Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A HISTORY OF BETRAYAL: The Zionist Establishment of Israel
Myths and Facts ^ | 1-18-2002 | The Orthodox Presbyterian

Posted on 01/18/2002 5:59:49 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian


“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist.'

Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement.... There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession. -- Abba Eban, former Foreign Minister of Israel


BACKGROUND

For many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely populated, poorly cultivated and widely-neglected expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts and malarial marshes. As late as 1880, the American consul in Jerusalem reported the area was continuing its historic decline. "The population and wealth of Palestine has not increased during the last forty years," he said.

The Report of the Palestine Royal Commission quotes an account of the Maritime Plain in 1913:

Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote of Palestine:

Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867, described it as: “...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse.... A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action.... We never saw a human being on the whole route.... There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

In the late 19th century, the rise of religious and racist anti-Semitism led to a resurgence of pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, shattering promises of equality and tolerance. This stimulated Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe.

Simultaneously, a wave of Jews immigrated to Palestine from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey. These Jews were unaware of Theodor Herzl's political Zionism or of European pogroms. They were motivated by the centuries-old dream of the “Return to Zion” and a fear of intolerance. Upon hearing that the gates of Palestine were open, they braved the hardships of travel and went to the “Land of Israel.”

The Zionist ideal of a return to Israel has profound religious roots. Many Jewish prayers speak of Jerusalem, Zion and the Land of Israel. The injunction not to forget Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, is a major tenet of Judaism. The Hebrew language, the Torah, laws in the Talmud the Jewish calendar and Jewish holidays and festivals such as Shavuot all originated in Israel and revolve around its seasons and conditions. Jews pray toward Jerusalem and recite the words “next year in Jerusalem” every Passover. Jewish religion, culture and history make clear that it is only in the land of Israel that the Jewish commonwealth can be built.

In 1897, Jewish leaders formally organized the Zionist movement, calling for the restoration of the Jewish national home in Palestine, where Jews could find sanctuary and self-determination, and work for the renaissance of their civilization and culture.

THE BALFOUR DECLARATION

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration:

According to the Peel Commission, appointed by the British Government to investigate the cause of the 1936 Arab riots, "the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan."

The Mandate for Palestine's purpose was to put into effect the Balfour Declaration. It specifically referred to "the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine" and to the moral validity of "reconstituting their National Home in that country." The term "reconstituting" shows recognition of the fact that Palestine had been the Jews' home. Furthermore, the British were instructed to "use their best endeavors to facilitate" Jewish immigration, to encourage settlement on the land and to "secure" the Jewish National Home. The word "Arab" does not appear in the Mandatory award.

The Mandate was formalized by the 52 governments at the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

It is a little-known fact that many Arab leaders welcomed the idea that a free Israel would boost the common lot of everyone in the surrounding territories. For example, Emir Faisal, King of Syria, welcomed Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s efforts to establish an Israel with Jerusalem as its national capital.

Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, signed an agreement with Chaim Weizmann and other Zionist leaders during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. It acknowledged the "racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" and concluded that "the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine." Furthermore, the agreement looked to the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and called for all necessary measures "...to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil."

Emir Faisal also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:


It was not to last. The Zionists supported the Arab Nationalist aim of establishing independent Arab Nations throughout the liberated territories of the Turkish empire, when the time came for the Arabs to fulfill their commitment to the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine... the Arabs betrayed their covenants, and stabbed the Zionists in the back.

THE FIRST BETRAYAL

In 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine-some 35,000 square miles-to create a brand new Arab emirate, Transjordan. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia going to the Saud family, Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein's son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey by installing him as Transjordan's emir.

Brown -- Golan Heights; ceded to French Syrian Arab Mandate, 1923
Tan -- Arab Palestine, separated and closed to Jewish settlement
Yellow -- Jewish Palestine, remaining area of Jewish National Homeland

As British historian Paul Johnson noted, Zionists were hardly tools of imperialists given the powers’ general opposition to their cause. “Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense ministries and big business were against the Zionists.”

THE SECOND BETRAYAL

In 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini first began to organize small groups of suicide squads — fedayeen — to terrorize Jews. Haj Amin hoped to duplicate the success of Kemal Atatürk in Turkey by driving the Jews out of Palestine just as Kemal had driven the invading Greeks from his country. Arab radicals were able to gain influence because the British Administration was unwilling to take effective action against them until they finally revolted against British rule.

Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, former head of British military intelligence in Cairo, and later Chief Political Officer for Palestine and Syria, wrote in his diary that British officials “incline towards the exclusion of Zionism in Palestine.”

The British encouraged the Palestinians to attack the Jews. According to Meinertzhagen, Col. Waters Taylor (financial adviser to the Military Administration in Palestine 1919-23) met with Haj Amin a few days before Easter, in 1920, and told him “he had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world...that Zionism was unpopular not only with the Palestine Administration but in Whitehall and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, both General Bols [Chief Administrator in Palestine, 1919-20] and General Allenby [Commander of Egyptian Force, 1917-19, then High Commissioner of Egypt] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home. Waters-Taylor explained that freedom could only be attained through violence.”

Haj Amin took the Colonel’s advice and instigated a riot. The British withdrew their troops and the Jewish police from Jerusalem, allowing the Arab mob to attack Jews and loot their shops.

Haj Amin consolidated his power and took control of all Muslim religious funds in Palestine. He used his authority to gain control over the mosques, the schools and the courts. No Arab could reach an influential position without being loyal to the Mufti. His power was so absolute “no Muslim in Palestine could be born or die without being beholden to Haj Amin.” The Mufti’s henchmen also insured he would have no opposition by systematically killing Palestinians from rival clans who were discussing cooperation with the Jews.

The Arabs found rioting to be an effective political tool because of the lax British attitude and response toward violence against Jews.

THE THIRD BETRAYAL

In 1941, Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.

The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”

In November 1941, the Mufti met with Hitler, who told him the Jews were his foremost enemy. The Nazi dictator rebuffed the Mufti's requests for a declaration in support of the Arabs, however, telling him the time was not right. The Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches....The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely....the Jews....” Hitler replied:

In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.

The Husseini family continued to play a role in Palestinian affairs, with Faisal Husseini, whose father was the Mufti's nephew, regarded as one of their leading spokesmen in the territories until his death in May 2001.

THE FOURTH BETRAYAL

As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.

The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.

The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.

The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations.”

Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left.”

When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.

The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.

The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.

Violence in the Holy Land broke out almost immediately after the UN announced partition on November 29, 1947. Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, had told the UN prior to the partition vote the Arabs would drench "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood . . . ."

On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered. This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel's declaration of independence.

The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:

The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
First of all, it's not clear what right Faisal, Sherif, Abdullah or their supporters had to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. Zionist committees could act on their own authority to get land, but on whose authority could would-be rulers hundreds or thousands of miles away sign away land from under the people who lived there?

Secondly, it's naive to presume that Balfour wasn't playing the same game of divide and conquer with Zionists that you accuse other Arab leaders of playing with Arabs. The Balfour Declaration was a political bid to generate support for Britain among Jews around the world. It should not be seen as uniquely moral and all Britain's other dealings as deceitful or duplicitous. Rather, the Balfour Declaration was part of the same pattern of power politics and manipulation.

Thirdly, the article is biased in other ways. It's building a case, not letting the facts speak for themselves. Why mention Arab links to Hitler and ignore Jabotinsky's admiration and emulation of European tyrants and his cooperation or aspiration to cooperate with them?

Finally, at the root of the matter is the fact that Zionism and the institutions to make it a reality developed before Palestinian Arab nationalism. That is a fact, as it was a fact that Western European nationalism developed before Eastern European, African, or Asian nationalism. White Afrikaaner nationalism developed before Black South African nationalism or nationalisms. Does that mean that because the Whites got their state ideology and institutions off the ground first that the Blacks could justly be deprived of rights forever?

Scott McConnell makes good points in his recent Open Letter to David Horowitz on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

61 posted on 01/20/2002 9:30:04 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
OK, the only place I would tend to disagree with you (because your legal arguments are extremely sound) is the fact that Israel appears to have agreed to the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority as a governmental body and has only now rejected its legitimacy on the grounds that Arafat hasn't "done enough" to combat terrorism against Israel.
62 posted on 01/20/2002 12:42:59 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
OK, the only place I would tend to disagree with you (because your legal arguments are extremely sound) is the fact that Israel appears to have agreed to the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority as a governmental body and has only now rejected its legitimacy on the grounds that Arafat hasn't "done enough" to combat terrorism against Israel.

Forget about terrorism against Israel; liquidating the PA on grounds of that "government's" state terrorism against it's "own" people in the West Bank would be justification enough.

"Well, we're trying to grant the Palestinians some autonomy; BUT, your government has proven to be an oppressive, nepotistic kleptocracy; SO, Mr. Arafat, it's time for you to take the eternal celestial dirt-nap, and we'll see if maybe Bassam Eid (feel free to run a google search on this name) or some other Palestinian can come up with some better ideas than you had. Toodle-ooo."

63 posted on 01/20/2002 12:50:14 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
So the problem with that is that the people, after being given this "autonomy" were asked who they wanted as their leader. If I am not mistaken they voted for Arafat. Now why there hasn't been new elections is a question that should be asked as well as why the people haven't rebelled against Arafat's rule.
64 posted on 01/20/2002 1:29:23 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Lent
bump
65 posted on 04/06/2002 7:37:22 PM PST by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
From the RDB3 home page:

Methinks you'll probably want to bookmark this old historical Essay 'o mine for future reference.


66 posted on 08/25/2002 1:51:30 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I'm quite familiar with that quotation from MLK, Jr. He was right on this one. The piece is already in hardcopy and archived for future reference.

This thread is a blast from the past! ;-)

67 posted on 08/25/2002 6:58:08 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson