Israel’s Real Legitimacy

Chris Proudlove in his latest blog sets out “ISRAEL’S LEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW” Only he doesn’t. Once again we find that he offers no relevant documented proof to back up his claims. He simply posts up opinion and obscurity.

 

Firstly I shall give a short insight into how Chris thinks. This is a man who calls Hitler a “German Patriot” yet when he wrote two blogs about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem no such kindness was offered up. He constantly contradicts himself too. He also thinks that Arabs in the West Bank should simply up sticks and move to Jordan. Why does he think they should do this? Well one of his reasons is that [and I kid you not] “They have the same surnames as their cousins in Jordan”.

 

In one of his ramblings he wrote this of the San Remo treaty “What a number of organizations and leading lawyers are seeking is for the International Court of Justice or similar body to look afresh at San Remo and rule on its validity” He also mentions several times that he’d like to see that happen too. Only now that he has recently discovered the the ICJ has apparently looked at the San Remo treaty and they failed to find in Israel’s favour he declares it a “scandal” and simply refuses to accept the findings that he and his Hasbarist chums were calling for.

 

On a similar line he once stated of both British White papers “A White Paper is not law.” But now that he has found, I assume,  an obscure line or paragraph in the Churchill White paper he proclaims “The Churchill White Paper endorses Israel’s claims, Trevor. I’m laughing out loud at your ignorance. The MacDonald White Paper has no legal significance.” So one also has to assume that as of yet he has found nothing obscure in the Macdonald White paper and therefore only that White paper is insignificant….According to him.

 

He highly recommended that I read the Howard Grief book ‘The Legal Foundation And Borders Of Israel Under International Law’ and even told me I’d find all the answers to my questions therein. Now you would think that someone who suggested this would have read the book from cover to cover….but as it turns out….HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK HIMSELF.

 

So as we can see this is a man who will not and cannot accept facts and that not a word that comes out his mouth can be trusted.

 

On one occasion he called the terrorist and wannabe Nazi collaborator Avraham Stern a “patriot” Later he denied calling Stern a “patriot” and how did he attempt to refute this…By calling Stern a “patriot”

 

Now it would be easy to dismiss this man as a kook but this is an individual who has worked in the newspaper industry for decades.

 

 Israel’s legitimacy:

 

Israel declared her independence based on UNGA Res.181 and declared her borders according to said resolution [Hasbarists constantly claim Israel declared no borders] and as such was recognized immediately by the U.S.A then Russia then the majority of of the remainder of the International community. This in turn gave the state of Israel her legitimacy and later led to Israel being admitted to the UN and as a member of the UN Israel is bound by the UN charter.

 

“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.”

 

So what does this mean? Well it means that under law Israel IS occupying land outside of her declared borders. Land which they have never legally annexed and therefore the occupation and settlements are indeed ILLEGAL!

 

Take Jerusalem as an example.

“…On 2 August, the Government of Israel rejected the suggestion and decided to declare the Jerusalem area under its control as Israel-occupied territory. Dr. Dov Joseph was appointed Military Governor.”

 

As you can clearly see Israel declared herself “occupier” of Jerusalem.

 

And here’s the British Government position on Israels illegal occupation of Jerusalem.

 

“His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies…”

 

As of yet Israel has never legally annexed Jerusalem.

 

Now the conundrum Hasbarists face:

 

If, as the Hasbarists say, the San Remo treaty is irrevocable, then UNGA Res.181 must be declared unlawful. If Res.181 is unlawful then Israel’s declaration of independence must also be unlawful and the nations who recognized Israel have in fact also committed an unlawful act by recognizing her statehood. Ergo, according to the Hasbarists,  Israel is an illegal entity.

 

A  question for Chris and his fellow Hasbarists.

 

Can you show me where Israel declared her independence based on the San Remo treaty?

 

The reality is. The Hasbara nonsense about San Remo is a ploy to try and give legitimacy to Israel’s illegal occupation…Anyone with two working brain cells can clearly see that.

 

Oh and btw, Proudlove. All of the above blows clean out the water the comments you left in Yesterdays blog [which I note you tried to hijack with Hasbara]. As an illegal occupier Israel has no rights to build its separation barrier on Arab lands. If Israel wishes to build a wall for security reasons let her build the damn thing inside her own boundaries.

Advertisements

50 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

50 responses to “Israel’s Real Legitimacy

  1. Christopher Proudlove

    AS USUAL, Trevor “I’m no gentleman” Barclay gives an inadequate reply. Diversionary tactics and smears just will not do. Countering my blog ISRAEL’S LEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, he uses smoke and mirrors in a pathetic attempt to obfuscate.
    His opening lie is that I offer no relevant documented proof to underline Israel’s legitimacy when the article is replete with documented references. The following letter by Stephen Green in this week’s Jewish Chronicle in reply to columnist Geoffrey Alderman substantiates my blog. It states:

    ”Geoffrey Alderman should have trounced the hackneyed revisionist arguments that the Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague and given to appease malign Jewish influence. In May 1939, following the McDonald White Paper, Lloyd George (WW1 UK Prime Minister) said the Declaration was not given ‘because of our abundant grace’, but as part of a hard bargain in which the allied powers sought world Jewry’s help in defeating the central powers. He denounced the British betrayal of the Jews and said the British word would no longer be trusted.
    Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen in his ‘Middle East Diary’, makes it clear from conversations he had with Balfour and Lloyd George, that the former was driven by the “unsatisfactory” situation of world Jewry, and the latter, a religious Christian, wanted to see the Jews returned to their land.
    Far from being ‘vague’, the Declaration was specific. Meinertzhagen deplored the actions of those officials ‘saturated with antisemitism’, who did their best to undermine it. Given he was the chief political officer in Palestine and military adviser to Churchill in their Middle East department of the Colonial Office, his account should be given more credence.”

    When someone is losing an argument they often resort to unjustified insults. Trevor resorts to this dubious tactic but it never works. He objects to my description of Hitler as a German patriot. Well, we’ve all seen film of besotted Germans greeting him in the streets and staged Nazi rallies. They weren’t cheering him because he was unpatriotic, were they. He promised a German 1000-year reign and his adoring followers lapped it up.
    Just to make it clear, Hitler was an anti-Christ, a totalitarian monster who thought his Aryan race were the master race. Other peoples were inferior and fit only to serve as slaves of Germany. His worst act was to kill six million Jews in the Nazi death camps, for which he is rightly despised. Nazi propaganda smeared Jews as sub-human. Ultimately, Hitler was a disaster for Germany and will be scorned as evil for all time.
    LIE No 2 comes when Trevor says that I think West Bank Arabs should move to Jordan. I was repeating the idea of a Palestinian who believes this plan would be a goer if there were sufficient benefits involved to aid the flits.
    For the record I believe in a one-state solution. I think Palestinian Arabs should bury the hatchet, love not hate their Jewish neighbours and cooperate into making Israel into more of a success than it already is. The fear of Arabs swamping the Israelis with more births does not stand up to scrutiny. Palestinians deliberately lie about their population figures. A million Palestinians living in Israeli governed areas are better off than those in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
    Trevor mocks, but it is an established fact that you can often tell the original homeland of Palestinians by their surnames. Many of the Palestinian Arab leaders, such as Yasser Arafat, were not born in the Holy Land. The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt remarked that more Arabs than Jews immigrated to the Holy Land during the British Mandate. My understanding is that the total was 100,000.
    LIE No. 3 is that the International Court of Justice has “apparently looked at the San Remo treaty and they failed to find in Israel’s favour.” When I asked Trevor to spell out what the ICJ said about San Remo he was unable to answer. ICJ judges ruled that Israeli settlements were not lawful but it was not a full judicial decision only an ADVISORY opinion. My blog pointed out that the ICJ’s predecessor along with other world-wide bodies declared the League of Nations unanimously -ratified San Remo to be an irrevocable international legal accord. Trevor should open is eyes and not be blinded by his own anti-Israel prejudices.
    And, yes, I do find the ignorance about the treaty to be one of the major scandals of the last 100 years. The reason behind this is Arab oil. Countries to not want to be starved of this vital commodity and so turned a blind eye to San Remo. Where’s the justice? It makes my blood boil. No doubt Trevor’s attempt to use …….. to baffle brains pleases his Palestine Liberation Organization chums.
    Wikipedia backs up my claim by stating “White Papers are a ‘… tool of participatory democracy … not [an] unalterable policy commitment’. “White Papers have tried to perform the dual role of presenting firm government policies while at the same time inviting opinions upon them.”
    No, I’ve not read Howard Grief’s book ‘The Legal Foundation And Borders Of Israel Under International Law’ but I’ve read enough summaries on it to come to a judgment. I also quote luminaries who have read the work and given their comments and recommendations. I can happily repeat their recommendations to those seeking to know about the legitimacy of Israel to read the book.
    Come on, Trevor, you can do better than this. You quote the McDonald White Paper BUT I DOUBT IF YOU HAVE READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT. Trevor has been hoist to his own petard!
    We can see already that Trevor is a man who will not and cannot accept facts and that not a word that he issues can be trusted. That applies to his reference to Avraham Stern. Trevor calls him a would-be Nazi collaborator but this is stretching things to the extreme, another example of Trevor making two plus making five. Stern was a terrorist in British Mandate eyes, but a freedom fighter for the future state of Israel in the eyes of hard-line Jews. Like the official Jewish Agency, I loathe the despicable things the minority Stern Gang did. I also loathe some of the actions of British Mandate troops. Trevor, if Stern was not an Israeli patriot, what was he? We can clearly see that Trevor “I’m not to be trusted” is a kook.
    I repeat, how can Israel illegally occupy land that was given to it by the San Remo Treaty and approved by the League of Nations. This is the crux of the matter. I mean, has Israel ever annexed vast tracts of land adjoining the Mediterranean coastline, Galilee, or its desert regions?
    During the British Mandate and under UN in 1947 there were attempts to partition the Holy Land. Jews accepted but Arabs rejected the proposals. Both these plans are null and void. Israel is begging Palestinian Arabs to come to the negotiating table to map out the future but the latter party is prevaricating.
    In 1980, the Israeli parliament declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”, thus formalizing Israel’s unilateral annexation. Trevor is wrong to say “as of yet Israel has never legally annexed Jerusalem.”
    Israel has vacated the Gaza Strip and has kept on repeating that it is prepared for Palestinian Arabs to be given parts of Judea and Samaria under a new partition plan. My view is that, as yet, the Arabs cannot convince us that it would be a viable state economically. It also does not conform to the United Nations Charter of being a good neighbour.
    More guff from the “I’m not to be trusted one” when he states “Oh and btw (by the way), Proudlove. (sic) All of the above blows clean out the water the comments you left in yesterday’s blog.” Readers can clearly see that the man is deluded.

  2. Christopher Proudlove

    To further back up my claims, Trevor, here is an item from israel today Messianic magzine:
    “Professors participating in an international conference at Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv this week explained that international law that does necessarily support the claim that Israel is imposing a belligerent occupation on Judea and Samaria.
    “Under the title of ‘Israel and International Law,’ the conference brought together professors of law from around the world to discuss the issue of Israel’s presence in and sovereignty over the so-called ‘West Bank.’
    “Prof. Avi Bell of the University of San Diego explained to Arutz Sheva that it is ‘a mistake to think of this as a simple black and white matter of law. It’s not. It’s complicated.’
    “Bell noted that ‘the way the law is generally discussed is as if it’s all absolutely clear that Israel’s case is insupportable,’ while in reality Israel has a very good legal case for continued sovereignty over these territories.
    “Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin of George Mason University added that since the creation of the United Nations, ‘no other country in the world…has ever acknowledged that it is involved in an occupation.’ As such, this is a very flexible category without modern legal precedent, so it is unfair to create an international law that applies only to Israel.
    “Meanwhile, a poll conducted by Smith Research on behalf of the Knesset’s Land of Israel Caucus found that 68 per cent of Israelis oppose surrendering Judea and Samaria because doing so would pose a serious security threat to the Jewish state.
    “Prior to Israel’s capture of Judea and Samaria during the Six Day War in 1967, Arab forces regularly used the strategic highlands to launch terrorist and military attacks on Israel’s civilian population centers.”

  3. Christopher Proudlove

    Here’s another article from israel today which shows there are Palestinians who support Israel.
    “Arab Christian residents of Nazareth who proudly serve in the Israeli army and encourage their children to do the same are coming under increasing attack, and Israel is starting to take notice and come to their aid.
    “For a number of years now, a group of Nazareth Christians who are officers in the Israeli army have been actively recruiting young local Arabs to follow in their footsteps and serve the Jewish state.
    “Though not an officer himself, one of the main figures in this movement is Greek Orthodox cleric Father Gabriel Nadaf. Late last month, the Greek Orthodox patriarch in Jerusalem, acting on demands from Muslim Arab members of Israel’s Knesset, threatened to fire Nadaf.
    Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Interior Minister Gideon Saar immediately called the priest to convey their support and offer their assistance.
    “Israel’s Attorney General’s Office announced that it had opened an investigation into the activities of the Muslim Knesset members who pushed for Nadaf’s dismissal.
    ‘It’s unacceptable that Arab MKs should think that they can be Trojan horses in the Knesset and send letters of incitement against a Christian priest who encourages young Christians to enlist in the IDF,’ said Likud MK Miri Regev during a Knesset Interior Committee hearing on the matter.
    “Many Arab politicians vehemently oppose Arab participation in Israeli national service for fear it will legitimize the existence of the Jewish state (which pays their pay cheques).
    “Meanwhile, the pro-Israel Arab Christians of Nazareth are becoming increasingly bold in their stance, and even dared to hold a public gathering late last month to toast the achievements of their new forum whose goal is convincing more young Arabs to join the army, as reported by Israel’s Ma’ariv newspaper. ‘We chose to hold the conference to demonstrate that nothing will deter us,’ forum spokesman Moran Khaloul told the newspaper. ‘We don’t live in Syria, where Christians are not allowed to speak…or in Iraq, where churches are bombed. We live in a Jewish state, which is democratic and free. As Israeli Christians we see ourselves as part of this state and not as part of those who oppose it.’
    “Khaloul said that until now, many in the community had been too afraid to speak out, but that was going to change. Many are now even referring to themselves openly as ‘Israeli Christians.’
    “Ali, an organizer for the forum, noted that local Arabs see what is happening across the Middle East and realize that Israel is the only place in the region where Christians can feel safe and belong. ‘That’s why more and more of us are realizing that there is no other country here that is worth fighting for,’ he added.
    Some went even deeper in their reasoning for joining the army of the Jewish state.
    “Henry Zahav, a 12th grader who intends to join the IDF gave this moving answer when asked by Ma’ariv why he made that decision:’Ultimately, from a religious point of view, we are one. Jesus was a Jew, his mother was a Jew, and his 12 disciples were Jews.'”

  4. “AS USUAL, Trevor “I’m no gentleman” Barclay gives an inadequate reply. Diversionary tactics and smears just will not do. Countering my blog ISRAEL’S LEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, he uses smoke and mirrors in a pathetic attempt to obfuscate.”

    Yes it has been noted that you have ignored the wholly relevant parts of Israel’s declaration of independence. Incidentally, not one of the nations who recognised the state of Israel [which is where Israel’s real legitimacy comes from] recognise Israel’s claims to any territory out with those that the UNGA Res.181 set out.

    “”Geoffrey Alderman should have trounced the hackneyed revisionist arguments that the Balfour Declaration was deliberately vague and given to appease malign Jewish influence. In May 1939, following the McDonald White Paper, Lloyd George (WW1 UK Prime Minister) said the Declaration was not given ‘because of our abundant grace’, but as part of a hard bargain in which the allied powers sought world Jewry’s help in defeating the central powers. He denounced the British betrayal of the Jews and said the British word would no longer be trusted.
    Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen in his ‘Middle East Diary’, makes it clear from conversations he had with Balfour and Lloyd George, that the former was driven by the “unsatisfactory” situation of world Jewry, and the latter, a religious Christian, wanted to see the Jews returned to their land.
    Far from being ‘vague’, the Declaration was specific. Meinertzhagen deplored the actions of those officials ‘saturated with antisemitism’, who did their best to undermine it. Given he was the chief political officer in Palestine and military adviser to Churchill in their Middle East department of the Colonial Office, his account should be given more credence.”

    That right there is a paragraph that does nothing to back up your foolish claim.

    “When someone is losing an argument they often resort to unjustified insults. Trevor resorts to this dubious tactic but it never works. He objects to my description of Hitler as a German patriot.”

    Yea i think you completely missed the point or as per usual just ignore the point and go into your usual rants that are meaningless.

    “LIE No 2 comes when Trevor says that I think West Bank Arabs should move to Jordan. I was repeating the idea of a Palestinian who believes this plan would be a goer if there were sufficient benefits involved to aid the flits.”

    Really?

    “Question 1: Many of the the Arabs in Judea and Samaria have the same surnames as their cousins in Jordan. By moving to Jordan these folk would be returning home. Trans-Jordan, later Jordan, was almost named the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine. When this state was created Jews were forbidden to live there. Jordan is still an apartheid state as far as Jews are concerned. While some Jews are currently their neighbours this would not be the case if they lived in Jordan. The purpose of the plan would be to bring peace and a better standard of living for Arabs, particularly the refugees who for too long have been ignored by their Muslim brothers.”

    Once again you’re caught lying.

    “LIE No. 3 is that the International Court of Justice has “apparently looked at the San Remo treaty and they failed to find in Israel’s favour.” When I asked Trevor to spell out what the ICJ said about San Remo he was unable to answer. ”

    You are the one who brought up the ICJ and San Remo…Not me.

    “Wikipedia backs up my claim by stating “White Papers are a ‘… tool of participatory democracy … not [an] unalterable policy commitment’. “White Papers have tried to perform the dual role of presenting firm government policies while at the same time inviting opinions upon them.”

    Firstly. I have never claimed any White paper was legal. Secondly. The point being made is that you say ” The MacDonald White Paper has no legal significance.” yet we dont find you making the same comment regarding the Churchill White paper.

    “Trevor calls him a would-be Nazi collaborator but this is stretching things to the extreme, another example of Trevor making two plus making five. ”

    Really. Here’s a quote from yourself.

    “Lehi or the Stern Gang met the Nazis in 1940 before death camps became a reality. ”

    Why did he meet with the Nazis?

    “Trevor, if Stern was not an Israeli patriot, what was he?”

    There was no Israel in 1940 therefore whatever else he was he was not an Israeli patriot. He was basically a terrorist and wannabe Nazi collaborator and that makes him a despicable individual. I’m sure though you’ll offer up an explanation as to why he was an all round good egg.

    “I repeat, how can Israel illegally occupy land that was given to it by the San Remo Treaty and approved by the League of Nations. This is the crux of the matter.”

    Show me the official documentation where Israel declared its borders and independence based on the San Remo treaty….SHOW ME!?!?

    “In 1980, the Israeli parliament declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”, thus formalizing Israel’s unilateral annexation. Trevor is wrong to say “as of yet Israel has never legally annexed Jerusalem.”

    Show me the legal documentation of this annexation. Also, how many Arabs voted for this legal annexation?

    “…and has kept on repeating that it is prepared for Palestinian Arabs to be given parts of Judea and Samaria under a new partition plan. ”

    Given? Its not Israel’s to give or take.

    Once again Proudlove makes long winded comments that completely ignore ALL relevant points.

    • Christopher Proudlove

      I HAVE explained the reason why nations ignore the San Remo Treaty, the bastion on which Israel has been built; it is because of Arab oil. Muslim members manipulate the United Nations because they hate Israel.
      The Jewish Chronicle letter counters Trevor’s claim that the Balfour Declaration was not kosher. |As usual, Trevor tries to bluff his way out. He is the one that ends up looking foolish.
      Trevor was miffed when I showed him to be wrong about Hitler but can’t find anything cogent to say in reply.
      Once again Trevor uses the liar smear about a proposal to transfer Palestinians to be with their extended family in Jordan. I was merely outlining what the plan was about. I could not be plainer when I stated I believed in a one-state solution. Trevor has been caught lying again.
      More of the same with Trevor’s blather about the International Court of Justice, I’m afraid.
      I hope this satisfies you Trevor: The Churchill White Paper was just that; it was binding in law, but it showed what the great Zionist was thinking.
      There was a Jewish state in the making in 1940 and it is not wrong for me to call Stern an Israeli patriot and well you know it, Trevor. I agree with Trevor and the Jewish Agency come to that, that Stern was despicable. He is certainly not my favourite person.
      Again, Trevor fails to detail what the International Court of Justice decreed on San Remo. The judges on the advisory committee ignored it, I’ll wager.
      How can Israel illegally occupy land that was given to it by the San Remo Treaty, approved by the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations?
      Trevor asks: “Show me the official documentation where Israel declared its borders and independence based on the San Remo Treaty?”
      Israel ordered nearly 10,000 Jews to quit the Gaza Strip in 2005 as a peace initiative, but thousands of rockets are still being fired at innocent Israeli communities as the Palestinian Arabs refused to keep their side of the bargain. In the past, Israel also asked Egypt it would take responsibility for this territory.
      It may not have got through to your thick skull, Trevor, but the Israelis have allowed the Palestinian Authority to be in charge of various parts of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) because they are willing to agree to a two-state solution. Unfortunately, the P.A. are refusing to come to the negotiating table. When there is full agreement between the two parties then the final borders can be fixed. In other words, Israel is prepared to forfeit more of its land for the sake of peace.
      Trevor asks: “Show me the legal documentation of this (Jerusalem’s) annexation. Also, how many Arabs voted for this legal annexation?”
      The Knesset, Israel’s parliament made the decree in 1980. I do not know how many Arabs voted for the annexation, but Jews have been in the majority in Jerusalem since Victorian times. I know that all religions fare better in Jerusalem since Israel regained the whole city in the 1967 Six Day War after being attacked by Jordan. Even Muslims now say that Jerusalem is better run than when Jordan controlled eastern parts of the city. Jordan took racist action by expelling all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and forcing non-Muslims to learn about Islam.
      Contrary to what Trevor says I have answered the points he raised. To say I have not is another lie of his.

  5. As for your second comment. Once again we find you posting up slanted and biased Hasbara.

    If you think you’re going to come here with your lies and deceit in order to seduce the gullible and ignorant into becoming Hasbarists i can tell you now…You’ve come to the wrong place.

    Oh and btw. I am no gentleman, i am simply a sinner!

    How about you?

    • Christopher Proudlove

      WE are all sinners needing a Saviour. I think my second submission is relevant Trevor. You must realise that people have different opinions. Don’t you believe in free speech?

  6. Comment three of yours: This comment is posted in the wrong blog. Either post your comments/cut/pastes in the proper place or they will be deleted.

    You have been warned for the final time!

    • Christopher Proudlove

      Now, folks, you see what tyrant Trevor “I’m no gentleman” Barclay is. I maintain my submission is relevant. If you delete my my responses it may cause me to withdraw entirely and who else would log in to this website? I think my replies are getting under Trevor’s skin. He does not like it, so, he

      will throw his toys out of the pram metaphorically he will throw his toys aout out of the pram!

  7. “Many of the Palestinian Arab leaders, such as Yasser Arafat, were not born in the Holy Land.”

    lol and you cant even grasp your own hypocrisy and bigotry. How reassuringly funny.

  8. “Those who say that the words “national home” did not mean a fully-fledged state are mistaken. This is made clear by the U.S. position at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”

    Can you give me a source?

  9. Christopher Proudlove

    The source is the U.S. deputation at the conference. I believe you can read all about it in Howard Grief’s book.

  10. “Trevor asks: “Show me the official documentation where Israel declared its borders and independence based on the San Remo Treaty?”
    Israel ordered nearly 10,000 Jews to quit the Gaza Strip in 2005 as a peace initiative, but thousands of rockets are still being fired at innocent Israeli communities as the Palestinian Arabs refused to keep their side of the bargain. In the past, Israel also asked Egypt it would take responsibility for this territory.”

    Absolutely unbelievable. Hot air that doesn’t even come close to answering my question. In fact, it totally ignores the question completely.

    “Trevor asks: “Show me the legal documentation of this (Jerusalem’s) annexation. Also, how many Arabs voted for this legal annexation?”
    The Knesset, Israel’s parliament made the decree in 1980. I do not know how many Arabs voted for the annexation”

    Show me the documentation?

    Also, you completely miss the other points being made. Seriously, you can’t be that stupid surely?

    You also fail to explain why Stern met the Nazis.

    typical Hasbara from a typical Hasbarist.

    • Christopher Proudlove

      However bad Stern was, he did not come close to your hero, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a friend of Hitler who got the evil man’s permission, in the event of a Nazi victory, to continue the death camps in the Middle East to kill Jews living in the region.

  11. “The source is the U.S. deputation at the conference. I believe you can read all about it in Howard Grief’s book.”

    Where did you pick up on it?

    See that quote goes against Wilson’s 14 points. But it does tell us that the term state was in use before San Remo convened…Although one must wonder why they left out the term “State”?

    Also, i did track down the exact same quote on 3 or 4 of your fellow Hasbarist sites and one quoted a book and cited p132-136. The odd thing about that was that there was no such quote or anything close to that quote on p132-135 and conveniently p136 was missing.

    • Christopher Proudlove

      The relevant document is “Tentative Recommendations for President Wilson by the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference,” January 21, 1919.

  12. Where did you read it?

    Also. Please comment on the issues i posted up regarding Israel’s true legitimacy.

    Or maybe you can’t and that’s why you’re focussing on the trivial

  13. Christopher Proudlove

    It is mentioned in Dore Gold’s book “The Fight for Jerusalem.”

  14. Ah this seems to explain why the p136 is missing in the source i found….is it possible that the quote you gave doesn’t exist?

  15. Christopher Proudlove

    Focussing on the trivial. No way. It is you who is wont to digress.

  16. Christopher Proudlove

    Try pages 132-136.

    • wow! Just wow!

      I’m starting to think that maybe you have mental health problems?

      But hey little buddy, you keep on commenting…ok!

      • Christopher Proudlove

        Well, I want to fight off any signs of dementia now that I am well into my 71st year. Doctors recommend doing mental puzzles to keep the brain active, so come on Trevor do your Lauren Booth best and give me something to go at.

  17. Really?

    I have stated clearly with factual documentation what gives Israel its legitimacy.

    You can’t prove me wrong so you try and redirect the topic.

    • Christopher Proudlove

      You are a legend in your own leisure time, Trevor. I have clearly spelled out what gives Israel its international legitimacy and cited valid references. As usual you believe only what you want to believe. Like others of your own ilk you find it difficult to believe in authorities other than yourself.

  18. Christopher Proudlove

    Dore Gold recommends Howard Grief’s book by the way

  19. Christopher Proudlove

    Trevor likes dishing it out but cannot take it himself.

  20. I’m still waiting on you refuting this, Chris.

  21. “In 1980, the Israeli parliament declared that “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel”, thus formalizing Israel’s unilateral annexation. Trevor is wrong to say “as of yet Israel has never legally annexed Jerusalem.”

    UNSC Res./476

    “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.”

  22. Christopher Proudlove

    United Nations resolutions, as I understand it, are not binding. Israel is right to ignore the UN on this seeing as how it ignores the San Remo Treaty. You must realise, Trevor, the UN is being manifupulated by the Islamic nations in cahoots with some developing countries. Israel’s technical achievements have done more for developing countries than all the Arab oil. Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital for 3,000 years.

  23. Christopher Proudlove

    United Nations resolutions, as I understand it, are not binding, Trevor. The UN should be taken to task for ignoring the irrevocable San Remo Treaty which gives Israel the right to settle Jews between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. including the Gaza Strip. It is difficult for Israel to get a fair deal in the UN because of the numbers of Islamic nations who are automatically opposed to the Jewish state. Jerusalem has been Israel’s holy capital for 3,000 years. You can read all about it the Bible, Trevor.

  24. They seemed binding enough for you when you lied through your teeth about UNSC res.242.

  25. “His opening lie is that I offer no relevant documented proof to underline Israel’s legitimacy when the article is replete with documented references.”

    Yea, let’s take a closer look at your “documented references”

    “EUROPEAN statesmen in the 18th,19th and 20th centuries, including Britain’s Lord Palmerston, Lloyd George and Napoleon Bonaparte of France, favoured the rebirth of a Jewish nation. (Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword; England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour Ballantine Books, 1984, p337)

    Opinion only.

    “In 1908 Winston Churchill called for a Jewish state. The “lifelong Zionist” saw the establishment of a “strong, free Jewish state” as a “notable step toward harmonizing disposition of the world among its people.” Churchill was later even more explicit. He stated: “It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national centre and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for Jews, and good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine … They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism.” (The Question of Palestine, New York: Vintage Books, 1992 ed.) How prophetic!

    More opinion only. It is noted however that you claim Churchill called for a “state” but in the actual Churchill quote he doesn’t mention “state”

    “American Methodist minister the Reverend William Blackstone petitioned the U.S. government to restore Palestine for the Jewish people. He argued that the Jews had never given up their title to the land of their ancestors after being expelled by Roman force. Rather than being forced to convert to Islam during the Arab conquest of the Middle East, Jews also left their ancestral homeland. Blackstone was supported by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, a future president, William McKinley, and many other influential American 19th century figures. (David Brog: Standing with Israel; Why Christians Support the Jewish State, Lake Mary: Front Line, 2006, pp 99-101).

    Once again, opinion. No legal documentation cited.

    “Alan Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel quotes a leading Zionist, Nachum Sokolov, telling a Cairo newspaper in 1914 that Arabs should view the Jewish refugees as fellow Semites “returning home” and together they could both prosper”.

    Meaningless.

    “In 1917 the Balfour Declaration of the British Government called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Jews who had warmed to Theodor Hertz’s call for a Jewish state at the end of the 19th century were delighted. Pogroms were still rife in Eastern Europe and the reconstitution of a Jewish state in the Holy Land was in line with their dreams and aspirations”.

    National Home and State are different things. The San Remo treaty never once mentions “state”. Likewise, the British mandate never mentions “state”. Likewise the BD never mentions “state”. Besides that the above paragraph offers no ‘documented proof’

    “The Republic of Turkey, successor to the defeated Ottoman Empire after the First World War, renounced rights to all territories the country once held. The Zionist Organization asked the victorious Allied powers to “recognize the historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine and the right of the Jews to reconstitute in Palestine their National Home.” They explained that they had been driven out of their ancestral homeland by violence and for centuries had never ceded their rights to the Holy Land. This claim was recognized by San Remo Conference of 1920 and in the British Mandate for Palestine”.

    Again, no mention of a Jewish “state”

    “Those who say that the words “national home” did not mean a fully-fledged state are mistaken. This is made clear by the U.S. position at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”

    In the same year U.S. President Woodrow Wilson said: “I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish commonwealth.” In 1922, the U.S. Congress resolved that a “national home for the Jewish people be established in Palestine.”

    I have checked various places to confirm the first part of the above quoted and all references cite p132-136 of ‘Tentative Recommendations for President Wilson by the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference’. Strange thing is, the quote is not mentioned of p132-135 and p136 is missing. This caused me to be suspicious so i called in my big gun, JB. Instantly i was pointed in the direction of the following quote from the Americans.

    “(3) The Commission recognized also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour’s often quoted statement in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to -favoring “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights existing in non-Jewish communities in Palestine”-it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified.

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

    In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great “ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting”; “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.” If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people’s rights, though it kept within the forms of law”

    Please make a special note of the part which says,

    “For “a national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

    Needless to say i don’t have to go through the rest of your blog as all it offers is much of the same.

    “Jerusalem has been Israel’s holy capital for 3,000 years. You can read all about it the Bible, Trevor.”

    Your blog claimed “International Law”. This blog is a response to your lies and now that you don’t have a leg to stand on you claim the Bible.

    Hat tip to JB

  26. I see you’ve mentioned San Remo again yet i find that you are trying to ignore this thread.

    Time to put up some REAL EVIDENCE or shut up!?!

    Ps anyone else noticed how the Zionist myth makers always roll out San Remo whenever ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS are mentioned…And have you also noticed how they never produce any real evidence to back up their claims?

  27. Christopher Proudlove

    There is lots of documentary evidence showing that Lord Palmerston, Lloyd George and Napoleon Bonaparte wanted the restoration of a Jewish state. I’ve dug out the facts supporting this. You are better at researching issues than I am Trevor. Surely you can find the evidence. It is clear you areas usual being disingenuous. Tuchman’s book confirms it is fact and not opinion.
    More dissembling on Churchill; a Zionist means you favour a Jewish state. That’s why Israel has erected a statue in Jerusalem honouring Churchill’s role in the creation if the Jewish state.
    How blind are you Trevor? “It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national centre and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? This means a Jewish state!
    Blackstone’s campaign eventually resulted in the USA supporting the restoration of the Jewish state. That’s a fact, not an opinion.
    I only put this in to counter your claim about Skolov. It transpires this man was a Zionist, too. You say it is meaningless, but you would, wouldn’t you. Read the sentence again Trevor. You may grasp the truth this time.
    The United States Department for Homeland Security does not mention the word state either but it covers the whole country. Homeland= state. The Balfour Declaration called for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. National home = state.
    The World Zionist Congress clearly campaigned for the restoration of a Jewish state in Palestine.
    I’ve given documentation for The United States delegation’s summary at the Paris Peace Conference clearly stating that it was the League of Nations plan to usher in a Jewish state.
    The Zionist Organization’s plea to the victorious WW1 Allied powers to “recognize the historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine and the right of the Jews to reconstitute in Palestine their National Home = state.
    Trevor does not mention that in 1922 the Arabs were given 78% of the old Palestine to create the new state of Trans-Jordan, later named Jordan.
    Rights of existing Arab Muslim and Christian communities were protected under the Balfour Declaration. The rest of Palestine was earmarked for the future state of Israel. Indeed, the Arabs prospered as Jews made their mark on the Holy Land.
    The United States was never a member of the League of Nations and had no say in the San Remo Treaty which was ratified by 51 other nations.
    The fact that the United Nations granted statehood to Israel after the Second World War is proof that the drive from the end of the First World War was to restore the Jewish state of Israel. The United States was one of the first countries to recognize Israel as a re-born country.

  28. Christopher Proudlove

    WHY EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD CARE ABOUT THE JEWS RETURNING TO iSRAEL
    Jeremiah 16:14 – 16 “Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “that it shall no more be said, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,’ v15 but, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.’ For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers.”
    Haifa-based David Silver of Out of Zion Ministries writes that the primary focus of his wife Josie’s intercession ministry, Intercessors for the Restoration of Israel, is praying for the return of the Jewish people to Israel. The couple are originally from New Zealand.
    He states: “In Hebrew it is called ‘Aliyah’, which means to go up. We believe that Aliyah is Holy to the LORD. In fact the Hebrew word that is used to describe the smoke that rises up from a sacrifice is related to the word Aliyah. In a way Aliyah is a sacrifice as those who make Aliyah have to lay their old lives down and leave it all behind to make the major move to Israel. And for many of us who have answered the call, or should I say the ‘whistle’ – (Isaiah 5:9:26, Zechariah 10:8), life in Israel is often at the extreme end of the scale to the life we came from. Since the first meeting of the Zionists at Basel in 1897, more than 6.5 million Jews have responded to the whistle and have returned to the Promised Land. That’s not a bad start, but it’s just the beginning, as the LORD clearly tells us that it is His will that ALL the Jews return to the Land. Ezekiel 36:8-10 “But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people Israel, for they are about to come. Verse 10: “I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, all of it; and the cities shall be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt.” (NKJ)
    There are a number of reasons why every Christian should care about Jews returning to Israel, David declares.
    1/ For the sake of God’s good name. The scriptures tell us that when the Jewish people are living outside of the Land of Israel they profane God’s name. Ezekiel 36:19-32 “So I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; I judged them according to their ways and their deeds.
    “When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name– when they said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they have gone out of His land.’ “But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations wherever they went.
    Therefore if we care about the name of God we should do our best to encourage and assist the Jewish people to return to the Land God gave them to live in …
    Ezekiel 36:22 & 24 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. v 24 “For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.
    2/ For the Sake of Bringing the Nations to a knowledge of who the True God is ……….. Israel and the Jewish people are the instrument God uses to make Himself known to the nations Ezekiel 36: 23 “And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the LORD,” says the Lord GOD, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.
    3/ For the sake of the Lord’s return According to Acts 3 the timing of Yeshua’s return is connected to the restoration of Israel and the fulfilment of the words of the prophets which begins with the return of the Jews to the Land Acts 3:19-21 “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, “and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, “whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. (NKJ)
    4/ The LORD is sovereignly bringing His people home ……. the word tells us that He is even whistling to them Isaiah 5:26 He will lift up a banner to the nations from afar, and will whistle to them from the end of the earth; surely they shall come with speed, swiftly. (NKJ)
    There are more than 80 verses that speak about the LORD bringing His people home. Here is just a small selection …
    Jeremiah 16:16 “Behold, I will send for many fishermen,” says the LORD, “and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.(NKJ)
    Jeremiah 30:3 ‘For behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,’ says the LORD. ‘And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.'” (NKJ)
    5/ and HE has called the Church in the Nations to work with Him to bring the Jewish people home . Isaiah 49:22 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I will lift My hand in an oath to the nations, and set up My standard for the peoples; they shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders; (NKJ)
    Isaiah 60:10-12 “The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you; for in My wrath I struck you, but in My favour I have had mercy on you. Therefore your gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day or night, that men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles, and their kings in procession. For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish, and those nations shall be utterly ruined.(NKJ)
    David adds: “We are all called to be the Lord’s fellow workers and to hasten the day of the Lord’s return. If like me, you want to hear those words one day, ‘well done true and faithful servant’, then we all need to be more serious about what God has called us to do, and to make it a priority in our lives. As the return of the Jewish people to Israel and their salvation, hasn’t been a priority in your life, then I would like to encourage you to seek the Lord as to how He would have you become personally involved. The most effective thing you can do is pray – pray the scriptures that speak about the Jewish people going back to their land. I have given you some above, and the rest are easy to find in the books of the prophets – especially Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Perhaps you could start a prayer for Israel group in your church, or at your home, that would meet and pray on a regular basis.
    If we believe the scriptures, then we can see that it is in our own best interest to pray for Israel and the Jewish people, as the Lord promises to bless those who bless Israel, and more importantly, we will see the return of Yeshua, get to enjoy life in the kingdom of God sooner, and see true and lasting peace on the Earth.”

  29. Buster J Bailey

    Why don’t you give up Trev. We can all see you have lost this battle.

  30. Buster J Bailey

    I agree, Cuz. Here’s another nail in Trevor’s specious stance.
    BRUCE THORNTON demolished Trevor’s arguments in an article for frontpagemag.com. He wrote:
    Why so many in Europe and America should dislike a Westernized liberal democracy in a region hostile to the West will be a future historical conundrum. It can’t be that Israel is an “illegitimate state” carved out from the land of others to whom it justly belongs. In fact, Israel came into being by the same process that after World War I created a whole slew of new countries out of the remnants of the defeated Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N. rather than by the whims and national interests of the Allied victors. Nor was the land that became Israel an Arab “homeland.” For three millennia Jews continually inhabited what today is Israel and Judea and Samaria, the so-called “West Bank,” a fact of history documented in historical texts and archaeology. Beginning in the 5th century B.C. that territory was serially occupied and colonized by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks. Most of the Palestinian Arabs who lived there were the descendents of conquerors, colonists, and immigrants. Few of the new countries created after World War I to recognize “national self-determination” has a better historical claim to its existence than does Israel.
    Or maybe the cause of complaint is the 600,000 “Palestinian refugees” displaced by the 1948 war? Leave aside the fact that most fled when the Arab leadership abandoned them or counselled them to leave in advance of Arab armies. The wars of the 20th century created much larger population transfers and refugees, the sad wages of nations engaging in war and losing. The 1922 Ionian revolt of ethnic Greeks against the Turks––a war the Greeks fought to recover lands their ancestors had inhabited for 2500 years before they were conquered and occupied by invading Muslim Turks––created 1.5 million refugees who had to leave their property behind, for which they were never compensated. After World War II, about 12 million ethnic Germans were kicked out of countries their ancestors had lived in for centuries, with as many as two million perishing. And don’t forget the 800,000 Jews expelled from countries like Egypt because of Muslim fury over the creation of Israel, or the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Middle East that has created hundreds of thousands of refugees. Given that historical context, what makes the 600,000 Arabs deserve such obsessive concern?
    As for the dismal conditions in which most Palestinian refugees live, lay that at the feet of their brother Muslims, who have refused to integrate them as full citizens of their nations, unlike all those other refugees, most of whom were welcomed into new homelands. The predicament of the Palestinian refugees, then, is not the fault of Israel, but of the Arab states whose hatred of Jews compels them to keep their fellow Muslims in misery so that they can be propaganda tools––a tactic abetted by the obsessive attention of Europeans and Americans, as well as by the money doled out by the United Nations Relief Works Agency, the only U.N agency devoted to just one of the many groups of refugees created since 1945.
    “Occupation” is another canard used to justify hostility to Israel, even though their country encompasses only part of their ancestral homeland. It’s a strange logic whereby a people creating a country in a land they lived in for three millennia are deemed “occupiers” living in “illegal settlements.” This charge is particularly despicable coming from Muslims, a people who have been one of history’s most successful conquerors, colonizers, and occupiers. We could talk about the four centuries of Muslim rule in southern Italy, the seven centuries in Spain, the five centuries in the Balkans, and four centuries in Greece. Then there are the contemporary occupations that we never hear about from the permanent international demonize-Israel cabal. When’s the last time we heard about the Turkish Muslim occupation of northern Cyprus since 1974? Northern Cyprus was 80% Greek when the Turks invaded. A third were forced from their homes and replaced with Turkish Cypriots from southern Cyprus. Turks from Anatolia have been sent to Cyprus to occupy the homes of the ethnically cleansed Greeks. Hundreds of churches have been vandalized and destroyed, Greek clergy assaulted, icons stolen, and mosaics and frescoes removed. Yet even as the world frets over Israeli “settlements” in their ancient homelands of Judea and Samaria––all the while Muslim holy sites are protected by Israel and allowed to be managed by Muslims––Turkish invasion, ethnic cleansing, occupation, and destruction of Greek Cyprus’s cultural and religious heritage are met with international indifference.
    Finally, if “occupation” is such a crime, where’s the outrage over the continuing Arab “occupation” of Egypt and North Africa? These were territories populated by indigenous tribes, Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Christians for centuries before the coming of the Arabs. Most of those original inhabitants have left, converted, lived as dhimmi, or, as is happening to the Christian Copts under Muslim Brotherhood rule, are being persecuted and driven out. The fact is, any Arab living outside the Arabian Peninsula is the descendant of conquerors, colonizers, occupiers, and immigrants. This is the dynamic of history, sadly unexceptional. Yet we are to think that a legitimate nation whose people live in its ancestral homeland and its historical capital is somehow a unique evil guilty of an unprecedented historical crime.
    By far the most despicable charge used to rationalize attacks on Israel is that the Israelis brutalize and oppress Palestinians. This charge is hard to square with the fact that since the so-called West Bank has been controlled by Israel, all indicators of well-being have improved for West Bank Arabs, who enjoy life expectancy, income, and educational attainment higher than their brothers in Egypt, Syria, Algeria, and Morocco. It forgets that Israeli Arabs are the most prosperous, politically free Arabs in the Middle East. The checkpoints, security wall, and other defensive measures Israel must take for the security of her citizens are all made necessary by decades of Palestinian terrorist violence against civilians, a cult of death taught to children and reinforced by schools and popular culture. Even so, fellow Arabs have killed more Palestinians than Israelis have while defending their citizens. And considering the 20 million people killed between 1945-2000 in wars, civil wars, and ethnic cleansing, it is passing strange that the international community obsesses over the 8,000 Palestinians killed as a result of Israel’s attempt to defend her people.
    By any fair historical and moral standard, then, Israel doesn’t even register on the scale of global tyranny, oppression, and violence. Israel’s status as a pariah state reflects something else: the historical ignorance, moral idiocy, and irrational bigotry all evident in Chuck Hagel’s statements about Israel for the last decade. As (U.S.) Secretary of Defense, Hagel will reliably execute Obama’s policy of marginalizing Israel by obsessing over “settlements” and a “two-state solution” that the Palestinians for 50 years have shown no interest in other than as a tactical tool for pursuing its true goal––the destruction of Israel. In a region slipping ever farther into the control of anti-liberal, anti-American Islamist regimes, this demonization of Israel endangers not just our staunchest regional ally, but our own security and interests.
    Bruce Thornton is a Research Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization.

  31. Christopher Proudlove

    Before you smell a rat Trevor. The above addition of mine was sent on Buster’s PC and it has come out under his name rather than mine

  32. Christopher Proudlove

    I’ve had this on my drafts page since February.

  33. Christopher Proudlove

    “There is no such country [as Palestine]. Palestine is the term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria”.
    Auni Bey Hada, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, March 1937 (jewishvirtuallibrary)
    “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity…yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel”.
    Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Dept leade of PLO and member of its Executive Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977 (danielpipes.org)
    And do they say they are now??
    “Allah be praised, we all have Arab roots, and every Palestinian, in Gaza and throughout Palestine, can prove his Arab roots – whether from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, or anywhere. Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians. We are Arabs. We are Muslims. We are a part of you”.
    Fathi Hammad, Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security, MEMRI, March 23, 2012

  34. Christopher Proudlove

    The above comments prove you are wrong on another aspect of the Middle East Trevor.

  35. Can I merely say that of a relief to discover someone who in fact knows exactly what theyre discussing on the internet. You definitely know how to carry an issue to be able to light and make it critical. More people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I can’t believe you aren’t more popular since you definitely contain the gift.
    luke

  36. Christopher Proudlove

    On page 150 of Martin Gilbert’s book ISRAEL A History it states: ” On 29 November 1947 in New York the General Assembly of the United Nations debated the UNSCOP proposals. During the debate, the Soviet representative, Andrei Gromyko (later Foreign Minister), astonished the Zionist representatives by his warm endorsement of their desire for statehood. ‘The Jewish people had been closely linked with Palestine for a considerable period in history,’ he said.’As a result of the war, the Jews as a people have suffered more than any other people. The total number of the Jewish population who perished at the hands of the Nazi executioners is estimated at approximately six million. The Jewish people were therefore striving to create a State of their own, and it would be unjust to deny them that right.’
    Gilbert adds: ” For the Jews of the Disapora, the news that there was to be a Jewish state in Palestine represented, as the American Zionist Emergency Council declared,’ a milestione in the history of the world’, which had ‘ended 2,000 years of homelessness for the Jewish people.’

  37. “Before you smell a rat Trevor. The above addition of mine was sent on Buster’s PC and it has come out under his name rather than mine” About that. I have spent the past 2 days checking up on the ip addresses you have posted from and YOU ARE CAUGHT RED HANDED. Last Saturday you posted twice from the same ip address in the space of just over 30 mins, once in your own name and the other under the name of BJ Bailey. Now, after some investigation it seems you are using computers belonging to a county council service such as a college or some other form of educational outlet. If you are going to insult my intelligence by denying that you are posting under the name of BJ Bailey i will be forced to reveal the county councils from where you post, the ip addresses you have used and your email address. You will also be banned! You are now officially on your last warning. Since coming to this website you have tried too bully and intimidate me with threats of legal action. You have posted up a needless comment that i can only call disgusting. You have continually spammed threads with your cut and paste Zionist Hasbara propaganda. I assume that all these posts you put up are from links you receive via email. THIS BLOG IS NOT FOR YOU TO SPREAD YOUR DISGUSTING PROPAGANDA. You will cease this activity at once or you will be banned. You continually post comments in the wrong place [btw i’m going to respond to your san remo comments and if you wish to reply YOU WILL REPLY IN THIS THREAD ONLY] You repeatedly post the same nonsense about San Remo even though i have rebutted your sources on multiple occasions and therefore wasting my time and the time of those who visit this blog. We know you have no idea about what you are talking about regarding San Remo. In one of your previous “rebuttals” you posted this, ” Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N. rather than by the whims and national interests of the Allied victors.” When you get caught out lying you dismiss the proof. Such examples being: UNSC Res.242. You got caught lying about that resolution and now you claim UN resolutions don’t count. You were proved wrong on what the Americans thought and claimed America had no say. You tried to use the ICJ as a badge of honour regarding one of your sources and when i showed you the actual ICJ findings you dismissed the ICJ as irrelevant. And there is many more. Your own comments ie. non cut and paste material ampunt to nothing more than immature nonsense such as, “San Remo rues ok” I would call that childish but in doing so i’d be insulting the intelligence of children the world over. Now i will reply to your San Remo comments. But first i will remind you that this blog is a response to your blog titled ‘ Israel’s legitimacy in international law’ it has nothing to do with the Bible….Mkay!?! Churchill White Paper [1922]: “The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty’s Government on 2 November 1917.” Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded “in PalestineIn this connection 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”‘. ‘it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sèvres, is not susceptible of change.’ ‘During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.’ ‘This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty’s Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.’ MacDonald White Paper [1939]: Section I. The Constitution: It stated that with over 450,000 Jews having now settled in the mandate, the Balfour Declaration about “a national home for the Jewish people” had been met and called for an independent Palestine established within 10 years, governed jointly by Arabs and Jews: 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. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.” ‘The objective of His Majesty’s Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.’ Section II. Immigration: “…After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.” Article 7. The British Mandate For Palestine “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”. “Before we turn to the content of the San Remo document, let us recall what the International Court of Justice, the supreme judicial body in the international system, concluded about the legal status of the territories occupied in 1967 (including East Jerusalem) after exhaustive analysis of the matter: 78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907″), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, paragraph 78 (emphasis added). Put briefly, under the basic international legal principle of the “inadmissibility of territorial acquisition by war”, Israel has no claim to sovereignty over any of the territories occupied in the 1967 war. Those territories – the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem – are and remain “occupied territories”. The Court based this conclusion on an exhaustive study of the relevant legal framework, including foundational documents of international humanitarian law such as the Hague Regulations of 1907, the General Assembly’s Partition Resolution (on the strength of which the State of Israel was founded), and various Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal from the occupied territories (UNSC 242) and declaring “totally invalid” “all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the: City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section […]” (UNSC 298). CAMERA and Gauthier claim that the San Remo document negates all this, and gives Israel full title not only to the territory within Israel’s recognised (pre-June 1967) borders, but to the territory occupied in the 1967 war. If this is true, then the entire international legal consensus on the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is dead wrong. This, of course, raises the question: Is it true? In order to answer this question, two fairly obvious requirements must be met: (a) The San Remo document must actually grant sovereignty to Israel (or, given that Israel would not exist for another 28 years, to a “Jewish state” to be created on the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine); and (b) It must continue to be valid and applicable, meaning that any and all subsequent enactments must either not concern the subject matter of the San Remo document, or, if related, not conflict with it (the “last-in-time” principle – lex posterior derogat priori). Note that (b) is a subsidiary question. If the San Remo document does not actually grant sovereignty over the territory in question to Israel or a future “Jewish state”, then its continuing vitality is of no relevance to whether Israel has any claim to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Thus, we must first turn to the relevant provisions of the San Remo document: (a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the proces-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end. (b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows: […] The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. In other words, the San Remo document calls for the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which called for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, and twice provides that the “rights hitherto enjoyed”/”civil and religious rights” shall in no way be impaired by the establishment of this “national home”. There is no reference to a “Jewish state”, nor any transfer of sovereignty to “the Jewish people” or to anyone else, merely a “national home” for Jews “in Palestine”. Even more fatally to Gauthier’s claims, the San Remo document makes no determination whatsoever as to boundaries, only noting that boundaries are to be determined on some later date by the Principal Allied Powers. When I raised these fairly obvious issues on the Facebook event page set up by CAMERA Regional Coordinator, attorney Talia Shulman Gold, she claimed that “national home” and “state” were the same thing: “Just what do you think establishing a “national home” meant anyway, Elise[1]?” While this assertion may have some superficial appeal owing to the peculiarity of the phrase “national home”, there remains an obvious problem. The term “state” was in common use at the time that the San Remo document was signed. The drafters of the document can be reasonably assumed to have been aware of the term “state” and of its meaning. And yet, they did not use the term “state” to describe what they were creating for “the Jewish people” in Palestine, preferring the term “national home”. If they had intended to establish a legal basis for the creation of a “Jewish state”, they could quite simply have referred to “the establishment in Palestine of a state for the Jewish people”. Instead, they specifically chose to use a different term. To claim, as Shulman Gold has (and Gauthier must), that the drafters actually meant “state” is to claim that they did not really mean what they wrote. Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that it is permissible to read “state” where “national home” is written, the central claim – that the San Remo document gives Israel full sovereignty over the entirety of Mandatory Palestine, including the Occupied Palestinian Territory – runs into an even more serious problem: The San Remo document makes no determination at all with regard to boundaries, except to provide that “the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, [is entrusted] to a Mandatory” (emphasis added). The Principal Allied Powers left the determination of the boundaries of Palestine for a later date. In other words, the Gauthier-CAMERA claim that the San Remo Resolution made a final and irrevocable determination that the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem should be contained within the boundaries of the State of Israel is a cynical fraud. Israel’s lawful boundaries are the internationally recognised, pre-June 1967 boundaries, and the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem are – as was authoritatively reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice – Occupied Palestinian Territory. A Hoax Worthy of Joan Peters It is worth noting that this blatant misrepresentation of the content and legal status of the San Remo Resolution is not the only fraud promoted by the “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America”. CAMERA’s “suggested book list” includes such lowlights of American intellectual life as Joan Peters’ discredited From Time Immemorial, which grossly falsified archival documents in an effort to claim that Palestine was uninhabited on the eve of Zionist colonisation, and Alan Dershowitz’ The Case for Israel, which plagiarises numerous passages from From Time Immemorial, and embellishes on it with further absurdities. Why would an organisation ostensibly dedicated to “accuracy” in media reporting promote a long-since-exposed hoax like From Time Immemorial (absurdly claiming that “Joan Peters dispels the myth of Zionist dispossession of “native” arabs [sic] in Palestine, drawing on rarely examined archives and statistics. She makes a credible case for Jewish indigenous habitation lasting thousands of years; a groundbreaking study necessary to any discussion of the current conflict in the region.”) and a phantasmagorical distortion of the San Remo Resolution and the legal status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Obviously, these stories aren’t being promoted for their “accuracy”, so there must be some other motive. What goal could CAMERA be pursuing by promoting a work that falsely claims that Palestine was uninhabited prior to Zionist colonisation, and that an obscure 1920 document grants Israel full title to the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Simple: Promoting works such as these provides a pretext under which moral and legal objections to the constant violations of Palestinian rights by the US and Israel – from the ethnic cleansing (“Nakba”) of 1948 to the 1967 occupation and the displacement of Palestinians through state-subsidised illegal settlements – can be dismissed. It provides rhetorical cover for some of Israel’s most severe crimes.” “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. From article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations “…Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. “Jordan was part of the Palestine Mandate for a mere eight months, from July 1920 to March 1921. Even that is vitiated by two facts: the League of Nations formally bestowed the mandatory responsibility on Great Britain only in July 1922, making the eight month period legally irrelevant; and the British disposed of almost no authority in Transjordan during those months when they theoretically held it as part of Palestine” Or as Dean Brown observes, “Jordan is Palestine only in the sense that Nebraska, which was part of the Louisiana Purchase, is still Louisiana.” MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon]. A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point. It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider the.se Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object. The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has bemi shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . . As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft. In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.” 367 [4996] It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend. Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-; ” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.” Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11. It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . . During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League. C. OF K. November 30, 1920. “During the Versailles Peace Conference, US Secretary of State Lansing specifically 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.” and provided an explanation which ruled-out any possibility of Jewish minority rule over the non-Jewish population under the terms of the proposed Mandate. See the “The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings February 15 to June 17, 1919, page 169 in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919. *The ‘Council of Four Conference Held in the Prime Minister’s Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m. was attended by Prime Ministers Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando. President Wilson, Lord Balfour, and General Allenby also attended. That meeting resulted in the dispatch of the King-Crane Commission to determine the wishes of the inhabitants after a discussion regarding the McMahon letters to King Hussein. Lloyd George explained that they were a binding treaty commitment. He said that the League of Nations Mandate (i.e. the Balfour Declaration) could not be used to put aside the bargain with King Hussein.” “Concerning the United States it has signed a treaty with Great Britain on December 3, 1924 in London, the “Anglo-American Convention” respecting the Mandate for Palestine in which it assented to ALL of the mandate as the basis for the British administration of Palestine. . . .The U.S thereby expressly recognized in a treaty the right of the Jewish People to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in all of Mandated Palestine and the Land of Israel *The preamble of the Convention merely recited the articles of the League of Nations Palestine mandate. It made no mention of a Jewish National Home in “all of Mandated Palestine and the Land of Israel” or a legal “right” to reconstitute anything there. The UNSCOP Commission noted that the term “National Home” had no meaning in international law: “The notion of the National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it has no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. See paragraph 141, of the UNSCOP Report to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947” “King-Crane Commission Report noted: “For ‘a national home for the Jewish people’ is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the ‘civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’ The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.” “The fact is that the Council of the League of Nations appointed an arbiter, in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne, at the request of the British government in 1924. The UK successfully argued that Palestine, Transjordan, and Iraq were newly created States under mandate to Great Britain. That same year, the Permanent Court of International Justice also ruled in a separate case that Palestine was the allied successor state to the obligations and assets of the Ottoman Empire in accordance with the protocols of the treaty of Lausanne, not Great Britain. So there was already a State of Palestine – and the 1922 White Paper had already established that it wasn’t intended to be a Jewish state. The rights and standing of the Arab majority always had been legally protected under the terms of Article 22 of the Covenant, the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo resolution, and the League of Nations mandate itself.” “From the very outset, the Israeli government and the Israeli Supreme Court have formally rejected the Mandate and San Remo homeland hasbara as valid bases for any legal claims. See for example CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950), http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/49/410/000/z01/49000410.z01.pdf” “At the time that the League of Nations approved the terms of the draft Palestine Mandate, the borders of Palestine were still undefined and the right to establish them was explicitly reserved by the Principal Allied Powers, not by the Jewish inhabitants. See: a) the text of the preamble of the Mandate and the annex adopted by the Council of the League of Nations: b) The explicit terms of the boundary treaties of 1920, 1923, and 1926 which preserved the existing rights of the inhabitants of Syria Lebanon, and Palestine to continue engaging in fishing, navigation, commerce, and grazing on both sides of the new frontiers without any reference or regard to “the Jewish national home”. See for example: http://www.hartzman.com/Israel/Mandate%20Era/British-French%20Boundary%20Agreement,%201923.pdf “Article 80 of the UN Charter did nothing to grant Jews the right of settlement in Zones A and B. It was adopted as a “status quo” agreement at the request of the Arab League with respect to the Palestine mandate, the 1939 British White Paper immigration policies, and the 1940 Land Transfer Ordinance mentioned above. If anything, article 80 preserved the right to exclude Jews from settling in those areas – pending the adoption of a decision on trusteeship, like the one contained in resolution 181(II) concerning the Corpus Separatum.” Now show me where, 1) Sovereignty was vested in The Jewish People? 2)The Jewish people were made ‘national beneficiaries? 3)Show me one legal document where state is mentioned in regard to the Jewish ‘national home’? 4)Show me where Israel declared her independence and borders based on the mandate? 5)Name one nation who recognizes Israel’s legality according to the mandate. 6) If it is illegal to acquire territory by war and if armistice lines were not borders before the armistice and if the Sovereign state of Israel has never legally annexed any territory, can you please produce a map of Israel’s actual Sovereign territory, that includes Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba, Acre, and all the territories acquired by war by 1949 Sovereign states must have defined territory in order to be recognized as sovereign states. As Israel is a Sovereign state and it has never legally annexed any of the territories it has acquired by war, what are its actual sovereign borders? The first three questions MUST be answered as they are CENTRAL TO THE HASBARIST CLAIMS. I also note that one of the sorces used in your cut and paste job is from Joan Peters ‘From Time Immemorial’ which is one of the biggest hoaxes of the past 100 years. ‘Mrs. Peters’s Palestine’ by Yehoshua Porath “For centuries the future of the place called Palestine was the subject of a bitter struggle. Even the name was controversial. Where the Arabs transformed the Roman name of Palestine into the Arabian name Filastin, the Jews insisted on the traditional Hebrew name Eretz Israel, “The Land of Israel.” Zealots of both sides continue to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the name used by the other side. In the early days of the British Mandate, for instance, the Arabs successfully convinced the British that even in Hebrew the name should be Palestina and not Eretz Israel. The British added the initials “El” to Palestina only over heavy Arab opposition. On the other hand, some Israeli educators of the 1950s wanted only a transliteration of the Hebrew name to appear in the textbooks that were used in the Arabic-speaking schools. Along with armed struggle, ideological and propagandistic warfare of this sort has proliferated in the Arab–Jewish conflict over Palestine. One feature of this battle of words and of history writing has been the two contrasting mythologies that the Arabs and the Jews have developed to explain their situations. Like most myths these generally contain some element of plausibility, some grain of historical truth, which through terminological ambiguity is then twisted into a false and grotesque shape: The unfortunate thing about Joan Peters’s From Time Immemorial (1984) is that from a position of apparently great learning and research, she attempts to refute the Arab myths merely by substituting the Jewish myths for them. Although she claims to have uncovered facts that show the historical accuracy of the Jewish myths, there have appeared during the last year and a half, in addition to many favorable reviews, a number of articles that dispute her collection and interpretation of this data.1 I do not propose here to go over the ground that these criticisms have already covered. Rather, I shall discuss both sets of myths in the light of the political and social history of Palestine as it is currently understood. T he Arab side tried to prove that first of all the Jews were not a nation in the modern sense of the term and consequently did not require a state of their own. In the tradition of both Western liberal and doctrinaire socialist thinking, the Arabs argued that the Jews were only a religious community; that peoples could not return to their ancient homelands without turning the entire world upside down; and, most important, that Palestine had been settled since the seventh century AD by Arabs. Over the years many Arab ideologists even claimed that Arabs had occupied the land in pre-Biblical times because of the “Arab character” of Canaanites. Zionism, the Arab argument continued, if it had any grain of historical justification at all, emerged only in a European setting. It came about as a reaction to Western Christian or secular and racist anti-Semitism, with which the Arabs had nothing to do; therefore, they should not be required to pay the costs of remedying it. In Arab and Islamic countries Jews suffered none of the terrible treatment that Western Jews had suffered. On the contrary, the Muslims in general and the Arabs in particular treated their religious and ethnic minorities with full equality and enabled both Christians and Jews to take part in public life, to rise to high positions of state, and, in recent times, to become full members of the modern and secular Arab nation living in its various states. The Jews living in the Arab and Muslim countries, moreover, did not take part in the Zionist movement. They even actively opposed it and did not want to emigrate to Israel. That most of them eventually did so the Arabs attribute to the machinations of Israel working with corrupt Arab rulers who were “stooges of imperialism.” After the 1948 war Arab propaganda added an important new claim: since the Jews wanted Palestine empty of Arabs, they used the opportunity of the war to systematically expel the indigenous Arab population wherever they could do so. Some Arab writers, and others favorable to their cause, have gone so far as to claim that the war itself was set off in December 1947 by the Jews in order to create the right circumstances for the mass expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from their homeland. Until the mid-1960s the Arab claims were usually presented as part of the ideology of Arab nationalism. Palestine was (and ideologically speaking still is) considered part of the greater Arab homeland and the Palestinians part of the greater Arab nation. The aim of the Arab struggle was to preserve the Arab character of Palestine from the Jewish-Zionist threat. The Palestinian case was at best secondary when it was made at all. Only since the middle of the 1960s and particularly after 1967 has the distinctively Palestinian component become relatively stronger among the factors that shape the identity of the Palestinian Arabs. J ews, and Zionists especially, developed their own myths about Palestine. First they interpreted ancient Jewish history according to the ideology of modern nationalism, equating the old Israelite and Judean kingdoms with modern nation-states. The Maccabean revolt and the period of Hasmonean rule were seen as typical manifestations of the struggle for modern national liberation. During the years when most Jews lived in exile, it was argued, they always kept a separate national identity: they never converted of their free will to another religion, and they preserved the memory of their ancestral land, to which they always hoped to return. Indeed, against all odds, some never left. Special emphasis was put on this last group. Every bit of evidence that could be found, however trivial it may have been, was used to prove the continuity of the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel and to show that it was central to the life of Jews in exile. Very little was said of the Muslims who meanwhile had become the great majority of the population and the masters of the land. The Zionists argued that Jewish identity and the yearning to return to Palestine were strengthened by the persecutions of the Jews in all parts of the world, including the Islamic and Arab countries. The return itself was mainly perceived as a matter of Jewish resolve to establish a homeland, which required struggle against Palestine’s foreign rulers—the Ottoman Empire first, and then the British Mandate. The Arab population was not presented as a major obstacle since, it was said, it was so small. Palestine during the late Ottoman and early British periods was portrayed as a barren land, hardly inhabited, whose tiny Arab population consisted mostly of wandering Bedouin tribes whose presence was only temporary. According to the Zionist myth, only modern Jewish colonization brought about the economic development of Palestine and improved the hard conditions there. These developments, it was said, attracted poor Arabs from the stagnant neighboring countries. Their numbers grew faster than the Jewish immigrants because the malicious British authorities always encouraged them to come and did much to help to absorb them, both economically and legally. The 1948 war, the Jewish argument continues, erupted because the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan although it offered them much more land than they deserved. And since most of the Palestinian Arabs were in fact aliens, they quickly left the country to return to their permanent homelands. Only the persistent refusal of the rulers of the Arab countries prevented them from being absorbed there. The Jewish refugees from the Arab countries were, on the other hand, cared for and rehabilitated. The result was an “exchange of populations” which should have been confirmed in a political agreement; only Arab intransigence has kept this from taking place. B oth the Arab and the Jewish myths I have described have circulated widely for years. Nothing in either of them is new or revolutionary. The more extreme you were in your Zionist beliefs the more thoroughly you propagated the Jewish mythology. What is surprising is that Joan Peters still writes as if the Zionist myths were wholly true and relevant, notwithstanding all the historical work that modifies or discredits them. The surprise is even greater when one considers her claim to have done original research in the historical archives and even to have discovered “overlooked ‘secret’ (British) correspondence files” in the Public Record Office in London, among other sources of “neglected” information. Indeed, by looking for the “right” evidence and by reading documents selectively one can “prove” virtually anything. But substituting Jewish-Zionist myths for Arab ones will not do. Neither historiography nor the Zionist cause itself gains anything from mythologizing history. I will deal here only with the main historical questions raised in Mrs. Peters’s book. No doubt, as she claims, the Jews in Muslim countries were neither regarded nor treated as fellow countrymen and equal citizens. Islam protected their lives and most of their religious rights but also kept them in a distinctively inferior position. Legally, their status was defined by the famous “Covenant of Umar,” which listed the various restrictions and special taxes imposed on the “people of the book.” But the true historical situation cannot be described simply by referring to that covenant, as Mrs. Peters does, or by citing the occasions and places where its provisions were most severely carried out. There was better and worse treatment, and local considerations usually influenced the policy pursued by various rulers. It is typical of Mrs. Peters’s methods that she largely overlooks the position of the Jews under the Ottoman Empire—one of the most important phases of all Islamic history. The reason would seem a simple one: the attitude of the Ottoman authorities toward the Jews was generally fair and decent, and in some parts of the empire many Jews held prominent positions.2 This could not be squared with her description of the oppression of Jews under Islam. (The few references Mrs. Peters makes to the Ottoman rulers emphasize their “anti-Jewish” activities and give a distorted impression of conditions under the Ottomans.) P art of Mrs. Peters’s confusion derives from her misunderstanding of Zionist history. Zionism was basically a modern secular ideology and movement, a response to the situation of European Jews after their emancipation early in the nineteenth century. Although they had been promised equality as fellow citizens many of them found themselves rejected. That they were ready to adopt their countries’ languages and cultures and sometimes even religions did not help them. Instead of—or in addition to—being rejected on religious and cultural grounds, as they had been since the end of the eleventh century, they were now rejected racially. Zionism offered an alternative. Its ideologists stressed that although in the post-emancipation period most Jews had stopped practicing their religion, they still remained a corporate unit, a distinct people. In order to safeguard their national identity and defend themselves from anti-Semitism the Jews had to return to their ancestral land, restore their national independence, and revive their language and culture. This position was directly opposed both to the traditional religious attitude of waiting for the Messiah and to the belief in God’s miraculous intervention in history that produced such false messianic movements as Shabbetai Zevi’s. Because Zionism was predominantly a European and secular phenomenon, many Oriental Jews in the Middle East and North Africa have never felt at ease with it and have tried to derive their own sense of Jewish history and identity. In Israel, under the guidance of the former Israeli minister of education, Zevulun Hammer, they have formulated a new Zionism that belittles the ideological and political revolution of European secular Zionism and argues that Theodor Herzl and the Zionist organization had hardly any effect on Jewish history. According to this interpretation Zionism began with Abraham and has been continued by practically all the Jews who have come to the Holy Land, whether to spend their old age and be buried there, or to engage in study or in business. All these are now regarded as Zionists in Oriental Jewish religious circles. Most historians now consider this view as in fact the opposite of Zionism, but, astonishingly, it has been adopted in its entirety in Mrs. Peters’s book without any serious discussion of its implications. What seems to have been decisive for Mrs. Peters is that the conception fits the myth of Oriental and religious Jewish history she has adopted: since in her view Oriental Jews were always persecuted, they must always have been active Zionists. For her there was no fundamental difference between, on the one hand, a prayer to return to Zion made in Wilna or Marrakesh or the messianism of Shabbetai Zevi, and, on the other, a modern movement that actively organized immigration, established youth organizations, and launched a political struggle for getting political rights in Palestine. M uch of Mrs. Peters’s book argues that at the same time that Jewish immigration to Palestine was rising, Arab immigration to the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled also increased. Therefore, in her view, the Arab claim that an indigenous Arab population was displaced by Jewish immigrants must be false, since many Arabs only arrived with the Jews. The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Mrs. Peters gives. It is true that in the middle of the nineteenth century there was neither a “Palestinian nation” nor a “Palestinian identity.” But about four hundred thousand Arabs—the great majority of whom were Muslims—lived in Palestine, which was divided by the Ottomans into three districts. Some of these people were the descendants of the pre-Islamic population that had adopted Islam and the Arabic language; others were members of Bedouin tribes, although the penetration of Bedouins was drastically curtailed after the mid-nineteenth century, when the Ottoman authorities became stronger and more efficient. As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no “natural” increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth, not incursions into the country by the wandering tribes who by then had become afraid of the much more efficient Ottoman troops. Toward the end of Ottoman rule the various contemporary sources no longer lament the outbreak of widespread epidemics. This contrasts with the Arabic chronicles of previous periods in which we find horrible descriptions of recurrent epidemics—typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague—decimating the population. Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow. T he Jews were amazed. In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews’—slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers. Mrs. Peters accepts that theory completely; she has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase. The Mandatory authorities carried out two modern censuses, in 1922 and 1931. Except for some mistakes committed in 1922 in counting the Negev Bedouins, which were corrected in 1931, the returns showed the strength of the “natural process” of increase. The figures for the last years of the mandate are based on continuous collection of data by the department of statistics. These figures showed that in 1947 there were about 1.3 million Arabs living in Palestine. The strength of the process of natural increase was finally proved not elsewhere but in Israel itself. In 1949 there were about 150,000 Arabs in Israel within the 1949 armistice lines. To that number, one has to add the 20,000-odd refugees who returned to the state as part of the government’s scheme for the “reunion of families.” The Israeli authorities cannot be blamed, as the British “imperialists” were, for helping the Arabs enter the country. And despite the strict control of Israel’s borders, the number of Arabs living in Israel proper has more than trebled since. The rate of the Israeli Arabs’ natural increase rose sharply (between 1964 and 1966 it reached the world record of 4.5 percent a year) and brought about the remarkable increase in the size of that community. No Egyptians, Bedouins, Syrians, Bosnians, etc. were needed. N o one would doubt that some migrant workers came to Palestine from Syria and Trans-Jordan and remained there. But one has to add to this that there were migrations in the opposite direction as well. For example, a tradition developed in Hebron to go to study and work in Cairo, with the result that a permanent community of Hebronites had been living in Cairo since the fifteenth century. Trans-Jordan exported unskilled casual labor to Palestine; but before 1948 its civil service attracted a good many educated Palestinian Arabs who did not find work in Palestine itself. Demographically speaking, however, neither movement of population was significant in comparison to the decisive factor of natural increase. Most serious students of the history of Palestine would accept that the number of Arab refugees from Israel during and after 1948 claimed by Arab and UN sources—some 600,000 to 750,000—was exaggerated. It is very easy to refute that estimate and many have already done it. Very few historians would accept the claim that all of the refugees, or even most of them, were deliberately expelled by the Israelis any more than they would accept the Israeli counterclaim that all left of their own accord. Mrs. Peters has gone to great lengths to collect the statements made by Arabs in which they admit that the Palestinian Arab refugees left Palestine because they expected Arab military victory, after which they intended to return. Nevertheless, although she admits that in sporadic instances Arabs were expelled, she ignores evidence of Israeli intentions to expel them. I would like to draw her attention to one document which proves that the Haganah did in certain circumstances have such an intention. As historians of the 1948 war know well, the Haganah prepared in March 1948 a strategic plan (the Dalet or “fourth” plan) to deal with the imminent invasion of Palestine by the Arab countries. A major aim of the plan was to form a continuous territory joining the lands held by the Jewish settlements. The plan clearly states that if Arab villages violently opposed the Jewish attempt to gain control, their populations would be expelled. The text was first made public in Israel in 1972 as an appendix to the last volume of the semiofficial History of the Haganah. I do not know why Mrs. Peters overlooked this important document. That the plan existed, of course, is not in itself evidence that it was carried out. Neither, however, is the admission of the Syrian leader Khalid al-Azm that the Arab countries urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their villages until after the victory of the Arab armies final proof that the Palestinian Arabs in practice heeded that call and consequently left. Since Mrs. Peters supposedly took the trouble to read Khalid al-Azm’s Arabic memoirs, she at least should have consulted the appendix of the History of the Haganah‘s last volume.^3 Mrs. Peters puts great emphasis on the claim that during and after the 1948 war an “exchange of populations” took place. Against the Arabs who left Palestine one had to put, in her view, about the same number of Jews, most of them driven by the Arab rulers from their traditional homes in the Arab world. And indeed there is a superficial similarity between the two movements of population. But their ideological and historical significance is entirely different. From a Jewish-Zionist point of view the immigration of the Jews of the Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the fulfillment of a national dream—the “ingathering of the exiles.” Since the 1930s the Jewish Agency had sent agents, teachers, and instructors to the various Arab countries in order to propagate Zionism. They organized Zionist youth movements there and illegal immigration to Palestine. Israel then made great efforts to absorb these immigrants into its national, political, social, and economic life. For the Palestinian Arabs the flight of 1948 was completely different. It resulted in an unwanted national calamity that was accompanied by unending personal tragedies. The result was the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic. No wonder that the Arabs look at what happened very differently. When Mrs. Peters argues, as many Israeli and pro-Israeli spokesmen once did, that all refugees should live and be rehabilitated in their new countries, the Arabs reply that all refugees should go back to their countries of origin. When, in 1976, they invited former Jewish citizens to return, they did so not only from the mistaken belief that Oriental Jews’ attachment to Israel was weak, but also from the need to refute the Israeli argument, now repeated forcefully by Mrs. Peters, that there was a symmetry between the two movements of population. B y stressing and strengthening the claim of symmetry Mrs. Peters plays, at least from an ideological point of view and certainly against her own wishes, into the hands of Arab propaganda. Many Israeli agents in such Arab countries as Iraq, Yemen, and Morocco made courageous efforts to bring about the aliyah (ascendance, the usual Hebrew word for immigration to Israel) of the Oriental Jews of Arab countries. Did this dangerous work count for nothing? Were the immigrants merely ordinary refugees and not people ascending to Zion? By attempting to equate the Arab refugees with the Jewish immigrants, Mrs. Peters, in my view, tarnishes a heroic chapter in Zionist history. Mrs. Peters’s use of sources is very selective and tendentious, to say the least. In order to strengthen the impression that the “hidden hand” of history somehow brought about the reasonable solution of exchange of Jewish and Arab populations, Mrs. Peters evidently wanted to show that the concept had an honorable lineage. She quotes an “Arab leader” who talked of a population exchange in a leaflet distributed in Damascus in 1939, and gives his name as Mojli Amin. I challenge any reader to identify this “leader.” He is not mentioned in any of the books on Syria I know of, although I have read many. And if some wholly unimportant writer made such a statement, how can any serious importance be attached to it? But beyond that, I think that the leaflet is a fake. During the spring of 1939 internal dissent was at its most intense among the factions of the militant Palestinian Arabs, which included anti-British rebels, anti-Jewish rebels, and the “Peace Companies,” which opposed rebellion. In Damascus, where the headquarters of the rebels were located, faked leaflets were often distributed in order to add to the dissension. I suspect that this leaflet was another example of the same literary genre. If Mrs. Peters had more thoroughly investigated the files of the Arab section of the political department of the Jewish Agency, she would, I hope, have seen why the evidence she cites should be used more cautiously. One flawed source was not enough, however. Mrs. Peters claims that “the British had proposed the exchange of ‘Arab population in Palestine’ for Jews elsewhere.” If one looks for the evidence for this claim, one suddenly realizes that “the British” are none other than William Ormsby-Gore (not yet Lord) who had privately supported the idea. It is odd to conclude from this that “the British” supported such an idea, all the more so when one recalls that when Ormsby-Gore served as British colonial secretary in charge of Palestine he never used his official position to promote that idea as such. The only exchange of populations he officially envisaged was to have been a part of the 1937 partition plan that allocated 15 percent of Palestine to the Jews and recommended that the Arabs be forcibly removed from the territory on which the proposed Jewish state would be founded. If Mrs. Peters had spent more than “weeks” in the Public Record Office (the official British archives) or if she had read the relevant historical research she would have known that a similar offer was brought to the members of the British cabinet but rejected. We now know that between 1939 and 1941 Churchill favored a diplomatic initiative that would have included the transfer of the Palestinian Arabs to a federal Arab state under Ibn Saud. He had been convinced that such a transfer was desirable by Chaim Weizmann, who had discussed the possibility with H. St. John Philby. Churchill presented a version of Weizmann’s proposal to his colleagues on May 19, 1941. He succeeded only in provoking a hostile reaction on the part of the foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, who made his famous pro-Arab speech of May 29, 1941, in reaction to Churchill’s proposition. Several days afterward Eden’s speech was endorsed by the British cabinet. So much for the “British” origins of the concept of exchange of populations. O f course there was no separate state called Palestine before the British Mandate and there is no need to demonstrate this at length, as Mrs. Peters tries to do. Nonetheless a large majority of Muslim Arabs inhabited the land; and the desire to keep it that way was the goal of the Arab struggle in Palestine against the Jews and the British. Of what possible significance, therefore, is Mrs. Peters’s claim that Arab domination of Palestine after its conquest by the Muslims in 635 AD lasted only twenty-two years? Was the land empty of any population? Such a vague claim is typical of many others made in the book. What is more surprising is the authority on which it is based. We are told that a statement to this effect was made in February 1919 to the Paris Peace Conference by “the Muslim chairman of the Syrian delegation.” An innocent reader would take it that this delegation was representing the Arab population of Syria, who were then struggling for independence. In fact the delegation was organized by the French as a device to oppose the nationalist struggle, and its chairman would have said anything required by his masters. Whether the Palestinian Arabs saw their identity as having local roots or whether they saw themselves more as part of the larger Arab world, they undoubtedly wanted Palestine to remain Arab. That the name of the country in Arabic, as in most other languages, is derived from the name of the Philistines does not matter to them any more than the fact that the name of Jerusalem, even in Hebrew, is derived from the Jebusees. All such terminological claims, and there are plenty of them in Mrs. Peters’s book, are worthless. M rs. Peters puts forward yet another familiar Zionist argument—which has the advantage of being true—that already in the nineteenth century Jews made up the majority in Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias. But if we say that having a majority is the key factor in determining the national character of any given town or area, why not apply this principle, the Arabs may ask, to the land as a whole? Surprisingly enough, Mrs. Peters does just this when she implies that in 1893 the Jews were virtually the majority community in the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled. Her very tendentious reasoning on this point has already been exposed.4 What she has done, to put it briefly, is to compare the figures for non-Jews in the 1893 Ottoman census of Palestine with the estimate of the Jewish population proposed by the French geographer Vital Cuinet in 1895. She dismisses the Ottoman figures for the Jews because, she says, “the Ottoman Census apparently registered only known Ottoman subjects; since most Jews had failed to obtain Ottoman citizenship, a representative figure of the Palestinian Jewish population could not be extrapolated from the 1893 Census.” This may sound plausible, until one discovers, first, that Cuinet’s estimates are generally considered to be unreliable, and, second, that Professor Kemal Karpat of the University of Wisconsin, whose analysis of the Ottoman census Peters relies on, does not find the census estimate of the Jewish population to be inaccurate in the way she claims. (Even with the numbers that she does arrive at, incidentally, Mrs. Peters does not make a case for a Jewish majority. Although she argues there were more Jews than Muslims or Christians—59,500 as compared to 56,000 and 38,000—there were more Muslims and Christians than Jews by her own account.) If the Arabs had indeed been as few as Mrs. Peters claims, one wonders why the letters, official reports, diaries, and essays of the early Zionist settlers—the “Lovers of Zion”—from the last two decades of the nineteenth century were filled with references to the Arabs surrounding them everywhere in Palestine. Those writings were collected many years ago and published by Asher Druyanov.5 Republished several years ago they are now easily accessible, but apparently not for Mrs. Peters. Similarly, she has overlooked two of the most important articles by Jewish writers dealing with the Arab problem, which even around the turn of the century troubled the Jewish immigrants to Palestine. The first was written in 1891 by Ahad Ha’am, perhaps the greatest modern Jewish thinker, and was called “Truth from Palestine”; the second, called “Hidden Question,” was written in 1907 by Y. Epstein and published in Ha-Shiloah. Both writers exhorted their fellow Jews in Palestine to take seriously the large Arab population and its feelings; the Ottoman Empire might go, they wrote, but the Arabs would remain. Anyone who believes Mrs. Peters’s book would have to conclude that these distinguished writers, a philosopher and an educator with close experience of life in Palestine, had simply invented the existence of the many Arabs there. I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters’s highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. Much more important is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements. Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters’s book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life”. Some further reviews of Peter’s book “marred by serious flaws”, “numbers are used selectively to support otherwise baseless conclusions”, “The whole book is written like this: facts are selected or misunderstood, tortuous and flimsy arguments are expressed in violent and repetitive language. This is a ludicrous and worthless book, and the only mildly
  38. Continued from above;

    , and the only mildly interesting question it raises is why it comes with praise from two well-known American writers” and,

    “This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author’s professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. …The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977”

  39. Pingback: Lying For Zion | christiansforzionwatch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s