate section of the report dedicated to Trans-Jordania.

            “X.–TRANS-JORDANIA.
            Included in the area of the Palestine Mandate is the territory of Trans-Jordania. It is bounded on the north by the frontier of Syria, placed under the mandate of France; on the south by the kingdom of the Hejaz; and on the west by the line of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; while on the east it stretches into the desert and ends–the boundary is not yet defined–where Mesopotamia begins. Trans-Jordania has a population of probably 350,000 people. It contains a few small towns and large areas of fertile land, producing excellent wheat and barley. The people are partly settled townsmen and agriculturists, partly wandering Bedouin; the latter, however, cultivate areas, more or less fixed, during certain seasons of the year.

            When Palestine west of the Jordan was occupied by the British Army and placed under a British military administration, over Trans-Jordania and a large part of Syria there was established an Arab administration, with its capital at Damascus. The ruler was His Highness the Emir Feisal, the third son of H.M. King Hussein, the King of the Hejaz. When Damascus was occupied by French troops in July, 1920, and the Emir Feisal withdrew, it was necessary to adopt fresh measures in Trans-Jordania. I proceeded to the central town of Salt on August 20th, and, at an assembly of notables and sheikhs of the district, announced that His Majesty’s Government favoured the establishment of a system of local self- government, assisted by a small number of British officers as advisers.”

            https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/349b02280a930813052565e90048ed1c?OpenDocument

          • Chris. K Cook

            Will I find it in the fiction section?

        • guest

          This is pathetic ! You are quoting a side that is well known to be control by the Zionist , therefore cannot be reliable source for the topic.

        • Olivia DavidaBernstein

          Dear Contributor,

          Resolution 476 (1980)

          Adopted by the Security Council at its 2242nd meeting

          on 30 June 1980

          The Security Council,

          Having considered
          the letter of 28 May 1980 from the representative of Pakistan, the
          current Chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as
          contained in document S/13966 of 28 May 1980,

          Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

          Bearing in mind
          the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for
          protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious
          dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

          Reaffirming its resolutions relevant to the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, in particular resolutions 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980,

          Recalling the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

          Deploring
          the persistence of Israel, in changing the physical character,
          demographic composition, institutional structure and the status of the
          Holy City of Jerusalem,

          Gravely concerned
          over the legislative steps initiated in the Israeli Knesset with the
          aim of changing the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem,

          1. Reaffirms
          the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab
          territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

          2. Strongly deplores
          the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with
          the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General
          Assembly;

          3. Reconfirms
          that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by
          Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and
          status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and
          constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative
          to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also
          constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and
          lasting peace in the Middle East;

          4. Reiterates
          that all such measures which have altered the geographic, demographic
          and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are
          null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant
          resolutions of the Security Council;

          5. Urgently calls
          on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security
          Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the
          policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy city
          of Jerusalem;

          6. Reaffirms
          its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel with this
          resolution, to examine practical ways and means in accordance with
          relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations to secure the
          full implementation of this resolution.

          • Olivia DavidaBernstein

            Resolution 478 (1980)

            of 20 August 1980

            The Security Council,

            Recalling its resolution 476 (1980),

            Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

            Deeply concerned
            over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a
            change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with
            its implications for peace and security,

            Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),

            Reaffirming
            its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance
            with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to
            secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the
            event of non-compliance by Israel,

            1. Censures
            in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on
            Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council
            resolutions;

            2. Affirms
            that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation
            of international law and does not affect the continued application of
            the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
            Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab
            territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

            3. Determines
            that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by
            Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the
            character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular
            the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be
            rescinded forthwith;

            4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

            5. Decides
            not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that,
            as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of
            Jerusalem and calls upon:

            (a) All Member States to accept this decision;

            (b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

            6. Requests
            the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the
            implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;

    • Murlin Evans

      And your sources proving this claim, Dov Bear?

    • Here is an error. You say: ” while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase.” Prove it!

      No, that is not an error.

      I stated the source of the quote that the growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase in the article. I don’t see any reason for skepticism of this, unless one is prone to take hoaxes like Joan Peters’ “From Time Immemorial” seriously.

      It’s instructive that you place the burden for me to prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility, and declare my above statement false while yourself offering nothing in the way of proof to support your implied argument that the increase in the Arab population was mostly due to anything else but natural increase.

      Secondly Jews outnumbered Arabs in Jerusalem since 1840. This is a known statistical fact. Here are just two “mistakes” in your article out of a whole bunch of others.

      You are welcome to quote me where I made any factual errors in this regard.

      The “mistakes” you attribute to me are figments of your own imagination.

      • jackmur2012

        Well argued and said correctly……

    • AntAloy

      Dear Contributor,

      Thank you for your point of view.

      There are no UN Resolutions (of which there are over 150) or the ruling of the International Court of Justice concerning the illegal 421 mile which talk about Arab people coming to Palestine for good paying jobs. It is not part of international law and not recognised. East Jerusalem is occupied under international law and under international law Israel’s claim to the whole of the city is NULL and VOID.

      Instead please see below.

      Thank you.

      Best wishes

      The UN view of the Palestinian Territories can be seen at the following URL: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/OCHA_IsrSettlementPolicies.pdf.

      The West Bank and East Jerusalem is occupied
      Palestine (recognised by 138 nations in the world including India, China,
      Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, France, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Denmark, Norway, Belgium Greece, Japan, Serbia, New Zealand, Thailand and Iceland) in 2012. Palestine is still illegally held and sadly Israel has ignored the ruling of the International Court of Justice (subsequently supported by the UN and EU) with respect to the “separation barrier”. This “wall” is over 3 times the length of the Berlin Wall (in fact the “wall” is 421 miles long).

      UNESCO’s recognition of Palestine in 2011 was supported by France, Spain, Ireland, Belgium. Norway, Greece and other European nations.

      International law and UN Resolutions (over which there are over 150) are ignored by Israel.

      *** UN Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 – BINDING

      The Security
      Council, recalling its resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming again that the
      acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible; deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a
      change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its
      implications for peace and security; noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980); reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel ; Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB

      *** Resolution 694 (1991) – BINDING

      Adopted by the Security Council at its 2989th meeting on

      24 May 1991

      The Security Council,
      Reaffirming its resolution 681 (1990),
      Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,

      1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;

      2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return
      of all those deported;

      3. Decides to keep the situation under review.

      *** Resolution 672 (1990) – BINDING

      Adopted by the Security Council at its 2948th meeting on

      12 October 1990

      The Security Council,
      Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) and 478 (1980),

      Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people, Taking into consideration the
      statement of the Secretary-General relative to the purpose of the mission he is sending to the region and conveyed to the Council by the President on 12 October 1990,

      1. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at the Al Haram al Shareef and other Holy Places of Jerusalem resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and to the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers;

      2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;

      3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

      4. Requests, in connection with the decision of the Secretary-General to send a mission to the region, which the Council welcomes, that he submit a report to it before the end of October 1990 containing his findings and conclusions and that he use as appropriate all the
      resources of the United Nations in the region in carrying out the mission.

      24th April 2012 – UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

      “I strongly condemn the Israeli government’s decision yesterday to turn three illegal outposts in the West Bank into settlements. I urged the Israeli government in my statement on 5 April to remove – not legalise – outposts across the West Bank. “

      Furthermore, I would like to refer you to specific serious concerns raised by the International Court of Justice (2004) – with relevance to the ‘security barrier’ – which was viewed with alarm by the international community. Incidentally the reference to the illegality of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was also reinforced when the International Court of Justice also found the following (indeed the EU supported the UN vote pertaining to the ‘security barrier’):

      That the separation barrier is intended to assist the settlements, the
      establishment of which violates Article 49 of the Convention. Also, the court pointed out that the restrictions placed on the local population located between the barrier and the Green Line are liable to lead to abandonment of the land, which also constitutes a violation of Article 49. In addition, the opinion stated that taking control of private land to build the barrier injured private property owners, and thus violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

      The illegality of the barrier under international human rights law. In this
      context, the court stated unequivocally, and contrary to the position held by Israel, that international human rights law applies in its entirety in occupied territory, along with humanitarian law. The court ruled that the separation barrier violates rights set forth in conventions to which Israel is party. The court mentioned the rights to freedom of movement and the right against invasion of privacy of home and family, which are enshrined in Articles 12 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the right to work, to an adequate standard of living, health, and education, which are enshrined in Articles 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

    • ilea vazan

      ” Israel is the only country in human history that has to defend its existence after sixty years of independence.” Can you just try to grasp your nonsense and stupidity ? ” the only country in human history that has to defend its existence” ???!! – which country in the past say 2000 years (a part from Thailand and Japan to some extend) did need to defend it’s existence …Defending her ” independence” ???!! from WHAT ??!! from WHOM ??!! Was there such a “country” before 1948…moron ?

      Now ask yourself WHY ” they” have to defend its existence ! I’m 100% sure it’s because of the “mistakes” in article and much longer- which goes back to 8th Century in Khazaria !

      • Chris. K Cook

        The Khazarian Conspiracy was debunked over 100 years ago. Only racist scumbags believe it now.

        “which country in the past say 2000 years … did need to defend it’s existence”

        Poland? Greece, Serbia, Croatian, Romania, ect had to defend them selves from the Ottomans.

        “Was there such a “country” before 1948″

        there was no ‘Palestine’ either. All nations had a start and many of them had ends too. Your racism does not trump historical fact,

      • aaron1313

        The Khazars weren’t Jews and they weren’t the ancestors of the present day Ashkenazi Jews.Stop lying.

    • Blake

      UN is the proof It was documented or cant you read?

      Just by the by in 1863 there were est to be only 9000 jews in Palestine and they were all foreigners (according to a Chambers Universal encycopedia I have from the 1860’s)

    • Montelatici

      UN Resolution A/364 of 3 September 1947:

      (b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

      15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

      16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.

      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument

  • Dov Bear

    I forgot to ask. Why was the definition of “refugee” changed for the benefit of the Palestinians to someone who had resided in the Land for at least two years before 1948? Surely if they were as indigenous as you claim, they would not need such a redefinition. The previous definition of who is a refugee includes only those people who were forced to leave permanent or habitual homes. Yet the Palestinians just needed to reside in the Holy Land for only two years to be considered refugees. Why is that oh fairminded and self-proclaimed promoter of facts?

    • What definition are you referring to?

      The argument that the Arabs were not indigenous warrants no response. If you’d like to have a serious discussion, let me know. But it’s a moot point. The fact remains that Arabs were in possession of 85% of the land of Palestine. Whether they’d lived on that land for two generations or two-hundred, it was their land, and the Jews had no right to take it from them. You simply cannot justify the act of ethnic cleansing and land theft by which the state of Israel came into existence. That’s the bottom line.

    • Dov Bear

      “I forgot to ask. Why was the definition of “refugee” changed for the benefit of the Palestinians to someone who had resided in the Land for at least two years before 1948?”

      It is the standard definition of a refugee under the UNHCR statute. Although th Palestine refugees receive assistance form UNRWA, they are never the less still refugees

      “Surely if they were as indigenous as you claim, they would not need such a redefinition. The previous definition of who is a refugee includes only those people who were forced to leave permanent or habitual homes.”

      No it isn’t.. Read the UNHCR Statute.

      ” Yet the Palestinians just needed to reside in the Holy Land for only two years to be considered refugees.”

      So what? The same definition applies to Jewish folk who have not taken citizenship in a country other than that of return thereby forgoing refugee status.

      ” Why is that oh fairminded and self-proclaimed promoter of facts?”

      Perhaps because your notions are complete bullsh*te !

      The UNRWA definition is only to determine who qualifies for assistance whilst they are refugee. UNRWA’s mandate does not extend to final status, RoR. http://wp.me/pDB7k-jS

  • AK

    JRH wrote:
    As for the ’48 war, the Arabs didn’t invade. One can’t “invade” one’s own land. It was the Zionists who invaded the Arabs’ land, and who ethnically cleansed Palestine.
    …The Jews committed the crime of ethnic cleansing…
    In 1948 five countries attacked Israel. Was that the land of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Iraq? What right they have to fight against Israel? Arab solidarity? So, any country (A) has the right to invade into another country (B) just because the people of the same nationality live there, and somebody in A supposes that in B this people would be oppressed?
    Let suppose that JH does know nothing about how Jews have settled in Palestine before 1948; that they did not drive Arabs out from their homes and did not grab their fields but bought the land, and not the best one was sold to them. Jews dried swamps and irrigated deserts. Jewish farms and factories gave jobs to Arabs also.
    Also, let suppose that JH does not know that in the Israel Declaration of Independence the equal rights of all citizens of all nationalities were proclaimed. And this is the low and the custom of Israel from her birthday until now. He does not know that during the 11948-49 war majority of Arabs left they homes because of Arab states propaganda, promised them the fast return not in their homes but in Jewish ones as well. He does not know that about 700,000 Jews, lived in Arab countries, had escaped in Israel in those years, leaving their properties.
    Almost 20 years so called Palestine was occupied by Egypt and Jordan, and i PLO, which was recognized as one only legal representative of Palestinian Arabs, did not claim for an independent Arab state. All that they proclaimed was: to throw Jews down in the Sea.

    JRH wrote:
    The Arabs proposed a democratic solution with a constitutional government recognizing and protecting the rights of the minority Jews and guaranteeing representation in its legislative body.

    Where JRH took this from? Mayby from Saudi Arabia rules, forbiding Jews even to intersect the state border?

    JRH wrote:
    The war of ’48 was a war of self-defense, yes. But not for the Jews…

    Sure, Jews have no right to defend themself, because they are strangers everywhere. Thay should go by colons in gas cameras.

    By the way, maybe JRH knows the correct interpretation of the term “Anti-Zionist”? I suppose he does.

    • AK, most of your claims are baseless propaganda, trotted out time and again, and debunked time and again. As such, your bogus allegations should be addressed one by one.

      1) “In 1948 five countries attacked Israel…”

      Snore. Zionist militias had already been engaged in massacring and ethnically cleansing Palestinian villages (learn about Plan Dalet) before a single Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, or Lebanese soldier invaded Palestine in mid-May 1948. The Arab armies entered the conflict – only after Israel had unilaterally declared independence and abrogated the inalienable Palestinian right to self-determination – primarily to stem the number of Palestinian refugees who had been violently driven from their homes by Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, and other groups and were flooding into the neighboring countries.

      2) “[Jews] did not drive Arabs out from their homes and did not grab their fields but bought the land, and not the best one was sold to them…”

      Everything you write above is the opposite of true. Without going into depth here, you should read the scholarship of Israeli historians Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe, as well as the documentation of Palestinian historian Nur Masalha.

      3) “In the Israel Declaration of Independence the equal rights of all citizens of all nationalities were proclaimed. And this is the [law] and the custom of Israel from her birthday until now…”

      The first half is correct, the second is dead wrong. As I have written previously, whereas the Israeli Proclamation of Independence (unilaterally declared on May 14, 1948, in defiance of the international community and the “universal right” of Palestinian self-determination) declared that the new state would “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex” and “guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture,” the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, in a series of decisions, that “the proclamation does not have constitutional validity, and that it is not a supreme law which may be used to invalidate laws and regulations that contradict it.” Furthermore, the Israeli “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty,” enacted in 1992 and which carries with it the ostensible force of a bill of rights (as Israel has no Constitution), tellingly makes absolutely no mention of “equality,” and affirms “State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state,” a concept which explicitly grants legal and collective superiority upon Jewish nationals to the implicit detriment of other Israeli citizens.

      If you actually knew anything about the two-tiered legal system and its institutionalized apartheid, you would be aware of how incorrect your statement actually is.

      4) “During the 1948-49 war [the] majority of Arabs left the[ir] homes because of Arab states[‘] propaganda, promised them the fast return not in their homes but in Jewish ones as well…”

      This is one of the most pervasive and ridiculous Zionist myths that refuses to die. The truth is that, as professor John Mearsheimer has pointed out, “most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay at home, but fear of violent death at the hands of the Zionist forces led most of them to flee. This is not to deny that some Arab commanders did instruct Palestinian civilians to evacuate their homes during the fighting, either to make sure that they did not get caught in a firefight or to ensure that they were not killed by the Zionist forces engaged in ethnically cleansing Palestinians.”

      5) “700,000 Jews, lived in Arab countries, [and] had escaped [to] Israel in those years, leaving their properties…”

      The “exodus” of Jewish populations from Middle Eastern countries occurred in response to the creation of a “Jewish State” of Israel. Massive financial incentives were offered (and still are) for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other more sinister methods were also employed. In the case of Iraq, for example, former CIA officer Wilbur Eveland has written, “In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues [in Iraq]. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel.”

      That said, it should absolutely be noted that Jews should never have been expelled from Arab countries and forced to abandon their property as a result of the war crimes of Israel. This, too, is a form of ethnic cleansing and should be condemned. Jews who either left or fled their native countries have the inalienable right to return or be compensated for their losses, just as Palestinians do. But the reactions of Arab governments do not in any way excuse or justify the previous ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland by Zionists.

      6) “All that [the PLO] proclaimed was: to throw Jews down in the Sea…”

      As professor William James Martin has repeatedly pointed out, the actual origin of that oft-parroted phrase (which serves as the “gotcha” Zionist proof that Arabs have explicit antisemitic and genocidal tendencies regarding Jews, just Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s endlessly repeated “wipe Israel off the map” deliberate mistranslation is supposed to provide evidence of Iranian intentions) comes from a 1961 Knesset speech by none other than Zionist fan favorite David Ben-Gurion! In the speech, he declared:

      “The Arabs’ exit from Palestine…began immediately after the UN resolution, from the areas earmarked for the Jewish state. And we have explicit documents testifying that they left Palestine following instructions by the Arab leaders, with the Mufti at their head, under the assumption that the invasion of the Arab armies at the expiration of the Mandate will destroy the Jewish state and push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive.”

      In this one short paragraph, Ben-Gurion unleashed three notable falsehoods (two of which – Palestinian ethnic cleansing and Arab calls for flight – have already been addressed above). The phrase “push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive” was first used in this speech and is therefore of Jewish, not Arab, origin. Attempts to associate it with Yasser Arafat are similarly bogus considering that he didn’t ascend to the head of the PLO until 1968, seven years after Ben-Gurion came up with this phrase.

      7) “The Arabs proposed a democratic solution with a constitutional government recognizing and protecting the rights of the minority Jews and guaranteeing representation in its legislative body…Where JRH took this from?”

      Mr. Hammond “took this from” the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSOP) report to the General Assembly from September 3, 1947 (Volume 1, Supplement No. 11), which stated:

      “The representatives of the Arab States at Beirut put forward much the same constitutional proposals for the future government of Palestine as those advanced by the Arab States’ delegations to the Palestine Conference at London in September 1946. In summary, those recommendations were:

      “(a) That Palestine should be a unitary State, with a democratic constitution and an elected legislative assembly,

      “(b) That the constitution should provide, inter alia, guarantees for (i) the sanctity of the Holy Places and, subject to suitable safeguards, freedom of religious practice in accordance with the status quo; (ii) full civil rights for all Palestine citizens, the naturalization requirement being ten years’ continuous residence in the country; (iii) protection of religious and cultural rights of the Jewish community, such safe-guards to be altered only with the consent of the majority of the Jewish members in the legislative assembly…”

      It’s true that the Arab suggestion also included “the strict prohibition of Jewish immigration and the continuation of the existing restrictions on land transfer,” but this is quite understandable considering the actual intentions (and subsequent historical facts) of the Zionist movement. As the beloved Ben-Gurion noted, “Were I an Arab, I would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly, and desperately against the immigration that will one day turn Palestine and all its Arab residents over to Jewish rule.”

      Clearly, he knew what he was talking about.

      It may also surprise you that not all Jewish organizations in Palestine (or the US, for that mater) supported the creation of Israel as a “Jewish State” or even of Partition, as the UN recommended. The UNSOP report states:

      “In Palestine, the Ihud (Union) Association and the Hashomer Hatzair Workers’ Party are in favour of a “binational” State in which the two communities [Jewish and Arab] would have equal status and political parity. The Communist Party proposes a democratic Arab-Jewish State which might be binational or federative. In the United States, opposition to Zionism is voiced by the American Council for Judaism, which opposes proposals to establish a Jewish State. In its view, such proposals are a threat to the peace and security of Palestine and its surrounding area, are harmful to the Jews in Palestine and throughout the world, and are also undemocratic.”

      8) “Saudi Arabia rules, forbidding Jews even to intersect the state border…”

      Even in your attempt to be snide and/or clever, you’ve gotten this one wrong. True, foreigners wishing to acquire a visa to visit Saudi Arabia must fill out a form which identifies their religion. But the choices are only “Muslim” or “Non-Muslim.” Non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews, are often given visas, but cannot visit holy sites (obviously, this is ridiculous and offensive). However, Saudi Arabia will not allow an Israeli passport holder or one who has a passport that has an Israeli arrival/departure stamp in it to enter the country. This is not about the Jewish religion, but about not recognizing the State of Israel as a legitimate national entity. This has everything to do with Zionism, rather than Judaism.

      Incidentally, back in 2008, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that “Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has sent an invitation to the World Jewish Congress for an interfaith dialogue with Muslim and Christian leaders” to be held in Saudi Arabia. I don’t believe the meeting ever took place, though Abdullah did hold similar meetings in Madrid, Geneva, and New York.

      9) “Sure, Jews have no right to defend themsel[ves]…”

      Mr. Hammond never wrote that. He only stated the fact that the so-called Israeli War of Independence was born out of an aggressive Zionist assault on the native Palestinian population.

      As I myself have pointed out elsewhere:

      Despite the mythology perpetuated about Israel’s miraculous birth, Zionist fighters were not struggling against devastating odds for the survival of their nascent state. Not only had the Palestinian fighting forces been “decimated by the British in the 1936-1939 revolt,” during which over 10% of the Palestinian population had been killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled, but the violent British repression also affected the Palestinians’ ability to resist further assaults in the future as Rashid Khalidi explains, a “high proportion of the Arab casualties included the most experienced military cadres and enterprising fighters.”

      Scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have also pointed out that, “Israel is often portrayed as weak and besieged, a Jewish David surrounded by a hostile Arab Goliath. This image has been carefully nurtured by Israeli leaders and sympathetic writers, but the opposite image is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better‐equipped, and better‐led forces” than their Arab opponents. In fact, “the Zionist/Israeli fighting forces outnumbered the Palestinians between December 1947 and May 1948, and they outnumbered the Arab armies from May 1948 to January 1949, when the fighting stopped.” As Israeli historian Benny Morris put it, “it was superior Jewish firepower, manpower, organization, and command and control that determined the outcome of battle.”

      10) “Maybe JRH knows the correct interpretation of the term “Anti-Zionist”? I suppose he does.”

      Suggesting that “anti-Zionism” is the same as “anti-Semitism,” as I can only assume is your intent, is a disingenuous, cowardly, and intellectually feeble argument to make. Does opposing the war crimes, torture, invasions, occupations, and lawless imprisonment of the United States make one “anti-American”? Were South Africans who opposed and fought against Apartheid actually just “anti-white people”? Does being offended by rampant child molestation make one “anti-Catholic”? Does opposing the religious and political ideology of the Taliban or of Wahhabist Saudi Arabia make one inherently “anti-Muslim”? No, of course not.

      Anti-Zionists advocate for the rights of an oppressed people and against a state founded on the principles of ethnic cleansing and ethnic supremacy. A “Jewish” state can not also be a “democratic” state, as the non-Jewish inhabitants are automatically considered to been an un-priviledged part of the population and are therefore not legal equals within the state itself. This is what anti-Zionists attempt to rectify through their myriad and wide-ranging efforts.

      AK, you clearly fail to understand even the most basic aspects of what anti-Zionists fight against – believing the legitimacy of a Jewish state to be an untouchable given (it’s not), while ignoring history (again, read Israeli historians Ilan Pappe, Tanya Reinhart, Tom Segev, Shlomo Sand, Avi Shlaim, and Benny Morris), the rights of all people as enshrined in modern (not colonial or Biblical) law, and the deliberately abrogated lives and liberties of an indigenous people, who have been violently expelled, viciously exterminated, politically marginalized, economically strangled, and personally demonized and dehumanized for over a century.

      I sincerely hope you do some homework before commenting next time.

      Cheers!

      • By far the best thing in my above post is that the number 8 and half-parenthesis automatically turned into a smiley face emoticon with shades on.

        Awesome!

      • Nima Shirazi

        “I sincerely hope you do some homework before commenting next time.”

        Odds are against…. It would not serve the required purpose.

        Fortunately other folk might be inclined to think twice and/or check before blindly repeating ignorant twaddle promoted on behalf of justifying Israel’s illegal actions.

        Bravo.

      • Ken Kelso

        Stop with your Pallywood lies.
        Here is the truth.

        Research reported by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, stated “the majority of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, but that 68% left without seeing an Israeli soldier.”

        “The Arab exodus from the villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews”
        – Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

        The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
        – Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

        “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem.”
        – Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

        “Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them to leave… We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave… We have rendered them dispossessed… We have accustomed them to begging… We have participated in lowering their moral and social level… Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon… men, women and children – all this in service of political purposes…”
        – Khaled al Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war

        “The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the ‘Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.”
        – Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948

        “The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did.”
        amal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, speaking to the United Nations Security Council. Quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23,1948,p.14

        “As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the [Arab Palestinian] people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property.” – bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957

        “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”
        – Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

        “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city…By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”.
        – Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, p. 25

        “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,
        – Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

        “The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”
        – from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954

        “The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war.”
        – General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

        “[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel.”
        – Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

        “Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] …A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. …[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns… [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.””
        – Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz

        “the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision”
        – The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

        “The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.”
        – Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31

        “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
        – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah (“The Secret Behind the Disaster”) by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

        “The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade… He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.”
        – Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha’s successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951

        “Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations…. It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.”
        – Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

        “…our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents … Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families.”
        The Haifa Workers’ Council bulletin, 28 April 1948

        “…the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country.”
        The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48

        “The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States’ opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs.”
        …The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families.”
        – Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948

        “One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC’s threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.”

        “The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa.”
        – London Times, May 5, 1948

        “Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
        “We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.”
        – David Ben-Gurion, in Israel’s Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948, moments before the 6 surrounding Arab armies, trained and armed by the British, invaded the day-old Jewish micro-state, with the stated goal of extermination.

        “The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable”.
        – by Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the article titled: “What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”, published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

        “The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle.”
        – Ash Shalab (Jaffa newspaper), January 30, 1948

        “The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa.”
        – London Times, May 5, 1948

        “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
        – The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

        Jim Chance

        AUGUST 20, 2013 @ 12:09 PM

        8 Votes

        Just as Benny Morris mentions

        According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

        “About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg.”

        According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

        “Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field – they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village – she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

        • The denial that ethic cleansing occurred in Palestine cannot be taken seriously. The claim that the Arabs left willingly of their own accord is old Zionist propaganda that scholars have thoroughly debunked.

          Take one of Ken Kelso’s own sources, Israeli historian Benny Morris. Here he is commenting in an interview with the Israeli daily Haaretz on January 8, 2004:

          Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here…. There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre.
          Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an
          omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands…. There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing…. That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into
          being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population….

          Doh!

          Ken’s list may look impressive at first to anyone ignorant of the ethnic cleansing Benny Morris felt was justified. But it is just a lot of smoke and mirrors. Take just his first example:

          Research reported by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, stated “the majority of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled, but that 68% left without seeing an Israeli soldier.”

          This is a fabrication. Ken claims this is a direct quote from the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS). It’s not. The only words in this sentence that are actually taken from the IPS source are “the majority” and “68%”. The key part of it, “the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled”, is a fabrication falsely attributed to the IPS source. Here is the context from the actual source from which “the majority” and “68%” were taken:

          They observed the occupying forces arrie, and then decided to leave their homes. The old and new refugees differ in this respect. The majority of the old refugees (68%) left without seeing the Israelis. By contrast, 42% of the new refugees did so.

          (Peter Dodd and Halim Isber Barakat. River without bridges: a study of the exodus of the 1967, Palestinian Arab refugees. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1968.)

          The authors here are simply noting that those who fled earlier on during the conflict never actually saw Israeli soldiers. They fled out of fear of massacres like that at Deir Yassin. By contrast, he notes, 42% of later refugees fled without seeing Israelis. That is, most who fled later did do so having seen Israeli forces.

          To go through and examine each of Ken’s quotes in like manner would be superfluous.

          750,000 Arabs were forcibly expelled or fled from their villages out of fear of the Zionist forces and were never allowed to return again because they were not Jews.

          That is ethnic cleansing.

          • Ken Kelso

            Great rebuke to Pallywood liar Jeremy Hammond.

            The Lie of Palestine
            Palestine is a Geographical Area, Not a Nationality
            January 6, 2008

            The Arabs invented a special national entity in the 1960s (rather than a geographic delineation) called the Palestinians, specifically for political gain. They brand Israelis as invaders and claim the geographic area called Palestine belongs exclusively to the Arabs.

            The word Palestine is not even Arabic. It is a word coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome.

            In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine. During the next 2,000 years, Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule.

            Palestine was and is solely a geographic name. Therefore, it is not surprising that in modern times the name ‘Palestine’ or ‘Palestinian’ was applied as an adjective to all inhabitants of the geographical area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River – Palestine Jews and Palestine Arabs alike. In fact, until the 1960s, most Arabs in Palestine preferred to identify themselves merely as part of the great Arab nation or citizens of “southern Syria.”

            The term ‘Palestinian’ as a noun was usurped and co-opted by the Arabs in the 1960s as a tactic initiated by Yasser Arafat to brand Jews as intruders on someone else’s turf. He presents Arab residents of Israel and the Territories as indigenous inhabitants since time immemorial. This fabrication of peoplehood allowed Palestinian Arabs to gain parity with the Jewish people as a nation deserving of an independent state.

            In a March 1977 interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO executive committee, admitted:

            “Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”

            Historically, Before the Arabs Fabricated the Palestinian People as an Exclusively Arab Phenomenon, No Such Group Existed

            Countless official British Mandate-vintage documents speak of ‘the Jews’ and ‘the Arabs’ of Palestine – not ‘Jews and Palestinians.’

            Ironically, before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (the name ‘Israel’ was chosen for the newly-established Jewish state), the term ‘Palestine’ applied almost exclusively to Jews and the institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before independence. Some examples include:

            · The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called the Palestine Post until 1948.

            · Bank Leumi L’Israel was called the “Anglo-Palestine Bank, a Jewish Company.”

            · The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

            · The house organ of American Zionism in the 1930s was called New Palestine.

            · Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra, composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.”

            · The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fundraising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.

            If you watch the blockbuster 1960 hit movie “Exodus,” based on the novel by Leon Uris, you will see how recent this appellation is. The hero, a native-born Jewish pioneer called Ari ben Canaan, talks of his love for Palestine.

            Encouraged by their success at historical revisionism and brainwashing the world with the ‘Big Lie’ of a Palestinian people, Palestinian Arabs have more recently begun to claim they are the descendants of the Philistines and even the Stone Age Canaanites. Based on that myth, they can claim to have been ‘victimized’ twice by the Jews: in the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and by the Israelis in modern times – a total fabrication. Archeologists explain that the Philistines were a Mediterranean people who settled along the coast of Canaan in 1100 BCE. They have no connection to the Arab nation, a desert people who emerged from the Arabian Peninsula.

            As if that myth were not enough, Arafat has also claimed “Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the Jebusites” displaced when King David conquered Jerusalem. Arafat has also argued that “Abraham was an Iraqi.” One Christmas Eve, Arafat declared that “Jesus was a Palestinian,” a preposterous claim that echoes the words of Hanan Ashrawi, a Christian Arab, who in an interview during the 1991 Madrid Conference said: “Jesus Christ was born in my country, in my land,” claiming she was “the descendant of the first Christians” – disciples who spread the gospel around Bethlehem some 600 years before the Arab conquest. If her claim were true, it would be tantamount to confessing that she is a Jew!

            Contradictions abound, Palestinian Arab leaders claim to be descended from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Jebusites and the first Christians. They also co-opt Jesus and ignore his Jewishness, at the same time claiming the Jews never were a people and never built the Holy Temples in Jerusalem.

            There has Never Been a Sovereign Arab State in Palestine

            The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arabs nations who never established a Palestinian state. It also is expressed in the utterances and loyalties of so-called Palestinians.

            Only twice in Jerusalem’s history has it served as a national capital. The first time was as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents. The second time is in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.

            The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow, for the Arabs in neighboring lands, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great ‘Arab nation,’ historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria – Suriyya al-Kubra – a designation that covered both sides of the Jordan River. In the 1950s, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank, since its population was viewed as brethren of the Jordanians. Jordan’s official narrative of “Jordanian state-building” attests to this fact:

            “Jordanian identity underlies the significant and fundamental common denominator that makes it inclusive of Palestinian identity, particularly in view of the shared historic social and political development of the people on both sides of the Jordan…. The Jordan government, in view of the historical and political relationship with the West Bank … granted all Palestinian refugees on its territory full citizenship rights while protecting and upholding their political rights as Palestinians (Right of Return or compensation).”

            The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN offered a partition plan in 1947 to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinians clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

            Well before the 1967 decision to create a new Arab people called ‘Palestinians,’ when the word ‘Palestinian’ was associated with Jewish endeavors, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, testified in 1937 before a British investigative body – the Peel Commission – saying: “There is no such country ! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.”

            In a 1946 appearance before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, also acting as an investigative body, the Arab historian Philip Hitti stated: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” According to investigative journalist Joan Peters, who spent seven years researching the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine (From Time Immemorial, 2001) the one identity that was never considered by local inhabitants prior to the 1967 war was ‘Arab Palestinian.’

            Eli E. Hertz
            Myths and Facts

          • Read the first paragraph, which is all I needed to read to see that this is complete nonsense unworthy of my time.

            If you think there is any error in fact or logic in my article, I welcome you to point it out and actually make an argument.

          • Calling me a “liar” and pasting an article that begins with the absurd lie that Palestinian nationalism didn’t exist until the 1960s in lieu of producing an actual argument certainly isn’t sufficient to demonstrate any error on my part.

            You are welcome to point out any error in fact or logic in the article.

    • AK, in 1948, five countries rose up in arms to defend the rights and property of the Palestinian Arabs. Your assertion that the Arab states “attacked Israel” is based on the fact that the Zionists declared Palestine as their own, but Jews legally owned only 7% of the land at the time. The Zionists had no legal claim to any more than that 7% of land. Again, one can’t “invade” one’s own land.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        “Jews legally owned only 7% of the land at the time. The Zionists had no legal claim to any more than that 7% of land. Again, one can’t “invade” one’s own land.”

        Correction ‘Real estate’ is not ‘territory’.

        ‘territory’ belongs to the citizens of a region, whether they own ‘real estate’ or rent ‘real estate’ or live under a bridge in the territory.

        For example, see the legal annexation of Texas to the US. A referendum was held of the citizens in the territory to be annexed, be they owners of ‘real estate’ or renters of ‘real estate’ or landless bums living under a sombrero.

        Israel had no right to any ‘territory’ through the ownership of ‘real estate’. The ownership of ‘real estate’ was taken into account only to determine where there were pockets of Jewish population….

        It was somewhat skewed. Territory belongs only to the citizens in it. Institutions such as the Palestinian Jewish Colonization Association (PJCA), Palestine Land Development Co. and the Jewish National Fund were not, nor could they possibly have been citizens.

      • Ken Kelso

        The failed War of Extermination of 1948, began with mass attacks on every single Jewish community in the country by the Arabs

        Jeremy Hammond is merely whining because the Arabs lost.

        The West Bank is really Judea-Samaria.

        Jerusalem has been a unified city except for a few decades of the past 3,000 years, capital of 3 natives states, all Jewish, and with a renewed Jewish majority since the 1800’s.

        Jordan’s 1948-67 seizure of the Old City and City of David, with their Jewish and Christian historic and holy places, and nearby neighborhoods didn’t create a new city. Jews are not “settlers’ in a land in which Jews have lived for 3 millennia,

        The amount of land privately owned in the Western sense by Palestinian Arabs was just over 2% of the land in 48.

      • Ken Kelso

        It is very easy to prove the falsehood of your claims. The Negev, which alone constitutes about 40% of the land was virtually all State land owned by the British.
        The overwhelming ownership of the land was by the British.

        1) Israel has equality under law regardless of race, religion or gender. Arabic and Hebrew are dual official languages.
        2) The PA has a law giving the death penalty for selling land to Jews
        3) The PA and Hamas both say no Jews are allowed to be in “their” nation
        4) Christians are fleeing Muslim persecution under both PA and Hamas rule
        5) Jordan says it’s illegal for Jews to be citizens
        6) Saudi Arabia says non-Muslims are barred from citizenship
        7) Every Muslim nation has at least partial Sharia law, implementing discrimination against non-Muslims.
        8) Copts in Egypt, Maronites and other Christians, animists, Berbers, Chaldeans and other non-Muslims, regularly document religious discrimination in their countries.
        9) The fifty-seven member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conferences openly reject the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights because equality is against the core tenants of Islam.

        • Great Britain owned not one inch of the Negev.

          The British were a foreign power exercising a military occupation of Palestine, a status that afforded them “ownership” of precisely zero of Palestine’s land.

          Here’s a relevant excerpt from my forthcoming book on the conflict:

          On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly, stating its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. The report noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”, and even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs constituted a majority.[i]

          Moreover, the Jewish population in the area of the proposed Jewish state was 498,000, while the number of Arabs was 407,000, plus an estimated 105,000 Bedouins, bringing the total Arab population to approximately 512,000. “In other words,” noted the report of a subcommittee established by the General Assembly to follow up on the UNSCOP’s recommendation, “at theoutset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.” The subcommittee also noted that population distribution was closely connected with “the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State”—meaning that Arabs would also own more land than Jews within the “Jewish State”.[ii]

          An UNSCOP survey of land ownership cited 1943 statistics showing that of Palestine’s total land area (26,320,505 dunams), Arabs and other non-Jews owned nearly 94 percent (24,670,455 dunams). By contrast, the Jews owned only 5.8 percent (1,514,247 dunams).[iii] Land ownership statistics for 1945 likewise showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest

          percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs. Jews owned less than 5 percent of the land in eight out of the sixteen districts.[iv] Even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, according to the Jewish National Fund (a quasi-governmental organization founded in 1901 to purchase land for Jewish settlement), the Jewish community had acquired only about 6.9 percent (1,820,000 dunams) of the total land area of Palestine.[v]

          As the UNSCOP report noted, “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land.”[vi] And as the subcommittee report observed, “The bulk of the land in the Arab

          State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs” (emphasis added).[vii]

          [i] UN General Assembly, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1, A/364 (September 3, 1947), http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3. Hereafter “UNSCOP Report.”

          [ii] UN General Assembly, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question: Report of Sub-Committee 2, A/AC.14/32 (November 11, 1947), 41, 43, http://ndocs.org/A/AC.14/32. Hereafter “Report of Sub-Committee 2.”

          [iii] A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991), 566. The entire three-volume Survey of Palestine is available for purchase at http://www.palestine-studies.org and can also be viewed online at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html. A dunam is 1,000 square meters, or about a quarter acre.

          [iv] Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43-44, Appendix 5, “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945).” A higher quality image of the map is available at http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg. Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14;

          Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

          [v] Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume XXVII, No. 1 (Autumn 1997), http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Khalidi,%20Revisiting%20the%201947%20UN%20Partition%20Resolution.pdf.

          Khalidi writes that “Jewish-owned land on the eve of the partition resolution amounted, according to Jewish sources, to 1,820,000 dunams, or less than 7 percent of the total land area of the country” (13). This would be 6.9 percent, although Khalidi puts the total area of Palestine at the higher figure of 27 million dunams, which would put it at about 6.7 percent. His source cited was: Jewish National Fund, “Jewish Settlements in Palestine” (Jewish National Fund, Jerusalem, March 1948, Mimeographed), p. ii. See also Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), 98. Said writes that, by the end of 1947, the Jewish community had legally acquired 1,734,000 dunams, or about 6.6 percent of the territory of Palestine. He cites a slightly different number of 26,323,000 dunams for the total land area of Palestine, which still rounds to 6.6 percent. Said also notes, “After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.” According to Abraham Granott, “The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947 amounted to 1,850,000 dunams….” See: Abraham Granott, The Land System in Palestine (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1952), 278. This number would put the amount of land in Jewish possession at 7 percent. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts the figure lower, writing, “By the end of the Mandate in 1948, the Jewish community owned around 5.8% of the land in Palestine.” Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld Publications,

          2006), Kindle Edition, Location 655. However, this is evidently an error; Pappe seems to have cited the statistic from 1943, which was no longer accurate by the end of the Mandate.

          [vi] UNSCOP Report.

          [vii] Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43.

          It’s unnecessary to reply to the rest of the numbered points Ken makes. Just how any of them are supposed to demonstrate that I’ve lied about anything is not exactly clear. He is welcome to quote a single error in fact I made in the article, if he can find any.

          I’ve just shown him how that’s done.

          Anyone who’d like to be updated on when my book will be published can subscribe to my free newsletter at http://www.jeremyrhammond.com.

          • Ken Kelso

            The Jews were going to be the majority if the British did not give out a White paper in 39 to appease the Arabs.

            Lets remember your the same fool who thinks Mahmoud Zahar is a man of peace.

            Go on Youtube and search for,
            Mahmoud Al Zahar reveals Hamas’ genocidal agenda – shocking!
            ———————-

            2 other statements from Zahar in articles i’v read.

            Hamas Foreign Minister “Zahar:”After we defeat the Zionists we will persecute them… we will persecute them to eternity”
            May 14, 08
            Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Wednesday that a Palestinian state will be established on all of the land of Palestine and not only on parts of it, and that it will include “Jaffa, Lod and Haifa.”
            ————————————
            Mahmoud Zahar, A top Hamas leader said this.
            April 26, 2004
            Hamas would continue to struggle for the elimination of the State of Israel. “We are not willing to accept Israel as a legitimate state in this area. This is not our political attitude. This is a standing contradiction with Islam,” he said.
            —————————–

          • The Jews were going to be the majority if the British did not give out a White paper in 39 to appease the Arabs.

            So? Is there a conclusion you think we should draw from this hypothetical?

          • Ken Kelso

            Tell me how did the Arabs get all of North Africa from the Berbers in the 7th century.
            I’m talking about is today Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya.

          • Tell me how your question is relevant to the article.

          • Ken Kelso

            Lets remember Jeremy your the same fool who thinks Mahmoud Zahar is a man of peace.

            Go on Youtube and search for,

            Mahmoud Al Zahar reveals Hamas’ genocidal agenda – shocking!

            ———————-

            2 more articles detailing the Islamo fascist Zahar is.

            Hamas official: “After we defeat the Zionists we will persecute them… we will persecute them to eternity”
            Marisol Seibold
            May 15, 2008

            Land for what, now? “Zahar: ‘We will persecute the Zionists’,” from the Jerusalem Post, May 14:

            Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said Wednesday that a Palestinian state will be established on all of the land of Palestine and not only on parts of it, and that it will include “Jaffa, Lod and Haifa.”

            Zahar also reiterated Hamas’ unwillingness to recognize the State of Israel and said that the group “will continue to persecute the Zionists wherever they are, after we prove that the Zionist army can be defeated – contrary to what was believed in the past, that it is impossible to beat the Zionists.”

            Speaking in the Gaza Strip, he went on to affirm Palestinian right of return, claiming that the “right of return of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians is closer than ever.”

            “After we defeat the Zionists we will persecute them”¦ we will persecute them to eternity, and the sun of the freedom and independence of the Palestinians will burn all of the Zionists,” he continued.

            “I think there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process.” – Dhimmi Carter, April 13.

            —————————
            How Long Will New Hamas Leader Last?
            4/26/2004

            (Toronto Globe and Mail) – Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, 58, gave up his medical practice a long time ago to devote himself full-time to the pursuit of death. Last week, the Shura consultative council of Hamas met in secret and appointed Zahar their third leader in less than a month. Zahar said Hamas would continue to struggle for the elimination of the State of Israel. “We are not willing to accept Israel as a legitimate state in this area. This is not our political attitude. This is a standing contradiction with Islam,” he said.

          • Lets remember Jeremy your the same fool who thinks Mahmoud Zahar is a man of peace.

            That is news to me.

          • Ken Kelso

            http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=53&order_id=2

            Palestinians
            ‘Peoplehood’ Based on a Big Lie
            Eli E. Hertz
            March 31, 2008

            The Palestinians claim that they are an ancient and indigenous people fails to stand up to historic scrutiny. Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine. Until the 1967 Six-Day War made it expedient for Arabs to create a Palestinian peoplehood, local Arabs simply considered themselves part of the ‘great Arab nation’ or ‘southern Syrians.’

            “Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.”
            Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels

            “All [that Palestinians] can agree on as a community is what they
            want to destroy, not what they want to build.”
            New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

            There is no age-old Palestinian people. Most so-called Palestinians are relative newcomers to the Land of Israel

            Like a mantra, Arabs repeatedly claim that the Palestinians are a native people. The concept of a ‘Stateless Palestinian people’ is not based on fact. It is a fabrication.

            Palestinian Arabs cast themselves as a native people in “Palestine” – like the Aborigines in Australia or Native Americans in America. They portray the Jews as European imperialists and colonizers. This is simply untrue.

            Until the Jews began returning to the Land of Israel in increasing numbers from the late 19th century to the turn of the 20th, the area called Palestine was a God-forsaken backwash that belonged to the Ottoman Empire, based in Turkey.

            The land’s fragile ecology had been laid waste in the wake of the Arabs’ 7th-century conquest. In 1799, the population was at it lowest and estimated to be no more than 250,000 to 300,000 inhabitants in all the land.

            At the turn of the 20th century, the Arab population west of the Jordan River (today, Israel and the West Bank) was about half a million inhabitants and east of the Jordan River perhaps 200,000.

            The collapse of the agricultural system with the influx of nomadic tribes after the Arab conquest that created malarial swamps and denuded the ancient terrace system eroding the soil, was coupled by a tyrannous regime, a crippling tax system and absentee landowners that further decimated the population. Much of the indigenous population had long since migrated or disappeared. Very few Jews or Arabs lived in the region before the arrival of the first Zionists in the 1880s and most of those that did lived in abject poverty.

            Most Arabs living west of the Jordan River in Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza are newcomers who came from surrounding Arab lands after the turn of the 20th century because they were attracted to the relative economic prosperity brought about by the Zionist Movement and the British in the 1920s and 1930s.

            This is substantiated by eyewitness reports of a deserted country – including 18th-century reports from the British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, French author and historian Count Constantine Volney (Travels through Syria and Egypt, 1798); the mid-19th-century writings of Alphonse de Lamartine (Recollections of the East, 1835); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); and reports from the British Consul in Jerusalem (1857) that were sent back to London.

            The Ottoman Turks’ census (1882) recorded only 141,000 Muslims in the Land of Israel. The real number is probably closer to 350,000 to 425,000, since many hid to avoid taxes. The British census in 1922 reported 650,000 Muslims.

            Aerial photographs taken by German aviators during World War I show an underdeveloped country composed mainly of primitive hamlets. Ashdod, for instance, was a cluster of mud dwellings, Haifa a fishing village. In 1934 alone, 30,000 Syrian Arabs from the Hauran moved across the northern frontier into Mandate Palestine, attracted by work in and around the newly built British port and the construction of other infrastructure projects. They even dubbed Haifa Um el-Amal (‘the city of work’).

            The fallacy of Arab claims that most Palestinians were indigenous to Palestine – not newcomers – is also bolstered by a 1909 vintage photograph of Nablus, today an Arab city on the West Bank with over 121,000 residents. Based on the number of buildings in the photo taken from the base of Mount Gerizim, the population in 1909 – Muslim Arabs and Jewish Samaritans – could not have been greater than 2,000 residents.

            Family names of many Palestinians attest to their non-Palestinian origins. Just as Jews bear names like Berliner, Warsaw and Toledano, modern phone books in the Territories are filled with families named Elmisri (Egyptian), Chalabi (Syrian), Mugrabi (North Africa). Even George Habash – the arch-terrorist and head of Black September – bears a name with origins in Abyssinia or Ethiopia, Habash in both Arabic and Hebrew.

            Palestinian nationality is an entity defined by its opposition to Zionism, and not its national aspirations.

            What unites Palestinians has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge – such as Israel did after the 1967 Six-Day War. It dissipates under Arab rule, no matter how distant or despotic.

            A Palestinian identity did not exist until an opposing force created it – primarily anti-Zionism. Opposition to a non-Muslim nationalism on what local Arabs, and the entire Arab world, view as their own turf, was the only expression of ‘Palestinian peoplehood.’

            The Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a charismatic religious leader and radical anti-Zionist was the moving force behind opposition to Jewish immigration in the 1920s and 1930s. The two-pronged approach of the “Diplomacy of Rejection” (of Zionism) and the violence the Mufti incited occurred at the same time Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq became countries in the post-Ottoman reshuffling of territories established by the British and the French under the League of Nation’s mandate system.

            The tiny educated class among the Arabs of Palestine was more politically aware than the rest of Arab society, with the inklings of a separate national identity. However, for decades, the primary frame of reference for most local Arabs was the clan or tribe, religion and sect, and village of origin. If Arabs in Palestine defined themselves politically, it was as “southern Syrians.” Under Ottoman rule, Syria referred to a region much larger than the Syrian Arab Republic of today, with borders established by France and England in 1920.

            In his book Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, Daniel Pipes explains:

            “Syria was a region that stretched from the borders of Anatolia to those of Egypt, from the edge of Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of today’s states, the Syria of old comprised Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, plus the Gaza Strip and Alexandria.”

            Syrian maps in the 21st century still co-opt most of Greater Syria, including Israel.

            The Grand Mufti Al-Husseini’s aspirations slowly shifted from pan-Arabism – the dream of uniting all Arabs into one polity, whereby Arabs in Palestine would unite with their brethren in Syria – to winning a separate Palestinian entity, with himself at the helm. Al-Husseini was the moving force behind the 1929 riots against the Jews and the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt against two non-Muslim entities in Palestine – the British and the Jews. He gathered a large following by playing on fears that the Jews had come to dispossess, or at least dominate the Arabs.

            Much like Yasser Arafat, the Grand Mufti’s ingrained all-or-nothing extremism, fanaticism and even an inability to cooperate with his own compatriots made him totally ineffective. He led the Palestinian Arabs nowhere.

            The ‘Palestinian’ cause became a key rallying point for Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, according to Oxford historian Avi Shlaim. The countries the British and French created in 1918-1922 were based largely on meridians on the map, as is evident in the borders that delineate the Arab states today. Because these states lack ethnic logic or a sense of community, their opposition to the national aspirations of the Jews has come to fuel that fires Arab nationalism as the ‘glue’ of national identity. (see details on the ramifications of British and French policy, which plague the Middle East to this day in the chapter “The European Union.”)

            From the 1920s, rejection of Jewish nationalism, attempts to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland by violence, and rejection of any form of Jewish political power, including any plans to share stewardship with Arabs, crystallized into the expression of Palestinianism. No other positive definition of an Arab-Palestinian people has surfaced. This point is admirably illustrated in the following historic incident:

            “In 1926, Lord Plumer was appointed as the second High Commissioner of Palestine. The Arabs within the Mandate were infuriated when Plumer stood up for the Zionists’ national anthem Hatikva during ceremonies held in his honor when Plumer first visited Tel Aviv. When a delegation of Palestinian Arabs protested Plumer’s ‘Zionist bias,’ the High Commissioner asked the Arabs if he remained seated when their national anthem was played, ‘wouldn’t you regard my behavior as most unmannerly?’ Met by silence, Plumer asked: ‘By the way, have you got a national anthem?’ When the delegation replied with chagrin that they did not, he snapped back, “I think you had better get one as soon as possible.”

            But it took the Palestinians more than 60 years to heed Plumer’s advice, adopting Anthem of the Intifada two decades after Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 – at the beginning of the 1987 Intifada.

            Under the Mandate, local Arabs also refused to establish an ‘Arab Agency’ to develop the Arab sector, parallel to the Jewish Agency that directed development of the Jewish sector (see the Chapter “Rejectionism”).

            In fact, the so-called patriotism of indigenous Muslims has flourished only when non-Muslim entities (the Crusaders, the British, the Jews) have taken charge of the Holy Land. When political control returns to Muslim hands, the ardent patriotism of the Arabs of Palestine magically wanes, no matter how distant or how despotic the government. One Turkish pasha who ruled Acco (Acre) between 1775 and 1804 was labeled Al Jazzar, The Butcher, by locals.

            Why hasn’t Arab representative government ever been established in Palestine, either in 1948 or during the next 19 years of Arab rule? Because other Arabs co-opted the Palestinian cause as a rallying point that would advance the concept that the territory was up for grabs. “The Arab invasion of Palestine was not a means for achieving an independent Palestine, but rather the result of a lack of consensus on the part of the Arab states regarding such independence,” summed up one historian. Adherents to a separate Palestinian identity were a mute minority on the West Bank and Gaza during the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian rule – until Israel took control from the Jordanians and the Egyptians in 1967. Suddenly a separate Palestinian peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood – and 21 other Arab states went along with it.

            Palestinianism in and of itself lacks any substance of its own. Arab society on the West Bank and Gaza suffers from deep social cleavages created by a host of rivalries based on divergent geographic, historical, geographical, sociological and familial allegiances. What glues Palestinians together is a carefully nurtured hatred of Israel and the rejection of Jewish nationhood.

          • Read to the second sentence, which is a ridiculous lie. Please try to be serious. Ive no time for such yet nonsense. Again, if you wish to challenge any point of fact or logic in my article, you are welcome to make an argument.

          • Most Palestinian Arabs were newcomers to British Mandate Palestine.

            You don’t actually believe this nonsense, do you Ken?

            The facts are as I’ve stated them in the article.

          • Ken Kelso

            There’s a reason the Palestinians were called Greater Syrians before 1964. The majority of them were from Syria and came to the land late in the Ottoman Empire and during the British Mandate.

            Palestine is the name of a Region.
            Its not named after the Arabs or Muslims.
            Arafat the Egyptian in 1964 took the name Palestinians from the ancient Philistines.
            The Palestinians need to stop taking other’s people’s names and go back to being called Greater Syrians.

            I call on Jeremy to demand the Palestinians stop with their identity theft of the Philistines name.

          • There’s a reason Palestinians were called Palestinians before 1964.

            Please try to be serious.

          • Ken Kelso

            Palestinians were called Greater Syrians before 1964.
            Jeremy Hammond knows this 100%
            The Term Palestinians came into play by Arafat in 1964.

          • Strange, then, how, e.g., Ben-Gurion described the Arab revolt of 1936 as “an active resistance by the Palestinians”.

            Spare us your idiocy.

          • Ken Kelso

            Great maps which tell the Truth.
            Its not looking good for Jeremy
            http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/countering-shrinking-palestine-maps-lie.html

            Countering the ‘shrinking Palestine Maps’ scam
            One of the most pernicious and common scams propagated by anti-Israel activists

      • Ken Kelso

        http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=273
        Palestine is a Geographical Area, Not a Nationality
        January 21, 2014 | Eli E. Hertz

        The Arabs invented a special national entity in the 1960s called the Palestinians, specifically for political gain. They brand Israelis as invaders and claim the geographic area called Palestine belongs exclusively to the Arabs.

        The word Palestine is not even Arabic. It is a word coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish revolts against Rome.

        In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further bastardized into Palistina or Palestine. During the next 2,000 years, Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule.

        Palestine was and is solely a geographic name. Therefore, it is not surprising that in modern times the name ‘Palestine’ or ‘Palestinian’ was applied as an adjective to all inhabitants of the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River – Palestine Jews and Palestine Arabs alike. In fact, until the 1960s, most Arabs in Palestine preferred to identify themselves merely as part of the great Arab nation or citizens of “southern Syria.”

        The term ‘Palestinian’ as a noun was usurped and co-opted by the Arabs in the 1960s as a tactic initiated by Yasser Arafat to brand Jews as intruders on someone else’s turf. He presented Arab residents of Israel and the Territories as indigenous inhabitants since time immemorial. This fabrication of peoplehood allowed Palestinian Arabs to gain parity with the Jewish people as a nation deserving of an independent state. Historically, Before the Arabs Fabricated the Palestinian People as an Exclusively Arab Phenomenon, No Such Group Existed

        Countless official British Mandate-vintage documents speak of ‘the Jews’ and ‘the Arabs’ of Palestine – not ‘Jews and Palestinians.’

        Ironically, before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (the name ‘Israel’ was chosen for the newly-established Jewish state), the term ‘Palestine’ applied almost exclusively to Jews and the institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before independence.

        Some examples include:

        • The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called the Palestine Post until 1948.

        • Bank Leumi L’Israel was called the “Anglo-Palestine Bank, a Jewish Company.”

        • The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was called the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

        • The house organ of American Zionism in the 1930s was called New Palestine.

        • Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra, composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.”

        • The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the United Palestine Appeal and the fundraising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.

        Encouraged by their success at historical revisionism and brainwashing the world with the ‘Big Lie’ of a Palestinian people, Palestinian Arabs have more recently begun to claim they are the descendants of the Philistines and even the Stone Age Canaanites. Based on that myth, they can claim to have been ‘victimized’ twice by the Jews: In the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and by the Israelis in modern times – a total fabrication.

        Archeologists explain that the Philistines were a Mediterranean people who settled along the coast of Canaan in 1100 BCE. They have no connection to the Arab nation, a desert people who emerged from the Arabian Peninsula.

        Contradictions abound, Palestinian leaders claim to be descended from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Jebusites and the first Christians. They also co-opt Jesus and ignore his Jewishness, at the same time claiming the Jews never were a people and never built the Holy Temples in Jerusalem.

        There Has Never Been a Sovereign Arab State in Palestine

        The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state. It also is expressed in the utterances and loyalties of so-called Palestinians.

        Only twice in Jerusalem’s history has it served as a national capital. The first time was as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents.

        The second time is in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.

        The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow, for the Arabs in neighboring lands, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized as a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great ‘Arab nation,’ historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria.

        The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN offered a partition plan in 1947 to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinians clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

        Well before the 1967 decision to create a new Arab people called ‘Palestinians,’ when the word ‘Palestinian’ was associated with Jewish endeavors, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, testified in 1937 before a British investigative body – the Peel Commission – saying: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.”

    • AK

      “In 1948 five countries attacked Israel.”

      Which territories, actually SOVEREIGN to Israel, did they attack?

      The Israeli Government confirmed the extent of Israeli Sovereignty on May 22nd 1948 and on June 15th 1949 in it;s statements to the UNSC. http://wp.me/pDB7k-KL

      On the same page, you will find a very exacting overlay map for Google Earth. It follows the “.. frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947”

      They are the frontiers accepted and declared as the Jewish people’s homeland State of Israel according to the ISRAELI GOVERNMENT of 1948 -1949

      The statements were made BEFORE Israel laid claim to any territories outside of Israel….http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5

  • Cracking article. And frustrating :)

    I was double checking a reference for an article on the same subject for my website, dismayed to find such a good one posted a few days ago – such is life.

    A couple of things I think I would have added to the article, and will do so in mine:

    – According to the figures provided by UNSCOP, in the proposed Jewish state, there would have been 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs. Critically, UNSCOP did not include the Bedouin population in their figures. Including the Bedouin figures, the British gave a more accurate estimate of 509,780 Arabs, and 499,020 Jews in the Jewish state. So there would have been an Arab majority in the Jewish state, further illustrating the contempt for Arab self-determination.

    – The Negev was home to 1,020 Jews and 103,820 Arabs, and was to be given entirely to the Jewish state.

    – The Jewish state was to incorporate 84% of the agricultural land, which would have devastated the Palestinian citrus industry.

    There’s also a wonderful couple telegrams sent by the British.

    On the 14th of May 1948, the British Foreign Office legal advisers sent the following to the British delegation at UN headquarters:

    “The decision of November 29th instructed the United Nations Commission to take various steps in Palestine culminating in the establishment of Jewish and Arab states with economic union, e.g. in particular, each state had to draft a constitution and to make a declaration about the Holy Places, minority rights, citizenship, etc. Most of these steps have not been taken and if a Jewish state is proclaimed it will be setting itself up BY ITS OWN EFFORTS AND NOT THROUGH ACTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION.”

    Emphasis mine.

    5 days later, the Foreign office sent another telegram to the Brits at the UN:

    “The present juridical situation as regards Palestine is obscure and we cannot be sure whether other governments besides that of the Jewish state will emerge. It would be unfair and LEGALLY WRONG in these circumstances to admit the Jewish State to the United Nations at this early stage and thus to give it international recognition, while not taking any similar steps for the rest of Palestine”

    Emphasis mine.

    The Mandatory Power (Britain) seemed pretty clear that Israel wasn’t created with any legal power granted by the British Mandate OR the UN.

    Thanks again for a cracking article.

    • Thanks for the info, Tim. If you’re working on an article on the topic, please notify me once its completed. I’d like to have a look.

  • Ephraim

    “I would remind you, M.R., that the first terrorist organizations in Palestine were not Arab but Zionist groups. ”

    1) You’re conflating the term “terrorist group”. In those early years, the term essentially meant guerrillas. The extremists attacked the British rulers but didn’t go after civilians. The Arabs weren’t so discriminating.
    2) The Haganah was founded (and was preceded by other defense groups) in the aftermath of Arab riots. The rightist Irgun splintered from the group a decade later in response to the 1929 Arab riots.
    3) Jewish defense organizations were founded due to Arab violence. Even in the pre-Zionist era, Jewish communities (and Druse as well) were subject to frequent Bedouin raids.

    • The Zionist terrorist organizations most certainly did target civilians. Hence the adjective “terrorist”.

      I’ve already discussed at some length the fact that prior to Zionism, the Jews and Arabs of Palestine lived in relative harmony as neighbors. The Arabs were not opposed to Jews, but to Zionism. See previous comments.

      • Ken Kelso

        Jeremy doesn’t want you to know this.
        Watch this video.

        Hitler’s pet dog and Palestinian NAZI leader, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

        • I have know problem with my readers knowing that the Grand Mufti sought an alliance with Nazi Germany. Actually, it’s funny you mention it because I just happened to mention that fact in a blog post I wrote this morning:

          http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2014/08/06/mind-defender-israels-war-crimes-palestinians/

          Now, do you have anything relevant to my above article to say?

          P.S. – Shall we also mention how the Jewish terrorist Lehi likewise appealed to Hitler to form an alliance? Or don’t you want our readers to know that?

          • AntAloy

            Dear Sir

            That is correct. The Zionist terror groups were outlawed by the UK Government and made overtures to the Axis Powers.

            Also, Israel did have relations with apartheid South Africa.

            Thank you.

          • aaron1313

            The leader of the the Zionist movement was David Ben Gurion -not Avraham Stern.And Ben Gurion supported the allied war effort.So did Chaim Weizmann.Any more stupid comments?

          • It’s curious you call my comment “stupid” as though your reply had anything to do with it.

        • guest

          You really are a Jewish troll , unfortunately for you a very bad one ..You are quoting sources that are bs zion propaganda and think that educated people will pay attention on that …Its retarded !..I have one name for you ( a Jewish one ) : Benjamin H. Freedman…Listen to his 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington. then go and educate yourself what was The Haavara Agreement – הסכם
          העברה

        • Hypocrite

          And he was not a “leader” by the time he met Hitler

          • aaron1313

            He was a leader in exile.As far as most Palestinian Arabs were concerned ,his authority was paramount in 1942-and in 1948 as well.

      • Murlin Evans

        That’s why they (Arab leaders) requested an international court review of the partition plan (ignored). And posited a one state solution with equal rights guaranteed for al. The zionists want all of it. Still do. See continued illegal settlement activity.

        • Yes, I discuss that actually in my forthcoming book.

        • aaron1313

          The Arab leaders also vowed-in public-to emulate the 13th century Mongols in the event of an Arab victory.If you really believe Jews would have had “equal rights” in an Arab state run by the Mufti,you will believe anything.Remember the Mufti supported-and endorsed- the murder of Europe’s Jews in 1942.The belief that a state run by such a man would have granted Jews “equal rights” is beyond absurd.It is frankly CRAZY.

      • aaron1313

        Actually Jeremy,the mob you pimp for were the first terrorists.(Nebi Musa pogrom,April 1920).I am curious if you consider the massacres of Jews (by Arabs) in Safed in 1834 and 1838 as an example of the “relative harmony” that you claim existed prior to 1881.

        • No, naturally.

          I condemn both Jewish and Arab terrorism. You are the only one defending terrorism by one of these parties.

    • Ephraim

      “1) You’re conflating the term “terrorist group”. In those early years, the term essentially meant guerrillas. ”

      MI5 called ’em TERRORISTS https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/files-of-jewish-interest.html

      Another interesting read at
      http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=558

  • Barry Lubotta

    Having read through most of the posts I have come to my own conclusion.
    Jeremy Hammond is very smart, even clever, BUT … he lacks wisdom.

    • In what way do you think I “lack wisdom”, Barry? Please do tell!

      • war horse

        By lack of wisdom, he meant you did not subscribe to Jewish dominance of righteousness. They are always right. Everyone elso is stupid and wrong.

    • Barry Lubotta “Jeremy Hammond is very smart, even clever, BUT … he lacks wisdom.”

      For a guy who hasn’t read the FIRST LINE of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel OR the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, your chutzpa surely overfloweth…

      “On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, ” http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#ignorance

      “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. ” http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#Mandate

  • ” Israel fought a defensive war even though it launched a pre-emptive strike (yes, that can happen and does) ”

    The preemptor starts it’s preemptive war. No preemptive war has ever been recognized as legitimate by the UN/UNSC/ICJ.

    http://www.mojolaw.com/defs/wa015 // Bouvier 4. War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

    5. National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.//

    1948
    At “at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” the preemptive Plan Dalet which escalated the civil war in Palestine pre-declaration, PRE-The State of Israel or any Israeli Government, became a war between the state of Israel and Palestine, from which Israel had been declared independent.

    Jewish force were already OUTSIDE the extent of Israel’s declared Sovereignty at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time. It was not declared, nor had any state declared war against Israel. In fact no state has ever officially declared war against Israel or threatened genocide on Jews.

    The Arab leagues Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine (note it does not say Israel) was submitted to the UNSC May 15th 1948, AFTER the Israeli Declaration came into effect (with Jewish forces OUTSIDE of Israel)

    There is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab states invasion of Palestine. They had a right as Regional Powers under the UN Charter, to attempt to expel Israeli forces from the territories of the Arab States ward, Palestine

    In respect to a defensive war justifying the ‘acquisition’ of territory.. NB: the word is ‘acquire’ http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel

    // Stephen M. Schwebel – Judge of International Court of Justice The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, who points out that:

    territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word “unlawful” is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct //

    NB: restore the lawful sovereign.

    A) It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war, aggressive/illegal OR defensive/legal. The reason the phrase does not include an ‘aggressive/illegal’ or ‘defensive/legal’ qualification is because it means ANY war.

    The inhabitants might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power at the start of the conflict. The UN Charter stipulates ‘self determination’. Not the determination of a conquering power.

    B) If it is one’s sovereign territory already, one is not ‘acquiring’ it, one is ‘restoring it.

    More than a century before Israel was declared, it was Customary International Law that territory be ‘acquired’ by legal annexation. Legal annexation requires a referendum by the citizens of the territory to be annexed (see the LEGAL annexation of Mexican territories by the US) Israel had/has never legally annexed ANY territories to th extent of it’s declared and recognized sovereignty.

    1967

    Even had the Arab States started the ’67 war, for 19 years a peaceful (pacific) solution under Chapter VI had not been reached. Israel had ignored all UNSC resolutions demanding it adhere to the law. The Arab States had a right under Chapter VII to attempt to expel Israeli forces from territories outside the extent of Israeli Sovereignty.

    Yom Kippur

    Israel was occupying the Sovereign territories of Syria, the Golan. Same Customary International Law, UN Charter et al apply

    The above is born out by the numerous UNSC Resolutions against Israel from the moment it became a UN Member State.

    In order to have peace Israel must withdraw from other folks territory BEFORE peaceful relations resume. Read the Egypt/Israeli Peace Agreement carefully. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Peace-Egypt-Israel

    In respect to Palestine, Israel has ALWAYS been bound by the UN Charter Chapter XI http://wp.me/pDB7k-Gb

  • I see the holey old Hasbara peddled here as elsewhere.

    That folk’ll ignore irrefutable evidence via documents with impeccable provenance, only shows them to be propagandistas for Israel’s ongoing illegal acquisition of territory outside the extent of it’s actual sovereignty.

    Admirable stuff J R H

    • Murlin Evans

      Like talking to a wall.

    • Mark Clifford

      Not quite ‘impeccable provenance’ as can be seen. Some vital elements have been missed out — not least the 21%-28% Arab population who formed part of Israel, and have not been included in the final stats. It seems that ‘Hamasbara’ has it faults also :)

      • Your argument is that Israel had a right to the land of Arabs who remained by virtue of the fact that they remained and their land was unilaterally declared part of the “Jewish state”?

        And you think that actually makes sense?

        • Mark Clifford

          By the ‘sense’ you question here, very few nation states would then have rights.

          The Lebanon was formed as such to have a Christian majority, which would then include a large Muslim minority (although that balance has more recently swung against that Christian majority). Iraq was ruled for many years by a Sunni minority, despite the fact that 65% of the population was Shia (which has been at the root of the problems there and the current civil war sparked off by the coalition’s intervention). I could go on…

          What we are talking about here is general rights and whether UNSCOP’s plan made sense to divide the land 55-56% in Israel’s favour. And, considering that 33% of the population was Jewish and added to that in the new Israel would be a 25% Arab contingent, then yes — those figures combined make sense and add up. This would constitute a 58% majority who – despite your many arguments – had rights too.

          Your objections appear to be based solely on that new state being run by Jews. Well, okay, but what makes you think the many Bedouins, Druze and Christian Arabs in that area would have preferred the state was run by Muslim Arabs? Many Palestinians in the West Bank are not happy with the way the PA runs things, and also many in Gaza are not happy with Hamas. Similarly many in Syria are not happy with the regime right now. The fact is, someone has to run the state, and merely being unhappy because it happens to be run by Jews doesn’t really become a valid answer; unless, of course, another agenda is at play here.

          • States don’t have rights. Individuals do.

            UNSCOP’s plan was patently inequitable. How one can argue otherwise when they explicitly rejected the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine is baffling.

        • Mark Clifford

          Yes, of course it makes sense. A 33% Jewish population added to a 24% Arab population makes 57% — who of course should have rights. The same happened in the Lebanon where initially that was created as a ‘Christian majority’ state – so what’s the difference?

          The other side would have been a Palestinian state, and the only difference between the two would have been one was Jewish run and the other Muslim-Arab run. The only main complaint then would have been whether the Muslims wished to be run by Jews (as the Muslims in turn in the Lebanon might feel about being run by Christian)… but that then gets into the area of racial/religious prejudices – which might indeed be at the root of the problem. But many Christians, Druze and Bedouin might also be less happy with a Muslim ruled situation, and indeed many Muslim-Arabs too in Israel feel they have it better there than they would in most surrounding Arab states… so you tell me?

          • Yes, of course it makes sense. A 33% Jewish population added to a 24% Arab population makes 57% — who of course should have rights.

            I didn’t say that your math was bad. I observed the fact that your racist premise is false, i.e., the Zionists had no right to take either public lands or lands over which the Arabs had rights in order to establish their “Jewish state”.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Not “Zionists”, the “Sovereign”.

          • Zionists were not “sovereign” over Palestine.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            I knew we’d find some point of agreement eventually.

          • Mark Clifford

            Went quickly through your various ‘answers’ which didn’t take long seeing as most of them were repetitious and – despite the overwhelming fact that a 57% majority should have rights in any democratic society – were answered along the lines that they did not have any such rights, because they were Jewish. Which I would thought in itself was more a ‘racist premise’ than anything I had suggested.
            So, deep breath, let me put it to you this way: if it was seen that the only solution was to divide the nation and that divide ended up as having a mix of 24% Arabs and 33% Jews – would it make sense to you to have that minority Arab contingent (27% less) run that new State? Purely because they were Arabs and the majority were Jews — even though that would go against the tenets of all other democracies? Is that how you see it… purely in the spirit of (huch-hum) being less ‘racist’.

            As for state land being ‘taken’, you are aware that it had already been ‘taken’ by the Ottoman’s, then later the British (or more accurately ‘passed’ from one to the other). So as far as state land was concerned, it simply passed from the BM to the Israeli state. And if the Palestinians had been victorious it would have passed to them… and a heavy proportion still will when the green line is drawn.

          • My argument is premised upon equal rights. It’s yours that is not, your Alice in Wonderland protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

          • Mark Clifford

            Unfortunately the facts stand against you. And you simply stating that a 57% group should not have representative rights purely because a major contingent of them are Jewish doesn’t hold water, I’m afraid. In fact is somewhat racist. In addition quoting Alice in Wonderland purely because your findings have been challenged and proven wrong I find somewhat childish.

          • You assert the facts stand against me while engaging in strawman argumentation. This is trolling behavior. You’re on notice for violating the terms of use of the comments section. As stated in the TOU, you are welcome to respond substantively to my actual arguments, rather than attributing to me arguments I never made in order to support your own position.

            You are projecting, as my position holds that the Jews and Arabs of Palestine had an equal right to self-determination, while you are attempting to defend a UN proposal premised upon the explicit rejection of this right for the Arab population.

          • Mark Clifford

            Arguing that a majority 57% (made up of 33% plus 24%) is NOT based upon ‘equal rights’ and should not be represented, is far more the ‘Alice in Wonderland assertion here – at least in terms of every democracy I’ve ever known.

          • The partition plan was explicitly premised upon the rejection of the right to self-determination of its majority Arab inhabitants.

          • MuslimJew

            “So as far as state land was concerned, it simply passed from the BM to the Israeli state.”

            No, it was always “Palestinian State Land”, which was ostensibly being held in trust for the People of Palestine by the British during the BM period, and under international law it became Palestinian State Land on the same day the British mandate for Palestine expired, which belongs to all the legal residents of Palestine on the day the British Mandate expired. And when has your Israel ever been “at war” with Palestine or Palestinians, in the legal sense? When has your Israel ever been “victorious” in a genuine “war” with Palestine or Palestinians, in the legal sense?

          • Mark Clifford

            …on the same day the British mandate for Palestine expired, thus belonging to all the people who were legal residents of Palestine on the day the British Mandate expired.

            And? What is your point here? ‘Legal residents’ of Palestine equals the 33% Jews who were also legal residents there, plus the 24% of Arab who joined them (between 48-67) to form the state of Israel. That 57% therefore in your own words had rights to that land.

            And the remaining land, I might remind you, Israel does NOT own… it occupies and administers in different ways, but it is clearly not on any statute books as land owned by Israel. It remains Palestinian land.

            The ‘pigs might fly’ I in part agree with — but this is as much through the obstinacy of Hamas as it is hardline groups like Likud.

          • It was not the will of the 24% of the Arab population you refer to that most of Palestine become a “Jewish state”. This was achieved against their will through violence and the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population.

          • Mark Clifford

            ‘It was not the will of the 24% of the Arab population you refer to that most of Palestine become a “Jewish state”.’

            You can’t possibly know that unless you’ve interviewed and spoken to a decent proportion of them. Recent poll stats (and this came up recently on a BBC HardTalk interview) are that something like 70% of that 21% Israeli-Arab population are happy within Israel and general policies (which is probably a higher proportion than are happy with general UK policies right now). And in addition less than 20% said they’d be happy to go and settle in a future Palestinian state if and when it was formed.

            So much for your theory about unhappy Arab-Israelis. And you seem to tout this ‘not wishing a Jewish state’ as if it was de rigeur that Muslim-Arabs are prejudiced against Jews. A number of the Muslim Arabs I know, and in particular the Israeli Arabs, would be offended by that suggestion.

            As for your threat over trolling, I saw no sign of strawmen raised, I simply kept to the facts. But It’s unlikely I’ll be posting again here in any case, so save your threats.

          • You premised your entire argument on the assumption that it was the will of that “24%” of Arabs that they become inhabitants of the “Jewish state”, yet suddenly when I point out how ludicrous this is, it’s impossible to know what they would have wanted.

            You’re done trolling here.

          • Annie Dyson

            I have been following this debate with interest, particularly the in-depth discussions with John Matthews and Mark Clifford. First you banned one for ‘trolling’, then the other, and going back I notice this is not the first time you’ve done this. It appears that as soon as anyone provides a decent, detailed argument and presses their point, you ban them.

            I note that both are past Reuters journalists. I actually went to the trouble of reading the link provided by Mark Clifford to the debate on John Matthews’s blog page. Unlike your offering, it’s an extremely detailed and balanced report without taking sides or using overblown emotive terms, which I see you are prone to.

            I suggest you take a leaf out of JM’s book and see what a decent, balanced report should look like, rather than a one-way propaganda sheet. I suggest you also look up the meaning of ‘trolling’. Your grasp of word-meanings appears as scant as your knowledge of ‘reasonable debate’ or in-depth, balanced reporting.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Read Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917—1948.

            Learn about how wealthy families violently opposed the sale of land to Jews by others, only to get a better price for the land they were happy to sell to Jews.

            Read Feisal Husseini’s letter to Felix Frankfurter,
            an associate of Dr. Chaim Weizmann.
            Amin al-Husseini didn’t represent all Palestinians, he was only more violent than others, and he frightened them into submission.

          • Annie Dyson

            On the question of ‘will’, was it the will of the indigenous people to be ruled by either the Ottoman’s or the British? Or the Jordanians ruled by King Abdullah, imposed upon them when he was ousted from Medina? Or the situation now in Syria?

            With Israel practically the only fully functioning democracy in the region, it appears the ‘will’ of the people has been the last thing on Arab rulers minds.

          • Not sure what your point is. Israel is a “democracy”, so therefore the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was justified? You’ll have to actually present your argument if you wish us to know what it is.

          • Annie Dyson

            You’ve had your answer several times on this. According to Benny Morris, only a fraction of that 700,000 were purposely ethnic cleansed, most left due to the surrounding war, as they have now in Syria. Do we see that term ethnic cleansing’ used there? No. Stop using it, it exposes your racist slant.

            Also it seems where villages were ‘cleared out’, this was to stop sniping and shooting on troops. You can hardly fight on a front line with people firing at you from behind. As for those remaining in Israel, the 21%, YES most are happy to be there as Israeli citizens and prefer that to living elsewhere… as the vote against being in a new Palestinian state demonstrates.

            Was the control of numerous eastern states by Russia after WW2 justified? Was the expulsion of 12 million Silesians justified. Or the 40 million displaced in the formation of Pakistan? That’s not to mention the atrocious track record of the USA with native Indians. It was war. Do you think that if Israel had lost in 1948, many of them would be left there now? No. That 33% would have been – to use your horrible expression – ‘ethnically cleansed’ totally from the area. Not the partial situation which prevailed with Israel winning.

            You have also I see ignored the various Arab state people displacements with the numerous territories Ibn Saud took over. And the Jordanian people were never asked if they wanted to be ruled by Abdullah, a Hashemite from Medina. It was just lumped on them. They might be more settled now, but you are raising the issue of whether it was justified then, which perhaps it wasn’t. Nor French colonialism at the time, but Martinique, French Guyana, Tahiti and several other regions are happy to remain French territory now, having been given the choice and voted as such. If Arab Israelis were unhappy they could easily leave and go to the West Bank, Gaza or Jordan. They don’t generally.. which I think tells you something.

          • It is not just that 700,000 Arabs were expelled or fled out of fear of the Zionist forces; Israel then wiped their villages completely off the map and refused to permit the refugees to return to their homeland.

            That is ethnic cleansing.

            As Benny Morris put it, “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.”

          • Annie Dyson

            Benny Morris also said the following: ‘The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians.’

            So the only way his two statements could correlate is in that he agreed that ethnic cleansing took place, but by default rather than design, and it was only partial. This of course is then supported by the fact that 1.7 million Arabs actually live within Israel. So maybe we are both saying the same thing, but in different ways.

            So sometimes the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ becomes a bit loose, with sometimes people expect it to be ‘full’, otherwise it doesn’t really become a ‘cleansing’, does it? Just the displacement of a large number of people. But there is the argument that if the Jews had lost in 1948 (which was highly likely for the first part of that war), that ethnic cleansing their side would have been total.

            I think what you are doing here is shifting from a situation of what would have been reasonable under UN terms as to what would have been reasonable in war. Given that Jewish citizens and troops were being fired on from those villages, and they were indeed the victim of massacres their side too (such as the 17 young doctors and nurses) killed in a convoy, then a clearing out of those villages is explicable (maybe not right, but explicable). As for letting them back? If Israel thought they would not have a 5th column firing at them from within, I’m sure they would have… and that has remained the case since. If they thought they could live peacebly with Arab-Palestinians from within, then more would have been let back.

          • Benny Morris said “The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design” long before he said “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. ”

            There’s nothing to reconcile. He later conceded the point, modifying his earlier position.

          • Ari Levitt

            That maybe his opinion. he may be right, he may not. Fact is that the majority of them left of their own accord.

          • Yes, some left “of their own accord” in the sense that they were fleeing out of fear of war and further massacres like that at Deir Yassin.

            Many others were expelled by the Zionist forces.

            None were permitted to return.

            Palestine was ethnically cleansed of more than half of its Arab population.

          • Ari Levitt

            No doubt that innocents were killed in Deir Yassin. There were also combatants killed.There were many Jews massacred by the Arabs (documented)prior to and during the war of independence (I am talking about innocents). . The Arab propaganda of rape at Deir Yassin (that never happened) is documented and is regarded by the perpetrators of that propaganda as a huge mistake. That lie was the catalyst for many of the refugees to run.. It would be suicidal for Israel to allow them to return. The Jewish refugees from Arabic countries were absorbed into Israeli society. The issue of refugees is a tragic result of war. They need to move on.

          • 700,000 Arab refugees was not merely “a tragic result of war”, but of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist forces.

            Refugees have a right to return to their homeland.

          • Ari Levitt

            Israel has a right to exist. Legally, Morally and ethically. You may not agree with morally and ethically- that’s fine. But legally Israel has a right to exist. When looking at this issue and any other issue for that matter one can look at it objectively and subjectively. There are many anti Zionist/anti Semites who analyse the issue who use the reverse pyramid methodology. They base their views on a point that it not correct and then go about building a reverse shaped pyramid on top of it. You may think the partition plan was a joke, you may even think that the wording in the Mandate is joke (i am not saying you did actually say that the wording in the Mandate was a joke). I think that the partition plan was not in keeping with the spirit of the mandate and the entire land “from the river to the sea” was allocated for a Jewish homeland. Our leaders decided to make a strategic decision and accept. I think that Great Britain had no right to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine and that too is not in keeping with the spirit of the mandate. It explicitly says the reverse. It is difficult to calculate the amount of Jews who were ethnically slaughtered because of GB decision. The massacre of Jews during the war of independence period and prior to it is well documented. The ethnic cleansing of Jews in the areas that remained under Arab control after the war is documented as well. The plight of the middle eastern Jews during that period is documented too. The Arabs who decided to leave here did so with a well documented aim, to facilitate the massacre of the Jews in Palestine. They have never stated they want to live in peace and harmony. We have moved on from our tragedy, we will not commit national suicide by allowing these people back. Their narrative has not changed, their actions have not changed, their actions have not changed. Their desire for our destruction is on the forefront of their charter, statements, actions and prayers. It is time they moved on and demand from their Arab brothers (and western governments and NGO’s to assist to facilitate their integration into the countries they have lived in for decades.

          • No state has a “right to exist”. This is a meaningless concept. The proper framework for discussion is the right to self-determination. The root of the conflict is the rejection of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and the establishment of the “Jewish state” of Israel via the ethnic cleansing Palestine.

          • Ari Levitt

            It is only meaningless…..if it is meaningless. Perhaps it is meaningless to you but it is not meaningless to me. I live here and I am threatened almost daily by either Palestinians stating they want to push me into the sea or Iranians calling for my obliteration. I believe I have a right to exist. I believe that I have a right not to be threatened with a nuclear holocaust, I believe that I have a right not to be threatened by Palestinians calling for my annihilation. Israel has a right to exist and the Jews have a right to self determination – these are legal and undeniable facts. The Arabs will continue to lie and not take responsibility for their actions with the rear wind in their sails from westerners (or anyone else for that matter) who will support their cause, the ultimate of which is “from the river to the sea”….. One only has to look back (not to far) in history to see the methodology. Acceptance of the Protocols of Zion, Holocaust denial, re writing of history and now recently by UNESCO the denial of the Jewish connection to the Temple mount. France voted for. Does that make it a fact?

          • No country, including Iran, had threatened to attack Israel.

            And your irrational fears don’t justify Israel’s criminal policies.

            It’s also ironic how you denounce Holocaust denial while yourself denying the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

          • Ari Levitt

            @jere@JeremyRHammond:disqus Iran has threatened to attack Israel, it is simply incorrect and misleading to state otherwise. I suggest you do a bit of research, it should take too long and you will find numerous examples.

          • No, Iran has not threatened to attack Israel.

          • Ari Levitt
          • No, it hasn’t.

          • Ari Levitt

            OK. Interesting, you have made an excellent and well documented point. Good for you. A true scholar. In keeping with the level of argument in your article.

          • Ari Levitt

            What irrational fears do you mean and what criminal policies are you talking about? It would be advantageous if instead of repeating yourself with baseless arguments, you through in an example every now and again, so I can at least try and understand what you are referring to.

          • The irrational fear I was referring to is obvious from the context. Again, Iran has not threatened to attack Israel.

          • Ari Levitt

            Holocaust denial Vs denying of supposed ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I am not able to see the connection. Lets assume both happened, then they should both be denounced. Lets assume one happened – it and only it should be denounced. Lets assume the one is a big lie that has and is being twisted and distorted – I will stand up for the truth and never support that lie.

          • The “connection” between the Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, obviously, is that there will always be willfully ignorant people who persist denying historical facts.

          • MuslimJew

            “If Arab Israelis were unhappy they could easily leave and go to the West Bank, Gaza or Jordan.”

            No, if your precious little Zionist colonial-settler criminals hate “Arabs” so damned much, they should never have got on those boats and colonized Palestine in the first place, and if they’re unhappy living in Palestine they can easily go back home to Brooklyn, Dusseldorf and Australia.

          • Ari Levitt

            If you are referring to 1948 – the majority of the Arabs left on their own accord. They were not forced out. Those that remained are Israeli citizens.

          • Palestine was ethnically cleansed of most of its Arab population by the Zionist forces.

          • Ari Levitt

            that is not correct

          • Yes, it is correct; and I repeat: Palestine was ethnically cleansed of most of its Arab population by the Zionist forces.

          • Ari Levitt

            Jeremy you can repeat it multiple times, it does not and will not make it correct. It is simply not true. I realize that you want it to be true as it supports your anti zionist agenda, still that does not make it true. I have noticed that when the slaughter of Jews or their expulsion from Arab countries is brought up, you dont seem to relate to these facts. You carry on with your narrative as if the Jewish Zionists illegally arrived here and then suddenly simply tossed out the locals out – that was that. I am well aware that It’s your web site and you can say what you want. No one can show you a yellow (or red) card. But that’s a little like the boy who brings his ball to the playground and when he is unhappy with how the football game develops, he takes the ball and runs home. I live in this country and I am a proud Zionist. I have read and continue to read the history of the region (your article included). I saw an interview with Norman Finkelstein (I assume you have heard or read him), in this interview he talks about the period he supported the Chinese communists and Chairman Mao. He went on and spoke about his feelings when the gang of 4 went on trial and how he never left his room for 3 weeks (if I remember correctly). He was so disillusioned with a cause that had been the focus of his life, he was not sure how to deal with it. I have a suspicion that your research has led you down a path that is not a black and white path, no matter how much you research and quote certain and specific documents it will not be black and white. That is why when looking at this situation where no doubt wrongs have been committed by both sides, one has to look for viable solutions not binary solutions that have no chance of being implemented. If the Arabs would look towards peace as a future – we have a chance. Until that happens we are all destined to suffer their inability to recognize that this tiny piece of land is for the Jews as well.

          • You are right, it isn’t because I’m saying it that it is true. Yet it remains true that Palestine was ethnically cleansed of most of its Arab population by the Zionist forces.

            This is no longer controversial.

          • Ari Levitt

            It is no longer controversial and it never was – never happened. There was a failed attempt at ethnically cleansing Palestine of it’s Jewish inhabitants. Had the Armies of our neighboring countries together with the local Arabs succeeded in their clearly stated attempt to drive the Jewish people out of Palestine – there would have been a massacre, one only has to look at Syria and Iraq (currently) to see what the results of that would have been. The Jews who lived in the old city of Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians.

          • The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a historical fact denied only by willfully ignorant bigots who reject the rights of the Palestinians.

          • Ari Levitt

            I don’t usually stoop to this level, i normally try to maintain decorum. Experience has taught me that it is usually those either are on the lower end of the fact scale or those who don’t have the ability to debate politely who start using phrases such as “It is willfully ignorant bigots” – which of the two do you belong to? Possible both?

          • I was just making an observation.

          • Ari Levitt

            So was I.

          • Ari Levitt

            All they had to do was accept the partition plan. That is their true Naqba. Had they accepted, they would have a state existing side by side with Israel. Possibly working together as world leaders in technology. They missed it then and have missed out on numerous occasions since. We are destined to live in the same area, its a fact of life. Hopefully at some point they will realize that and start education their people to live with us in peace. Not implying that we are perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

          • All they had to do was accept the partition plan.

            Please read the article before commenting.

            The partition plan was a joke, and it was an injustice that it was ever proposed in the first place, having been premised upon the explicit rejection of the rights of the majority Arab population to self-determination.

          • MuslimJew

            “With Israel practically the only fully functioning democracy…”

            Israel is a dysfunctional authoritarian fascist ideocracy, with an ethnically cleansed electorate.

          • Mark Clifford

            When was Israel ever “at war” with Palestine or Palestinians? And when did Israelis achieve their “victorious” victory in a genuine war with Palestine or Palestinians?
            Yes, you are in part right here. Many Palestinian residents did not want war… and the main war was between surrounding Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Who I daresay would have simply carved up that territory between them if they had won rather than Israel — which is what Jordan did between 1948-1967 with the West Bank and Jerusalem.

  • William Smart

    M.R. – there must come a point at which Zionists know they’re talking rubbish. Hammond seems to make a very good case on UNGAR 181 and UNSC 242.

    >>>> “As set forth above, and not refuted by Hammond, the RATIFICATION of 181 took place by the admission of Israel to the UN by the UNGA as a “peace-loving” country. Hammond ignores this fact.” <<<<>>> Accretion of lands by war is accepted in the international community. … This isn’t the only instance that conquest by war of territory was recognized by other sovereign states. <<<<

    Prove it. Over and over I'm seeing these statements from Israeli-firsters which both seem unlikely and they make no effort to prove. Even if you were right about Tibet and Chechnya, the argument you make for being as good as China and Russia is laughable. Are we not told that Israel has "our values"?

    • It’s hard for me not to have refuted the above assertion before ever having heard it. Now that I’ve seen this: “the RATIFICATION of 181 took place by the admission of Israel to the UN by the UNGA as a “peace-loving” country.” Yes, I refute it. I refute it as having nonsense as its premise. Whoever’s argument this is, they clearly have little to know understanding of how the U.N. works. They don’t “ratify” UN resolutions, for starters. This assertion is out and out nonsense.

      • M.R.

        I’m back! One instance of acquisiton of territory by war is the Indian invasion of East Pakistan and setting up a puppet state called Bangla Desh. Probably the most famous would be the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. This was in brazen violation of the peace treaty the V.C. and the North Signed with the South and the U.S. But I would expect this would be acceptable to the Bolsheviks in the Arab-Palestinian crowd. Objectively speaking, in terms of numbers of square miles conquered and people enslaved and transferred, the North Vietnam example makes what Israel did seem like near nothingness.

        But being objective is not part of the rules of discourse when the subject is Israel and the Arabs. An objective person would view Israel as a successful state, while the surrounding Arab polities are failed states. Objectively speaking, the standard of living for all Israeli citizens, whether Jewish or Arab or otherwise is much better than that in the Arab states. And the standard of living in the administered territories is higher than in the other neighboring Arab states.

        While most Israelis consider a means to make an accommodation with those they live with, the Arab side spews agony about injustice because they want to go back in time. That isn’t going to happen, and the sooner the Arabs learn to make do with what they have the better things will be for them.

        So, now, Billy boy, tell me that North Vietnam didn’t invade and annex South Vietnam through war and violence and murder.

      • M.R.

        Hammond my boy, don’t pretend like a fool. The U.N. ratified the legitimacy of the establishment of the State of Israel by admitting the country as a peace loving member state. Alas, if the straw dog you offer up was correct, Israel would never have been confirmed as a member state of the U.N. It is true that Israel was admitted to the U.N. as a “peace loving state” (the terms of the resolution of admission) isn’t it? And this admission to the U.N. took place AFTER the passage of UNGAR 181, n’est pas? This is RATIFICATION in spite of what you think about it.

  • aubreyfarmer

    Thank you Mr. Hammond for exposing Israel for the criminal state it is. For years I supported Israel because I did not know the truth. The only information available to me was the main stream media which unbeknown to me is entirely controlled by Zionists. My prayer is that enough people will learn the truth about Israel before the Zionists in America are successful in censoring net content or passing hate crime legislation that will make it illegal to tell the truth whenever it shines light on the filthy scoundrels that are the masters of organized crime and the murderers of innocent civilians.

    • gust

      I suggest you to listen to Benjamin H. Freedman’s 1961 Willard Hotel speech… Have fun..I’m sure it will be very educational for you !

  • 786:
    786:
    ABOUT 59 YEARS BACK A POET IN PAKISTAN WROTE AN INTERESTING POEM ON WORKING OF ” UNO ” IN THOSE DAYS. HE SAID “U” OF “UNO”
    INDICATES ” USA “, THE REST IS “NO” “NO” “NO”.

    SO, IN SHORT, IF ANY PROBLEM IS TO BE SETTLED FOR GOOD, USA’S SUPPORT IS A MUST, THE REST IS ALL WASTE OF TIME.

    RECENTLY SUDAN’S CASE IS A GLARING EXAMPLE. THE WORLD KNEW ABOUT IT A FEW YEARS BACK, USA’S INFLUENCE HAS NEARLY SETTLED THE MATTER AND JUSTICE MIGHT BE DONE SOON.

    BUT TAKE THE CASE OF KASHMIR, 3 WARS HAVE BEEN FOUGHT, THE KASHMIRIS STARTED INDEPENDENT MOVEMENT AROUND 1930S, THE CASE IS IN UNO SINCE 1948 [ MOST PROBABLY], BUT IT IS STILL UN TOUCHED BY UNO, EXCEPT A FEW RESOLUTIONS AND SOME UNO OBSERVERS ON PAKISTAN & INDIA’S BORDERS WITH KASHMIR.

    SO, IN SHORT, THE PAKISTANI POET WAS RIGHT.
    .

  • George Diachkoff

    Dear readers
    What most of the comments miss are two single facts: the land was given by All Mighty to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Palestine never existed. Its “creation” was due to a sadist roman emperor that hated the Jews so much, that he ordered the removal of the name of ISRAEL from all roman temples and documents, to be substituted with Palestina, a reference to Israel’s mortal enemies: the Phelistinians.
    And now you know the rest of the story ( Thanks Paul ) …make good use of this information.

    • Dear George, if you’ve ever actually read the Bible, you would know that the Hebrews violated their covenant with Yahweh, who warned them time and again that he would expel them from the land and give it to their enemies if they didn’t heed his word. http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/07/08/woe-to-you-christian-zionists-hypocrites/

      • Ozone

        The Bible isn’t just Numbers. It is also Isaiah, where God says that a time will come and He will forget their wrongdoings and give the land back to them after 70 years later, which did happen.

        Now, you may say that Judeans (not Hebrews anymore, this is too inclusive for the inhabitants of Judea under the Second Temple) violated the covenant again after the Second Temple was destroyed. But the Talmud teaches that God will forgive just like the first time.

        Why would God not respond through the Bible again? According to the Talmud, prophecy ended together with miracles when the Second Temple was built, because the Sages demanded that idolatry be less powerful, so this was the counterpart.

        So, where is my proof? This is religion, there is no proof, only postulates. Why do you talk about the Bible if you do not believe it, and yet would refuse to talk about the Talmud?

        Note: I apologize for using “God” instead of the word you used, but I cannot write this word according to my religion…

        • It is also Isaiah, where God says that a time will come and He will forget their wrongdoings and give the land back to them after 70 years later, which did happen.

          When?

          Why do you talk about the Bible if you do not believe it, and yet would refuse to talk about the Talmud?

          I can’t talk about the Talmud because I am not familiar with it. I am familiar with the Bible, however, and I talk about it because whether one believes it or not, the fact is that it is the story of how the Hebrews continuously violated their covenant with Yahweh and were expelled from the land as a consequences of their sinfulness. I talk about it in order to illustrate how Christian Zionists are either ignorant about what their own religious text says or dishonest.

          • The Law of Dirt

            Much of this isn’t about the people lying or being dishonest. It is about the misuse of religion, states and churches leadership intervening in the rights of man to have a direct access to our God/Allah/Yahweh or whatever you know Him to be. Instead it is to place nationalism ideals or religious divisionism means on common man (see: Law of dirt!) to participate directly with God and to usurp this relationship with conduits of illicit power to control. IE: The battle between the dark and light forces which are created by men out of this disconnected relationship with our natural born God. Not some “supernatural” unattainable entity only churches and governments have access to.
            Please learn about what Law really is in its simplest terms. Common Law (God’s law or the law of dirt) vs. Admiralty Law (The law of commerce and defacto jurisdictions) and what your citizen/ship jurisdiction means when it comes to money/debt and the use of your God given rights and the usury of your all caps corporate fiction identity. You should be a child of God. Not valued as all caps fictional human capital in an IMF system of Fractional Banking with your countries sell out of your soul as voiceless human capital to the Federal Reserve System of silent steady conquest through worthless paper and ink debt..

            Are either of you guys knowledgeable about the creation of the Scofeild Bible with relation to the creation of Israel and Western Christianity? Israel was a man. The “Nation of Israel” are all the people that have been misled to believe own land. When God promised Abraham “A Nation of His People” refers to the people not a land. Not a place called “Israel”. At the time God promised Abraham “His Nation” the man Israel had not been born yet. The idea of a State of Israel was a Zionist fabrication added to the New Testament Biblical footnotes and injected into the belief system of the Baptist League founded in Fort Worth Texas by Cyrus Scofield himself. It propagated the idea that Christians had a special obligation to their Jewish brothers, but this was not the case. This was propaganda! We all have an obligation to our fellow man. Period! Cyrus Scofield was not only a fraud and a known crook, but he was hired by Zionists in Switzerland before the end of WWII and was instrumental in bringing Western Christians into solidarity with two fundamental ideas. One the creation of the Israeli State in Palestine and two the Freemason’s non-gnostic (see: lucifarian trust or references to the Evil Eye and Freemasonary sects of the One World Order using Armageddon and the populations acceptance of war and strife perpetrated by through the financing of adversity and wars going back well before 500 A.D. and the first Freemason Priam Priests disclosure of such an idea in Bavaria around this time involving conquest through the fractional banking system and the control and conquest of world governments by these secret societies using various minorities and religions to front their means. Revelations being one of the oldest propaganda tools of this campaign added book of the New testament bible. Revelations was a government propaganda for the fulfillment of mass ideology based on Freemason’s truth in the open which is actually a lie based on fear and terror. Not of God and obviously not written by the gospel writer of John the supposed author of Revelations, but created at the First Council of Nicaea a council of diverse Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I an Atheist in AD 325. Like the Cossacks of the Gog Revelations these non-gnostic non-Semitic Marxists that converted to Judaism out of expedience to usurp the rights of Semitic Jews and their heritage just as the Talmud belief system over the Torah which originated out of Gnosticism. The sole purpose was to use Semetic Jews as a buffer for their purposes. I am not speaking of the people that unknowingly converted out of sincerity, but rather those that were unbeleivers that converted out of expedience for the purpose of conformity and power to conquer through the use of paper money and the debt of nations. nation builders rather than worshiping followers of God and particularly the leaders of these in church and government. These Cabalists or mystic followers of these sects and particularly their mystic leadership were the ones Christ told of in the Bible “You do not know Me because you do not know God” (The Word) IE: God and the Word were One and since Sadducees and Pharisees had become non-gnostic and mystics and concerned with their “tassels” Christ claimed they didn’t know the prophesy of the Word or they would have recognized who He was. That was the story. Your salvation depends on you knowing who and what you are. None of you seem to. Instead the masses flounder in dispute. We are nothing more than human capital to the real forces in power unless we learn what we need to know about what God and the law which all of us are accountable for including these forces that use it against us. All of us have been misled. Here are two good video references to help you all in your quest and please remember we are all in this and God knows our hearts. We all must struggle to know the truth and God has a plan for all of us, but we must seek Him out and be able know the difference between a lie and the truth and not depend strictly on traditions and be misled by hate, fear and divisionism:
            Jack Otto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cke_vX–Ks

            Cyrus Scofield Bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFikke6lhk

    • Peter Jaxon

      Oh that’s right, it says so right there in the bible, the book of Century 21 I think it is that the “thou shall not steal” part doesn’t apply to Jews that have no historical connection to Palestine. And what does a fairytale have to do with theft, murder, ethnic cleansing and on and on and on anyway? I prefer Mother Goose myself because there’s no Century 21 book in it. I do hope I live to see the day that demographics alone end the ‘shitty little country’ as a French guy put it and the ‘whine heard round the world’ won’t be sufficient to reinstate the criminal enterprise now called Israel.

    • So, thah mean that Israel HAVE the RIGTH to treat Palestinians in
      the same way and fashion that Adolf Hitler with his S.S. Nazis went around hunting the jews like their were not humans? Because to me
      there is not a different point of view,with the only exeption that thanks to Israel be take more land that the ones were awarded we the whole human race have lost for good something name PEACE.
      Its like the old tell me tales of the rotten potato put back in the sack,with the only diferential that instead a sack we are talking about our world.

      And to complete the scheme USA have became the Israel s popet.
      I’m thinking that the tween tower of Manhattan fell down with a specific mission.
      The road to the goals its full of deceives tramps n tricks.

      • Ozone

        How can you even compare the fate of the innocent Jewish people that died during WW2 and this of the Palestinians for the last 60 years?

        • Adam

          Its still happening now, and will continue to do so. WW2 has finished, The soviet Union ended that, and took unbelievable casualties as a result. There is no state called Israel, it is illegal and seized by force. The land needed to be returned.

      • Pelo Nord

        How old are you, 9?
        Israel is like the Nazis? I think you’ll find populations under the SS had a nasty habit of dropping rather substantially – millions were systematically slaughtered and not only Jews, so maybe time to take note.
        The Palestinians’ population has grown considerably since 1948.
        Also, have you noticed that sometimes Arabs are a bit nasty to each other? They get very annoyed and kill people in very large numbers.
        It’s because of twats like you that Israel needs to exist..

    • Mike Streamers

      You are wrong in your assessment and mispreceive various historical incidents into a motley and incoherent historical preception. I am a Christian and support PALESTINE. My views regarding Israel gradually developed as I delved
      into research about the forces directing Israel’s government and Israel’s
      current geopolitical role in the grand scheme of world events. Israel, along
      with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and other western countries are under the influence
      of a documented network of corporate-financier interests, called globalists,
      who direct the affairs of the respective countries according to their on-record
      designs of regional and global hegemony. Israel is part of their strategy of
      tension in the Middle East which they use to stir up destabilization which
      creates the waves of tension that their plans ride upon. All of this is
      discernible simply from research of things out in the open that shed light on
      the truth behind Israel and world affairs.

      The specific corporate-financier interests I refer to can be
      found here. Understanding their role is important to understanding world
      affairs:
      http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

      Consider Israel’s role in Syria’s conflict:
      http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/syrian-war-prequel.html

      Furthermore, simply know that the Muslim Brotherhood was
      literally created by criminal elements in western governments for their
      geopolitical, imperialist designs in the Middle East. This goes back to the
      1950s with the former leader of the Brotherhood, Said Ramadan, consorting with
      the CIA and even meeting with President Eisenhower with rare photos of this
      available. This was even in the Wall Street Journal, once. The establishment
      plays on the delicate political and religious lines in the Middle East in order
      to target countries according to their interests. Begin here regarding the
      Brotherhood: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/muslim-brotherhood-are-western-proxies.html

      Also, consider Israel’s geopolitical role in the Middle
      East, I recommend this specifically:
      http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/11/netanyahu-leading-israel-to-avoidable.html

      Now as a Christian, I also have a unique interpretation of
      this evidentially-based reality of Israel, and the even greater, over-arching
      role of the globalists, as it appears to flow in smoothly with Biblical
      prophecy. The Bible indicates that in the end-times, there will be a global order
      headed by a central authority and figure, the anti-Christ. This authority will
      run the world politically and economically through its networks and
      administrations of control. Looking at how globalist networks are openly acting
      on the world stage today, I see their actions as paving the way for the order
      of the anti-Christ. Israel, we know through the above links, is serving
      globalist designs in the Middle East. While the average evangelical Christian
      views Israel in a positive light and the victim of “terrorist aggression”, the
      plain facts demonstrate this to be a ploy of the establishment to keep people
      perpetually-divided in fake political camps while both Israelis and Americans
      are exploited for the designs of the global elite. Israel, along with the U.S.
      through their ties to the Saudis, are directing Islamic extremism as their
      “Swiss army knife” of destabilization against target nations like Syria.

      Through the Bible, it is known that the children of Israel
      are in apostasy and that the Messiah will restore Israel in his reign which
      will come from above. However, the current state of Israel came not from above
      but from the interests of the globalists laying the stepping stones for the
      anti-Christ. It is through that I can say that the current Israel is a
      pseudo-Israel, a counterfeit of the true Kingdom that will be set up by Christ.
      Many Bible verses back up this understanding.

      Romans 9:6:” Not as though the word of God hath taken none
      effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:”

      Revelations 2:9:” “I know your suffering and your poverty
      (but you are rich ) and the blasphemy of those who call themselves Jews of the
      Judeans, when they are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

      Or one can look at Galatians 3 which exalts Christ as the
      true Israel, the real kingdom of God. Revelations, when it speaks of Israel,
      refers to the pure, holy Israel that will be established by the Messiah, not
      the current pseudo-Israel founded through depravity and perpetuating the
      anti-Christ’s agenda. The beast will rise and Israel is fanning the flames of
      hell upon all of humanity along with the globalists

      We can see that the facts demonstrate Israel’s insidious
      role in world affairs and the Bible complies quite easily with the current
      reality even though some have twisted Scripture to justify the current state as
      opposed to exposing it as a counterfeit of the true Israel in the same way that
      the anti-Christ shall be a counterfeit of Christ.

      Even if one does not believe in Biblical prophecy or
      religion, there is no doubt that Israel is serving the agenda of degenerate
      figures who only seek their global hegemony and subversion of any opposition to
      their rackets of control. This isn’t a “Zionist empire” in any way as Israel is
      simply a pawn, just like the Saudis, for the corporate-financier interests.
      Understanding this, and working locally to build strong, self-sufficient
      communities outside of the rackets of big government and its twin of
      big-business is crucial to undermining their agenda and empowering people to go
      forward into an era of independence and mutual prosperity for humanity. The
      world may not be a perfect place, but we must realize that we have the ability
      in our minds, hearts, and heads to prevail in any noble pursuit that “we the
      people” choose and work to build the world we all seek to live
      in:http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/self-sufficiency-local-solution-to.html

      Also, truth behind Iran for those who defer to it as a
      threat: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/09/3-reasons-us-and-israel-are-lying-about.html

      Please consider thoroughly what I have presented as the
      magnitude of it, especially for Christians, cannot be understated.

    • Roque Orozco

      Source the “Chapter & verse” for your claim:

      Whereof, there is no such precept as “Eretz Israel” [Land of Israel] in any of the Texts of the Semitic Prophets.

      1 1st documented utterance of the word “Pelesheth [Hebrew for ‘Palestine’] : Exodus 15:14 by Moses upon crossing the Red Sea at Aqaba.

      2 Holy Quran 17:104 “…We told the Children of Israel, “Live in the land, and when the promise of the Hereafter is fulfilled, We shall bring you into the assembly of all people'” :

      2.1 Does not reference a “land of Israel”

      2.2 It does reference the the inclusion into a body politic:

      2.2.1 It could be argued that it is fulfilled with UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947

      2.2.2 Or it could be argued that it means inclusion into a body politic of the Arab League or similar Regional International Organization

      3 Sionsits premise that Genesis 15:18 Covenant is the authority for the State of Israel’s claim to the territory “from the river of Egypt to the river, great river Euphrates” is an ABSURDITY

      3.1 Genesis 15;18 is a Semitic Covenant : Whereof, Ashkenazi are NON-Semitic Japhetites [Genesis 10:3]

      3.1.1 Sionist premise that Japhetite spermatozoa morphs into Semitic spermatozoa is an ABSURDITY

      3.2 Tribe of Judah is sole inheritor/possessor of Shem’s Sceptre [Genesis 49:8-12];

      3.2.1 ABSURD premise that non-Semitic Ashkenazi could inherit Shem’s Sceptre when the other eleven Semitic Hebrew Abramite Jacobite Tribes cannot.

      4 Semitic Hebrew Arabs fulfill Genesis 15:18 “thy seed” Covenant; Whereof, their present habitation is this geographical “from river Egypt to the river, great rive Euphrates”

      5 Japhet’s blessing of Genesis 9:27 “Japhet shall dwell within the tents of Shem” is fulfilled with UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947

      5.1 However that blessing is within the context of the territory limited to UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries., B., Jewish State:

      5.2 & NOT the the State of Palestine’s territory as defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A., Arab State

      6 Netanyahu Sionists fit the description of Tribe of Judah’s Jesus the Nazarene of Revelations 2:9 “They say they are Jews, and are not but lie; they are the synagogue of Satan”

      7 Deuteronomy 19:14-21 define the moving of territorial [UNGA181/1949 Armistice Agreement aka Greenline] boundarymarks; dishonoring of one’;s ancestors [UNGA 273 & LOAC] agreements; & baring false witness as capital punishment crimes to put away this evil from our people.

      7.1 Judaism: Deuteronomy 16:20 “Justice & only justice shall you do in the land your God is giving you to possess”

      8 Sionists do not practice Judaism nor are they Semites.

  • Israel; America’s Biggest Problem

    Israel’s intransigence, ingratitude, atrocities and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is based on a ridiculous statement in the bible of a couple hundred years ago that the mythical God promised a homeland called Israel, to the descendant of Jacob, called Israelites. This like other statements in that unenlightened book, is total nonsense, The name Israel was given to Jacob who the superstitious bible tells us was given to him after he wrestled all night with an angel of God. The descendants of Jacob were therefore called Israelites and later on Jews. Prior to 1948, there was no land called Israel. The Jews continued to be a Middle Eastern nomadic tribe migrating around the world. They have faced persecution in several countries due to their tenacity in infiltrating the political systems in their host countries. It was just recently in 1948 that America and England manipulated Palestine into giving its western strip as a homeland to the persecuted Jews in the diaspora. The name Israel was given to that western strip of Palestine. The atrocities, illegality and injustices of Israel against the Palestinians reflect the utmost ingratitude to a people who gave them a homeland. America continues to support the atrocities of Israel against the Palestinian people, flaunting the UN and international condemnation of its illegality. This support is rooted in the fact that the Jewish lobby has its finger on America’s economic and political pulse. On the basis of this strategic lobby, Israel is now showing hostility towards any peace initiative by the US administration. In such a situation America has forfeited its moral credibility in world affairs. So long as America continues on this course, it will not be regarded as an impartial voice in world affairs; the distrust of the Arab world and the third world is a reflection of their indignation against America’s arrogant policies. The Palestines have no comparable military strength to Israel. America supplies Israel with the deadliest and most sophisticated military arsenal used against the Palestines. Israel’s value to America is solely as its spying eyes in the middle east; for this America will continue to pay a high price to its prestige in world affairs.
    Cephas Keith Reyes, PhD.

    • Mike Streamers

      Not all Christians support Israel and you can still believe the Bible in its entirity and not detrimentally twist it in the manner Zionists do so please don’t stigmatize the Bible Christianity; many Palestinian victims were Christian.

      My views regarding Israel gradually developed as I delved
      into research about the forces directing Israel’s government and Israel’s
      current geopolitical role in the grand scheme of world events. Israel, along
      with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and other western countries are under the influence
      of a documented network of corporate-financier interests, called globalists,
      who direct the affairs of the respective countries according to their on-record
      designs of regional and global hegemony. Israel is part of their strategy of
      tension in the Middle East which they use to stir up destabilization which
      creates the waves of tension that their plans ride upon. All of this is
      discernible simply from research of things out in the open that shed light on
      the truth behind Israel and world affairs.

      The specific corporate-financier interests I refer to can be
      found here. Understanding their role is important to understanding world
      affairs:
      http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

      Consider Israel’s role in Syria’s conflict:
      http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/syrian-war-prequel.html

      Furthermore, simply know that the Muslim Brotherhood was
      literally created by criminal elements in western governments for their
      geopolitical, imperialist designs in the Middle East. This goes back to the
      1950s with the former leader of the Brotherhood, Said Ramadan, consorting with
      the CIA and even meeting with President Eisenhower with rare photos of this
      available. This was even in the Wall Street Journal, once. The establishment
      plays on the delicate political and religious lines in the Middle East in order
      to target countries according to their interests. Begin here regarding the
      Brotherhood: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/muslim-brotherhood-are-western-proxies.html

      Also, consider Israel’s geopolitical role in the Middle
      East, I recommend this specifically:
      http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/11/netanyahu-leading-israel-to-avoidable.html

      Now as a Christian, I also have a unique interpretation of
      this evidentially-based reality of Israel, and the even greater, over-arching
      role of the globalists, as it appears to flow in smoothly with Biblical
      prophecy. The Bible indicates that in the end-times, there will be a global order
      headed by a central authority and figure, the anti-Christ. This authority will
      run the world politically and economically through its networks and
      administrations of control. Looking at how globalist networks are openly acting
      on the world stage today, I see their actions as paving the way for the order
      of the anti-Christ. Israel, we know through the above links, is serving
      globalist designs in the Middle East. While the average evangelical Christian
      views Israel in a positive light and the victim of “terrorist aggression”, the
      plain facts demonstrate this to be a ploy of the establishment to keep people
      perpetually-divided in fake political camps while both Israelis and Americans
      are exploited for the designs of the global elite. Israel, along with the U.S.
      through their ties to the Saudis, are directing Islamic extremism as their
      “Swiss army knife” of destabilization against target nations like Syria.

      Through the Bible, it is known that the children of Israel
      are in apostasy and that the Messiah will restore Israel in his reign which
      will come from above. However, the current state of Israel came not from above
      but from the interests of the globalists laying the stepping stones for the
      anti-Christ. It is through that I can say that the current Israel is a
      pseudo-Israel, a counterfeit of the true Kingdom that will be set up by Christ.
      Many Bible verses back up this understanding.

      Romans 9:6:” Not as though the word of God hath taken none
      effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:”

      Revelations 2:9:” “I know your suffering and your poverty
      (but you are rich ) and the blasphemy of those who call themselves Jews of the
      Judeans, when they are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

      Or one can look at Galatians 3 which exalts Christ as the
      true Israel, the real kingdom of God. Revelations, when it speaks of Israel,
      refers to the pure, holy Israel that will be established by the Messiah, not
      the current pseudo-Israel founded through depravity and perpetuating the
      anti-Christ’s agenda. The beast will rise and Israel is fanning the flames of
      hell upon all of humanity along with the globalists

      We can see that the facts demonstrate Israel’s insidious
      role in world affairs and the Bible complies quite easily with the current
      reality even though some have twisted Scripture to justify the current state as
      opposed to exposing it as a counterfeit of the true Israel in the same way that
      the anti-Christ shall be a counterfeit of Christ.

      Even if one does not believe in Biblical prophecy or
      religion, there is no doubt that Israel is serving the agenda of degenerate
      figures who only seek their global hegemony and subversion of any opposition to
      their rackets of control. This isn’t a “Zionist empire” in any way as Israel is
      simply a pawn, just like the Saudis, for the corporate-financier interests.
      Understanding this, and working locally to build strong, self-sufficient
      communities outside of the rackets of big government and its twin of
      big-business is crucial to undermining their agenda and empowering people to go
      forward into an era of independence and mutual prosperity for humanity. The
      world may not be a perfect place, but we must realize that we have the ability
      in our minds, hearts, and heads to prevail in any noble pursuit that “we the
      people” choose and work to build the world we all seek to live
      in:http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/self-sufficiency-local-solution-to.html

      Also, truth behind Iran for those who defer to it as a
      threat: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/09/3-reasons-us-and-israel-are-lying-about.html

      Please consider thoroughly what I have presented as the
      magnitude of it, especially for Christians, cannot be understated.

      • ignatzthecat

        you lose me when you start quoting the Bible……
        Only an excuse for more atrocities……

      • Eric Holt

        “Through the Bible, it is known that the children of Israel
        are in apostasy and that the Messiah will restore Israel in his reign which
        will come from above. However, the current state of Israel came not from above
        but from the interests of the globalists laying the stepping stones for the
        anti-Christ. It is through that I can say that the current Israel is a
        pseudo-Israel, a counterfeit of the true Kingdom that will be set up by Christ.”

        You also stated that a Christian can believe in the bible in its whole and not in Israel.

        You make reference that you speak for god???

        “However, the current state of Israel came not from above
        but from the interests of the globalists laying the stepping stones for the
        anti-Christ” – how is it that you as a Christian can know this for certain and that it is not just god working his miracles in his devine ways of mystery. You cant. This alone tells how you are full of BS and the rest of what you wrote is only your ideology that makes history as por as what it is.

    • Just_a_man

      Mr. PhD, perhaps you should return your title to Wallmart a get your money back! 200 years ago no God has promised anything to anyone. Prior to 1948 there was no land called Israel is true, There was no state of Palestine either. How ever there was a place called Judea, Samaria now called West Bank. Typical Arab names ? If people call themselves Palestinians, it is OK, however so are Jordanians. They are the same Arabs of Palestine, sharing language and culture!
      After all West Bank was annexed by Kingdom of Jordan in 1948, all inhabitants were given Jordanian citizenship! Gaza was occupied by Egypt since 1948. So, why did they not for 19 years create state of Palestine?
      Israel was recognized as a state by USA, SSSR, France, Britain among the majority of UN members. Interestingly, you never mention any of it. Again, what kind of University did you go?

      • Fivish

        You can get a phd from the same shop as abbas got his. Worthless.

    • Fivish

      Are you serious? Your grasp of history and law is pathetic.

  • The Law of Dirt

    Much of this isn’t about the people lying or being dishonest. It is about the misuse of religion, states and churches leadership intervening in the rights of man to have a direct access to our God/Allah/Yahweh or whatever you know Him to be. Instead it is to place nationalism ideals or religious divisionism means on common man (see: Law of dirt!) to participate directly with God and to usurp this relationship with conduits of illicit power to control. IE: The battle between the dark and light forces which are created by men out of this disconnected relationship with our natural born God. Not some “supernatural” unattainable entity only churches and governments have access to.
    Please learn about what Law really is in its simplest terms. Common Law (God’s law or the law of dirt) vs. Admiralty Law (The law of commerce and defacto jurisdictions) and what your citizen/ship jurisdiction means when it comes to money/debt and the use of your God given rights and the usury of your all caps corporate fiction identity. You should be a child of God. Not valued as all caps fictional human capital in an IMF system of Fractional Banking with your countries sell out of your soul as voiceless human capital to the Federal Reserve System of silent steady conquest through worthless paper and ink debt..

    Are either of you guys knowledgeable about the creation of the Scofeild Bible with relation to the creation of Israel and Western Christianity? Israel was a man. The “Nation of Israel” are all the people that have been misled to believe own land. When God promised Abraham “A Nation of His People” refers to the people not a land. Not a place called “Israel”. At the time God promised Abraham “His Nation” the man Israel had not been born yet. The idea of a State of Israel was a Zionist fabrication added to the New Testament Biblical footnotes and injected into the belief system of the Baptist League founded in Fort Worth Texas by Cyrus Scofield himself. It propagated the idea that Christians had a special obligation to their Jewish brothers, but this was not the case. This was propaganda! We all have an obligation to our fellow man. Period! Cyrus Scofield was not only a fraud and a known crook, but he was hired by Zionists in Switzerland before the end of WWII and was instrumental in bringing Western Christians into solidarity with two fundamental ideas. One the creation of the Israeli State in Palestine and two the Freemason’s non-gnostic (see: lucifarian trust or references to the Evil Eye and Freemasonary sects of the One World Order using Armageddon and the populations acceptance of war and strife perpetrated by through the financing of adversity and wars going back well before 500 A.D. and the first Freemason Priam Priests disclosure of such an idea in Bavaria around this time involving conquest through the fractional banking system and the control and conquest of world governments by these secret societies using various minorities and religions to front their means. Revelations being one of the oldest propaganda tools of this campaign added book of the New testament bible. Revelations was a government propaganda for the fulfillment of mass ideology based on Freemason’s truth in the open which is actually a lie based on fear and terror. Not of God and obviously not written by the gospel writer of John the supposed author of Revelations, but created at the First Council of Nicaea a council of diverse Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I an Atheist in AD 325. Like the Cossacks of the Gog Revelations these non-gnostic non-Semitic Marxists that converted to Judaism out of expedience to usurp the rights of Semitic Jews and their heritage just as the Talmud belief system over the Torah which originated out of Gnosticism. The sole purpose was to use Semetic Jews as a buffer for their purposes. I am not speaking of the people that unknowingly converted out of sincerity, but rather those that were unbeleivers that converted out of expedience for the purpose of conformity and power to conquer through the use of paper money and the debt of nations. nation builders rather than worshiping followers of God and particularly the leaders of these in church and government. These Cabalists or mystic followers of these sects and particularly their mystic leadership were the ones Christ told of in the Bible “You do not know Me because you do not know God” (The Word) IE: God and the Word were One and since Sadducees and Pharisees had become non-gnostic and mystics and concerned with their “tassels” Christ claimed they didn’t know the prophesy of the Word or they would have recognized who He was. That was the story. Your salvation depends on you knowing who and what you are. None of you seem to. Instead the masses flounder in dispute. We are nothing more than human capital to the real forces in power unless we learn what we need to know about what God and the law which all of us are accountable for including these forces that use it against us. All of us have been misled. Here are two good video references to help you all in your quest and please remember we are all in this and God knows our hearts. We all must struggle to know the truth and God has a plan for all of us, but we must seek Him out and be able know the difference between a lie and the truth and not depend strictly on traditions and be misled by hate, fear and divisionism:
    Jack Otto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cke_vX–Ks

    Cyrus Scofield Bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFikke6lhk

  • Roque Orozco

    I FROM WHENCE DOES STATE OF ISRAEL SOVEREIGNTY ORIGINATE?

    1 If not from UNGA 181, then from where?

    2 If the premise is what Sionists propose that entire Mandate of Palestine is State of Israel: All the inhabitants would be State of Israel citizens.

    2.1 Why are the persons from the UNGA 181 Palestine territories of West Bank & Gaza then not accorded Israeli citizenship equal to the Israeli-Arabs, example of voting rights?

    II SOVEREIGN POWERS & SOVEREIGNTY ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS:

    1 People incorporate themselves into Agency of Governance aka Government to administrate the commonwealth OF the People

    2 Sovereign powers are held in trust by the Agency of Governance FOR the People.

    3 Under the International Law premise of nation-states, sovereignty aka territorial integrity is held BY the People of the respective Nation-State.

    4 Under the Monarchial systems the premise was taht sovereign powers were held by the Monarch & the sovereignty of the Monarch rested upon the premise that the people were property aka subjects of the Monarch.

    4.1 Under the premise that persons enter into political compacts by free-will:They establish a Trust, an Agency of Government, to administrate their corporate territory & commonwealth as individuals and as collective corporate body politic.

    5 The confusion stems from this transition from monarchial systems to free-agency systems of Government.

    III SOVEREIGNTY CHAIN OF CUSTODY:
    1 Pre-WWI: Sovereign of the Ottoman Empire

    2 Post-WWII: Peoples of the respective Nation-states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, & Turkey

    3 LEAGUE OF NATIONS Administrator for the Trusteeship State- Mandate of Palestine 1922 to November 28th 1947: United Kingdom.

    4 UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION; UN Charter authority:

    4.1 Article 20, Convokation by request of United Kingdom: “Question of Palestine”

    4.2 Article 77, (c) Territories held under mandate

    4.3 Article 80 Terms of UN Trusteeship is Partition of Mandate State of Palestine:
    4.3.1 November 29th, 1947 UNGA 181 Partition of Mandate of Palestine is NON-Modifiable

    4.4 Article 81. Organization, itself, is Trusteeship Administrator : UNGA does have the international law authority to contract for the people of the State of Palestine.

    5 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD: UNGA 181 Part I A. Termination of Mandate, Partition, & Independence, [PH] 4. “The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of Arab & Jewish States shall be a transitional Period.

    5.1 STATE OF ISRAEL TERRITORY/SOVEREIGNTY is defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B., Jewish State

    5.1.1 Jewish Proclamation of Establishment of Government of May 14-15th 1949 references State of Palestine & its UNGA 181 PARTITION as source for State of Israel sovereignty

    5.1.3 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD TERMINATED FOR STATE OF ISRAEL: UNGA 273 of May 11th 1948; State of Israel Accession to UN Charter “unreservedly” accepts UN Charter obligations stipulating UNGA 184 & UNGA 194

    5.2.STATE OF PALESTINE TERRITORY/SOVEREIGNTY is defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, A., Arab State

    5.2.2 A/RES/67/19 State of Palestine admitted into UN Agencies as non-member UN Observer State

    5.2 TRANSITIONAL PERIOD STILL IN EFFECT FOR UNGA 181 STATE OF PALESTINE:

    5.2.1 Transitional period is not terminated until State of Palestine is free from foreign occupation

    5.2.1.1 UNSC 242 : Breach of 1949 Armistice Agreements

    6 JERUSALEM: UNGA 181 Part III Jerusalem is UN sovereignty.

    • Roque Orozco

      ABSURD SIONIST PREMISES:

      I. If the Sionist premise is that the Government of the State of Israel came into being through civil war within the Mandate of Palestine:

      1 All the inhabitants would still be State of Israel citizens:

      1.1 It would mean that all the refugees in 3rd Arab States from the 1949 War are State of Israel citizens

      1.1.1 State of Israel citizens are the refugees who originate from the territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B., Jewish State of being Israel-Arabs & NOT Palestinian citizens.

      2 Palestinian Citizens are those refugees whom originate from the territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A., Arab State [of Palestine]

      3 It would also meant that all the illegal Jewish immigrants into the Mandate of Palestine do NOT have a right to State of Israel citizenship and could be repatriated to their nation-states of origin.

      3.1 Jewish State citizenship was conferred upon these 1922 to November 28th 1947 illegal Jewish immigrants through UNGA 181.

      II. If the West Bank & Gaza are State of Israel territory under the Sionist premise that all of the Mandate of Palestine is the State of Israel territory:

      1 It would mean that all the inhabitants of the Gaza & West Bank are State of Israel Citizens.

      1.1 It would also mean that the Arab States could repatriate 100% of all persons that are commonly called “Palestinians’ to the State of Israel upon concluding respective Israel-Arab State bi-lateral Peace Agreements.

      III 3rd Arab State rejection of UNGA 181 vacates State of Israel’s UNGA 273 obligations to UN Charter vis-a-vis UNGA 181:

      1 It would mean that the State of Israel is rejecting its own International Law legitimacy which originates from UNGA 181 Partition of Mandate State of Palestine.

      • Did you not read the above paper? Israel derives no legitimacy under international law from UNGAR 181.

        • Ken Kelso

          Israel existed 1500 years before Mohammad was born.
          The name Palestine is named after the Philistines, not the Palestinians or any Arab group.
          It was certainly not directed or bestowed to the Arabs in this area.

          The Philistines were from Crete in Europe and came to Israel 3000 years ago and were not Arabs or Muslims. Delilah and Goliath were Philistines. (Philistines died out.) Philistine is the name the Romans renamed Israel as a chagrin against the Jews.

          Yassir Arafat was not a Philistine, but an ARAB born in Egypt. Philistine originates from the Hebrew verb Palash, which means to invade. So the Arabs who started to call themselves Palestinians in the late 60′s are invaders and they want to create an Invadia state.

          There was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians.
          Tell us when did it ever belong to Palestinians? Answer Never. It was never a Pal land to begin with, so your question is invalid. The Palestinians never governed or controlled any land before 1993. To make it simple, please tell me one Palestinian President before 1948? Keep thinking.Jeremy.
          The Palestinians want a capital, which they never had, in a country that never existed.

          • What does Mohammad have to do with anything?

            What does the origin of the word “Palestine” have to do with anything?

            What does the fact that in the past there wasn’t a state called Palestine have to do with anything?

            You asked when the territory known as Palestine belonged to the Palestinians. You answered “Never”. False. I’ll just paste an excerpt from my forthcoming book on the conflict:

            “An UNSCOP survey of land ownership cited 1943 statistics showing that of Palestine’s total land area (26,320,505 dunams), Arabs and other non-Jews owned nearly 94 percent (24,670,455 dunams). By contrast, the Jews owned only 5.8 percent (1,514,247 dunams). Land ownership statistics for 1945 likewise showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs. Jews owned less than 5 percent of the land in eight out of the sixteen districts. Even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, according to the Jewish National Fund (a quasi-governmental organization founded in 1901 to purchase land for Jewish settlement), the Jewish community had acquired only about 6.9 percent (1,820,000 dunams) of the total land area of Palestine.”

            Other readers may wish to subscribe to my free newsletter for updates about the book at http://www.jeremyrhammond.com

          • Ken Kelso

            Utter nonsense. The amount of land privately owned in the Western sense by Palestinian Arabs was just over 2% of the land.
            It is very easy to prove the falsehood of your claims. The Negev, which alone constitutes about 40% of the land, was virtually all State land by the British

          • The facts are as I’ve stated them.

          • Ken Kelso

            If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times. A state for Jews is racist, a state for Arabs is perfectly OK.

          • According to whom?

            The facts remain as I’ve stated them.

          • Levi

            The facts are as Jeremy wants them to be – good luck with the book but the jewish people will live on and people like Jeremy will continue to be a sideshow (a distraction who try to make a name for themselves by slandering and trying to minimize truth and all that is good in the world).

          • Ken Kelso

            http://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/a-tour-and-census-of-palestine-year-1695-no-sign-of-arabian-names-or-palestinians/

            A Tour and Census of Palestine Year 1695: No sign of Arabian names or Palestinians
            April 27, 2014

          • If you have an argument relevant to the article, make it.

          • Ken Kelso

            The facts are you want Israel to be eliminated and Jews to be enslaved by Arabs.

            As the Yazidis, Coptics, Kurds, Berbers, Chaldeans and Black Christians of Sudan whats its like to live under Muslim Arabs.

          • The facts are…

            No. Those are not the facts. The facts are as I’ve stated them.

            You are banned for trolling.

          • MuslimJew

            “Israel existed 1500 years before Mohammad was born.”

            Palestine has existed for millennia.

            Israel never existed before 1948.

        • Ken Kelso

          Jeremy like his Arabs friends have been under the impression that Israel is temporary and that eventually Israel will be destroyed.

          http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2014/09/israel-shown-on-map-during-arab-idol.html#.VBL9pPldWro
          Israel shown on map during “Arab Idol,” Arabs freak out
          September 12, 2014

          During an episode of the popular “Arab Idol” singing competition shown on Saudi Arabia’s MBC, this shocking graphic was briefly shown:

          • Please keep your comments relevant to the article. If you think there is any error in fact or logic therein, you are welcome to point it out.

    • Do you have a point?

      • Jeremy, Point is self-evident: Establishment of the sovereignty of the State of Israel is 100% within the legitimacy of International Law’s UN Charter.

        I’ve been with the Palestinian Resistance since 1987; At that time, King Hussein [PBUY] of Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, PLO Chairman Arafat [PBUY], & myself understood the Israeli-Palestinian context as follows:

        I State of Israel’s sovereignty/territory is defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, B., Jewish State; Therefore, State of Israel has ZERO claims to:

        1 UNGA 181 State of Palestine territory/sovereignty as defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries, A., Arab state.

        2 Jerusalem as defined in UNGA 181 Part III which is UN sovereignty.

        II UNSC 242: A UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 39 Breach of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

        III UNGA 181: A UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80 Non-Modifiable Terms of UN Trusteeship for Mandate State of Palestine.

        1 UN Charter, Chapter XVI, Article 103: UN Member nation-states obligations to UN Charter supercede bi-lateral obligations.

        2 UNGA 273 State of Israel Accession to UN Charter : Stipulates UNGA 181 & UNGA 194;

        3 Whereof, all UN members are Mandated to honor UNGA 181 Partition of Mandate Trusteeship State of Palestine: Therefore, cannot recognize unilateral State of Israel annexation of any territory of UNGA 181 Palestine nor commit to any course that contravenes UNSC 242 modality for establishment of Israeli-Palestine Peace Agreement.

        Note: Albeit, King Hussein & myself addressed Arafat’s concern’s so that he could grasp the above “International legalities” .

  • Roque, the UN did not create Israel. Nor did it have any authority to do so. Please take the time to actually read the article before trying to comment.

    • Jeremy, I did read your article; read it five times before writing my comment.

      Your premise rests on the word “recommendation” : All words have specific definitions within the context of application. Most especially within law, civil or international.

      At the UN, a draft text is called a “recommendation”; at the point of adoption [passage] of the recommendation, it is called a resolution.

      Comparative USA domestic context: All draft texts are called “Bills” ; at the point of passage the bill is called Law.

      The UN is an International Agency of sovereign nation-states: UN Charter outline the powers & responsibilities.

      Comparative would be that the US Congress is the combined Agency of People of the United States [House of Representatives] & the Agency of the sovereign states of the union [Senate] : US Constitution outlines powers & responsibilities.

      The premise that nation-states or US states [US Senate] that reject a respective recommendation or bill with a “no” vote are not bound to honor the respective UN Resolution nor US Law should it pass muster of outlined votes is an ABSURDITY:

      UN Member states are bound to honor UN Resolutions which is specifically articulated in UN Charter, Chapter XVI, Article 103 Whereof, UN obligations supercede bi-lateral obligations.

      Questions of US law or UN Resolutions have respective US Supreme Court & International Court of Justice to address such questions.

      Examples of word “recommendation” & “resolution” used in International Law context of UN Charter:

      1. UNGA 181 Future of Government of Palestine, PART I A Termination of Mandate, Partition, and Independence, PH 4., “The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the [Article 20 convokation] question of Palestine and the establishment of the independent states shall be a transitional period”

      2. Followed by this PH of context: UNGA 181, Future Government of Palestine, [PH 8.], “(c) The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution”

      Jeremy, You’ve stated the negative premise that UN did not establish State of Israel; Now state the positive by answering this question: “From whence does State of Israel acquire it sovereignty?”

    • Murlin Evans

      Please

  • From whence did State of Israel acquire its sovereignty, if not from UN Charter, Chapter XII, Article 80 Terms of UN Trusteeship: Partition of the Mandate State of Palestine with the adoption of UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947?

    UNSC 44 of April 1st 1948:

    1 Receipt of UNGA 181

    2 UNSC Request of Article 20 Special General Assembly convokation: Effect is UNGA 194 of December 11th 1948

    If the premise is that the State of Israeli acquired its Sovereignty through Laws of Armed Conflict [LOAC] Doctrine of Military Governance [DMG] through secession from a failed Mandate State of Palestine:

    I UNGA 273 of May 11th 1949: State of Israel Accession to UN Charter “unreservedly accepts” Stipulations of:

    1 UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947

    2 UNGA 194 of December 11th 1948

    II Immaterial of LOAC DMG premise for State of Israel sovereignty: State of Israel Accession to UN Charter with UNGA 273 agreed to the stipulations of UNGA 181 & UNGA 194

    1 UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A., Arab State defines the territory/sovereignty of the State of Palestine

    2 UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B., Jewish State defined the territory/sovereignty of the State of Israel

    3 UNGA 181 Part III Jerusalem: Mandates Jerusalem is UN Sovereignty ; Cannot be State of Israel sovereignty; Nor can it be State of Palestine sovereignty.

    4 UNGA 194 Addresses respective Citizenship of refugees is defined by individual respective origin of territorial residency defined in Part II at the time of adoption of UNGA 181; & compensation for those electing to not return.

  • Your comment is incoherent and presents no argument, as far as I can see. Once again, the UN neither created Israel nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority for its unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel.

    The state of Israel acquired its “sovereignty” over the territory by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Arabs from Palestine.

    • Roque Orozco

      Jeremy, International Law is contractual law between nation-states & NOT governments.

      You’re confusing sovereign powers with sovereignty:

      1 Sovereignty is a specific territory held in possession by its Citizenry incorporated as a body politic aka nation-state.

      2 Sovereign powers are a Trust of political administration by the agency of governance of that body politic.

      3 ABSURD PREMISE that the military conquest of a territory by a foreign power could confer territorial ownership to the foreign power while simultaneously dispossessing the native inhabitants of their national rights to that territory/sovereignty.

      3.2 Furthermore, it’s IDIOCY to premise that a foreign government could have the legal authority to dispossess a citizen of their National Rights of sovereignty when it would be illegitimate any domestic government of those respective citizens to attempt the same : Legitimate political authority is consent of the governed- John Locke.

      CONTEXT
      1 Ethnically cleansing the territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B., Jewish State of its native inhabitants did NOT in 1947 grant sovereignty to the People of the “Jewish State” in 1947;

      1.1 UNGA 181 enfranchised the Jewish resident aliens & illegal Jewish aliens that had entered the Mandate State of Palestine between 1992 to November 28th 1947 within that territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II B., Jewish State with CITIZENSHIP equal to the Arab Citizens of native inhabitants

      1.2 The native inhabitants of Arabs & their descendants that originate from the territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B., Jewish State are State of Israel citizens:

      1.2.1 Regardless that they have been refugees in 3rd Arab States 1947

      2 Neither could State of Israel ethnically cleansing the territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A,, Arab State grant sovereignty to the State of Israel over the UNGA 181 State of Palestine territories of Negev, North Gaza, Beersheba, & Galilee occupied by the State of Israel in 1949;

      3 Nor 2 Neither could State of Israel ethnically cleansing the territory defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A,, Arab State grant sovereignty to the State of Israel over the UNGA 181 State of Palestine territories of Gaza & West Bank occupied by the State of Israel in 1967.
      4 Sovereignty of the territory aka ownership of that territory is held by the People of that nation-state individually & collectively;

      4.1 Regardless, that it is under occupation: Whereof, Laws of Armed Conflict provision for the maintenance of the sovereignty of the occupied nation-state through the protections accorded the occupied people.

      4.1 Occupying powers assume the Trust of Governance for that occupied people through acquisition of provisional sovereign powers aka political administration of the International Law obligations;

      4.1.1 However, LOAC specifically does NOT grant domestic governance which is the domain of LOAC Civil Defense Agencies of the occupied nation-state.

      5 UN Charter, Chapter I, Article 2 articulates the “equality of nation-states” which is the foundation for UNSC 242 “inadmissibility of acquisition territory by war”

      5.1 LOAC does not distinguish between “offensive” nor “defensive” war which is immaterial to the regulation of wafare

      6 REITERATE, UNGA 273 of May 11th 1949 Accession to the UN Charter by the State of Israel which specifically stipulates UNGA 181 & UNGA 194:

      6.1 Establishes the International Law context for the State of Israel of being UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947

      6.2 Binds all subsequent State of Israel governments to UN Charter obligations through the contractual nature of International Law.

      6.2.1 Regardless of all other premises of how State of Israel came into existence.

      • UNGA 181 neither created Israel nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority for their unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. See the above article.

        • Roque Orozco

          Proclamation of May14-15th 1947 was Declaration of Establishment of Government of the State of Israel & NOT Declaration of Statehood:

          1 It referenced the UNGA 181 of November 29th 1947 & Its Partion of the Mandate of State of Palestine as the source for State of Israel sovereignty

          2 IMMATERIAL how the Proclamation of May 14-15th is viewed: Government of the State of Israel with its May 11th 1949 UNGA 273 Accession to UN Charter “unreservedly accepted” the UNGA 181 & UNGA 194 stipulations for the context of the State of Israel

          3 UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B Jewish State defines the sovereignty/territory of the State of Israel.

          3.1 ABSURD premise that the State of Israel was admitted to UN without defined borders.

          • It is perfectly silly to argue that The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948 was not a declaration of statehood.

            Beyond that, I defer to my previous comment.

          • Roque Orozco

            What’s silly:

            1 Your entire article is premised that that the UN did not carve out the State of Israel from the Mandate State of Palestine with UNGA 181.

            2 Proclamation of Establishment of Government of May 14th specifically references the State of Palestine & its UNGA 181 Partition of November 29th 1947 as the source for State of Israel sovereignty: References it TWICE.

            2.1 Is there another UNGAR that was passed on November 29th 1947 vis-a-vis the Question of Mandate of Palestine?

            3 Proclamation is a UNGA 181 Part II C., Declaration.

            4 ABSURD PREMISES that State of Israel was admitted to UN without defined borders or as the entire Mandate of Palestine territory when UNGA 273 stipulates UNGA & UNGA 194 is INTERNATIONAL LAW CONTEXT; Whereof, the Government of the State of Israel “unreservedly agreed” to this UNGA 181 International Law Context.

            4.1 State of Israel territory/sovereignty is LIMITED to UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B. Jewish State

            4.2 State of Palestine territory/sovereignty is LIMITED to UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A., Arab State

            4.3 Jerusalem is UN Sovereignty: UNGA 181 Part III.

            5 What UNGA 181 did: Was to provision Citizenship to the legal Jewish residents & illegal Jewish aliens living in Mandate State of Palestine through the various Aliyah cycles.

            6 If your premise is that the State of Israel was a secessionist insurgency, From what nation-state did it secede from?

            6.1 What nation-state does the Proclamation of Establishment reference if not the State of Palestine?

            6.1.1 Sucessful Secessionist Movements establish boundaries through bi-lateral contracted Peace Agreement: Where is your Israeli Peace Agreement of May 14th 1948 vis-a-vis the Palestinians that concluded the insurgency?

            7 Its an Absurdity to premise that it was an insurgency to secede from the UN just because the Jewish Irgun/LEHI assassinated UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte.

            8 ABSURD PREMISE that the present conflict is a Palestinian Insurgency of secessionist object vis-a-vis the State of Israel: Whereof, border are to be negotiated.

            8.1 A/RES/67/19 of December 4th 2012 recognized the UNGA 181 State of Palestine with its territory/sovereignty defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A., Arab State.

          • The argument that since that declaration cited 181, therefore 181 conferred such legal authority is a non sequitur.

            The argument that since Israel was admitted into the UN, therefor 181 conferred such legal authority is a non sequitur.

            The fact is that UNGA 181 neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any legal authority for the unilateral declaration of May 14.

        • Barry Meridian

          Mr Hammond, you missed the most important point.
          The British always supported the Arabs over Israel during the Mandate years.

          This is a must read how pro Arab the British were.

          http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.615667?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.221%2C
          Uncovered: U.K. intel encouraged Arab armies to invade Israel in 1948
          Intelligence obtained by the French secret services in the Middle East sheds new light on Britain’s role in the Arab-Israeli War of Independence.
          By Meir Zamir
          Sep 14, 2014

          • On the contrary, the most important point to be made here relevant to the above essay is that UNGA 181 neither created Israel nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority for their unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. I could stipulate that the British were “pro Arab” and this fact would remain the same.

          • Murlin Evans

            Barry, please stop. You make not sense. You make “nonsense” – stop using Haaretz to support your cuckoo theories. Primary sources please.

      • Roque Orozco

        Regardless of how any premises the establishment of the State of Israel: Government of the State of Israel in its UNGA 273 of May 11th 1949 Accession to UN Charter; State of Israel “unreservedly agreed” to the International Law Context of UNGA 181 & UNGA 194.

        1 UNSC 46 PH 4., SubPH 2., (d) “pending further [UNSC 44 Request] consideration …by the General Assembly”

        1.1 UNGA 194 of December 11 1948

        1.2 A/RES/67/19

        • I don’t know what you are trying to say. Your comment is again incoherent, so I will just reemphasize once again that the UN neither created Israel nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority for its unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel.

          • Roque Orozco

            Whats’ the International Law Context: The State of Israel vis-a-vis the State of Palestine?

            UNGA 273 established the International Law Context as being UNGA 181, A UN Charter Chapter XII Article 80 Terms of UN Trusteeship: Partition of the Mandate State of Palestine.

            1 Authority to Partition:

            1.1 UN Charter Article 83 UN Administering Authority

            1.2 UN Charter Article 10 UNGA “scope of powers”

          • No, Roque, UNGA 181 did not partition Palestine. See the article.

          • ignatzthecat

            “On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President
            Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same
            day.”

            read more at:

            https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

            http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/realstory.html

            “On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion
            proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in
            2,000 years.”

            http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed

            The UN did not “create” the State of Israel.

          • Your comment is incoherent. The best I can guess is you’re trying to say the UN had the authority to partition Palestine. No, it did not. See the article.

      • UN Resolution 181 neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any legal authority upon the Zionist leadership for its unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. What part of this do you not comprehend?

        • Roque Orozco

          What unilateral declaration? : There is such declaration in existence.

          The Proclamation of Establishment of Government of May 14th 1948 references the State of Palestine & Its [UNGA 181] November 29th 1947 Partition as the source for “Land of Israel” sovereignty.

          1 UNGA of November 29th 1947: “Land of Israel;” is the territory/sovereignty defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries B, Jewish State.

          1.1 Proclamation PH 9 : “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.”

          2 Request of Recognition of Government to USA POTUS Truman: The words “Jewish State” are crossed out & the words “State of Israel” handwritten

          2.1 Abstract digital copy: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photos/isyael.jpg

          2.2 Self-evident there is no nation-state named “Jewish State” in existence

          3 International Law Context: UNGA 181 carved the sovereignty of the State of Israel from the Mandate State of Palestine.

          3.1 ABSURD PREMISE that a nation-state could be unilaterally declared without a bi-lateral agreement of partitioning a pre-existence nation-state sovereignty through insurgency.

          3.1 ABSURD PREMISE that crosses the threshold from idiocy to lunacy that Jewish illegal aliens & legal residents could claim the entire Mandate State of Palestine territory with the mere utterance that Mandate State of Palestine sovereignty is now called “State of Israel”

          4 Jewish State Context: The May 14th 1948 Proclamation is on the establishment of Government aka political administration or sovereign powers.

          5 Historical context : The Jewish State sovereignty came into existence on November 29th 1947:

          5.1 ABSURD PREMISE that the May 14th 1948 Proclamation could unilaterally establish a nation-state that was already in existence since November 29th 1947

          5.1.1 ABSURD PREMISE that crossed the threshold from idiocy to lunacy to pretend that PH 9 does not specifically reference UNGA 181

          6 If the premise that the Mandate of Palestine territory is equal to the State of Israel sovereignty is to be believed through May 14th Proclamation:

          6.1 100% of Arab refugees in 3rd neighboring states are Citizens of the State of Israel : UNGA 194 Mandates their return.

          6.1.1 ABSURD PREMISE that a nation-state government can vacate the citizenship of its citizens: Sovereignty resides in the Individual & collective hands of its citizen- Trust of sovereignty.

          6.2 Why are the native citizens of the West Bank & Gaza called “Palestinians” & NOT accorded State of Israel citizenship of voting & representation in the State of Israel institutions comparable to the Israel-Arabs who are Citizens of the State of Israel?

          7 Sovereignty: Self-evident that State of Israel territory is NOT equal to the Mandate State of Palestine territory.

          7.1 Sovereign powers are trusteeship of political administration aka agency of governance vis-a-vis other nation-states

          7.2 UNGA 181 State of Palestine Sovereign powers are being held in Trust by the UN Organization

          8 UN Organization with UNGA 3236 in accordance with its UN Charter Article 83 Trust assigned Artice 84 provisional sovereign powers to the Palestine Liberation Organization “in carrying out the [UNSC 44, UNSC 56, UNSC 242, UNSC 1397] obligations towards the Security Council”

          8 Why would the UN contract with the PLO towards UNSC 44 PH 2 “Having received onNovember 9th December 1947, General Assembly resolution UNGA 181 (II) concerning Palestine dated November 29th 1947” , UNSC 56, UNSC 242, UNSC 1397 fulfillment of International law if the UNGA 181 State of Palestine sovereignty as defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries A., Arab State had been incorporated into the State of Israel?

          8.2 ABSURD PREMISE that the present Israel-Palestine context could be of domestic Civil War.

          8.2.1 Respective territories of Israel & Palestine are defined in UNGA 181 Part II Boundaries.

          • Dude, UNGA 181 did not create the state of Israel.

          • AntAloy

            Dear Contributor

            Security Council Resolutions are binding NOT General Assembly Resolutions.

            There are over 150 UN Resolutions which Israel has not complied with. Nor has Israel complied with ruling of the International Court of Justice, regarding the 421 illegal wall where most of it is actually built inside the Palestinian Territories.

            Thank you.

  • Once again, UN Resolution 181 neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any legal authority upon the Zionist leadership for its unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel.

    • Levi

      Tell that to obama.

  • Jake and Elmo

    Ah, another crackpot attempt to de-legitimze the State of Israel. Tell you what “Jeremy,” better not use a computer with an Intel microprocessor lest you give credence to those Jewish devils occcupying Palestine. I know, it’s all the Jews fault.

    • If you think there is any error in fact or logic in this paper, you are welcome to point it out. From the fact that you didn’t, I deduce that you can’t.

      • kgbgb

        The standard of the trolling around here is very low, isn’t it? I think you deal with it very well, with your short more-or-less standard response. It allows intelligent people to skip over the trolls very quickly.
        I am surprised at their tactics, however. This style of argument-free name-calling, irrelevant points and plain falsehoods is usually used to disrupt the comment sections below articles spouting the MSM line. This is in order to discourage intelligent but uninformed people from venturing below the line, where intelligent commentators disprove the claims of the article. I can’t see what they hope to achieve here, where presumably anyone reading the comments has already been exposed to the truth in the article.

  • Casey Dial

    The author is an anti-semite who completely ignores the killing of six million Jews by the Germans in the 1940ties. That might have made a difference to some of the numbers he so readily supplies.

    Nothing worse than an anti-semite unless you have an anti-semite who thinks they are smart.

    • If you think the Holocaust has some relevancy such that discussion of it would somehow lead to different conclusions from those I’ve drawn, you are welcome to present your argument.

  • Truth_or_no?

  • eddie333

    Assuming this article is correct (hmmmm) ….I would like to ask the author one question…..

    And then what ?

    Well – it’s 4 yrs since this article was published so think I know the answer to that already.

    And if Israel is an illegal state then what does that make Palestine? Didn’t they declare statehood in 1988? Is their claim to statehood legal?

  • Murlin Evans

    Just ordered your book Jeremy and I look forward to reading it. My quick question to you is, given the levels of Islamic extremism currently taking siege of our news cycle and Congress, would it be a fair assessment to note Israel as the “first” – maybe only – geopolitical state based on one singular religion. I see the efforts of these terror groups, and certainly more diplomatic efforts before them, as means of asserting Islamic statehood and implementing Sharia Law. Can we really consider Israel — the world’s only ‘Jewish State’ any different from the the “Islamic States” that are now sought after in the middle east by ISIS, the Talban before? That’s an open question and I will save your time and leave it there. Thnx for your time.

    • Thanks, Murlin. While there are certainly religious Jews who are Zionists, there are also Zionists who are not religious. The Zionist project of a “Jewish state” in Palestine is a secular political movement founded more on racism than religion.

  • Ari M. Eden

    Even if all this is true, and certainly it can be thoroughly disputed, it ignores the fact that Arabs kicked more Jews out of Arab lands, as well as the religious right to the land for Jews, which is even acknowledged in the Koran and Christian Bible. I know many a liberal has now turned atheist, except when it comes to Muslim barbarism, but there are some believers left. No amount of liberal spin will make me or any sane person feel sorry for 1.7 billion Muslims at the expense of 6 million Jews. There are 22 Muslim Arab countries and Israel is a tiny dot. There is no need to carve yet another Arab Muslim state out of the sole Jewish one. Liberals practice selective moral outrage and double standard hypocrisy. It’s a trademark for them. Jews and Israelis don’t need to constantly be singled out by European leftists in ivory towers who take a very narrow minded view of history, and ignore the very colonialist natures of their own countries. It’s time to give it a rest. Israel’s not going away. The Muslim takeover of Europe and potentially the West is disgusting, but perhaps the only silver lining is that delusional leftist liberals almost deserve what they have coming to them thanks to their ludicrous world view and policy positions. They’ve lost the meaning of the difference between right and wrong.

    • Even if all this is true, and certainly it can be thoroughly disputed…

      I challenge you to dispute a single point of fact in the essay.

      …it ignores the fact that Arabs kicked more Jews out of Arab lands…

      Which is completely irrelevant to the thesis.

      …as well as the religious right to the land for Jews,

      The Jews had no right to the land they stole from the Arabs.

      • HardRocker111

        Buying land is “stealing” now? even before the Mandate they developed lands and built towns legally.

        • I see you did not bother to read the article or otherwise familiarize yourself with the facts before commenting. I advise in the future before participating in a discussion that you do so.

          When the Zionist leadership declared the state of Israel, the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land in Palestine. Arabs owned most of the rest.

          The rest of the land that came to become part of the Jewish state, beyond that ~7%, was not acquired through legal purchase but taken by force.

          750,000 Arab Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. Their homes were destroyed, their villages wiped off the map. And they were never allowed to return.

          It was land theft on a massive scale.

          • HardRocker111

            Local Arabs did not own 93% of the land, that’s for sure (half of the Mandate territory was the Negev desert), and 7% or not, these lands were purchased legally during the British and Ottoman eras.
            Also, the 20th century is full of tens of millions of refugees from war. They all moved on, time for the Palestinian ones to give up their “honor” issue in accepting the 1948 loss, and move on.

          • Local Arabs did not own 93% of the land, that’s for sure…

            Local Arabs were indeed in possession of most of the land. For precise figures and sources, see the article.

            and 7% or not, these lands were purchased legally during the British and Ottoman eras.

            I’m not sure what you mean. The only land legally purchased by the Jewish community amounted to less than 7% of the land of Palestine. The rest was taken by force. The Arab population was ethnically cleansed, their villages destroyed, and their land stolen from them.

            …time for the Palestinian ones to give up their “honour” issue in accepting the 1948 loss, and also move on…

            What a curious and bigoted attitude, to tell a people who were made refugees by being ethnically cleansed from their homeland and who continue to suffer under an oppressive foreign military occupation that they should “move on”.

          • HardRocker111

            You ignore the many threats the Jewish community faced at the time, even years before 1948. They were in a real annihilation threat, that’s no propaganda. The violent revolts, rejection of any, no matter how small, forms of partiton to the land, or the Arab leaders who stated to the world that Israel will be destroyed if created. So maybe the aggression of Arab countries and leaders and all the fighting have something to do with the Palestinians refugees, and it’s not always Israel who’s guilty.

          • You ignore the many threats the Jewish community faced at the time…

            No, I don’t “ignore” threats against the Jewish community. Such threats simply do not change any of the facts I’ve stated or any conclusions drawn from them.

            So maybe the aggression of Arab countries…

            Again, the Arab states were not the aggressors in 1948. By the time they managed to muster a military response to the Zionists’ aggression, a quarter of a million Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed to make way for the establishment of the “Jewish state”.

            …it’s not always Israel who’s guilty.

            Nobody else is guilty for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and massive theft of Arab land but the parties who perpetrated it.

          • HardRocker111

            Is there a war which doesn’t include refugees? Again, the Palestinians as a people were no angels, there were threats and volence by them and their leaders (such as Al-Husseini) before 1948, not just by the Zionists, even if the Arab states did not officialy invade before 1948.

          • Yet the facts remain as I have stated them.

          • Levi

            Is that all you have to say to people who debunk your point? Cmon dude get a grip and find other people to harass.

          • Fivish

            You have no facts just kgb inspired propaganda.

          • John Matthews

            You grasp of facts is from such a one-way perspective, almost straight from a Palestinian-anti-Zionist manual, that they’re hard to take seriously. There were ‘some’ villages encroached at that time, but there was also a massive call to arms by the surrounding Arab armies — who, I might add, represented 100 million people rather than the rag-tag 4 million Jews. It was felt in fact that they’re initially lose that battle and be ‘driven into the sea’, a was the main call from the Arab armies… and that indeed looked likely until about halfway through the war. There were atrocities on the Jewish side, indeed, but there were many on the Arab side too, such as the massacre of a band of army doctors. It wasn’t all one-way.

          • Yes, there were atrocities on the Arab side, too. That fact doesn’t change anything I’ve said. The facts are as I’ve stated them.

          • ignatzthecat

            And what of the role of the Jewish/Zionist terrorist groups?
            The Irgun, Palmach, Stern Gang, Haganah, Lehi….and others?
            Research of these groups is voluminous.
            The atrocities carried out by these same groups is abominable.
            Deliberate atrocities carried out to terrorize the indigenous peoples to flee their lands so as to be easily taken over by the immigrant Zionist.

          • You are welcome to reply to my actual comment. (I “ignore” threats to the Jewish community?)

          • John Matthews

            I notice that here you were given the opportunity to address the state vs private ownership of land issue, but didn’t — which makes it clear you simply did not know. There was no private ownership of land in the Negev, or any other arid areas, as you well know, this was held by the Ottoman Turks then passed on to the British Mandate. Also, you use the term Arab for land ownership, without addressing the fact that much of this was owned by outside Turkish and Lebanese parties (wealthy landowners) in the Ottoman period, and most of the farmers there (the Palestinians) were merely poor tenants.

          • What is disingenuous is to deny Arabs’ rights to the land on the grounds that even though they lived and worked on it, it belonged to the state.

            A relevant excerpt from my forthcoming book:

            An UNSCOP survey of land ownership cited 1943 statistics showing that of Palestine’s total land area (26,320,505 dunams), Arabs and other non-Jews owned nearly 94 percent (24,670,455 dunams). By contrast, the Jews owned only 5.8 percent (1,514,247 dunams). Land ownership statistics for 1945 likewise showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs. Jews owned less than 5 percent of the land in eight out of the sixteen districts. Even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, according to the Jewish National Fund (a quasi-governmental organization founded in 1901 to purchase land for Jewish settlement), the Jewish community had acquired only about 6.9 percent (1,820,000 dunams) of the total land area of Palestine.

            As the UNSCOP report noted, “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land.” And as the subcommittee report observed, “The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs” (emphasis added).

            References were stripped pasting that, but here are the footnotes:

            Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991), Volume II, 566. The entire three-volume Survey of Palestine is available for purchase at http://www.palestine-studies.org and can also be viewed online at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html. A dunam is 1,000 square meters, or about a quarter acre.

            Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43-44; Appendix 5: “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945).” A higher quality image of the map is available at http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg. Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14; Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

            Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (Autumn 1997). Khalidi writes that “Jewish-owned land on the eve of the partition resolution amounted, according to Jewish sources, to 1,820,000 dunams, or less than 7 percent of the total land area of the country” (13). This would be 6.9 percent, although Khalidi puts the total area of Palestine at the higher figure of 27 million dunams, which would put it at about 6.7 percent. His source cited is: Jewish National Fund, “Jewish Settlements in Palestine” (Jewish National Fund, Jerusalem, March 1948, Mimeographed), p. ii. See also Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), 98. Said writes that, by the end of 1947, the Jewish community had legally acquired 1,734,000 dunams, or about 6.6 percent of the territory of Palestine. He cites a slightly different number of 26,323,000 dunams for the total land area of Palestine, which still rounds to 6.6 percent. Said also notes, “After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.” According to Abraham Granott, “The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947 amounted to 1,850,000 dunams….” See: Abraham Granott, The Land System in Palestine (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1952), 278. This number would put the amount of land in Jewish possession at 7 percent. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts the figure lower, writing, “By the end of the Mandate in 1948, the Jewish community owned around 5.8% of the land in Palestine.” See: Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006), Kindle Edition, Location 655. However, this is evidently an error; Pappe seems to have cited the statistic from 1943, which was no longer accurate by the end of the Mandate. Benny Morris likewise puts the amount of land owned by the Jewish community at “7 percent”. See: Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008), Kindle Edition, Location 957.

            UNSCOP Report.

            Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43.

          • John Matthews

            (quote): ‘What is disingenuous is to deny Arabs’ rights to the land on the grounds that even though they lived and worked on it, it belonged to the state.’

            It is not disingenuous at all and, again, you are not in a position to decide what is or isn’t disingenuous or relevant purely because you’ve chosen to take one specific view in this debate (or conflict). As a journalist, or as an advocate of the law, you are duty bound to look at all factors and all sides equally.

            At that stage, particularly in the Negev desert regions, the Jews had been doing far more agriculturally to develop the land, which was why the land was ceded as it was. It was felt they would do far more with the Negev region to develop it; but this was, by any measure, land of far lesser worth. Indeed, in terms of purely fertile land ceded, this reflected the population split at the time; in fact, the Jews probably got slightly less if the desert regions were taken out of the equation. Also, the Arabs had never really ‘worked’ that particular land (the Negev) as you suggest, so why on earth should the state grant it to them? Further, much of the Arab land was owned by absentee landlords – who were not Palestinian at all. They were Turkish, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian,, etc… so again the argument of this land being ceded to those who purely worked it would not hold. Again it does not answer why the Palestinian documents say ‘Palestinian and “other” ownership at 94% (or 93.1% if we take your 6.9% figure).
            Or perhaps it does: in suggesting this figure, perhaps they knew that this figure included all the absentee landlords and the state-owned land. So they knew that it was a ‘dishonest’ claim at the time of issuing it. Again it does not represent ‘Palestinian ownership’ by their own admission. It represents an amalgam of state-owned land, outside-Arab-land ownership (and indeed some in the Lebanon were Christians and Druze) … with finally some 18% Palestinian ownership (perhaps even less, because amongst this figure were a number of outside-Arab party landowners).

            Also, at that juncture, the state-owned land had passed from the Ottomans to the British mandate, so it was up to them how that state land was ceded. Also I find it disingenuous that UNSCOP would have detailed the state owned land (which was considerable) simply as ‘non-Jewish land’, and then tacked this onto the Arab-owned land total. This simply does not ring true. State ownership would have been declared and detailed as such. Also, if there was such a declaration that all the state owned land should be ceded to the Arab parties resident there (despite them not actually owning it), could you please send me documents or direct quotes supporting this? As you probably understand, you simply stating that it’s a disingenuous position doesn’t really count for much in a quasi-legal debate.

          • It is not disingenuous at all …

            Yes, it is disingenuous to deny Arabs’ rights to the land they lived on and worked on the grounds that it was “owned” by the Ottoman Empire.

            The fact is Israel came into being through the use of force to ethnically cleanse Palestine of most of its Arab population, to wipe their villages off the map and expropriate their land for the “Jewish state”.

          • John Matthews

            I’m sorry, Jeremy, but you’ve merely repeated a claim here, without any substance or backing. As said, if the state owned it, then they could cede that state land as they wished. The desert area of the Negev (which formed a large part of the land package for Jews) was hardly occupied at all by any Arabs, let alone ‘worked’ as you suggest – except by some Bedouin (most of whom elected to become future Israeli citizens in any case). Indeed, you make no mention of the current 1.7 million Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel, which means that indeed a large contingent of Arabs stayed within the new Israel (I believe that figure was between 700,000-800,000 originally).

            You also somewhat give away your aims here with your phraseology, which uses the usual ‘buzz words’ of the new left: force, ethnic cleanse, wipe off the map, Jewish state, etc. This then demonstrates a lack of detachment from the process at hand; it becomes clear you have had a pre-designated purpose in writing this book/paper the way you have, then have simply cherry picked facts to suit. You have not adequately answered the state land or Negev issue, or indeed many other issues.

            It’s interesting in fact how the views of the left were not always that way with Israel; and indeed the principals of more objective, balanced journalism were more prevalent then too. My article about that here:

            http://booksand-ebooks.com/blog/i-used-to-be-left-wing-but-now-im-not-so-sure

          • The facts are as I’ve stated them in the article, your substanceless denials notwithstanding. I encourage you to check the sources.

          • John Matthews

            Your sources I’m afraid are more questionable than mine. I’ve also been covering this issue for far longer than you — starting in the mid 80s and the last years of the civil war in the Lebanon, at which time I also visited Shatilla camp for interviews, because I was interested very much in the PLO view. This indeed led to a later book, ‘Crescents of the Moon’, which indeed had a lead Muslim protagonist, an aid worker with the ‘Red Crescent’.

          • Your sources I’m afraid are more questionable than mine.

            What a remarkable statement, considering you haven’t presented any. The facts are as I’ve stated them. I’ve given you sources. You are welcome to check them (as opposed to mindlessly dismissing them).

            You are on notice for trolling. Please familiarize yourself with the terms of use of the comments section.

          • Mark Clifford

            In going through your debate with John Matthews, I see that he has indeed (despite your claims to the contrary) given you numerous sources and links, but most notably this one:

            http://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf
            And in this document we see numerous references and sources, as follows:
            Peel Report, 1931
            Palestine Royal Commission, 1937
            Hope-Simpson Report, 1931
            Land system in Palestine, 1952
            Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910
            Mr Lewis French, Director of Development, British Mandate, 1931
            Royal commission Report, 1939.
            British Govt Survey of Palestine, 1946
            UNWRA, 1962.
            These in general support the last comments made on the subject.

          • Again, I’ve given you the population and land ownership statistics. And, again, it is quite prejudiced to assert that the inhabitants who long lived on and worked the land had no rights to it on account of oppressive Ottoman laws that denied them their rights, a feudal system that treated them as serfs.

            That prejudiced assumption aside, in fact, your own source cites Granott, whom I also cited, and who put the amount of land owned by the Jewish community at 7% of Palestine — precisely as I stated.

            Your own source also cites the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Comittee of Inquiry — yet another source that I also cited, accurately. As I stated, it puts the amount of land owned by the Jewish community in 1943 at 5.8% (p. 566) and by the end of 1945 at 6% (1,588,000 dunams; p. 243).

            Citing this source, your source (the Dershowitz appendix), states, “”The rest of the land–over 70 per cent–had been vested in the Mandatory Power, and accordingly reverted to the State of Israel as its legal heir.”

            That is sheer nonsense. It is scholarly fraud, a lie. The source states no such thing about the amount of land “vested in the Mandatory Power”, much less the absurd and idiotic claim that “the State of Israel” was the “legal heir” to the Mandate.

            Again, here is the land ownership in Palestine:

          • Mark Clifford

            …. And, again, it is quite prejudiced to assert that the inhabitants who long lived on and worked the land had no rights to it on account of oppressive Ottoman laws that denied them their rights, a feudal system that treated them as serfs.

            Again, nobody is saying this, at least not I. What is being said is that the people living and working the land were at that stage 33% Jewish (your quoted figures)… add to that the Arabs who remained within Israel, 12% in 1948 and another 16% in 1967, and you have 61%, over the 55% suggested by UNSCOP.
            Are you saying that this 33% in turn had no rights, along with the 28% Arab contingent that joined them, purely because they were (later) Israeli. This in turn makes no sense.

          • I am glad you acknowledge that the Arabs had rights to the land they lived on and worked.

            Of course the 33% Jewish minority had rights — to the 7% of the land in Palestine that they legally acquired ownership over, not to the 55% proposed for the “Jewish state” by UNSCOP, much less the 78% expropriated by force and ethnic cleansing.

          • Mark Clifford

            You appear to be a master at missing the point.
            As you rightly say, the 33% Jewish contingent had rights – but not only to the 7% of land they privately owned, but also to 33% of the public-state owned land as well (which was 70% of any new state being formed, whether Israel or Palestine). Then add to that the 20-28% Arab contingent that also had rights and later became Israeli, and you no longer have a minority. You have a 53%-61% contingent that would duly and legally deserve their land rights too.
            So that 20-28% Arab-Israeli contingent would in turn get their 20-28% share of the public-state land, plus their share of the private-Arab-owned land, which was estimated at 16-18%. So, say, 25% of that – 17% x 25% = 4.25%. Deduct that from the 17% Arab private ownership total and your left with 12.75%. Then add that same 4.25% to the Jewish 7% and you have 11.25%. So even here on private ownership the two sectors become far more even… then of course the factor that a large proportion of the Israeli part was the Negev, which was land of a far lesser value and very hard to cultivate.
            Even if you wanted to argue that the state-land proportion was far less, say, 60%, it wouldn’t make much difference – because that 53-61% contingent (Jews plus Arabs) who then became Israelis would still need to be represented in any split, particularly as combined they are in fact a majority (if only a slight one). But all of this shifts the status-quo and the stats a far reach from what you have suggested.

          • Your argument is utter nonsense. The Zionists did not have a “right” to take over any land considered public, much less to ethnically cleanse a majority of the Arab population of Palestine and expropriate their lands by force to create their “Jewish state”.

          • Mark Clifford

            First of all, you are not in a position to decide who has ‘rights’ and who doesn’t. Secondly, even if you did, you appear to be ignoring the rights of the 24% Arab population who ended up Israeli (and many proudly so). Do they not have rights also — aside from the 33% Jewish population whose ‘rights’ you seem keen to ignore or ride rough-shod over.
            In short – on a proportional representation basis – that combined 58% should have representative rights. That would mean 58% of all state-owned land( which I accept included a proportion of Miri land, which that 25% Arab population would have equal rights to). Indeed, it could be argued that the 33% Jewish population should also have their fair share of that Miri land — since the main stipulation was that it was in ‘possession’ as long as it was ‘worked’. So if Jews worked that land, why not? To say otherwise would be prejudicial to them.
            Also where your argument falls down regarding ‘rights’ is that obviously the British Mandate took over the public state land in this period, as did the Ottoman’s before them – and then if the Palestinians/Arabs had won the war in 1948, no doubt they would have taken it over. Though I daresay the territory would have just been carved up equally between Jordan, Egypt and Syria – since that’s exactly what happened between 1948-1967 when the West Bank and Jerusalem was held by Jordan. It just became expanded Jordanian territory.

          • You’re still arguing nonsense. Again, the Zionists did not have a “right” to take over any land considered public, much less to ethnically cleanse a majority of the Arab population of Palestine and expropriate their lands by force to create their “Jewish state”. And it’s even more absurd, if that’s possible, to argue that they had a right to take the land of Arabs who ended up remaining in what became Israel. This is just complete asinine nonsense.

          • Mark Clifford

            Small caveat to my previous figures. I see that some sites claim 8.9% Jewish ownership in 1948. So if we then added 4.25% (to represent the Arab-Israeli proportional private land-share), we would have 13.15% – slightly more than the 12.75% privately held by the remaining Arab population outside Israel.
            We now see from this that UNSCOP’s planning made perfect sense, and was not ‘racist’ at all, as you suggest. Even if we take a halfway estimate between the 7 and 8.9% to give 7.95%, we would still end up with 12.2%, so very close to the 12.75% of private held Arab land outside of Israel. And especially as UNSCOP had planned for as much as a 26-30% Arab contingent within the new Israel, their figures start to make far more sense.

          • Caveat or no, it’s still complete nonsense.

          • Mark Clifford

            You are welcome to demonstrate where the many detailed rational points I’ve presented to you are in fact ‘nonsense’ without, (A): simply copy/paste/repeating a document or ref you’ve made before, (B): simply repeating that they are nonsense without substantiating such a claim with a cogent and rational answer.

          • I already have pointed out why it’s nonsense. The Zionists had no right to take over lands then considered public or lands over which the Arab inhabitants had rights in order to create their “Jewish state”.

          • nlof

            The paper and your follow up comments are negligently skewed, due to your selective focus on either privately held land alone in some paragraphs OR “agricultural land” alone in others (map above). You willfully ignore public land, roughly 66% of total, land held by the British Mandate and previously by the Ottoman Turks, neither one of which were Arabs.

            Ignoring the previous sourced “British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I, 1946 pp 257-8” won’t make it go away:

            Out of the total land of the British Mandate on Palestine, or 26320 sq km (data in source, you can do the elementary math), “it is possible that there are private claims to over 2000 which appear cultivated from time to time in the desert of Beersheba” plus “more than 7000 which may be assumed to contain a preponderance of private property” elsewhere (“though some will be village land”, i.e. state property).

            The total private land would be therefore estimated at 9000 sq km or roughly 34% of total land area. This non-state owned land, about 1/3 of the total is what you subdivide into Jewish owned and Arab owned and on which you concentrate your article, book and flowery charts on.

            It is astounding that someone that researched the subject ignores this essential fact in claiming that “Local Arabs were indeed in possession of most of the land” and that The only land legally purchased by the Jewish community amounted to less than 7% of the land of Palestine. The rest was taken by force.” both statements being false and disingenuous.

            Unfortunately I do not know how to quote your statements in a more visually appealing form.

          • The Zionists had no right to forcibly expropriate lands considered public in Palestine. And, as I’ve shown, the Jewish community owned a mere 7% of the land and Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The state of Israel was established by force and ethnic cleansing. This is a historical fact.

          • Mark Clifford

            This is not a historical ‘fact’, it is merely one-side of a historical claim. Even Benny Morris said that ‘no general orders could be found to support a claim of organized and widespread ethnic cleansing’, nor indeed of Arab leaders ordering evacuations the other side. From numerous other reports on the 48 war, it appears that at most these were isolated incidents (as were the reported massacres each side) and would account for no more than 200,000 of the total of 700,000 who left the area.

            It was more just the dire effects of war, as quoted by Morris: ‘The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians.’

          • It is a historical fact that Palestine was ethnically cleansed of the majority of its Arab inhabitants in order to establish the “Jewish state”.

            Citing Benny Morris doesn’t help your denial:

            A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. — Benny Morris

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Why stop there? Give us the rest of the quote:
            “There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

          • Indeed, thanks for further bolstering my argument.

          • Annie Dyson

            . “…It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

            But doesn’t exactly bolster your argument, does it? It shows in fact that it was done manly because their convoys (such as the 17 medics who were killed, many of them women) and the people in their settlements were fired upon. It therefore was a result of the attacks and not wishing a 5th column within your number constantly trying to kill you… which having just survived the holocaust and the Nazis, is an understandable reaction. So it wasn’t it appears any pre-set plan, as you tried to suggest.

          • Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here….

            There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands….

            There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing….

            That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population….

            But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.

            — Benny Morris

            Doesn’t exactly bolster your denial, does it? Then there’s Plan D, and how Ben-Gurion’s “compulsory transfer” would be executed:

            —Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

            — Mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be wiped out and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state

            Plan D was, as Benny Morris describes it, the Zionists’ blueprint for their “war of conquest”.

            Doesn’t exactly bolster your denial, does it?

          • Reader

            You have the right to put people on notice, but none of this is trolling. I’m reading as someone who is fascinated by both sides of the argument presented by you and Mark Clifford/John Matthews. It’s really interesting for me and I’m learning a lot about both sides of how the statistics are being used, but it’s a shame that you are simply shutting up voices you don’t agree with by putting them “on notice.” The fact that you are trying to do that somewhat diminishes the strength of your argument.

          • The Terms of Use:

            Comments

            All visitors are welcome to post comments to articles, and no registration is required to do so. Debate is welcome and encouraged at FPJ. To keep the discussion meaningful, relevant, and productive, the following rules will be enforced. Comments must be of reasonable length, relevant to the topic of the article, and respectful to others. You must be civil and courteous towards authors and other commenters. Substantive criticisms are welcome, but ad hominem argumentation, personal attacks, insults, and abusive language are not. Comments containing racist or hateful remarks or personal attacks will be deleted and the user banned.

            If you disagree with an article or other commenters, you are welcome to express your contrary view, but please support your position with an argument (i.e., point out where you think there are any errors of fact or logic). Comments consisting of mere dismissals or that otherwise do not substantively address others’ points may be deleted. You are welcome to share links to sources containing information relevant to the article topic in order to support your arguments, but not to make your argument for you.

            Disrespecting these terms of use will result in the revocation of commenting privileges.

          • Mark Clifford

            Indeed, what Mr Hammond did in regard to my past journalistic colleague, John Matthews (we both worked for Reuters years ago) was highly questionable.

            John answered 5 or 6 of Mr Hammond’s points over a two-day period, which Mr Hammond chose to answer all in one block. About two-thirds of the way through answering these 6 or 7 points raised, Mr Hammond put John on warning for ‘trolling’ (though none of the answers were rude or went off-point), then on the final point Mr Hammond issued the ban.

            However, Mr Hammond must have known he was going to do this halfway through answering these 6 or 7 comments. Effectively what he decided was that he was going to answer them all (his usual copy/paste a previous ref and stonewall denial), then issue a ban so that John couldn’t come back with any answer to his points.

          • John repeatedly made the false accusation that I’d misquoted Benny Morris even after being warned that doing so was in violation of the terms of use of the commenting section.

          • John Matthews

            You also have deftly side-stepped this para below. If you do not have direct proof or an official statement that the state land should be ceded to Arab parties resident there, or indeed listed as purely ‘non-Jewish’ land, then my previous point stands.

            Surely in preparing an ‘accurate’ land document, it should have simply been stated as it was at the time: 18% Arab/Palestinian private land ownership, 6.9% Jewish ownership, Other party ownership (Christian, Druze, etc): 2.1%, 74% state ownership. With perhaps the caveat note: ‘It appears the state land, which was the majority, was ceded heavily towards the Jewish population – possibly because a large proportion of this was arid, non-fertile land in the Negev desert.’ Readers could then make up their own minds as to whether it was ‘disingenuous’ or not that it was ceded that way. Readers do have an intellect of their own: they don’t need to be force fed with phrases such as ethnic cleansing, wiped off the map, etc, Nor be given falsely headed stats; ‘Non-Jewish’ land. It was either Arab internal (therefore Palestinian), Arab external, Jewish land or state owned land. These should be simply stated as they were, not lumped together under some loose generic heading…. ‘non-Jewish’ land (pleeeease). This is as inaccurate and misleading as someone saying non-Palestinian land, and then lumping the Jewish, state-land and external Arab land together as one. Indeed, that figure might come to only 10-11% on the Palestinian side, as by far the largest Arab landowners were from outside. (pervious para here):

            Also, if there was such a declaration that all the state owned land should be ceded to the Arab parties resident there (despite them not actually owning it), could you please send me documents or direct quotes supporting this? As you probably understand, you simply stating that it’s a disingenuous position doesn’t really count for much in a quasi-legal debate.

          • The idea that because of the nature of Ottoman land laws that the Arab inhabitants who lived on and worked the land had no rights to it is simply a denial of the nature of rights.

            And, precisely as I described in the article, here is what land ownership in Palestine looked like:

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Mark Twain on visiting Israel in 1869 found it mostly empty, almost no population. In 1882, less than 250,000 Arabs lived there.
            In Jerusalem, Muslims were a minority.

            .. it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be
            kept from going in to share that misery.
            — British Governor of the Sinai from 1922 to 1936

            … So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.
            — Winston Churchill

            Robert F. Kennedy, writing as a reporter for the Boston Globe in 1948, said the following:
            “The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs in the 12 years between 1932 and 1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state. This is the only country in the Near and Middle East where an Arab middle class is in existence.”

            To get a feel for the amount of empty, unused land which which existed in Palestine a century ago, visit Israel, get on an Egged bus, get away from the three large cities, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa,
            and you’ll see how much empty land there is even today,
            with a population 30 times as big.

            The above aren’t historians and RFK’s mention of the Jewish belief that many Arabs were newcomers is a poor proof but 500,000 is more than half of the Arab population of Palestine at the time. Even a gross error makes your claims difficult to accept, unless you believe that Arab immigrants had money to buy land.
            And notice that the quotations above are independent of Joan Peters research.

          • Mark Clifford

            I see you mention Bobby Kennedy. Of note is the fact that Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan-Sirhan, a Palestinian, while giving a lecture on the Middle East at a Los Angeles hotel. This was probably one of the first ‘lone wolf’ terrorist actions, though wasn’t noted down as such at the time.

          • I’ve given you actual census data, not anecdotes. Joan Peters claim is utter nonsense. Palestinians were a majority, their population increase was “almost entirely” natural growth.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Not anecdotes, but the opinion of people who were there and knew something about about it.
            The data you posted says nothing about where the growth came from.

          • That’s what I said, anecdotes. Whereas I’ve given you the census data. Joan Peters’ claim is absolute asinine nonsense.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Look up “anecdotes”.
            My post doesn’t mention Peters’ claim.

          • Anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers

            Like I said, I’ve given you the census data. Joan Peters claim is an asinine hoax.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Anecdote: short account of an incident.
            The data you posted doesn’t prove your point which is that Arab population growth didn’t involve immigration.
            You ignore the testimony of people who described what they saw,
            and harp on Joan Peters, about whom I said nothing.

          • Again, the increase in the Arab population was “almost entirely” due to natural increase.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            You need to have statistics for natural increase vs. immigration,
            and you don’t.

          • “(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

            “15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

            “16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics, a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.”

            — UNSCOP report to the General Assembly, A/364 of September 3, 1947

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Thanks.
            But it’s difficult to know how much the authors of this report knew about the the subject. The British themselves didn’t know how many people were riding mules over the border to stay with family members while they were looking for work.

          • You are willfully ignorant.

          • John Matthews

            Also we see here that you concentrate only on Jewish ‘private’ ownership of land. If the same narrow focus had been put on Palestinian land ownership, this at most could be put at 18%, since this was the sum total of land actually owned by them. Indeed, probably far less, since most of the ‘Arab-land’ ownership was by parties outside, mainly in Turkey and the Lebanon. So the Palestinian ownership – those actually owner-resident there – was probably no more than 11%. How would it be if the Jews were to create such similarly slanted document citing the Palestinian land ownership at only 11% (which it probably was), then gave the impression that the rest of the land, some 89%, was automatically theirs?

            I also see you quote Edward Said, who has been debunked many times previously, particularly his west vs the rest theories on the subject of current minority groups. Many of your other sources are far too pre-set-Palestinian-supportive-regardless-of-facts to be taken seriously. You might as well have sourced and quoted Tony Benn for an accurate view of the Thatcher govt.

          • The amount of land owned by the Jewish community in Palestine was less than 7%. Period.

          • John Matthews

            The amount of land owned by the local Arab (later Palestinian) community was no more than 11%. The amount of land owned by the outside Arab community was no more than 7%. Period. And since 70% of the land allocated to Israel in the partition plan was the Negev — and so not privately owned by any parties (it merely transferred from one state entity to another)… we can see the reasoning behind the partition plan.

          • The land ownership was as I stated it in the article.

          • Mark Clifford

            I was sent the various details of this debate by a journalistic colleague, John Matthews. In going through, I notice that he has given you quite substantive arguments and links, despite your arguments to the contrary. Then when you realized your assertions/claims were on rocky ground, you barred him for ‘trolling’. Continuing a debate in serious fashion is not trolling. The fact that you got fed up with his arguments (or found them too substantive to continue to debate) is something else entirely. Anyway, to finish up on the points you raised (and I have gone over these points with my own keen journalistic eye before posting, so they are my views as much as his).

            No, the land ownership stats were not reflected accurately in your claims. The ‘Arab’ land ownership was not the 93% remaining, it was 18%, including 7% from outside Arab parties. And 7% Jewish ownership. The balance was owned by the State. First Ottoman, then British (under their mandate). So at the final point of land transfer, it was actually British owned, not Arab.

            Even if we were to follow your argument that the land owned by the state should automatically devolve to the people living and working the land, then according to UNSCOP the Jewish population was 32% of the total people there at the time of their 1947-48 census. So that would mean — according to your very own rationale and argument — that 32% would automatically devolve to the Jews and 68% to Arabs (since that was the population split at the time).

            So either way that we bake this cake, there is a serious statistical flaw in the way that the ‘Palestinian-case’ figures have been developed; because by automatically listing all of the state-owned land as theirs – rather than it being up to the state how it was allocated, or at the very least allocated proportionately according to the population at the time – this then gives a very inaccurate representation.

            And while Joan Peters’ stats might be in question (even aside from her long research on the subject), and perhaps Arab immigration wasn’t as high as she suggests — when we see that those questioning her are guilty of a very serious fundamental flaw in deriving their own statistics, we begin to question their own validity in challenging Joan Peters’ stats. Though actually where I derived my information was from the pdf linked document I sent you earlier.

            When we also consider that 500,000 Arabs remained within Israel (of the total original 1.2 million) and now count themselves as Israeli citizens (often proudly, and that population has now grown to 1.7 million people), that constitutes 41.6 of the total Arab population at the time of partition.

            So if we add to the Jewish population of 32% an Arab contingent that represented 41.6% of the remaining 68%, which equals 28.3% – we get a total of 60.3%. This total is then slightly more than the 55% land allocation decided upon by UNSCOP in their calculation (and actually is not far from any final green-line division decided between Israel and Palestine). So from that we can then see their reasoning in reaching those figures (I’m sure they weren’t stupid).

            So actually, rather than the 93% claimed by your statistics, we see a figure that is wholly different, because apart from you not allocating the state land proportionately between all those living and working the land (your words and suggestion, I might add), you have not taken into account at all the large Arab contingent who remained within Israel (by choice or default) — which brings the representative land total allocation for Israelis (between Jews and Arabs finally residing there) to some 60.3%.

            Which would actually mean that despite all your cries of dispossession, and land-theft and ‘ethnic cleansing’ on a massive scale, the final stats show something else entirely. That these were nothing like the proportions you claim. And while there might indeed have been large movements of people during this troublesome period (as there was in the partition of India-Pakistan), the massive land theft claims don’t hold water at all — since as we see the proportion ended up with by the Israeli contingent (Jews plus Arabs who later became Israeli citizens) is not far different to the geographical split that transpired after 1948 — indeed is a figure 5% more than the total decided by UNSCOP.

            And all of this even aside from the fact that much of the Israeli land, some 70%, comprised the Negev desert, which was infertile and required far more work and effort to cultivate. Given all of this, you could actually argue that the Israeli side did not fare that well in the UNSCOP plan.

          • No, the land ownership stats were not reflected accurately in your claims.

            I’ve given you the facts about land ownership, along with sources, which I encourage you to check for yourself, as anyone can verify what I wrote.

            If you wish to persist that I’ve erred on some point of fact, you are welcome to try to substantiate your claims.

            Here is more on it, from my forthcoming book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

            On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly, stating its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. The report noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”. Even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs were a majority.

            Moreover, the Jewish population in the area of the proposed Jewish state was 498,000, while the number of Arabs was 407,000, plus an estimated 105,000 Bedouins, bringing the total Arab population to approximately 512,000. “In other words,” noted the report of a subcommittee established by the General Assembly to follow up on UNSCOP’s recommendation, “at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.” The subcommittee also noted that population distribution was closely connected with “the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State”—meaning that even within the borders of the “Jewish State”, Arabs would own more land than Jews.

            An UNSCOP survey of land ownership cited 1943 statistics showing that of Palestine’s total land area (26,320,505 dunams), Arabs and other non-Jews owned nearly 94 percent (24,670,455 dunams). By contrast, the Jews owned only 5.8 percent (1,514,247 dunams). Land ownership statistics for 1945 likewise showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs. Jews owned less than 5 percent of the land in eight out of the sixteen districts. Even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, according to the Jewish National Fund (a quasi-governmental organization founded in 1901 to purchase land for Jewish settlement), the Jewish community had acquired only about 6.9 percent (1,820,000 dunams) of the total land area of Palestine.

            As the UNSCOP report noted, “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land.” And as the subcommittee report observed, “The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs” (emphasis added).

            UNSCOP nevertheless made the prima facie inequitable recommendation that the Arab state be constituted from about 44 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded more than 55 percent for their state. In other words, the partition plan called for expropriating land from Arabs in order to redistribute it to Jews. Whatever the Arabs might have thought about this plan was not given much consideration. In fact, the UNSCOP report explicitly rejected the right of self-determination for the Arab Palestinians, despite it being a universal right recognized under the UN Charter. The “principle of self-determination” was “not applied to Palestine,” the report stated, “obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.”

            Endnote references are unfortunately stripped, but here are all sources:

            UN General Assembly, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1, A/364 (September 3, 1947). Hereafter “UNSCOP Report.”

            UN General Assembly, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question: Report of Sub-Committee 2, A/AC.14/32 (November 11, 1947), 41, 43. Hereafter “Report of Sub-Committee 2.”

            Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991), Volume II, 566. The entire three-volume Survey of Palestine is available for purchase at http://www.palestine-studies.org and can also be viewed online at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html. A dunam is 1,000 square meters, or about a quarter acre.

            Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43-44; Appendix 5: “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945).” A higher quality image of the map is available at [removed as link is now dead]. Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14; Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

            Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (Autumn 1997). Khalidi writes that “Jewish-owned land on the eve of the partition resolution amounted, according to Jewish sources, to 1,820,000 dunams, or less than 7 percent of the total land area of the country” (13). This would be 6.9 percent, although Khalidi puts the total area of Palestine at the higher figure of 27 million dunams, which would put it at about 6.7 percent. His source cited is: Jewish National Fund, “Jewish Settlements in Palestine” (Jewish National Fund, Jerusalem, March 1948, Mimeographed), p. ii. See also Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), 98. Said writes that, by the end of 1947, the Jewish community had legally acquired 1,734,000 dunams, or about 6.6 percent of the territory of Palestine. He cites a slightly different number of 26,323,000 dunams for the total land area of Palestine, which still rounds to 6.6 percent. Said also notes, “After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.” According to Abraham Granott, “The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947 amounted to 1,850,000 dunams….” See: Abraham Granott, The Land System in Palestine (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1952), 278. This number would put the amount of land in Jewish possession at 7 percent. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts the figure lower, writing, “By the end of the Mandate in 1948, the Jewish community owned around 5.8% of the land in Palestine.” See: Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006), Kindle Edition, Location 655. However, this is evidently an error; Pappe seems to have cited the statistic from 1943, which was no longer accurate by the end of the Mandate. Benny Morris likewise puts the amount of land owned by the Jewish community at “7 percent”. See: Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008), Kindle Edition, Location 957.

            UNSCOP Report.

            Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43.

            Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” 11, 13. Khalidi cites rounded figures of 12 million dunams for the Arab state and 15 million dunams for the Jewish state, totaling 27 million dunams. Additionally, Jerusalem was to be an international enclave of 187,000 dunams. From this, we arrive at 44.1 percent and 55.2 percent, respectively. Note that Khalidi offers the figures of 45.5 percent and 55.5 percent, respectively, which is apparently either a typographical or rounding error as this totals 101 percent. According to Benny Morris, the plan called for about 55 percent of Palestine to go to the Jewish state and about 42 percent to the Arab state, which would indicate a significantly larger international zone for Jerusalem. Morris, 1948, Locations 945-952.

            UNSCOP Report.

          • No, the land ownership stats were not reflected accurately in your claims.

            I’ve given you the facts about land ownership, along with sources, which I encourage you to check for yourself, as anyone can verify what I wrote.

            If you wish to persist that I’ve erred on some point of fact, you are welcome to try to substantiate your claims.

            Here is more on it, from my forthcoming book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

            On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly, stating its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. The report noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”. Even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs were a majority.

            Moreover, the Jewish population in the area of the proposed Jewish state was 498,000, while the number of Arabs was 407,000, plus an estimated 105,000 Bedouins, bringing the total Arab population to approximately 512,000. “In other words,” noted the report of a subcommittee established by the General Assembly to follow up on UNSCOP’s recommendation, “at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.” The subcommittee also noted that population distribution was closely connected with “the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State”—meaning that even within the borders of the “Jewish State”, Arabs would own more land than Jews.

            An UNSCOP survey of land ownership cited 1943 statistics showing that of Palestine’s total land area (26,320,505 dunams), Arabs and other non-Jews owned nearly 94 percent (24,670,455 dunams). By contrast, the Jews owned only 5.8 percent (1,514,247 dunams). Land ownership statistics for 1945 likewise showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs. Jews owned less than 5 percent of the land in eight out of the sixteen districts. Even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, according to the Jewish National Fund (a quasi-governmental organization founded in 1901 to purchase land for Jewish settlement), the Jewish community had acquired only about 6.9 percent (1,820,000 dunams) of the total land area of Palestine.

            As the UNSCOP report noted, “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land.” And as the subcommittee report observed, “The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs” (emphasis added).

            UNSCOP nevertheless made the prima facie inequitable recommendation that the Arab state be constituted from about 44 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded more than 55 percent for their state. In other words, the partition plan called for expropriating land from Arabs in order to redistribute it to Jews. Whatever the Arabs might have thought about this plan was not given much consideration. In fact, the UNSCOP report explicitly rejected the right of self-determination for the Arab Palestinians, despite it being a universal right recognized under the UN Charter. The “principle of self-determination” was “not applied to Palestine,” the report stated, “obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.”

            Endnote references are unfortunately stripped, but here are all sources:

            UN General Assembly, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1, A/364 (September 3, 1947). Hereafter “UNSCOP Report.”

            UN General Assembly, Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question: Report of Sub-Committee 2, A/AC.14/32 (November 11, 1947), 41, 43. Hereafter “Report of Sub-Committee 2.”

            Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991), Volume II, 566. The entire three-volume Survey of Palestine is available for purchase at http://www.palestine-studies.org and can also be viewed online at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Books/Story831.html. A dunam is 1,000 square meters, or about a quarter acre.

            Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43-44; Appendix 5: “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945).” A higher quality image of the map is available at [removed as link is now dead]. Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14; Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

            Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (Autumn 1997). Khalidi writes that “Jewish-owned land on the eve of the partition resolution amounted, according to Jewish sources, to 1,820,000 dunams, or less than 7 percent of the total land area of the country” (13). This would be 6.9 percent, although Khalidi puts the total area of Palestine at the higher figure of 27 million dunams, which would put it at about 6.7 percent. His source cited is: Jewish National Fund, “Jewish Settlements in Palestine” (Jewish National Fund, Jerusalem, March 1948, Mimeographed), p. ii. See also Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), 98. Said writes that, by the end of 1947, the Jewish community had legally acquired 1,734,000 dunams, or about 6.6 percent of the territory of Palestine. He cites a slightly different number of 26,323,000 dunams for the total land area of Palestine, which still rounds to 6.6 percent. Said also notes, “After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.” According to Abraham Granott, “The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947 amounted to 1,850,000 dunams….” See: Abraham Granott, The Land System in Palestine (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode 1952), 278. This number would put the amount of land in Jewish possession at 7 percent. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts the figure lower, writing, “By the end of the Mandate in 1948, the Jewish community owned around 5.8% of the land in Palestine.” See: Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006), Kindle Edition, Location 655. However, this is evidently an error; Pappe seems to have cited the statistic from 1943, which was no longer accurate by the end of the Mandate. Benny Morris likewise puts the amount of land owned by the Jewish community at “7 percent”. See: Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008), Kindle Edition, Location 957.

            UNSCOP Report.

            Report of Sub-Committee 2, 43.

            Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution,” 11, 13. Khalidi cites rounded figures of 12 million dunams for the Arab state and 15 million dunams for the Jewish state, totaling 27 million dunams. Additionally, Jerusalem was to be an international enclave of 187,000 dunams. From this, we arrive at 44.1 percent and 55.2 percent, respectively. Note that Khalidi offers the figures of 45.5 percent and 55.5 percent, respectively, which is apparently either a typographical or rounding error as this totals 101 percent. According to Benny Morris, the plan called for about 55 percent of Palestine to go to the Jewish state and about 42 percent to the Arab state, which would indicate a significantly larger international zone for Jerusalem. Morris, 1948, Locations 945-952.

            UNSCOP Report.

          • Mark Clifford

            … you are welcome to try to substantiate your claims.’
            The claim has been substantiated, indeed using your own UNSCOP and population split figures. With such a large Arab population remaining within Israel in addition to a 33% Jewish population to start with, the UNSCOP decision at 55% makes more sense. The debate is finished as far as I’m concerned.

          • The claim has been substantiated, indeed using your own UNSCOP and population split figures.

            Utter nonsense. The facts are as I’ve stated them. But it’s instructive that you think it was sensible that 55% of Palestine be made into a “Jewish state” despite the fact that the Jews were a minority at a third of the population and owned less than 7% of the land in Palestine, with Arabs, as UNSCOP noted, being in possession of about 85%; the fact that this proposal meant that Arab lands would be expropriated and redistributed to the Zionists for their racist goal; and the fact that UNSCOP, in making their recommendation to partition Palestine in furtherance of that racist goal, explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.

          • Mark Clifford

            It’s not ‘instructive’ at all. What would have been ‘instructive’ is if you’d actually followed how the overall stats evolved – taken from your own UNSCOP stats in fact – rather than just repeating the same 7%.
            The 7% Jewish direct private ownership is not questioned or argued. The ‘purely Palestinian direct private ownership’ wasn’t much higher – the resident-landowners – 11-12% of the 18% direct ownership total, with the other 6-7% Arab owners from outside. Also with the number of Arabs who later became Israeli citizens, 41% by 1967 – they would account for almost 5% of that resident owner Arab total.

            So with that Arab-Israeli contingent (which is significant and which you appear to have ignored) the amount of land in private ownership becomes almost equal each side. It would then be terribly remiss for the public state-owned land not to be divided equally between those respective parties. If this wasn’t done, then it would be robbing the Arabs within Israel of their equal share of land rights (as well as the Jews there). Or have you not considered that? Apparently not.

          • It’s not ‘instructive’ at all.

            On the contrary, the assumptions underlying your argument tell us a great deal about your prejudice.

            Land ownership is as I stated. I’ve given you the sources fully supporting what I wrote (something you haven’t done).

          • Mark Clifford

            The sources I looked at in fact underpinned the assertions I’ve made. Even the map you attach shows that ‘state-public ownership’ was 85% in Beersheba, and this became higher in the state’s favour as you got deeper into the Negev, 90-95%. After all, what private ownership would exist in a desert area; and the main inhabitants there, Bedouin, were mainly nomadic and not landowners. Also, I might add, quite happy to later become citizens of Israel (Bedouin have a strong proportional representation in the IDF).
            With the Negev being half of the land comprising the partition plan, and from your own map state-ownership being 85-95% in that region, and with lesser percentages in other areas — you don’t have to be a master mathematician to work out that this would equal the 70% claimed.
            And I don’t see it as prejudice at all when faced with a highly prejudiced and flawed claim to simply present some facts and figures that bring a bit more balance to the table. More ‘anti-prejudice’ if you will. Especially as a good proportion of Israelis between 1948 and 1967 were in fact Arabs, whose land rights you don’t see to have acknowledged at all. Is that not prejudice, or at least a flaw in your reckoning? And when we add that 28% Arab contingent to the 33% of Jews, we have a representative group that is over 60%, so should indeed be represented in figures and land claims. Even if we knock 10% off the Arab figure (which is not realistic, because it’s 21% even now and Jewish immigration in the interim has been considerable), we have over 50%; a group that by any legal necessity of ‘equal rights’ should be reflected in land rights also. And this 50-60% should not just be reflected in state land, but that of private owned land as well, which with 30-40% of the Arab contingent becoming Israeli, their private land ownership stats go with them. So that would give us a more or less even split between Israelis and Palestinians in terms of private land-ownership; so it follows that any state-land split – whatever that percentage – should follow the same demographic split.
            Where all of your arguments fall down (and those I might add of some previous parties looking at this) is that you’ve lumped all the Jews one side and Arabs the other, without taking into account that a large number of Israelis, well over 20%, are in fact Arab. So the stats down as Israeli and non-Israeli (Palestinian) show something else. And indeed I think that was part of the UNSCOP plan, that the new Israeli state would have quite a large Arab contingent (I think 26-30% was the figure suggested).

          • With the Negev being half of the land comprising the partition plan, and from your own map state-ownership being 85-95% in that region, and with lesser percentages in other areas — you don’t have to be a master mathematician to work out that this would equal the 70% claimed.

            Beersheba was comprised of 12,577,000 dunams, or about 48% of Palestine. You don’t have to be a master mathematician to know that 85% of 48% is not 70%.

            As I wrote, and as you can see on the map, Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine.

            It’s not clear what part of what I wrote you are actually challenging, apart from a general nonsensical argument that Israel somehow had a right to the land. It didn’t.

          • Mark Clifford

            (*quote): Beersheba was comprised of 12,577,000 dunams, or about 48% of Palestine. You don’t have to be a master mathematician to know that 85% of 48% is not 70%.

            That’s correct. But there are indeed a number of districts with denoted public-state owned quantities of up to 24%. The average in fact comes to 44.2%. The balance between that and the state owned land (some 26%) is in fact what is known as Miri land. Both John Matthews, who I met while at Reuters 15 years ago and a retired BBC Middle East correspondent who we both know (originally from Egypt) aided with this information and identifying the missing quantity.

            Miri land is in fact state owned but is allowed to be held as a form of continuing peppercorn tenancy as long as it is worked. So it is not privately or title owned as we know in the West. So strictly legally speaking it is owned by the state, but a more loose interpretation would be that the state ‘allowed’ that continuing tenancy – thus the misinterpretation.

            However, our Egyptian BBC friend raised an interesting point. He said that this was little different to much of the state owned land now in Israel, which can be leased by Jews and Arabs alike; and farmland leasing would be quite nominal, so not far different to the past system they were under. He argues that since no lump sums were paid by private Miri landholders in the first place, the loss or abrogation of rights would be minimal – especially since it could be replaced by a similar system operated by the Israeli state.

            The part that is being challenged is the suggestion that this combined 33% Jews and 24% Arabs – 57% total – who formed the new Israel should not have the same rights as the Palestinians remaining. All parties should have equal rights to state and Miri land. As for the ludicrous suggestion by you of no rights to Jews beyond the 7% that were strictly privately owned – where would that leave the Palestinians, since their own private ownership was no more than 11% (the rest was foreign owned, state-owned or Miri land). By that same token, the Palestinians could only rightfully claim 11%.

          • No sense arguing the numbers when your premise is false. The Zionists did not have the right to take over lands then considered public for the creation of their “Jewish state”.

          • Mark Clifford

            The UNSCOP quote of 85% Arab land is not correct, as 70% of the land was state owned. You seem to have missed this vital point. In fact looking at the map with various pie-charts you sent before, we see that the state-owned land in Beersheba was 85%. As we get deeper into the Negev, it’s even higher. And the Negev in fact forms 50% of the total area in Palestine of the partition plan. So UNSCOP even by their own admission could not possibly have detailed it as ‘Arab land’ as it was at that stage State owned and held by the British. And in any case would have had to be distributed equally amongst the populous — which with 41% of the Arab population being in Israel by 1967 would mean an equal divide, unless they were to ignore or purposely rob the Arab contingent of Israel – now some 21% of the Israeli population.

          • The UNSCOP quote of 85% Arab land is not correct

            Thank you, you are correct. What UNSCOP said was: “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land” (emphasis added) — possession being distinct from ownership, due to the nature of the fuedal Ottoman land laws.

            70% of the land was state owned.

            You keep repeating this figure, but have yet to support it with a source. But let’s just accept it for the sake of argument. So what? Would the fact that Arabs were living and working land considered the state’s under the Ottoman land laws somehow justify the Zionists’ violent expropriation of it and ethnic cleansing of three-quarters of a million Arabs from their homeland?

          • Mark Clifford

            ‘…redistributed to the Zionist s for th eir racist goal; and the fact that UNSCOP, in making their recommendation to partition Palestine in furtherance of that racist goal’
            Two ‘racist’s’ in a single sentence. I think your own racist slip is showing here, perhaps explaining your one-way slant with your article. Perhaps also if just ‘racism’ and denying self-determination’ was the issue, you might want to ask the Jordanians why they make no moves towards that when they held the West Bank and East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 – they simply annexed it as expanded Jordanian territory. I won’t be debating this issue any further with you.

          • If you wish to argue that UNSCOP’s explicit rejection of the right to Palestinian self-determination was not premised in racism, you are welcome to otherwise explain it.

          • Mark Clifford

            ‘No, the land ownership stats were not reflected accurately in your claims.’
            Obviously therefore you haven’t read them. If you had, you would see that they are in fact derived from your own UNSCOP calculations quoted, but fill in the shades. There is a great deal of state owned land in even the final UNSCOP stats, which at that stage was under British mandate ownership – so describing it purely as ‘Arab land’ simply isn’t accurate any more. Also it appears you haven’t studied the nature of Miri land, which plays an important part in the balance. This too is generally state owned then merely leased on a peppercorn basis to those who wish to work the land. So again it is not ‘ownership’ as we would understand it in the west.

          • Your filling in of the shades, to borrow your phrase for it, is utter nonsense.

          • Fivish

            The arabs rented the land from the ruling turks.

          • It was a fuedal land system. Nevertheless, the Arab inhabitants had rights. And, of course, by your own logic, neither did the Jews have any rights to the land beyond the 7% they had legally purchased.

          • nlof

            State Land (under British Mandate, and beforehand under the Ottoman empire) amounted to roughly 66% of the land west of the Jordan river according to the 1946 British report: “British Mandate: A Survey of Palestine: Volume I, 1946 pp 257-8”.

            Since neither Brits nor Turk Ottomans were Arabs, the latter could not have possessed most of the land. To completely ignore this report smacks of negligence, lopsidedness and more likely malevolence.

          • Possession and ownership are two different things — particularly in the context of feudal Ottoman land laws.

            The main point remains that the Zionists had no right to forcibly expropriate land in Palestine for their “Jewish state”.

          • MuslimJew

            “State Land (under British Mandate, and beforehand under the Ottoman
            empire…”

            …, and afterhand, under international law, Palestinian State Land thus belonging to all the legal residents of Palestine on the day the British mandate expired).

            “Since neither Brits nor Turk
            Ottomans were Arabs, the latter could not have possessed most of the
            land. To completely ignore this report smacks of negligence,
            lopsidedness and more likely malevolence.”

            Since the Brits were occupiers, the Turks were “Muslim”, Arabs can be Jews, Jews can be Arabs, anyone can become a Jew, Zionism’s “ancestral homeland” is Europe, “Arabs” have been a majority in Palestine for millennia, Israel is already the 23rd “Arab” majority state and should join the Arab league, and under international law any “State Land” became Palestinian State Land belonging to all the legal residents of Palestine on the day the British mandate expired,

            To completely ignore all the above smacks of Zionist stupidity and certainly Zionist malevolence.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            “it became Palestinian State Land”
            No.
            Because the Palestinians never claimed it, or declared themselves a state.

            “anyone can become a Jew”
            Irrelevant.
            For the purposes of these discussions, “a Jew” is whoever the authors of the League of Nations documents establishing the Mandate and its goals, meant.

            “Jerusalem isn’t mentioned once in the Torah”
            Nice.
            Only a clever Muslim would make such a statement.
            But the place “which God will choose” is mentioned several times and it’s mentioned by name hundreds of times in the Bible.

          • With respect to your reference to the League of Nations, I can only assume you’re of the delusional belief that this organization somehow lent legitimacy to the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. It didn’t.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            It obviously did, later on, but the issue doesn’t interest me.

          • No, the League of Nations most certainly did not somehow lend legitimacy to the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel.

          • MuslimJew

            “No.
            Because the Palestinians never claimed it, or declared themselves a state.

            Yes.

            Because legally and morally Palestine is and was the homeland of all Palestinians, and because only fairytale ancestral homelands need to be violently and loudly “claimed”, unlike real homelands, and because only states that have never existed in history need to be violently and loudly “declared” in order to be recognized, unlike the mandated State of Palestine that already existed and was already recognized and that became simply the State of Palestine the day the mandate expired.

            “Irrelevant.
            For
            the purposes of these discussions, “a Jew” is whoever the authors of
            the League of Nations documents establishing the Mandate and its goals,
            meant.”

            Irrelevant.

            Your purpose here is to spout gibberish, move goalposts, and debase Jews, for the benefit of Israel.

            “Nice.
            Only a clever Muslim would make such a statement.”

            No, a “clever” Christian or Jew would also make such a statement when responding to the mindless hasbara being spouted by braindead Zionists.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            “Because legally and morally Palestine is and was the homeland of all Palestinians”

            An Arab who came to Palestine a few years before 1948, to share in the prosperity Jewish immigration was bringing, might be a refugee, he and his descendants, in perpetuity, but Palestine was not his homeland. Nomads who spent time here and there in the Negev and in the Sinai Peninsula didn’t think of Palestine as their homeland, and it wasn’t.

            “move goalposts”

            The moral claim of Jews is the long connection between the Children of Israel and the Land of Israel but the legal claim is the League of Nations Mandate and its goals.
            That is relevant.

            “would also make such a statement”

            A learned Jew might say:
            “Jerusalem isn’t mentioned once in the Torah”
            because it’s true, but he wouldn’t use that truth to hide the fact that after the Jews entered the land and built the first Temple, the Bible mentions the city by name hundreds of times.

          • MuslimJew

            “An Arab who came to Palestine a few years before 1948…”

            Joan Peters’s debunked nonsense is irrelevant.

            “That is relevant.”

            Zionism is both immoral and criminal, hence neither is relevant

            “A learned Jew might say:”

            I never claimed you were “A learned Jew”.

          • ignatzthecat

            some investigating of the Ottoman Common Land Laws and how they were changed soon after the British “accepted” the Mandate for Palestine.
            Without those changes a good portion of the “acquired” land by the Zionists would not have occurred and the common land use by so many Palestinian (yes there is/was such a thing as, “Palestinians” which included Christians, Jews, Muslims…..etc) would not have been uprooted.
            Private property values had to be “instilled” (by the British Zionists) before the general plan of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples could be carried out.
            And, we can’t forget the anti-Palestinian land laws passed by the State of Israel that forbids so many sales of land to any Palestinian/Arab.
            Some of this is covered in ILan Pappe’s book: “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” 2006.

          • John Matthews

            Or you could use Benny Morris as your reference. The many flaws in Ilan Pappe’s book have been picked up on by numerous historians.

          • “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.” — Benny Morris

          • John Matthews

            I don’t think Benny or I would (or have) ever suggested there was no wrong on Israel’s side. I still cringe at many Likud policies (understandable for a Herzog-peace camp man). But this was a war, and a very desperate one for the Jews at the time. If they’d lost, then there remains little doubt that they would have been swept (or ethnic cleansed) from the area. And for them, after Germany/Poland and the holocaust, it was ‘last chance’ saloon time. So faced with their own possible impending demise (again), they did some desperate things. So did the Arabs. We did too – the firebombing of Dresden was a despicable act – but it was war.

            The numbers though in the end were something like 420,000-500,000 (even Benny later adjusted them). But actually given the numbers displaced, quite a low loss of life on both sides, 18,000-22,000 between Arabs and Israeli Jews. Compared to the partition of Pakistan-India, which saw 30-40 million displaced and 1.5 million lives lost in the process. And a far greater land-grab – a land area 40 times the size of Israel lost by India in the process. This isn’t to divert, purely to give some historical context that there were a lot of land partitions occurring between 1920-1950.

          • The number of Arabs ethnically cleansed from Palestine was upwards of 700,000.

          • John Matthews

            You’ve also slightly misquoted benny Morris, who made it clear that the state of ‘war’ was as much to blame as any direct ethnic cleansing ‘intent’, as follows:

            Benny Morris proposed several interpretations. The conclusion of his main work on the topic The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (1989) is that the exodus was the “result of war, not intent”. Nevertheless, he stated later that “[i]n retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews. It is impossible to say how many of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were physically expelled, as distinct from simply fleeing a combat zone.”[4] In an interview to Ha’aretz in 2004, he also defended the idea that having performed an ethnic cleansing in 1948 had been a better choice for the Jews than living a genocide.[5] In his last book about the 1948 War: 1948: A History the First Arab-Israeli War (2006), he nuanced all this and stated that “[d]uring the 1948 War, (…) although there were expulsions and although an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed during critical months, transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy. Thus, by war’s end, even though much of the country had been “cleansed” of Arabs, other parts of the country -notably central Galilee- were left with substantial Muslim Arab populations.

            Also, if we take the widely proposed figure of 720,000, leaving then 180,000 of the 900,000 Palestinian total — how did that 180,000 grow into the 1.7 million Palestinians within Israel it is today? Normally, population increases would be double or treble since that period, not almost 10 times as much. There have been several papers since which propose an inflation of the refugee figures — not least because those refugees listed with UNWRA were then given food, clothing and some regular funds. So it became a bit like today’s ‘benefits’ — and as a result many double claimed, or claimed refugee status when they were not homeless at all, mainly because it had a financial benefit. We can all understand that and relate to that.

          • You’ve also slightly misquoted benny Morris…

            No, I haven’t. I quoted verbatim.

            But nice of you to acknowledge that the number of Arabs ethically cleansed from Palestine was upwards of 700,000.

          • John Matthews

            The area where you’ve misquoted Benny Morris – although you appear not to have noticed – is not in the overall number of 700,000 (although later BM accepts that the overall figure must have been far less because of false claims and duplication for UNWRA relief/aid purposes), but where he says that it was impossible to know how many of that figure were ‘ethnically cleansed’ or moved because of the war zone situation. How many of those now coming from Syria, for instance, are claiming that they were ‘ethnically cleansed’? Very few. Most are leaving because of an impossible ongoing war situation. So neither BM or myself accept that anywhere near the total of 700,000 (or the lesser 400,000-500,000 figure) were ethnically cleansed, just a ‘proportion’ of them.

          • The area where you’ve misquoted Benny Morris…

            I haven’t misquoted him. Again, I quoted him verbatim.

            “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.” — Benny Morris

            You’ve exhausted my patience and are banned for trolling.

          • Reader

            “You’ve exhausted my patience and are banned for trolling.”
            …Really? So much for journalistic and academic integrity.

          • Yes, really. Repeatedly making a false claim in this manner constitutes trolling behavior and violates the terms of use of the comments section.

            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/about/terms-of-use/

          • John Matthews

            What we have managed to establish through this discourse (and with the application of a bit of ‘balance’ and common sense), is that nowhere near 700,000 Palestinians were ‘ethnically cleansed’ from the area. The total figure who in fact moved might have indeed been far less than that, probably more like 400,000-500,000 – but even if we take the full figure of 700,000, it would be impossible for all of those to be forcibly removed, as you suggest.

            Indeed, many Arab and Palestinian commentators say that many moved ‘purely out of fear’, having heard about attacks on other villages. I think, like most war events I have witnessed in over 35 years of reporting, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the claims each side. I think some were forcibly removed (ethnic cleansed), some went of their own accord because of the dangerous surrounding war situation, some went on advice of Arab leaders to move from their homes while the war was raging. And this would make sense and correlate with most other war situations. Those refugees from Syria now, there are no claims of them being ‘ethnically cleansed’ – they are leaving because of the deplorable war situation there.

            This would also correlate with the losses on each side, 14,000 Arabs and 8,000 Jews. It would be virtually impossible to forcibly remove a population of 700,000 without a far greater loss of life. General stats from other wars tend to indicate 10-20% of lives lost in various ‘forcible removal’ situations, 1 or 2 people in every ten. So that would give a lives lost total of 70,000-140,000… and also to take into consideration is the fact that most of that 14,000 loss were from surrounding Arab armies in combat, not static or resident villagers… which total is normally cited at between 2,000-3,000. So this makes the correlation of stats even more unlikely, as even if something like 100,000 were ‘forcibly removed’, the lives lost ratio would be a fifth of that experienced in other wars.

            As said, do we hear of x-number of Syrians being ‘ethnically cleansed’, no. So I think, given the stats and the background, we have to be suspicious when such a label is given to the Jews in this situation. I think it’s more likely that it’s a label that certain Arab contingents (and some of their latter-day extreme left partners) would ‘like’ to give to the Jews (purely because they are Jews and the historic antipathy between the parties), but that doesn’t make it a real claim, let alone an acceptable term to use. It seems to reek more of ‘purposeful demonization’ than balanced and accurate journalism.

            Also we have the factors raised by the following quote, which indicates that the ensuing battle was more from outside Arab armies than the resident Palestinians:

            Few Palestinian Arabs joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. According to Ian Bickerton, for that reason many of them favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state.[126] He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.

            We also see from these quotes that the aggression (and following ethnic cleansing) did not precede the UN vote at all, nor was aggression instigated first by Israel. The aggression and accompanying ‘wipe you all out’ threats came first from the Arab contingent:

            A few weeks after UNSCOP released its report, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as saying “Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades.”[106] (This statement from October 1947 has often been incorrectly reported as having been made much later on 15 May 1948.)[107] Pasha told Alec Kirkbride: “We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea”. The Syrian president, Shukri al-Quwatli, told his people: “We shall eradicate Zionism”.

            Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer in a Jaffa daily Al Sarih that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but “would continue fighting until the Zionists were Annihilated”.[108]

            These threats should not be taken lightly (and where are any such threats from the Jewish side — we see none from their side of this sort of ‘wiping out’ language). They are especially disgusting threats to a people who have just gone through the holocaust and lost a third of their population. I know that some defenders discard it lightly, ‘Oh, that was just sabre rattling,’ but nevertheless a particularly impactive and cruel thing to say given the time and circumstances – rather like telling a claustrophobic that you’re going to lock them in a dark cupboard (again).

            So I think you have to be slightly more balanced and get a ‘real’ feel for the circumstances at the time. It was obviously clear — from the threats and noises made the Arab side – that the Jews felt they were in a very real fight for their lives and very existence. And it also probably became very clear to them that if they should lose that war, they would be ‘ethnically cleansed’ from the area and possibly with far greater loss of life. And, indeed, would one square mile have ben left in the region for Jews to live in? Probably not — if the threats of the surrounding Arab armies held true.

            Indeed a good friend and contact of mine is a Palestinian monitoring West Bank settlements, and he made it very clear to me that the initial worry was not in fact spreading Zionism, because most Palestinians felt that the Jews would lose the initial war – but what the invading Arab armies would do. Hashemite expansion was actually the prime worry, and indeed it was this factor that led the Egyptian army to move earlier and generally there was a lack of cohesion between the various armies — which was what, he felt, was what many Palestinians of his generation put the war being lost down to.
            Also, he added, the initial fears that the surrounding Arab armies would simply carve up whatever Palestinian territory between them (an expanded Jordan, Egypt, etc) was born out by the fact that Jordan simply annexed the West Bank between 1948-1967, with no thought given to it being an independent Palestine. It just became part of Jordan.

            We also see (even from basic wiki refs) that the degree of lobbying that went on amongst the different parties goes against your claim that the UN had no ‘authority’. Who on earth would go to all these lengths if in the end the resolution of the council had no ‘teeth’. It was duly voted on by many nations and accepted by Israel (in principal) and rejected by the Arab contingent. Then civil war broke out.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

          • What we have managed to establish through this discourse (and with the application of a bit of ‘balance’ and common sense), is that nowhere near 700,000 Palestinians were ‘ethnically cleansed’ from the area.

            How utterly vain an assertion.

            700,000 Arabs were ethnically cleansed from Palestine so as to create the “Jewish state” of Israel.

            This is not even controversial.

            “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.” — Benny Morris

          • John Matthews

            (your earlier quote): Again, the Arab states were not the aggressors in 1948. By the time they managed to muster a military response to the Zionists’ aggression, a quarter of a million Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed to make way for the establishment of the “Jewish state.

            Again we see here a totally errant claim from you. If we study again the ref quote below, we see that the ‘wipe you all out’ ‘drive you into the sea’ threats were coming as early as October, 1947 – whereas there was no actual war situation (and resultant ethnic cleansing) until mid 1948 and it was clear that the UN resolution hadn’t been accepted and the British Mandate finished.

            Also to consider here is that at the stage the British Mandate finished (and with no partition plan accepted), the region was in effect ‘stateless’. So either side could then declare and push for what they wished — and they did. There were in fact urgent meetings at this time between Jewish and Arab contingents, and the Arab League heads in fact said clearly that the ‘Jews would have to fight for whatever they wished to gain, because it would not be gained any other way. Certainly not by agreement.’ So there was no choice on the table.

            A few weeks after UNSCOP released its report, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as saying “Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades.”[106] (This statement from October 1947 has often been incorrectly reported as having been made much later on 15 May 1948.)[107] Pasha told Alec Kirkbride: “We will sweep them [the Jews] into the sea”. The Syrian president, Shukri al-Quwatli, told his people: “We shall eradicate Zionism”.

          • You assert I made an “errant” claim but showed no error in it, so I repeat:

            By the time they managed to muster a military response to the Zionists’ aggression, a quarter of a million Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed to make way for the establishment of the “Jewish state”.

          • Mark Clifford

            I think the reason it’s suggested that you misquoted Benny Morris are raised by this direct quote below (from an article by Avi Shlaim). Link and quote provided. It seems that while Morris might have agreed on the numbers displaced, 700,000, it says clearly here that he could find no evidence of organized forcible eviction. For you to therefore link Morris to any claim of purposeful ‘ethnic cleansing’ is inaccurate and highly dishonest.

            Benny Morris in fact puts it mostly down simply to the state and nature of war. And indeed this is consistent with the situation we now see in Syria.

            http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Debate%20About%201948.html

            (quote):
            Benny Morris in his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem investigated this subject as carefully, dispassionately and objectively as it is ever likely to be. Morris found no evidence of Arab leaders issuing calls to Palestine’s Arabs to leave their homes and villages nor any trace of a radio or press campaign urging them to flee. On the Israeli side, he found no blanket orders handed down from above for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians. He therefore rejected both the Arab order and the Jewish robber state explanations. His much-quoted conclusion is that ‘The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians.

          • I did not misquote Benny Morris. I quoted him verbatim.

          • NewHampshire

            The point being that what is going on there now is criminal.

          • John Matthews

            Mr Hammond,
            Your article is flawed in many areas, in particular in view of your comments about the British intervening in making comments about or changes to the UN resolution. Also, the comments from Colombia (how desperate do you have to be to quote Colombia?) are completely irrelevant to the ME. The resolution was made and was rejected by the Arab nations, and as a result they then pushed to attack Israel (don’t forget, at this stage, it was largely outside Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt and Syria who formed the main thrust, which you neglect to mention).

            You also have made a fatal flaw in regard to the issue of land ownership claims, which I commented on a previous article (I have been covering this issue on and off for the past 35 years). We also have to take into account that although 55% of the land mass was ceded to the Jews, a high proportion of this was infertile, desert land with the Negev — which is why they later developed such strong irrigation skills. Of the fertile farmland, they received by far the lesser quota. Those comments here:

            Land claims

            The claim of only 6% Jewish land ownership in 1948 is inaccurate at best, totally dishonest at worst. Actual ownership of land was quite low on both sides because most of the Arab-Palestinians living there were tenants to their previous Turkish absentee landlords and their agents and this practice continued up until 1925. Very few Palestinians actually owned their farms or houses. The main plank of dishonesty in representing these figures is that 70% of the land in question was actually government owned, comprising all the arid land, many public and non-fertile areas and some farmland. This 70% was previously owned by the Ottoman government then passed to the British under their mandate of the area.

            So if we then follow the exact percentages of the UN partition plan in 1948, about 36% of it would have been ceded to Israeli Jews and 34% to Palestinian Arabs. Of the remaining 30% in private ownership, something like 9% had been purchased by Jews over the years up until 1948, 3% by Arabs who subsequently became Israeli (Druze, Christian Arabs and, yes, many Muslims – 20% of Israel is Arab, 82% of which are Muslim). The remaining 18% were non-Israeli Arabs; however, how many of that 18% were purely Palestinians residing in Palestine and how many were still landlords and owners from neighbouring Arab lands is not specified.

            Regardless, this is a long way from the picture painted of 94% Palestinian ownership and only 6% Jewish prior to 1948. But if you look at the mainly Palestinian-created documents, they very craftily say ‘Palestinian and other ownership’… and neglect to mention that most of that was government held land; first Ottoman, then British; then to be ceded equally between Palestine and Israel at point of partition.

            How would it be if Jewish created documents and files were headed ‘Jewish and “other” ownership’, and listed the Palestinian ownership at only 18%? Or even less if the issue of absentee Arab ownership was taken into account. This is essentially dishonest, and it surprises me that so many today simply accept this falsehood as a ‘given’ without troubling to look deeper into the facts. Here below is a pdf, rather long I’m afraid, that attempts to break the figures down and give a history of land purchase in the area.

            wordfromjerusalem.com/wp…/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

          • Your article is flawed in many areas, in particular in view of your comments about the British intervening in making comments about or changes to the UN resolution.

            How so?

            Also, the comments from Colombia (how desperate do you have to be to quote Colombia?) are completely irrelevant to the ME.

            That “the U.N. Charter did ‘not authorize the Security Council to create special forces for the purposes indicated by the United Nations Palestine Commission'” is quite relevant.

            …55% of the land mass was ceded to the Jews…

            No, it was not. And the fact much of that was desert doesn’t somehow make it an equitable plan. It was profoundly unjust, racist, and colonialist in its assumptions.

            The claim of only 6% Jewish land ownership in 1948 is inaccurate at best, totally dishonest at worst.

            It was 6.9%.

            I’ve given you sources. You are welcome to present your own. (I’d have been happy to look at what Alan Dershowitz has to say about it, but your link returns a 404 page.)

            I have fun destroying Dershowtiz in my forthcoming book on the subject, incidentally. For anyone interested in staying posted:

            http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/free-ebook-palestine-conflict/

          • John Matthews

            ‘It was profoundly unjust, racist, and colonialist in its assumptions.’

            I think you rather give away your position here in this phrase. You are not in a position to decide what was unjust or racist… especially 67 years after the event. It is true that ‘colonialism’ was looked upon more favourably 7 decades ago as opposed to now, but actually ‘racism’ and what the Jews had suffered was at the root of the partition plan, or had you forgotten.

            The 55% ceded is not in question, that indeed is what Palestinian claim. And 6% is from their docs too… but 6.9% is neither here nor there. You still have not addressed the 70% govt owned land, which was NOT Palestinian at all… was passed by Ottoman owners to the British mandate. Why would it then be ‘given’ to Palestinians who owned only 18% of the land directly (possibly less)… and what were they fighting for? To retain that 18% or for their previous farmer-tenant status, or to return the land to its previous Ottoman-Arab owners? It certainly wasn’t Palestinian owned beyond that 18%. So the only tangible option which makes any sense is the UN partition plan. BTW, yours is the only document I’ve ever found which suggests anything outside of the UN partition plan. I’ve dealt with Deshowitz before and with the more liberal Daniel Levy, but as many of my sources are Palestinian.

          • You are not in a position to decide what was unjust or racist…

            Of course I am.

            And the partition plan was profoundly unjust, racist, and colonialist in its assumptions.

            Hence UNSCOP’s explicit rejection of the right to self-determination of the Arab Palestinians.

            Land ownership is as I stated in the article. I’ve given you the sources.

          • John Matthews

            I have now given a (hopefully) working link to the article in question.

            Of note in this article is the fact that indeed most of the land ceded to Israel was in fact the Negev, which formed 50% of the total land mass of Mandated Palestine. So the Jews got very little fertile land as part of the deal — probably not far from as was represented by their numbers at the time.

            Also the suggestion that their influx was wholly negative is strongly challenged here, in particular in that the increased work and farming activity (particularly with more advanced irrigation methods) brought a new prosperity to the region. Arab influx population went up more than double in Jewish areas as opposed to only 20% in purely Arab areas — largely due to this Jewish influx/input.

            Finally note the tremendous increase in Arabs from surrounding nations during the 1920-1948 period, mainly due to the much higher wages paid in Palestine during that period, 3-5 times that of wages in Egypt, Syria and Jordan. So that influx was understandable — which then begs the question: how many were indeed native Palestinians in 1948, or merely migrant workers from neighbouring nations?

            http://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

          • most of the land ceded to Israel was in fact the Negev

            No land was ceded to Israel. Again, the UN neither had the authority to partition Palestine nor claimed such authority.

            And the fact that the Negev was included in the proposed Jewish state does not belie the fact that the Jewish community owned only 7% of the land in Palestine and had no right to expropriate Arab lands by force for their “Jewish state”.

            But since you brought it up, it would be remiss not to mention the Bedouin population of the Negev, which when counted meant the Arab population was greater than the Jewish population even within the proposed “Jewish state”. The Arab community, of course, also owned more land than the Jews within the proposed “Jewish state”.

            Also the suggestion that their influx was wholly negative…

            I made no such suggestion.

            Finally note the tremendous increase in Arabs from surrounding nations…

            What tremendous increase? As noted in the article, while most of the increase in the Jewish population was due to immigration, the growth in the Arab population was “almost entirely” due to natural increase.

            I can only presume you are repeating this bogus claim from the Joan Peters’ hoax From Time Immemorial.

          • John Matthews

            I have actually not seen anyone else make such comments about the UN’s authority in this case, so it remains your claim alone, not anyone else’s. What points to it being a flawed claim is the many other falsehoods and inaccuracies of your document.
            In terms of ‘authority’, you could argue that nobody of that period had the ‘authority’ to do much with numerous landmasses. But they could, and so they did. The British and French between them carved up and drew lines in various territories, creating the Lebanon and Syria. Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin carved up most of Europe with various lines after WW2. 12 million Silesians were dispossessed and their land taken as part of Russia and Poland. You might claim they did not have the ‘authority’ — but it was done none the less, because legal tenets then were not what they are now. Thus the UN, as the closest ruling body that lent some credence.

            The British were fed up and had an impossible growing conflictive situation, so it was handed to the UN to deal with. To claim that they did ‘not have the authority’ is disingenuous and makes nonsense of their various resolutions since (are you saying these have no standing? Therefore, why is so much made of Israel ignoring them?). Also their ruling with sending the weapon’s inspectors into Iraq was followed to the letter (and for which they clearly did have ‘authority’) — apart from the last hurdle which ended up with a much misguided war initiative (and, yes, I did disagree with this).

            The Bedouin population of the Negev was small, plus also nomadic, so they did not have ‘land ownership’ of any type. Plus also most of the Bedouin readily accepted Israeli citizenship and are quite proud of it. Many indeed serve in the IDF. So any ‘dispossession’ claims relating to Bedouins in the Negev hold little or no merit.
            Also the ‘natural increase’ you mention might hold water if it wasn’t for the fact that the Arab population went up in Jewish-active-populous areas more than double that of the areas where Jews were not so active. If it was a ‘natural ‘increase’ factor, as you claim, then the spread of increase would have been more even across all sectors and towns.

          • You assert I’ve made many “falsehoods and inaccuracies”, yet still haven’t managed to demonstrate even a single one.

            Ignorance and denial aren’t arguments.

            Again, the UN had no authority to partition Palestine; nor did it claim any. The partition recommendation died in the Security Council, as explained in the article.

            Again, the Bedouin population was sizeable enough that if counted, they brought the number of Arabs living within the proposed Jewish state to be higher than the number of Jews. And, again, Arabs also owned more land than Jews within the proposed Jewish state.

            Again, the growth in Arab population during this period was “almost entirely” due to natural increase.

          • Mark Clifford

            ‘Ignorance and denial aren’t arguments.’
            It might help if you paid more attention to your own tenet here.

          • Mark, I welcome you to point to any error in fact or logic in the article to support your suggestion that I’m being hypocritically ignorant.

          • Mark Clifford

            Several points of error or lack of logic have already been pointed out to you by numerous posters. If you wish to suggest any other reasons for resisting them outside of ‘ignorance and denial’ you are welcome to do so…

          • There have been claims that I’ve erred, but I have pointed out the errors in fact or logic of those claims, apart from the error I acknowledged that the UNSCOP report stated 80%+ of the land was in Arab possession, not ownership.

          • John Matthews

            (quote): I can only presume you are repeating this bogus claim from the Joan Peters’ hoax From Time Immemorial.

            No, this information was from other sources – Palestinian, Israeli, Egyptian, some contacts in London. I see now referencing it, Joan Peters said the same. Interesting. The fact that you cite her work — seeing that it apparently was well researched — as bogus and hoax without offering any support for such claims says much. Many say the same about Edward Said’s works or Benny Morris’s — but these are simply differences of opinion. There is validity in all of these works at some level.

            I don’t think Joan Peters was claiming anything extraordinary. After all, it has been stated (and accepted) that much of the Jewish immigration to Palestine prior to 1948 was not correctly recorded and that a number of officials (though the British were generally stricter) turned a blind eye to it. So why would one party be stringently recorded but not the other? That makes no sense. Also, if there was at the end of it a reward of financial assistance through that refugee status — then again we can see how the numbers would have been inflated. This is just human nature and very understandable. We know, for instance, that if the benefit system is better in one nation than another, then that will mean more refugees to that nation. Any party, Jew, Arab, white European, would do the same.

          • No, Joan Peters’ book was not “well researched”.

            The increase in the Arab population of Palestine, again, was “almost entirely” due to natural increase — as I stated in the article. You can check the source.

          • John Matthews

            You also appear to have missed this document (link below). This tends to show that actual private ownership is still very low, and what surprised me is that Arab private ownership still exceeds Jewish ownership (paras below). That’s because the majority of the land is still state controlled, passing from Ottoman-British-Mandate-Israel – then is leased to private owners.

            I suppose at the point the green line is decided, this will then pass to Palestinian state ownership their side, and they can then decide on lease or purchase for property/land. This then also answers the other point often raised (often by those wishing to suggest a disadvantaged/apartheid situation because Palestinians are not allowed to purchase property; well, neither are Jews).

            (quoted paras):
            Currently, in Israel “proper” (within the Green Line), only 7 percent of the land is owned privately by individuals (3 percent Jews and 4 percent Arabs). According to the Israeli NGO Regavim, the rest is owned by the Jewish state (80 percent) and the Jewish National Fund (13 percent). Israeli citizens lease the land in 49-98 year installments from the Israel Land Authority. Should the government repeal the lease, they are subject to eviction.
            Approximately 30 percent of land in WB/JS is classified as Israeli state land, while the rest is unsurveyed (without proven ownership) or privately owned. Of the privately owned land, approximately 95 percent belongs to Arabs and 5 percent to Jews.

            http://www.jewishjournal.com/the_settler/item/who_really_owns_the_land_of_israel

          • I fail to see any relevance of the fact that most land in Israel today is considered to be “owned” by the government of Israel to anything I’ve written. The fact still remains the government of Israel came into possession of that land by dispossessing the Arabs of it and ethnically cleansing most of them from Palestine.

          • John Matthews

            ‘The fact still remains the government of Israel came into possession of that land by dispossessing the Arabs of it’

            Burt we see that the large proportion they did not ‘dispossess’ the Arabs of, because those Arabs did not own most of that land in the first place, as has been clearly showed. the Ottoman govt did, then the British Mandate owners. Private Arab owners hardly owned one inch of the Negev desert – it was seen as worthless, and the Negev alone made up 70% of the land Israel ended up with. You seem to have stated a case, now clearly shown as false, but are intent on repeating the same falsehoods to convince yourself that you haven’t made these glaring errors rather than anyone else. Sticking your fingers in your ears and simply repeating the same false mantras doesn’t work for anyone above adolescent age, I’m afraid.

          • I have given you the land ownership statistics, your continual vain denials of the facts notwithstanding.

            The fact is Israel came into being through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population of Palestine and expropriation of their land.

          • Fivish

            It was never arab land. For 400 years prior to WW1 it was controlled by the Turks.

          • So by your own reasoning, it was also not Jewish land to be made into a “Jewish state”.

          • John King

            The League of Nations recognised the historic connection of the Jews to the land and the need to REconstitute the Jewish National Home. This as you know became international law and also the reason for UN charter article 80. Neither the Arabs nor the Turks created a state or kingdom in the Land of Israel for as good Muslims they knew that the Koran 5:20-21 forbade it.

          • The League of Nations neither had any authority to expropriate lands from Arabs to redistribute to Jews nor claimed such. You are talking nonsense.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            The LoN was the most authoritative international organization of its time.
            If you claim its actions were illegal, you may have trouble defining “legal”.

          • I didn’t say anything about the League of Nations taking any illegal actions. Please reread what I wrote: The League of Nations neither had any authority to expropriate lands from Arabs to redistribute to Jews nor claimed such.

          • John King

            You will also agree that the Mandatory was to ENCOURAGE Jewish immigration such that the Jews would become the majority and then create their state. The Arabs fought this with the well known massacre of 1929 Hebron and other atrocities even against the British. Britain caved in to the Arab terrorism resulting in the 1939 White Paper. But the provisions of the Mandate did not lapse with British perfidy!

          • Yes, the British were quite duplicitous in their role as Mandatory power, but neither had any authority to expropriate land from Arabs to redistribute to Jews nor claimed such.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            You confuse public land with private land.

          • The Mandatory power had no authority to expropriate and redistribute any land, period.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            When it’s yours, you don’t need to expropriate it.

          • It wasn’t British land. I can see you’ve given up trying to have a serious discussion.

          • MuslimJew

            “When it’s yours, you don’t need to expropriate it.”

            Organized Zionist criminals, terrorists and murderers did expropriate Palestine, and are continuing to do so. Did you have a point?

          • MuslimJew

            You confuse inane hasbara talking points with reality.

          • MuslimJew

            In fact, Jeremy, by his own ridiculous Zionist “reasoning”, since the land of Palestine was Ottoman land and because Islam was the official religion of the Ottoman, Palestine must be made into a “Muslim State”. ;)

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Jews are a people with a particular religion
            Anyone who accepts Islam is Muslim,
            but there’s no such thing as a Muslim people.
            Land belongs to people or to *a* people, not to a religion.

          • MuslimJew

            “Jews are a people with a particular religion”

            Jews are no more “a people with a particular religion”, than Christians are a people with a particular religion, or Muslims are a people with a particular religion.

            “Anyone who accepts Islam is Muslim,”

            Anyone who “accepts” Christianity is a Christian and anyone who “accepts” Judaism is a Jew.

            “but there’s no such thing as a Muslim people.”

            Then there’s no such thing as a Christian people or a Jewish people.

            “Land belongs to people or to *a* people, not to a religion.”

            Land may, or may not, belong “to people or to *a* people”.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            The Bible and the Quran call Jews a people and so do I,
            I don’t see the point in arguing about this.

            Land doesn’t belong to a religion.

          • MuslimJew

            “The Bible and the Quran call Jews a people and so do I,

            Irrelevant.

            I don’t see the point in arguing about this.”

            Then stop posting about this and arguing about this and boring everyone.

            Land doesn’t belong to a religion.

            Irrelevant.

            Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and Palestine has never belonged to The Arabs™, The Jews™ or The Muslims™.

          • nlof

            Your claim of 93% Arab land ownership is absurd. ~71% of the land was in British Mandatory custody, lands owned by the Ottomans pre-WWI. Neither Ottomans nor Brits were Arabs.
            Your entire article refers to the non-state owned land, around 29% of the total land, a fact that you conveniently fail to mention.
            Jews owned 9%, Israeli Arabs about 3% while 17% had been abandoned by Arab owners who imprudently heeded the call from neighboring countries to “get out of the way” while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of Israel.
            Source: http://www.wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

          • Your claim of 93% Arab land ownership is absurd.

            Your strawman argument is absurd. As for the fraud you cite as a source, see here.

        • Fivish

          Arabs have invaded 55 countries and want more.

      • eddie333

        “it ignores the fact that Arabs kicked more Jews out of Arab lands…”

        “Which is completely irrelevant to the thesis”

        So only arabs have the right to return and not jews?

        • No, this does not follow. Clearly, you struggle with logic.

          • eddie333

            Both events occurred as a result of the same conflict.
            Clearly you struggle with history.

          • Clearly, you are still struggling with logic, as your conclusion still does not follow.

          • eddie333

            Okay….then please answer me 2 questions before we continue….

            1. Do you believe Israel/Mossad were responsible for 9/11 ??

            2. Do you believe there is a Zionist “puppet master” that controls western media and world banking ??

          • If you wish to ask serious questions relevant to the article’s topic, I’ll be happy to answer. If you persist in trolling, however, which is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section on this site, I’ll oblige myself to revoke your privileges.

          • eddie333

            Thanks for the threat (trolling?) – I think I already know the answer to my questions as I have seen your postings on other discussions.

            No need to ban me – I won’t be posting here again….

          • You’ve swung from thinking not at all to thinking far too much.

            I’m relieved I won’t need to ban you.

          • eddie333

            Forgive me….for a short while I thought you were a serious journalist – but all you are is a propagandist – and a piss poor one at that.

          • You have been welcomed to present an actual argument to support such words. Inasmuch as you’ve clearly no interest in doing so, for the obvious reason that you are incapable, and inasmuch as you’ve nothing of value to add to the discussion and insist on violating the terms of use of the comments section,* your privileges are revoked.

            * “All visitors are welcome to post comments to articles, and no registration is required to do so. Comments must be of reasonable length, relevant to the topic of the article, and respectful to the author(s) and other visitors. Substantive criticisms are welcome, but those consisting solely of ad hominem argumentation or insults are not. Comments containing racist or hateful remarks or personal attacks will be treated as spam and deleted. Severe or repeat offenses will result in the revocation of the offender’s commenting privileges.”

          • Levi

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-pay-respects-to-policeman-who-sacrificed-himself-for-jerusalem/

            This is what co-existence looks like Jeremy – your article and statements are meaningless now since Israel is here to stay and you only cause hate and incitement. If only the Arabs living in the area west of the jordan river would learn to respect the life of human beings and learn to live next to their neighbors peacefully there would be no need for violence. It is a clash of idealogy, a clash of humanity vs the glorification of death. Tell me, how many arabs want to live in syria, lebanon, iraq ? Israel is the only country where all its citizens are respected and protected NO MATTER what their religion or personal beliefs are. Maybe you should take a close look at all the GOOD that comes out of the Israel.

          • If you wish to make an actual argument to challenge any point(s) of fact or logic in the essay, you are welcome to do so.

          • John Matthews

            You’re being a tad unfair here. Mr Hammond is in fact the creator, editor and key journalist in what could most accurately be described an ‘alternative foreign policies’ online newsletter.

            By ‘alternative’, this normally means something that will offer a different, often opposed, view to that offered in mainstream journals and newspapers. Colleagues at the Times, Guardian, Spectator and Reuters comment that he’s not really to be taken seriously — but I thought I’d give a spin to whether he was up for amending any of his pre-set views, or whether he’d adopt a Maggie Thatcher stance: ‘The lady (in this case man) is not for turning.’

            He hasn’t (predictably) shifted any of his views, which (equally predictably) sing from an increasingly anti-Israel song sheet which has been almost de-rigeur for the far left the past decade or more. It seems that Israel is simply too strong to be held in any regard by the left any more — as use to be the case 60 years ago when they were a struggling new nation.

            My own journalistic experience dates back to the 80s and Reuters covering the civil war in the Lebanon and Cambodia. This was an era when we were trained to simply give the facts and show both sides of any conflict – be informative as possible – then let readers make up their own minds.

            But today increasingly writers and journalists take ‘camp’ viewpoints one side or the other, left or right, along with various (often inflammatory and demonizing buzz words. In the case of Israel, these are often ‘apartheid’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘war crimes’, ‘wiped-out’, ‘stole’, ‘genocide’. 30 years ago such words were rarely seen outside of a jihadist or electronic intifada news-sheet, and were generally scoffed at by serious journalists and informed readers. But increasingly we see many passing themselves off as serious journalists using the same buzz words, and some/many are stupid enough to be taken in by them and simply repeat them.

            And the internet is even more of a minefield with closed groups setting a ‘party-line’ then banning anyone who comes out with a contradictory opinion. The sad thing is some Palestinian youths are getting purposely brainwashed and inflamed by this one-way hate rhetoric, which is then spurring them on to a knife-attack against innocent Jewish civilians which often ends up costing them their lives. This has now got to the stage of being criticized by the more serious, responsible Palestinian journalists, which I’ve commented on in the linked article below. So I do see this sort of one-way demonizing rhetoric as somewhat irresponsible.

            http://booksand-ebooks.com/blog/suffer-the-children

          • You’re engaging in ad hominem argumentation and have yet to point to even a single error in either fact or logic in the article.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            John, thanks for the link. I hope you don’t mind if I use excerpts in my own posts elsewhere.

          • Mark Clifford

            John is unable to comment on this thread any more. He has been barred for ‘trolling’ by the author of this paper (go figure!).

            I don’t see any evidence of trolling here, simply presentation of quite a weight of comment and evidence — which obviously was too substantive for Mr Hammond to deal with, or perhaps he simply got fed up with answering. In any case, John has sent me a quick note via facebook that he would be quite happy to use the data and comments here; and I am happy too for you to use the information we have compiled between us.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Thanks.

          • Mark Clifford

            Hafuch, you might be interested in this recent commentary made on facebook with a linked article on John Matthews’s blog. It has been compiled by John along with some assistance from myself (we both worked as correspondents for Reuters years ago between Beirut and Jerusalem), and a BBC correspondent colleague, previously from Iraq and now in London.

            Please by all means use this data in fresh debates on the issue. The aim has been to offer a more balanced and incisive view and take the issue of both sides rather than just push one in exclusion to the other; the main problem with so many past documents and journals on the subject, I fear.

            >>>>>>

            A month ago I was involved in a debate about the UN proposed land division in 1948. This was a subject I had researched in some depth before, and was shocked to find the sheer number of documents and charts which presented the statistics as if the area of land previously owned by Arabs/Palestinians was 93%, with only 7% owned by the Jewish population, which was 33.5% at the time of partition.

            This was then combined with the fact that the UN proposed that 56% of the land be granted to the ‘Jewish state’, with the creator of one report even going so far to suggest that this was ‘racist’ action by the UN. Of course figures presented in this way are bound to cause outrage, and to a large extent no doubt drive the continuing debate today.

            But in examining the facts deeper we in fact see that the UN proposal made perfect sense on a proportional split basis, mainly because the proposed future Israel-state would include a sizeable Arab population of almost 35% plus – which in fact would have brought the overall population the Israeli side to 58% versus 42% Arab-Palestinians remaining the other side. This aside from the fact that heavy Jewish immigration was expected in the following years (the main reason cited at the time for the split this way), and the fact that almost 70% of the Israeli land comprised the Negev desert. There was also the factor of large tracts of state-owned land to take into account.

            Even as events transpired – with the partition plan and the ensuing wars – between 1948 and 1967 the Arab-Israeli populous reached a proportional 29% if measured at the time of divide (21% now because of the heavy Jewish immigration in the interim), which would have equalled 52.3% majority; not far short of the 56% split originally proposed. Indeed that population split today, including the 21% Arab Israelis, is 62% Israel/38% Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza.

            Veteran writer Freddie Forsyth in fact commented in a leading article recently that many of today’s students protesting about Israel-Palestine didn’t appear to take into account that Israel had a 21% Arab (mostly Muslim) population – several times that of any European nation. In fact most didn’t seem even aware of that fact. And most of them proud Israelis, almost 70% according to a recent BBC HardTalk programme, and only 18% who said they’d be willing to join a new Palestinian state if and when it was declared.

            But it isn’t only to protesting students that this Arab-Israeli contingent appear invisible, but to those compiling land and population stats re 1948 as well, and possibly the two are intrinsically linked: distorted and incorrect stats required to fuel the protests.

            I felt that issue needed addressing, but as I went deeper into the subject, I discovered that the main reason for this distortion – from the enormous volume of charts, books, journals and reports on the subject – is that most had been prepared from either a nationalistic or anti-nationalistic point of view, so indeed clarity and accuracy was the first victim.

            So in compiling this report, I have looked in depth at both sides, and tried to bring some clarity to how and why discrepancies and varying claims between the two sides have arisen. It is as a result quite a long report, but vitally important nonetheless. Especially in light of the lack of accurate documents and stats on the issue.

            http://booksand-ebooks.com/me-affairs—comments/israel-palestine-land-division

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Copied and pasted.
            Thanks.

          • Indeed, often these documents were presented as if the Jewish population (who had been buying land steadily in the area since the 1920s) owned only 7% of the land in the area, and the remaining 93% was owned by the Arab population – with the impression given that this small minority landowning contingent then stole/forcibly acquired the remaining 93%.

            Willful ignorance notwithstanding, it is true that the Jewish community owned less than 7% of the land of Palestine. It is true that the “Jewish state” came into existence through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population from Palestine, the destruction of their homes and villages, and the violent expropriation of their lands.

          • Annie Dyson

            I have been following this debate with interest, particularly the in-depth discussions with John Matthews and Mark Clifford. First you banned one for ‘trolling’, then the other, and going back I notice this is not the first time you’ve done this. It appears that as soon as anyone provides a decent, detailed argument and presses their point, you ban them.
            I note that both are past Reuters journalists. I actually went to the trouble of reading the link provided by Mark Clifford to the debate on John Matthews’s blog page. Unlike your offering, it’s an extremely detailed and balanced report without taking sides or using overblown emotive terms, which I see you are prone to.

            I suggest you take a leaf out of JM’s book and see what a decent, balanced report should look like, rather than a one-way propaganda sheet. I suggest you also look up the meaning of ‘trolling’. Your grasp of word-meanings appears as scant as your knowledge of ‘reasonable debate’ or in-depth, balanced reporting.

          • Annie, if you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic in the article, you are welcome to point it out. Is the article not detailed enough for you? You suggest it’s not balanced. How not so? Please produce an argument, rather than engaging in ad hominem argumentation, which is a violation of the terms of use of the comments section.

          • Annie Dyson

            ‘Annie, if you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic in the article, you are welcome to point it out.’

            Both John Matthews and Mark Clifford produced extensive detail as to how and why your report was flawed, so there isn’t much that can be added to their extremely balanced and extensive arguments. The fact that you simply weren’t willing to accept them doesn’t really count in intelligent debate. All it points to is that you are not willing to accept or adopt a more balanced viewpoint on the subject. Also, they were not welcome to point out where you’d erred, because in the end you banned them for doing so.

          • And I answered John and Mark, pointing out the factual and logical errors in their arguments.

            So, again, if you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic in the article, you are welcome to point it out.

          • MuslimJew

            Sockpuppet.

          • My patience wore out, yes. John violated the terms of use with his trolling behaviors. Hence he was banned.

          • “Ethnic cleansing” is a perfectly appropriate description for what occurred in Palestine. Etc.

          • Fivish

            Agreed. Ignore this antisemite.

      • Chris. K Cook

        But Arabs have the right to lands they stole of the Jews?

        • MuslimJew

          Come back when you’ve worked out that Arabs can also be Jews.

        • Well, you know, that map it´s not politically correct for some people!

        • I’ve no interest in debating strawmen. You are welcome to reply to my actual arguments.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            It appears to be a better argument than you’re willing to admit.

            Does an ethnic group have a right to change a territory’s demography by stealing the land of another ethnic group?
            Before you decide to respond, be careful, if you stammer, you lose.

          • You do understand that strawman argumentation is a logical fallacy, right? It is hence nonsense to say it’s “a better argument” than I’m “willing to admit”.

            Of course an ethnic group has no right to change a territory’s demography by stealing the land of another ethnic group. This is my whole argument.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            The map, although it contains superfluous data, implies that Arabs did exactly that to the Jews living among them.
            Your remark “completely irrelevant to the thesis”, implies that it’s wrong for one side no matter what the reason, but not so for the other, even though the two sides are Arabs and Jews, in both cases

          • No, my remark does not imply that it’s wrong for Jews to ethnically cleanse Jews, but nor for Arabs to ethnically cleanse Jews. Not in the least bit did it imply that. You’re employing strawman argumentation.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            But if Arabs do it to Jews, why should we take seriously their complaints about Jews doing it to them?

          • Why should we not? How remarkable that you are arguing that victims of ethnic cleansing should not be taken seriously. Besides, the Arabs who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine were not responsible for the actions of Arab regimes elsewhere in the region.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Not totally true because it was one war, one conflict.
            But the real question is why decent people like you ignore the inexcusable ethnic cleansing of Jews, while harping on the ethnic cleansing of Arabs even though you know those “Palestinians” and the surrounding Arabs launched a lebensraum war against the “Yishuv”,
            and as I’ve shown, the Jews understood they had no choice.

          • The Arabs who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine were not responsible for the actions of Arab regimes elsewhere in the region.

            I condemn the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab states. So the real question is rather why indecent people like you condemn ethnic cleansing against one people but try to defend and excuse it it against another.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            The answer to your “real question” is in
            the post you’re responding to.

          • Indeed. The answer being that you are a hypocrite.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            You didn’t ask me if I was a hypocrite, so, no.

          • I didn’t need to ask. You rightly condemn the ethnic cleansing of Jews while attempting to justify the ethnic cleansing of Arabs. That makes you a hypocrite.

          • SmokeSignals

            Land ownership is irrelevant anyway and there was no ethnic cleansing of any population from mandatory palestine. There was running away. Like the mufti of Jerusalem ran away to Berlin to be with Hitler during WWII. Why did he run away to Germany? For the same reason the other arabs ran away from Palestine – to kill Jews. This is proof there was no ethnic cleansing. There was a planned scheme to murder Jews only. And the mufti never came back to palestine because he was a war criminal. He hid out in Egypt and Lebanon just like other arabs that ran away from Palestine. And just like all the other arabs and their families who ran away are hiding out waiting to come back and kill Jews. They are holed up in refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria and other places around the middle east. They all want to return to destroy Israel but since they can’t they stay in the camps and cause trouble where they are now. Like all the other muslim groups in Syria and Iraq and Lebanon. Why are these muslims treating other muslims and minorities with such vicious and wicked violence? Do you think Israel wants these people coming back? Are you crazy? Do you want them to enter the US? Nobody wants them because they are violent ethnic cleansing killers and given the chance that’s what they would do if they were allowed back to Israel or allowed into the US. That’s why they can never return and should stay where they are. I know you know this to be true. By the way how many people have been killed in the Syrian civil war? Now Hammond do you deny that the mufti ran away to Germany? – that is a yes or no question. If and when you answer my question which you will probably duck my position will be proven. And by the way arabs are the largest land owners today in Israel – proof that there is no ethnic cleansing otherwise there would be no arabs in Israel at all. In the US midwest ethnic Germans own more land than any other ethnic group – that’s because the Germans came over and became farmers. Does that make the US part of Germany? And the other US citizens ethnic cleansers? Just because arabs own more land doesn’t mean they have national rights in palestine. Arabs have no national rights in palestine. This is a homeland for the Jews. There are civil rights for others who OBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND but the national rights belong to the Jews. I know you disagree with that but that was worked out at the end of WWI. The position you take was considered and rejected and a homeland for the Jews was established. This is reality and until arabs and people like you get used to this reality you will be miserable. In the meantime Israel continues to flourish in spite of muslim and arab violence.

          • there was no ethnic cleansing of any population from mandatory palestine

            Willful ignorance isn’t an argument.

          • aaron1313

            You don’t have any arguments.You just repeat stale and tiresome lies over and over hoping no one will call you out on them.

          • You are welcome to produce an argument.

      • Fivish

        The arabs in 1300 years of occupation never created a state or kingdom because the koran forbids it. 5:20-21.

    • Lapin

      “it ignores the fact that Arabs kicked more Jews out of Arab lands”

      And why was this? Ah yes, because Jews engaged in false flag operations numerous times to get to West to attack Arab Muslims.

    • Lapin

      “The Muslim takeover of Europe and potentially the West is disgusting, but perhaps the only silver lining is that delusional leftist liberals almost deserve what they have coming to them thanks to their ludicrous world view and policy positions.”

      I hope you realise that the Holocaust narrative and Jews are why there is a Muslim takeover in Europe. the World Jewish Congress, European Jewish Congress and Jewish organisations in every single European country are fully supportive of the invasion. The organised community in the UK for instance work closely with the Muslim community in branding any criticism of Islam a crime. Germany’s Jewish community said there must be no limit to the number of invaders. On Holocaust Remembrance day each year Jewish people come on our televisions and radios to tell us to “remember the Holocaust” by feeding, housing and clothing all the world’s Arabs and Africans, in our countries.

      Whenever anyone tries to oppose the Muslim takeover we get silenced by cries of “Nazi” and “Hitler”.

      • “I hope you realise that the Holocaust narrative and Jews are why there is a Muslim takeover in Europe. ”

        Falsch. Wenn man es füttert, wird es wachsen.

        • Lapin

          Just yesterday the president of the European Jewish Congress weighed in on the anti-Islamisation (and fanatically pro-Israel) FPO party’s success in Austria’s elections:

          Moshe Kantor, described the Freedom party’s rise as “deeply troubling”. “That a country at the heart of Europe can show such support to the far right barely 70 years on from the Holocaust shows that our collective memories are failing,” he said.

          In 2008, he founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation, an NGO that “promotes tolerance”. The bill that the ECTR has been trying to get enshrined in European law forbids criticism of Islam, mass immigration and even feminism. The ECTR has encouraged state surveillance of citizens deemed “intolerant”.

          A conference in Israel entitled ”The Jewish Contribution to the European Integration Project” proudly laid out the fact that Jews wrote the draft legislation and the moral framework under which Europeans would live, the entire purpose was to banish European ethnic interests and replace them with a civic code which could be adopted by anyone on earth. And now everyone on earth is coming to Europe and when Europeans disagree the European Jewish Congress is on hand to agitate for more “hate speech” legislation.

          From the report:

          “Having experienced the effects of discrimination and racism, many Jews have been at the forefront of advancing humanistic values in their countries.”

          “The idea of a supranational political entity that could protect minorities from unethical and discriminatory national laws was a blessing for European Jews and many of them worked to advance its establishment.”

          http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_36349-1522-2-30.pdf?131216133231

          Meanwhile in Israel, 52% of Jews polled say African refugees are “a cancer” and 48% think all Arabs should be removed from Israel.

          • Been in “the movement” for nearly twenty years. Read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy back in ’98, along with every word of ‘When Victims Rule’ and dozens of other things, so I know all about the “Jews at the forefront” theory. And it’s right up to a point, but a very short one. If you ever get past that and all the quotes, you’ll dig deeper — past the Jewish mantle, on to the ugly implacable core of it. Believe me: it’s much worse than you think.

  • ExtremeRC

    God has His way in spite of men, doesn’t He, Mr. Hammond.

    Ezekiel 36: 24-36

  • Jim McGowan

    Not forgetting that the deal to set up the state of Israel and displace the Palestinians was brokered by Lord Rothschild in 1917 when with the Balfour Declaration the UK agreed to the setting up of Israel in return for Rothschild and his Zionist friends (from Germany) using their influence to bring the USA into WWI.

    • To clarify, the UK’s policy as expressed in the Balfour Declaration was not to support the establishment of a Jewish state, but to support a “Jewish national home in Palestine“, without prejudice to the rights of the majority Arab population (emphasis added). The meaning of this, as later clarified in the Churchill White Paper, was autonomous Jewish communities within Palestine. Of course, the UK had no authority to declare that Arabs’ land be taken from them and handed over to Jews for their “Jewish state”.

  • Jim McGowan

    Excellent. So why not mention that?

  • Eldarus

    How much Author get paid by terrorists to deny Jewish right to exist on their own homeland?

  • AntAloy

    Dear Contributor

    The Zionists took territory also in excess of the Partition Plan.

    All UN members also have to abide by UN Security Resolutions 476 and 478 concerning Jerusalem. The UN Security Council deemed Israel’s claim to be NULL and VOID.

    Thank you.

  • Michael

    There is periodically news of a work of art that was seized by the original Nazis being returned to the Jewish descendants and heirs of the original owner.

    But we hear nothing of the property rights of Palestinians who fled their homes in huge numbers to escape Jewish terrorists intent on genocide.

    They live in refugee camps but they inalienably own most of the land under the State of Israel. They are expelled from farmland so the (new) Nazis can built settlements, left to survive in poverty, but they have inalienable right of ownership to the land and buildings of the settlements.

    For this reason it is after all necessary to expel the occupants of the settlements to resolve this issue.

    Art works do not carry more sacred property rights than houses and land. And I don’t think property rights exist only for whites (Jews) and not for Arabs.

    John Pilger mentions that in the 2002 attack on Ramulla the Israeli army destroyed land title registers. Perhaps there is a role for the International Court to hear claims and create a property register for Palestine.

  • eddie333

    There are plenty of countries that one could delegitimise if one chose to….

    USA & Australia for a start – what right do these countries have to exist? And yet they do.

    And wasn’t Jordan also given away by the British ?

    What does the author have to say about that I wonder?

    • As I said, no country has a “right to exist”. That includes the USA and Australia, naturally, since they are countries.

      I don’t know what you mean about Jordan being “given away by the British”. Like Palestine, it wasn’t Britain’s to give.

      • eddie333

        So would you say that Israel has as much a right to exist as USA & Australia ?
        Looking forward to reading your 10,000 word essay on the “illegal” state of Jordan.

        • So would you say that Israel has as much a right to exist as USA & Australia ?

          That’s one way of putting it.

          Looking forward to reading your 10,000 word essay on the “illegal” state of Jordan.

          Why would I do that? Jordan doesn’t proclaim a “right to exist” for itself in order to deny another people its right to self-determination or to try to legitimize the fact that it was created by ethnically cleansing the land of most of its Arab population.

          • eddie333

            Well Jordan was created by the British was it not – and on “Palestinian” land too ?? For some strange reason you seem to be okay with that? Is it just land given to jews you have a problem with ??

            Jordan also has denied citizenship to thousands of Palestinians for decades – and let’s not forget the thousands of Palestinians they have butchered over the years.

            And weren’t Jordan the original “occupiers” of the West Bank ??

          • You seem not to be paying much attention. Again, the British didn’t give any land to the Jews. Again, none of the land included in the Mandate, either in Palestine or Transjordan (the independence of which was later recognized and name changed to Jordan), was Britain’s to give.

            Jordan’s treatment of the Palestinians certainly has been condemnable, but this has no bearing on the point that no country has a “right to exist”.

  • If you wish to challenge me on points of fact, you are welcome to try. I would merely observe that you haven’t.

    The facts are as I’ve stated them.

  • If you wish to challenge me on any point(s) of fact, you are welcome to do so.

    I would merely observe for a second time that you haven’t done so.

  • Consult a dictionary.

  • I’ll get right on the phone with him.

  • Adir Bar Yohanan

    Your article is a scam of legal opinion! So many errors spitted out with such nonchalance it makes you think Foreign Policy Journal hires scamateurs to write articles.

    Britain occupied the Ottoman province of the Sanjak of Beirut, which included the lands Romans called Syria Palestina with the express mandate form the League of Nations to

    1. facilitate the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine

    2. facilitate extensive Jewish immigration for a close settlement of the land.

    That was BEFORE

    McMahon would negotiate Arab support for Britain against Ottoman – which anyway left out Palestine from the proposed Arab nation state

    and

    Sykes-Picot agreement that carved out the Middle East between the English and the French.

    Let me also mention the Feisal – Weizman correspondence that spelled out the Arab welcome of the Zionist movement take over of Palestine and it’s correct understanding as a nationalistic movement and expressly not imperialistic.

    And I see below comments regarding other unsupported claims you foolishly make.

    Really what a serious writer would disgrace himself like this?

    You go back to your books and stop pretending you know anything not until before long!

    • Your article is a scam of legal opinion! So many errors spitted out with such nonchalance it makes you think Foreign Policy Journal hires scamateurs to write articles….

      And I see below comments regarding other unsupported claims you foolishly make. Really what a serious writer would disgrace himself like this? You go back to your books and stop pretending you know anything not until before long!

      If you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic, you are welcome to point it out. I would merely observe that despite the length of your comment, you haven’t done so.

  • just going to say i the UN never created isreal yes but they made the rest of the world recognize a Jewish state in Palestine because of the feeling that the Jews should have their own homeland

  • .i love that Arab state…but i have no idea which one is it…

    Why, the one the Zionists aborted in the fetal stage and ensured would not be resurrected by trying to wipe the last vestages of it off the map and ethnically cleansing it of most of its Arab inhabitants, of course.

  • Israel – International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel

    In international law, as in all law, there are always two sides to a question. If this were not the case, there would be little need for legal solutions. Moreover, both parties in any conflict believe the right is on their side, or at least that they have means to prove this to be so.
    Accordingly, no law is ever created in a vacuum; a law is created when a serious enough need arises. In 1917, owing to the events of World War I, a serious need was identified and a voice was raised. The need was that of the Jewish people, dispersed across the earth for some two thousand years, to have a national home. The voice was that of Lord Balfour, speaking on behalf of the British War Cabinet in defense of the Jewish people worldwide. This compelling need found official expression in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Balfour Declaration was a political statement with no legal authority; moreover, it was not international. Nonetheless it was a major turning point in the history of the dispersed Jewish people, giving them a future hope of eventually fulfilling their never dying longing for their ancient Holy Land.
    What it accomplished was to raise the profile, internationally, of the need of a stateless people to have a “national home” to which they could return. Of monumental significance was the official recognition of the all-important historic, religious and cultural links of the Jews to the land of their forefathers, the land that had come to be known under the Greeks and Romans as
    “Palestine”. Because the cause was just and the concept justified, there needed to be a way to elevate the content of this Declaration to the level of international law. Accordingly, the matter
    was taken up by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States) at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. The issue became more complex as submissions for territorial claims were presented by both Arab and Jewish delegations, as the old Ottoman Empire was being apportioned out to the victorious Powers; thus the matter was not able to be settled within the time frame of the Paris Conference. What did happen at the Paris Conference that factored into the progression of events we are considering here was the establishment of the League of Nations which, in Article 22 of its Covenant, provided for the setting up of a mandate system as a trust for the Old Ottoman territories. The next important milestone on the road to international legal status and a Jewish national home was the San Remo Conference, held at Villa Devachan in San Remo, Italy, from 18 to 26 April 1920. This was an ‘extension’ of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 for the purpose of dealing with some of these outstanding issues. The aim of the four (out of five) members of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers that met in San Remo (the United States being present as observer only, owing to the new noninterventionist policy of President Woodrow Wilson), was to consider the earlier submissions of the claimants, to deliberate and to make decisions on the legal recognition of each claim. The outcome, relying on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, was the setting up of (3) three mandates, one over Syria and Lebanon (later separated into two mandates), one over Mesopotamia (Iraq), and one over Palestine.

    The Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain, as a “sacred trust of civilization” in respect of “the establishment in all of Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people”.

    This was a binding resolution with all the force of international law. Confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.

    In two out of the original three Mandates, it was recognized that the indigenous people had the capacity to govern themselves, with the Mandatory Power merely assisting in the establishment of the institutions of government, where necessary. This was not true of Palestine, as Palestine was, under the Mandate, to become a homeland (“national home”) for the Jewish people. Although the Jewish people were part of the indigenous population of Palestine, the majority of them at that time were not living in the Land. The Mandate for Palestine was thus quite different from the others and set out how the Land was to be settled by Jews in preparation for their forming a viable nation in the territory then known as “Palestine”.
    The unique obligations of the Mandatory to the Jewish people in respect of the establishment of their national home in all of Palestine thus gave a sui generis (unique, one of a kind) character to the Mandate for Palestine.

    The boundaries of the “Palestine” referred to in the claimants’ submissions included territories west and east of the Jordan River (which were to be part of the Jewish State).

    The submissions of the Jewish claimants specified that the ultimate purpose of the mandate would be the “creation of an autonomous commonwealth”, provided “that nothing must be done that might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities at present established in Palestine”.
    The resulting Mandate for Palestine, approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922, was an international treaty and, as such, was legally binding. The decision made in San Remo was a watershed moment in the history of the Jewish people who had been a people without a home for some two thousand years. From the perspective of Chaim Weizmann, president of the newly formed Zionist Organization and later to become the first President of the State of Israel, “recognition of our rights in Palestine is embodied in the treaty with Turkey, and has become part of international law. This is the most momentous political event in the whole history of our movement, and it is, perhaps, no exaggeration to say in the whole history of our people since the Exile.” To the Zionist Organization of America, the San Remo Resolution “crowns the British [Balfour] declaration by enacting it as part of the law of nations of the world.” The policy to be given effect in the Mandate for Palestine was consistent with the Balfour Declaration, (As confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne) in significantly recognizing the historic, cultural and religious ties of the Jewish people to the Holy Land, and even stronger than the Declaration through the insertion of the fundamental principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people. It is particularly relevant to underline the inclusion in the terms of the Mandate (through Article 2) of the fundamental principle set out in the Preamble of this international agreement 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 primary objective of the Mandate was to provide a national home for the Jewish people—including Jewish people dispersed worldwide—in their ancestral home.

    The Arab people, who already exercised sovereignty in a number of States, were guaranteed protection of their civil and religious rights under the Mandate as long as they wished to remain, even after the State of Israel was ultimately formed in 1948. Moreover, a new State; Trans-Jordan was meanwhile added as a territory under Arab sovereignty, carved out of the very mandated territory allocated to the Jewish people at issue, by the British, prior to the actual signing of the Mandate in 1922 (see below). When the Council of the League of Nations approved the Mandate for Palestine in July 1922, it became binding on all 51 Members of the League.

    This act of the League enabled the ultimate realization of the long cherished dream of the restoration of the Jewish people to their ancient land and validated the existence of historical facts and events linking the Jewish people to Palestine.
    For the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, and for the Council of the League of Nations, these historical facts were considered to be accepted and established.

    In the words of Neville Barbour, “In 1922, international sanction was given to the Balfour Declaration by the issue of the Palestine Mandate”. The rights granted to the Jewish people in the Mandate for Palestine were to be given effect in all of Palestine (including east of the Jordan River).
    It thus follows that the legal rights of the claimants to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem similarly derive from the decisions of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers in San Remo and from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations.

    In March 1921, in Cairo, Great Britain in violation of agreements and treaties, decided to partition the mandated territory of Palestine, for international political reasons of its own. Article 25 of the Mandate gave the Mandatory Power permission to postpone or withhold most of the terms of the Mandate in the area of land east of the Jordan River (“Trans-Jordan”). Great Britain, as Mandatory Power, exercised that right. For former UN Ambassador, Professor Yehuda Zvi Blum, the rights vested in the Arab people of Palestine with respect to the principle of self-determination were fulfilled as a result of this initial partition of Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922. According to Professor Blum: “The Palestinian Arabs have long enjoyed self-determination in their own state – the Palestinian Arab State of Jordan”. (Worth mentioning here, in a letter apparently written on 17 January 1921 to Churchill’s Private Secretary, Col. T.E. Lawrence (“of Arabia”) had reported that, in return for Arab sovereignty in Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Syria, King Hussein’s eldest son, Emir Feisal—a man said by Lawrence to be known for keeping his word—had “agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Palestine”.) After this partition, Churchill—British Colonial Secretary at the time— immediately reaffirmed the commitment of Great Britain to give effect to the policies of the Balfour Declaration in all the other parts of the territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine west of the Jordan River.

    This pledge included the area of Jerusalem and its Old City.
    In Churchill’s own words: “It is manifestly right that the Jews who are scattered all over the world should have a national centre and a national home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in the land of Palestine, with which for more than three thousand years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”
    Thus, in a word, the primary foundations in international law for the “legal” claim based on “historic rights” or “historic title” of the Jewish people in respect of Palestine are the San Remo decisions of April 1920, the Mandate for Palestine of July 1922, approved by the Council of the League of Nations and bearing the signatures of those same Principal Allied Powers but rendering it an international treaty binding on all Member States, and the Covenant of the League of Nations itself (Art. 22). It is important to note that the Allied Powers also set-up 21 Arab states after WWI of which no one is questioning its boundaries, therefore the boundaries of Israel as set-up according to the San Remo Treaty of 1920 should not be questions either (As confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne) . In addition, there is no mention that the Arab countries have expelled over a million Jewish people, confiscating their assets, businesses, home and land totaling over 120,000 sq. km. or 46,000 sq. miles valued at today’s market in the trillions of dollars. It seems that the Arabs and the International community keep taking areas of land from the Jewish state again and again, until there is nothing left. That is exactly what the Arab Palestinians want.

  • Richard Flantz

    Although the Ad Hoc committee appointed by the UN General Assembly stated that in its opinion the General Assembly was not competent to recommend any solution other than the independence of Palestine, the fact is that the General Assembly did not accept this opinion of the committee, & on 29 November 1947 resolved on a partition plan for the establishment of two states in Palestine, a plan which was fundamentally unfair & inequitable & certainly unacceptable to the majority Arab population of the country. Therefore the UN cannot be exonerated, & all the nations that voted for that resolution must be held responsible for their part in the outcomes of that fateful decision, & should be seen as obligated now to act to amend it by pressing for an end to Israel’s occupation, oppression & exclusion of of Arab Palestinians.

    • the General Assembly did not accept this opinion of the committee

      Right, except that it wasn’t a matter of opinion. It was a simple point of fact that the Assembly had no authority to partition Palestine. Indeed, the UN cannot be exonerated, but has played a significant role in causing the problem in the Middle East.

  • Sturgeon

    The State of Israel was created the same way the State of Palestine (1988) was created. The Arabs did not accept resolution 181 in 1948, but they did accept in 40 years later. So yes, the Partition Plan WAS implemented.

    • The state of Israel was created by ethnically cleansing Palestine of 750,000 Arabs. Hardly “the same”.

  • Kenneth Dobson

    Worthless article….

    The fact is Israel exists….it is a reality….and it is recognised by 148 countries….

    That’s all anybody needs to know….

    • Yes, never mind that the “Jewish state” it was established by ethnically cleansing most of the Arab population. Nobody pay that fact any regard.

      • Kenneth Dobson

        I say again….Israel exists….it is a reality….and it’s existence is recognised by 148 countries….

        That’s all anybody needs to know….

        • Yes, Israel exists today because in 1948 Zionists unilaterally declared the existence of a “Jewish state” and ethnically cleansed Palestine of most of its Arab inhabitants to make it a reality.

  • The Arab Denial of Jewish History and Justice

    The Arab denial of Jewish history has become an important tool in the
    Arab-Palestinian narrative. The obfuscation of the forced Jewish exodus from
    Arab countries is part of a larger revisionist endeavor. For instance, the
    official Arab-Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida quotes
    Muslim writer Safi naz
    Kallan’s statement that: “there is no people or land named Israel,
    only Zionist thieves unfit to establish a nation or have their own language and
    religion.” These Jews are “Shylocks of the land, busy emptying Arab-Palestinian
    pockets.” At the Camp David talks in July 2000, Yasser Arafat denied
    any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, thereby contradicting the Koran and
    1920 literature distributed by the Wakf at Temple Mount, the hadith,
    and other Islamic sources. His representative Saeb Erekat said the very idea of
    the Temple is a
    Jewish invention with no historical basis. President Clinton replied: “it
    is not just all the Jews around the world who believe that the Temple was
    there but the majority of Christians as well.”

    The Arabs’ claim of a right of return for the Arab-Palestinian refugees
    relies on false premises: that there is such a right under international law,
    that it was granted to the Arab-Palestinians in UN resolutions, and that Israel is
    responsible for creating the refugee problem. The case of the million Jewish
    refugees from Arab countries highlights the Arabs’ unwillingness to recognize
    the Jewish right to their homeland and calculated policy of exploiting the
    conflict to pursue their goal of an “ethnic cleansing” of Israel.
    This policy has long and consistently been practiced by the Arabs. Today almost
    no Jews live in the Arab world, and Christian communities have dwindled sharply
    there.

    In launching their war against the Jewish state in 1948, the Arab
    countries were directly responsible for both the Jewish and Arab refugee
    problems. During this eighteen-month confrontation, in which Arab armies
    invaded Israel and battles raged in almost every city and settlement, there
    were instances in which Israeli troops asked the local Arab population not to
    leave their homes. These were acts of self-defense in a war that killed six
    thousand of the six hundred thousand Jews then in the country, and it is clear
    that Israel did
    not, as alleged, mastermind a large-scale expulsion of Arab-Palestinians.
    According to their own testimonies, most of the Arab-Palestinians left because
    of the threats and fear-mongering of Arab leaders.

    In his memoirs the former
    prime minister of Syria, Khalid Al-Azm, placed the entire blame
    for the refugee problem on the Arabs:

    Since 1948 it is we the Arab who demanded the return of the
    refugees…while it is we the Arab armies who made them leave….We brought
    disaster upon…Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon
    them to leave….We have rendered them dispossessed….Then we exploited them
    in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon…men, women and
    children – all this in the service of political purposes.

    In March 1976, in the official PLO journal in Beirut, Falastin
    Al- Thawra, current Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas wrote:

    The Arab armies entered Palestine to
    protect the Arab-Palestinians from Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned
    them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homes in Palestine,
    imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into
    prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews were forced to live in Eastern
    Europe….

    The Arab demand for a right of return is a formula for destroying Israel as a
    Jewish state and reflects the unwillingness of the Arab-Palestinians to seek a
    realistic settlement. Open discussion of the million Jews’ forced flight from
    Arab countries will encourage a more objective scrutiny of the myths about the
    origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab nations and Arab-Palestinian
    responsibility for the population exchange that occurred weakens their argument
    for a “return” and highlights the double standard the UN has
    consistently applied to the conflict.

    The case of the million Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their
    harsh expulsion and confiscation of all their assets including land 6 times the
    size of Israel is a
    critical element in transforming the refugee question from a political-military
    tool to a humanitarian issue and helping to set the Middle
    East narrative straight.

    • MuslimJew

      “The Arab Denial of Jewish History and Justice”

      Tell us some more jokes.

  • Robert Reinhardt

    Interesting that many of you resort to arguing over number of people there.

    I thought the main point of the article was that the UN didn’t have the power to partition the land against the will of the people who lived there. And if it had (which it didn’t actually) firmly resolve to do so, it would have in fact been doing so against its own Charter. Which would ipso facto invalidate it. Everything else is convenient or inconvenient fact to persuade toward or against the argument to do so. When, the main point is, there was never any power to do it in the first place. Certainly, no power inferred to Israel itself to simply declare it to be so.

    If you want to say, Israel used that resolution as a geo-political and PR tool, sure. But at the end of the day its business as usual for humanity. One group of people wants land or stuff that other people have, they declare it is theres and/or their intention to take it, and then by force of arms do so.

    I see no moral high ground in the taking in this manner.

    And yes, even though I am an American I am equally as disgusted by the British, French, and Spanish colonial imperialism which did the same to all the native Americans of North and South America; then followed as matter of course by the newly independent USA itself as it continued against the native americans further west and took land from mexico as well. It goes on and on.

    Sorry, I digress. This entire thing annoys me. When will we evolve past this?

  • The UN under its Charter has no authority and cannot establish a country, it cannot supersede or modify international law and treaties. The UN under its charter can only recommend its resolutions and if it is accepted by the parties and signed as an agreement by the parties, it is valid, otherwise it has no validity of enforcement whatsoever.

    The Arabs rejected outright all the pertinent UN resolutions and therefore none of those UN resolutions are valid.

    There was also the Faisal Weizmann Agreement signed and executed in London on January 3, 1919 which recognized Palestine as a Jewish territory.

    The UN, other entities, other nations and organizations can put up flags for the fictitious Arab Palestinians. It does not mean nothing. Under International Law and treaties signed and executed by the Supreme Allied Powers after WWI. Arab states were created in Mesopotamia , Syria, Lebanon , etc totaling 5 million square miles.

    The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into international treaty and Palestine aka Israel which is about 75,000 square miles was assigned to be the reconstituted Jewish National Home it its historical ancestral indigenous territory going back over 3500 years. The Jewish people has a continuous habitation of Palestine aka Israel for the past 4000 years and more.

    After 1948 the Arab countries persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish families and confiscated all their assets including over 110,000 square km. of land, which is about 6 times the size of Israel.

    Most of the million expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel and now comprise over half the population of Israel.

    YJ Draiman

    • You seem to agree that the UN neither created Israel nor conferred any legal authority for the unilateral declaration of its existence, yet assert that all of Palestine is “Jewish territory”.

      Like Resolution 181, neither the Faisal Weizmann Agreement nor the Balfour Declaration conferred any legal authority for the unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.

      The idea that land belonging to the Arab Palestinians could simply be taken from them and handed over to Jews at the behest of world powers is, of course, premised on an ideology of racist colonialism.

  • Sud1

    The Palestinian Jews backed the allies, the Palestinian Arabs did not, and in fact many Arab countries backed the Axis. Don’t back a loser then whine like a little girl when you must face the consequences.

    • The Palestinian Arabs had nothing to do with WWII, and nothing about the circumstances of WWII justifies the rejection of their right to self-determination and wholesale ethnic cleansing from their homeland.

      • Sud1

        If you want to know what its like to be on the receiving end of ethnic cleansing, talk to the Jews

  • Scott Kuli

    “Despite these facts, the UNSCOP proposal was that the Arab state be constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state.”

    55.5% + 45.5% = 101%.

    There’s no such thing as 101% unless a sports figure is doing 9% less of a job than he’s supposed to do (110%).

    If the author of the article can’t do basic math, why trust his opinion… on anything?

    The truth of this matter is that the author is pretending that Palestine was a de facto state at the time, when in truth it was not. It was a region, and was made up of parts of the territory of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

    In plain language, where did all the “Palestinians” come from? They never referred to themselves as “Palestinians” until after 1967, so let’s get real about this. The Palestinian identity was an outgrowth of the need to disassociate from the Arab countries that were belligerents in the Six Day War of 1967, and the Palestinians won’t admit this because then the claim “I don’t have a country because of Israel” can be seen for what it is – a fraud.

    The truth is also that the Palestinian leadership under Arafat never admitted that some of them had agreed to this original partition because at the time Palestine was not a state, but they wanted it to be.

    Oh I know… that’s never been admitted, but what was shown was that they claimed the Israelis seized more land than they were entitled to under the partition recommendation. And what does THAT mean? That was a tacit admission by them that the initial partition structure was okay with them, and they only later decided they wanted Israel to not exist and the whole thing to be “Palestine”.

    “…but the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement on September 29 reiterating that “the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status”.

    Yep. Do a little research and you’ll find out where their authority came from too.

    “In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud.”

    True. The UN did not create Israel, the Jews did that. As for the rest, no, there’s no patent on fraud ( :) )

    What about the fraud of pretending to be concerned about the right of self determination of Palestinians who already have – not one, not two, BUT THREE – countries despite claiming to have none? What about perpetrating this while the native populations of North America are still treated like cattle by their “rulers”? What about complaining about the demolition of a few houses owned by good folks who dance in the streets and pass out candy when a bomb goes off in Israel, but who’ve said nothing about the US staging a coup in Ukraine and backing a fascist-friendly government there in it’s attempt to crush the people of the East while claiming it’s engaging in self defence?

    • Indeed, when I wrote this article, I inadvertently relayed numbers that contain an evident rounding error from the source cited. The error is not significant to the point: the plan’s proposal to make a “Jewish state” from 55% of Palestine while leaving the Arabs with only 45% was inherently unjust.

      Your assertion that Palestinians never referred to themselves as such until 1967 is nonsense.

      Yes, “the Jews did that” (created Israel) — by ethnically cleansing 750,000 Arabs from Palestine and stealing their land.

  • Amenuti Narmer

    I have read this piece with some reservation. But, I am ill-equipped to debate your numerous points. I say, ill-equipped for two reasons. First, all debatable points I have in my arsenal have been checked in your conversations with others on this forum and secondly, I seem to have imbibed a lot of nonsense about the Primacy of the God-Chosen Tribe just by growing up on the three continents that are Africa, Europe and America. In these three places, the belief systems coming out of Judea, which by the way, Pharaoh Tahaqa of Kemet had deeply supported with his menacing African Troops for gods-know-what, saving it from Persian Invasion and Destruction, are so entrenched perhaps through the old churches of Africa, the Roman Catholic church, missionaries and Bible-tooting slave traders and slave owners. I would rather remain humble, no matter the pain I now feel for believing such horrid machinations of a group of people who seem to think they have a monopoly to the communication lines of the Supreme Being – whatever planet He lives on. So, thank you!

  • Jonathan

    Could you post your sources?

  • Temple Mount in Jerusalem is Jewish territory and has been

    since prior to the building of the two Jewish temples

    (as a matter of fact King David of Israel had paid the Jebusites money to purchase that
    property, to avoid conflict). Israel after liberating it in 1967 graciously permitted the
    Arabs to continue to pray there. Now the time has come to terminate that
    arrangement. It is the Arabs who are defiling The Jewish holy of holies.

    After years of abuse of this privilege, by committing violence and violently
    interfering with Jewish worshipers on a consistent basis, Israel has the right, duty and obligation to revoke that privilege.

    Let us take back our sacred ground, once and for all.

    I am sure the Arab-Muslim would not permit anyone in the world to build and
    control the holy Muslim Site in Mecca.

    Let the Arab-Muslim have Mecca and the Judeo-Christian have Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

    • The status of East Jerusalem under international law is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

      • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

        From Ottoman to British to Corpus Seperatum to (Trans)Jordan to Israel to…
        Palestine!
        Does this make sense to you?

        • No, it doesn’t. I don’t know what you’re trying to say so will just repeat that the status of East Jerusalem under international law is “Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            What I’m saying is that I don’t understand it.
            I was hoping you could make sense out of it for me.

          • I don’t understand what you don’t understand. You’ll have to clarify.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            What law changed Jerusalem from what it was,
            to Palestinian territory?

          • The premise of your question is false.

          • Hafuch_Al_Hafuch

            Your premise is false, unless you accept
            that “Israel” has always been Jewish.

          • You aren’t making any sense.

  • rolandhp

    hi, really interesting article. I had thought the UN created Israel with resolution 181 and I consider myself relatively informed on the issue. May I ask, how well known are these facts in the Arab world? Also, many countries recognised Israel’s legitimacy de jure only after its first election. In this first Israeli election there were half a million “eligible” voters (of whom 440 000 voted) that doesn’t seem like many to me. Do you know the criteria for eligibility? Or what percentage were Jewish and Arab? I cant find the answer on the web. Keep up the good work. R.

    • I’m afraid I can’t offer much insight into your questions, but thanks for your comment.

  • Michelle P

    The reality is we are all victims of treasonous sock puppet leaders beholden to something other than the people. Historical documents prove than everyone involved in the creation of Israel knew that it would provoke anti semitism and cause problems for Jews living there. That is the reason why many real Jews such as Isaac Isaacs were oppossed to “Zionism”.

    The reality is that Jews were placed between a rock and a hard place by the British. Today we know that the British “allies” were also funding their “enemy” Nazi Germany. There is a long history of betrayal of Jews by the EU Oligarchs they served. The implications are precarious. Think about the fact that the Swiss “Laws” that created the secretive banking system, came into effect the same year Hitler came into to power. The amount of wealth looted from Jewish families and nations is so vast that it is undetermined to the date. Today the biggest tax haven is the City of London. The wealth from national conflicts, crime, and corruption flows their like a river.

    Bank of England Supported Nazi War Machine, New Papers Reveal
    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/07/31/bank_of_england_helped_sell_nazi_gold_new_papers_reveal.html

    Bank of England following orders.
    https://sites.google.com/site/nocancerfoundation/bank-of-england-was-following-orders-from-bis-as-it-sold-gold-looted-by-nazis

    Bank of England Blamed BIS for Funding Nazi’s
    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/07/30/bank-of-england-was-following-orders-from-bis-as-it-sold-gold-looted-by-nazis/

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/archivedocs/wwh/2/p3c9p1292-1301.pdf

    The Bank of England was funding Hitler’s Germany all along. This fact changes the narrative of WWII is so many ways.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10213988/Never-mind-the-Czech-gold-the-Nazis-stole….html

    How the Bank of England helped Nazi’s Sell Looted Gold
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381587/How-Bank-England-helped-Nazis-sell-looted-gold.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10212234/Bank-of-England-helped-the-Nazis-to-sell-plundered-gold.html

    The Rothschilds were agents for the EU Oligarchs and the name has no real Jewish heritage. Those serving the oligarchs are secular, and any pretense of religion is fake.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080

    The EU Oligarchs are all related. The current occupants of Buckingham Palace are actually from the Bavarian House of Hanover (Germany). A little name change and that was the end of that story.

  • Yehoshua Ezra

    Hi Jeremy,

    I enjoyed the article and hope to draft a full series of questions/issues I have with what you’ve raised. Something I thought may be worth pointing out, and in the interest of academic honesty rather than political point scoring is about the division of the land. Although you’re correct Jews were awarded 55.5% of the land of Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan the vast majority of the land was the virtually uninhabitable Negev desert. To this day if you take a bus from Jerusalem or Tel Aviv to Eilat you see that the vast majority of this land is empty, unused and will take generations yet to make anything productive from. Other than that was the tiny coastal strip including Tel Aviva up to Haifa. Moreover the land awarded was non-contiguous which would, ultimately, have made the state as unviable as East Pakistan/Bangladesh. The Arabs received the excellent farmland of the Galilee as well as access to the freshwater source of the Sea of Galilee. It’s hard to state a case that by getting the “majority” of the land the Israelis-to-be were somehow getting the better deal out of the division.

    Finally I noticed in some of the comments attribution of certain perspectives on historical circumstances as “Hasbara” and therefore reason enough to dismiss them at face value. Every historical conflict event and evolving trend of history has and, will be interpreted and reinterpreted through different historical lenses. Pro Israel writers have no more tinted glasses than those of a pro Palestinian ilk. Deceptions and historical reinventions are rampant on both sides who seek to lay exclusive claim to this ever volatile area of the Middle East. So if something is “hasbara” it is propaganda in favour of Israel- it’s a reading of history in a Zionistic flavour- but not anymore academically dishonest than those who would write off any historical Jewish connection to the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river. The truth, as with all things, is somewhere in the middle.

    Be well, keep writing, and looking forward to your comments.

    • It’s hard to state a case that by getting the “majority” of the land the Israelis-to-be were somehow getting the better deal out of the division.

      With respect, this is an absolutely absurd statement. It is hard to see how a minority community that owned less than 7% of Palestine being given 55.5% of the land — which would entail taking much of it from the Arabs to give to Jews — would not have been “the better deal”, your point about the Negev being included in the proposed Jewish state notwithstanding.

  • brian

    United Nations Resolution 181,resolution passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”) to be governed by a special international regime.Nov 2, 2014

    • What about it?

      • brian

        Jeremy, I should of put the question in there. I agree with you. Do you think this paved the way for the government entity they have now? I would like to discuss this area with you if at all possible. I do believe Zionism and Wahhabism and capitalism are the roots for a lot of eternal issues. I think this is why a lot of people believe the UN is run by Israel and the USA and financed by the Saudis. Then there is international law which the previous three mentioned seem not to care about. Do you think if international law is applied and respected that the Palestine region would endure peace instead of conflict? Thank you for replying if you can. I apologize for reply not being complete. Have a great weekend.

        • Do you think this paved the way for the government entity they have now?

          You’ll have to clarify your question.

          Do you think if international law is applied and respected that the Palestine region would endure peace instead of conflict?

          Yes. There would still be a legacy of bitterness and hatred to overcome, but for the most part, yes.

  • Kimberley Waelens

    time for some corrections. first of all palestine didn’t exist prior to
    1920. before, the area was part of the ottoman empire, which had fallen
    apart. your statement “Great Britain had occupied Palestine during the
    First World War” makes it sound like they occupied an existing country,
    which wasn’t the case.

    “the Zionist movement to establish in
    Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people” it was written in the
    mandate text for palestine that “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers
    have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting
    into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917,
    by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said
    Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home
    for the Jewish people,” palestine was created as a future jewish state by the league of nations.

    “Despite
    these facts, the UNSCOP proposal was that the Arab state be
    constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the
    Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state”
    again this is nonsense, as stated the whole of palestine was supposed to
    be the jewish state.so proposing to give 45% of the futurre jewish
    state to the arabs was quite generous.+ it should be mentioned that
    palestine included jordan. but in 1922 palestine was split and the arab
    palestinians got jordan, so the arab palestinians actualy got 77% of
    palestine in 1922.which brings us to the following..

    “With regard
    to the principle of self-determination, although
    international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of
    the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab
    territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not
    applied to Palestine,” so as said the arab palestinians were given 77%
    of palestine as their own future state in 1922. because they did get
    their own state, there is no self determination problem. the
    palestinians who don’t wanna live in israel, could simply move to their
    own country. and because the jews are the indigenous people, there definetely isn’t a self determination problem. quite the contrary, the creation of israel solved the self determination problem in palestine.one area became 2 independant states, how awsome is that.

    • time for some corrections. first of all palestine didn’t exist prior to 1920. before, the area was part of the ottoman empire, which had fallen apart. your statement “Great Britain had occupied Palestine during the First World War” makes it sound like they occupied an existing country, which wasn’t the case.

      How bizarre to first deny that Palestine didn’t exist only then to acknowledge it was a territory under the Ottoman Empire. Of course it existed as such, which is precisely how it is described in the article. Nowhere did I write that it existed as an independent state before 1920. How bizarre to suggest otherwise when the point is made repeatedly in the article that Palestine’s independence was not recognized.

      the whole of palestine was supposed to be the jewish state

      Nonsense. The facts are as I’ve stated them. But it’s worth noting the racist, colonialist assumption you accept that Western powers had some sort of right to take land from Palestine’s Arab inhabitants to transfer to Jews.

      the arab palestinians were given 77%
      of palestine as their own future state in 1922. because they did get
      their own state, there is no self determination problem. the
      palestinians who don’t wanna live in israel, could simply move to their
      own country. and because the jews are the indigenous people, there definetely isn’t a self determination problem. quite the contrary, the creation of israel solved the self determination problem in palestine.onearea became 2 independant states, how awsome is that.

      What asininity. I encourage you to reread the article, only this time make an effort to actually comprehend it.

    • Montelatici

      The first paragraph of the Mandate for Palestine states:

      “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; ”

      Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states in the first paragraph:

      “ARTICLE 22.

      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.”

      You will note that the Mandatory’s first purpose was to promote the “well-being” and “development” of the inhabitants, i.e. the Muslims and Christians who were the overwhelming majority at the time of signing of the Mandate.

      In Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of nations, it does not mention anything about inhabitants of Europe, Jewish or otherwise.

  • Wesley Molt

    Well, we are somewhat agreed. The UN didn’t create Israel, the unanimous vote of the League of Nations did by creating the Mandate of Palestine, the UN only ended the Mandate. The Arabs right for self-determination was used to create Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the disasters that are Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Turkey.

    • No, the League of Nations did not create Israel.

      • Wesley Molt

        Double check your history. The League of Nations unanimously voted to create the state of Israel once they could govern themselves at the San Remo Conference, thus creating the Palestinian Mandate. What the UN voted in favor of on November 29, 1947 was whether or not to end the Mandate, nothing more. Originally the Mandate called for Israel to control what is now Israel, Judea, Samaria and Jordan, but due to pressure from the Arabs, and wanting to reward the Hashemite family, the Jews promised land was shrunk several times.

        • The League of Nations unanimously voted to create the state of Israel …

          No, they did not.

          What the UN voted in favor of on November 29, 1947 was whether or not to end the Mandate, nothing more.

          What the UN voted in favor of on November 29, 1947 was the recommendation to partition Palestine, precisely as described in great detail above.

          Originally the Mandate called for Israel to control what is now Israel, Judea, Samaria and Jordan…

          No, it did not.

          Double check your history.

          I advise you to do the same. The facts are as I’ve stated them.

          • Wesley Molt

            Read up on the Conference of San Remo, that’s where I got my information.

          • I’ve read it. It doesn’t say what you say it says; but it’s instructive you accept the racist, colonialist assumption that Western powers somehow had the right to declare that land be taken from indigenous Arab Palestinians to be handed over to mostly immigrant Jews who by the end of the Mandate had legally acquired less than 7% of the territory of Palestine — the rest acquired by force and the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population.

          • Wesley Molt