In his latest absurdly titled blog we find Chris Proudlove spouting the same old tired chestnut.
“…With Turkish rule ending in the Middle East the Allies’ aim was to create one Jewish state and a number of Muslim nations in the region. The LoN mandated Britain to sort out matters pertaining to Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq).”
No, it was never intended to create a “Jewish state”. The LoN mandate’s aim was to allow Jews, in certain numbers, immigrate to Palestine and take up PALESTINIAN citizenship.
Article 7 of the mandate,
“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.”
Also,
“His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. […] His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State”
Chris then goes on to tell us,
“Britain’s Mandate, as far as Palestinian Jews were concerned, was to grant them statehood when they were deemed ready to rule.”
Again, no.
“it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development”
And,
“The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” ..It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.”
Nahum Sokolow, Zionist representative at the Paris peace conference.
Also, at the Paris peace conference “US Secretary of State Lansing asked Dr Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?” Dr Weizmann replied in the negative.”
Although by the time the thuggish Ben Gurion and his gang of ethnic cleansers came along they did try to rewrite the Zionist aims.
He then goes on to tell us,
“As time wore on, however, war-weary and almost bankrupted Britain could not control the burgeoning military conflict between Arab and Jew. This led to Britain handing over the Mandate to the United Nations, LoN’s successor, in 1948.
The U.N was obliged to complete legalities stemming from its LoN predecessor. So, it was as Mandate holder that the UN facilitated the recreation of Israel. The action of U.N. was a ‘rubber stamp’ to what the LoN had stipulated.”
Again, no.
“The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system.”
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Austin
And,
“On 2 April 1947, the United Kingdom directed a request to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the first part of which states:1
“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations to place the question of Palestine on the agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular annual session. It will submit to the Assembly an account of its administration of the League of Nations mandate and will ask the Assembly to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine.”
Thus, the question of Palestine came before the General Assembly only as a request for a recommendation. No proposal was made by the United Kingdom to the General Assembly that the United Nations itself undertake responsibility for the government of Palestine.”
Chris then quotes hasbarrister Cambridge Ph.D. Cynthia Day Wallace,
“The U.N. cannot create a Palestinian Arab state until there is a territoral agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel as laid down by the Oslo Accords.”
Both Israel and the Palestinians can annul the Oslo accords at any time. The UN has also already given recognition to the Palestinians by giving them observer status at the UN.
Then we read,
“Anyway, U.N. resolutions are not legally binding. They are only recommendations.”
How peculiar. Previously, on this very blog, Chris, under the name of “Buster J Bailey” posted this,
“Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N.”
Wait, What!?!
He tells us that “Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N.” and then he tells us, or at least his “legal luminary” does, that “… U.N. resolutions are not legally binding.”
Quite the contradiction.
Then his “legal luminary” tells us that,
“In the ECI summary Dr Wallace concludes: “In sum, the conflict is not a traditional conflict over borders – that is not even really the issue, as demonstrated by the fact that national boundaries have gone so long undetermined.”
Actually, little miss “legal luminary” Israel declared its borders in 1948 as seen here in a letter to the president of the U.S.A,
“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.”
Israel has NEVER legally annexed any territory outside those declared borders.
Next we have this,
“It is a conflict over historic rights and the internationally recognized need of a unified ‘people’ to have a place( and territorial space) to come ‘home’ to after some 2,000 years of ‘statelessness’ and separation from the Land of their Fathers – the only place that they call ‘holy’ and the only land they have ever called home.’”
Jews had no legal claim to the Holy land hence why the wording “Historical connection”. Also, according to a recent DNA study most of today’s Jews are not from the holy land. Although having said that I understand there is talk of other DNA tests that will debunk that theory….We shall wait and see…
Then there’s this,
“The problem, as it was in 1937, 1947 and 2000-01 is that the Palestinian Arabs refuse to compromise when offered a two-state solution.”
Regarding 1937 and 1947 the Arabs, embarrassingly for Chris and his hasbarristers, wanted a one state solution on the lines of the San Remo treaty. Ie. An Arab majority and Jewish minority sharing Palestine with equal rights for both groups. As for 2000-01, I already posted up a blog titled ‘Myth of the generous offer’ and Chris made zero attempt at debunking the article. So we must ask why he mentions it in his blog?
Next we have,
“Dr Victor Pearce, a noted scientist, archaeologist and theologian, comments in his book ‘Prophecy’, that, as in subsequent wars between Arab and Jew, angelic action on Israel’s side was responsible for the nascent Jewish state achieving victory against all the odds.”
Actually the odds in all Arab-Israeli wars have been stacked in Israel’s favour with the possible exception of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. See here for the war of Independence,
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005%20/Israel%20and%20the%20Arab%20Coalition%20in%2019481.html
Now for what is for me the most alarming piece of Chris’s blog.
“In doing so, the Jewish King Jesus will say to Gentile nations supporting Israel: “… inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”
I’ve already debunked that particular Zionist perversion of the bible here ,
Once again, despite numerous comments, Chris made no attempt to make a case as to why CfZ should make that particular claim. Also, if we read CfZ liar and Bible perverter in chief Mike Fryer’s latest blog we find him once again making the claim but he, Fryer, doesn’t stop there. He also says the following,
“You see without Israel or the Jewish there is no God.”
I assume he missed out the word ‘people’ after Jewish. In recent weeks I have noticed that Christian Zionists are trying to blackmail their fellow Christians into supporting Israel’s land theft and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs by making claims such as the two mentioned above and the following two claims.
“if it wasn’t for the Jews there would be no Bible” and “if it wasn’t for the Jews there would be no Christianity” Any Christian, true Christian reading these claims will be alarmed already. For those who are not so sure I will post these quotes from the New Testament gospel of John.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
John Ch 1
“58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John Ch 8.
We thank God for his word. We thank God for Jews who sacrificed much for their faith in Jesus.
We DON’T thank Jews for God. We DON’T thank Jews for the bible. If we did we would be committing Idolatry.
Please don’t ever believe a word that these Christian Zionists say….It may lead you into a pit!
christiansforzionwatch 
I have no idea about what you are referencing in the above comment.
Why are you avoiding giving a straight answer. Is it because your lies, hypocrisy and bigotry will be further exposed?
“I have given statistics showing there were more Jewish refugees than Arab ones as a result of the 1948 War. ”
That has nothing to do with the question i asked. Jews in Iraq or anywhere else outside of Palestine were not part of the existing inhabitants inside Palestine. So we can see clearly you are trying to muddy the waters. We must ask why?
“Palestinian Arabs, in the main, did not move to the Holy Land until the first Jews returned to the land of their forefathers during the reign of Queen Victoria.”
So you are saying there was no Palestinian Arabs in Palestine until Queen Victoria reigned?
If that’s what you are saying then that has got be one of your biggest lies so far.
“There has never been a Palestine nation in the generally accepted sense. ”
It’s right there in the preamble of the mandate which you call “irrevocable”
Strange, is it not, that Palestine is mentioned as being a country yet you deny this. Nowhere is the term “Jewish State” or “Jewish Homeland” mentioned yet you tell us that’s what is meant. Same goes with Sovereignty for the Jewish people and the Jewish people becoming “national beneficiaries” nowhere are these things mentioned yet you claim that’s what is meant. But where it clearly states that Palestine is a country that’s not what is meant.
I think enough is enough. You are clearly a barefaced liar and everyone can see it.
Oh and btw, how many times do i have to mention Israel’s declaration of independence in answer to your stupid question?
Also, the British were the rulers of Palestine the country during the mandate years so one would assume the PM of the UK/HMG was the also the PM of Palestine or at least the legal guardian.
Are you ignoring this, Chris?
‘Trevor Barclay’:So you are saying there was no Palestinian Arabs in Palestine until Queen Victoria reigned? If that’s what you are saying then that has got be one of your biggest lies so far.
How typical of ‘Trevor’ to over-egg the pudding. This is what I stated: “Palestinian Arabs, IN THE MAIN, did not move to the Holy Land until the first Jews returned to the land of their forefathers during the reign of Queen Victoria.”
More Arabs than Jews moved into the Holy Land during the British Mandate.
‘Trevor Barclay’: Also, the British were the rulers of Palestine the country during the mandate years so one would assume the PM of the UK/HMG was the also the PM of Palestine or at least the legal guardian.
I’m the one that’s laughing out loud at this. You’ve left out the real ruler, the League of Nations, ‘Trevor.’ Even the Palestinian passports issue during the Mandate were stamped ‘British.’
“I’m the one that’s laughing out loud at this. You’ve left out the real ruler, the League of Nations, ‘Trevor.’ Even the Palestinian passports issue during the Mandate were stamped ‘British.’”
The British governed Palestine…That’s why there was a British passport for Palestine. See, British passport for Palestine not LoN passport for Palestine.
Also, did you note the word ‘IF’ in my reply. Sometimes it’s hard to tell what you crafty Zionists really mean.
Next you’ll be telling me Palestine was a land without a people…