David Singer: Jewish People Reclaiming Sovereignty in Biblical Heartland after 3000 Years

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The United Nations is disgracefully trying to prevent a miracle happening 100 years after the world first gave its historic imprimatur to an impossible dream becoming a possible reality:  The restoration of Jewish sovereignty in 1697km² [square kilometres] of the Jewish People’s biblical heartland in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

The defeat of the 400 years-old Ottoman Empire in World War One revived the Jewish People’s 3000-years-old dream of regaining nationhood in their ancient homeland – which had extended across both banks of the River Jordan where the twelve tribes of Israel had finally settled 40 years after their exodus from Egypt.

The San Remo Resolution signed by Great Britain, France, Japan and Italy on 25 April 1920 promised the Jews real hope.

The Treaty of Sevres involving the international community quickly followed on 10 August 1920.
The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan (“Principal Allied Powers”) were joined by Armenia, Belgium, Greece, the Hedjaz, Poland Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat Slovene State and Czecho-Slovakia (“Allied Powers”) in this peace treaty signed with Turkey.

Signatories for the British Empire were representatives of:

• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
• The Dominion of Canada
• The Commonwealth of Australia
• The Dominion of New Zealand
• The Union of South Africa
• India

Article 95 provided that Palestine – within such boundaries as might be determined by the Principal Allied Powers – be administered by a Mandatory to be selected by them. The Mandatory was to be responsible for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November 1917, by the British Government – and adopted by the Allied Powers – in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people – it being clearly understood that nothing would be done which might 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.

The League of Nations' 51 member states unanimously appointed Britain as Mandatory and approved the terms of the Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922. 

Intervening political events in Syria between 1920 and 1922 involving France and Britain saw the Mandate’s provisions deny the Jewish People the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home on the East Bank of the Jordan River where two and a half of the twelve tribes had settled after reaching the Promised Land.

Judea and Samaria were reserved however for the Jews under the Mandate – that right being preserved under article 80 of the 1945 United Nations Charter notwithstanding the demise of the League of Nations in 1946.

After Britain handed its Mandate back to the United Nations in 1948 – every Jew living in Judea and Samaria was driven out by the invading army of Transjordan which itself comprised 77% of the Mandate territory and had achieved independence in 1946.

Judea and Samaria were unified with Transjordan to become “The West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan” from 1950 to 1967 – recognized only by Great Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. Jordanian citizenship was extended to all its Arab citizens from 1954 to 1988. 

Jordan’s loss of Judea and Samaria to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War saw some 450,000 Jews returning to reclaim their patrimony over the next 53 years – but the international community’s seal of approval soon changed to outright condemnation. President Trump’s 2020 Peace Plan has confirmed those vested legal rights acquired 1920-1922 by the Jewish People in Judea and Samaria. 

An amazing miracle is about to occur on 1 July without any parallel in world history.

Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators – whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog.

David Singer: Balfour Declaration and Mandate for Palestine Still Keys to Peace

The Balfour Declaration (“Declaration) issued on 2 November 1917 and the Mandate for Palestine (“Mandate”) issued on 24 July 1922 still remain the keys to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The Declaration’s call to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine was historic:

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Whilst not binding in international law – that was to be reversed when the Declaration was included in the Mandate’s preamble and unanimously adopted by the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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;

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine;

The Principal Allied Powers were The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan.

The boundaries of Palestine fixed by them encompassed what is today called Israel, Gaza, Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Jordan (then called Transjordan).

Under article 25 of the Mandate - the Mandatory was entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of the Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.

On 23 September 1922 the League of Nations Secretary-General communicated for the information of the Members of the League, a memorandum relating to Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate presented by the British Government to the Council of the League on September 16th, 1922 (“Memorandum”) and approved by the Council.

The Memorandum excluded Transjordan (78% of the territory of Palestine) as a future potential area in Palestine for reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

The United Nations continuing failure to faithfully implement these League of Nations decisions remains the biggest stumbling block to ending the Jewish-Arab conflict.

The two-state solution contemplated by the League of Nations in 1922 – Israel and Jordan within such final borders as they agree – remains the only viable two-state solution in 2019.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

David Singer: PLO-Hamas anti-England, anti-Israel Hatred Politicises FIFA World Cup

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Hatred against Britain and Israel surfaced in Gaza as England progressed its way through the World Cup to meet Sweden in the quarter finals.

One Gaza fan was outspoken:

“Of course I will support Sweden.

I can’t imagine a Palestinian supporting England, which created the Balfour Declaration, or not supporting the country that stood before the world and recognized our state.” 

The 1917 Balfour Declaration has never been forgotten or forgiven by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas – both of whom consider the Declaration to be null and void – spending decades in spruiking this false message to their respective constituencies – fomenting Arab hatred against the Jews since the Declaration first called for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The fuming Gaza fan was expressing his resentment by barracking for Sweden – even though Sweden was one of the 51 countries that transformed the Balfour Declaration into binding international law by unanimously incorporating it in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922.

Our anguished fan was blissfully unaware of these facts having obviously not studied the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict. Anti-England prejudice was enough to back his decision to go for Sweden. True – Sweden had purged itself of its 1922 decision when officially recognizing the State of Palestine in October 2014 – making it the first major European Union member state to back the PLO’s statehood bid.

However in atoning for its 1922 sin, Sweden’s recognition of the “State of Palestine” was a fiction that failed to meet the requirements demanded in international law by Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention which states:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

a. A permanent population

b. A defined territory

c. Government

d. Capacity to enter into relations with the other states

FIFA’s admission of the Palestinian Football Federation as a member of FIFA in 1988 had also contravened Article 10.1 of FIFA’s then governing articles:

'Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression “country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international Community.'

FIFA started living in its own dream world 26 years before Sweden joined it. Who will replace Sweden as Britain’s nemesis was summed up by another fan:

“Anyone supporting England is supporting Israel itself. These teams represent their countries and governments and will raise their flags in the stands. How can I support the country that allowed the Jewish state on our land?”

The Gazan fans are in for a shock and a reality check when they begin choosing one of the three remaining teams – France, Belgium or Croatia – to topple the evil Brits.

France, Belgium and Croatia just happen to have all voted in favour of the Mandate for Palestine incorporating the Balfour Declaration.

The semi-finals, final and third-place playoff will be agony for Gazan viewers as one of these last four countries holds up the trophy on the winner’s podium come finals day – the others the three minor places - with their flags filling Gaza’s TV screens.

The moral is clear – international law cannot be turned on and off as circumstances dictate – because one day the perpetrator will become entrapped in the hopeless position that the Arab States, the PLO and Hamas now find themselves.

Throwing out binding international law – the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine – and falsely creating fake international law – “the State of Palestine” – goes to the heart of why the Arab-Jewish conflict still remains unresolved in 2018.
 
(Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators – whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

Modernists versus Medievalists: Bibi on Countering the Iranian Menace

While the Israel-haters twist and shout with venomous bile (see my two previous posts) Israel's great communicator has been doing his utmost to win friends and influencing people.  Here's Bibi talking to director Dr Robin Niblett at Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) during his visit to London in connection with the Balfour Declaration's centenary (a very long video, which also alludes to that Declaration):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo1PtZaxayo

Meeting British Jewish leaders (an all too brief video):

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpB55w9CNCM

"Just 67 Words": Theresa May Extols the Balfour Declaration While the Usual Suspects Twist & Shout

A video nearly 30 minutes long, and well worth it:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsfMjCPzpo

But oh, what gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands from those who hate Israel and curse the Balfour Declaration.

What odious distortion from Rashid Khalidi, Columbia University's Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, for instance:

'Predictably, Khalidi limited the "indigenous population" to Arabs and ignored the Jewish people's historical claim to the land as recognized in the Balfour Declaration. Instead, he maintained "the Zionist Movement was a colonialist enterprise in search of a metropolitan sponsor" that was "implanting" and "fostering" the Jewish people "at the expense of the Palestinians."

Khalidi's terminology reflected his past as a PLO propagandist. His use of "indigenous" echoed the fabricated claims of the Palestinian Authority (PA)'s Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites, who predated the ancient Hebrews. Similarly, his term "implanting" mirrored PA political commentator Fathi Buzia's allegation that Britain "creat[ed] and implant[ed] a fabricated, thieving entity upon the Palestinian land" and PA school textbooks, which refer to Israel "as an imperial colonial implant."

The lecture epitomized the politicization of contemporary Middle East studies: by twisting a legitimate topic—the Balfour Declaration—into anti-Zionist, anti-Israel propaganda, Khalidi distorted the past in order to influence the present. His ahistorical claim that the Jewish people are not the indigenous population of Israel is a transparent effort to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish state. There should be no room in academe for such hucksterism masquerading as scholarship.'  Read more here

Here's a bunch of Israel-haters blinkered to Arab rejectionism.  What a surprise (not) that big trades unions, life blood of the Labour Party, are joining in the twisting and the shouting against Israel. Loathsome Ken Loach and schoolgirl Leanne Mohamad, inter alia, are also being trotted out:

Speakers at the rally [update: see my next post for the march] will include:

Dr Mustafa Barghouti / Ken Loach / Andy Slaughter MP / Mick Whelan  General Secretary ASLEF / Gail Cartmail TUC /  Matt Wrack   General Secretary FBU /  Margaret McKee  President Unison /  John Pilger  / Senator Paul Gavan Sinn Fein / Leanne Mohamad / Hugh Lanning PSC / Asad Rehman, War on Want / Reem Kelani / Philipa Harvey NEU-NUT Section / Daoud Abdalah BMI / Ajmal Masrour Imam & broadcaster / Prof Manuel Hassassian / Tariq Ali / Salma Yacoub / Dave Randall /  Hawiyya Dance Company / John Nicolson SNP – And many more to be announced.

Organised by Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Palestinian Forum in Britain (PFB), Friends of Al Aqsa (FOA), Stop the War Coalition (STW), Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).

Supported by Unite the Union, UNISON, National Education Union- NUT Section, GMB, ASLEF, RMT, FBU, UCU, PCS, CWU, Europal Forum, CND, Pax Christi, APCUK, Kairos UK, Friends of Sabeel UK, ICAHD UK, Olive, Amos Trust, APCUK.
https://www.palestinecampaign.org/events/national-rally-central-london/

Our old friend the vicar, meanwhile, has been visiting Jerusalem and Bethlehem (he really does get around, doesn't he?!), where a number of anti-Israel events have been taking place:

  More samples from the vicar's current Balfour-related postings (by no means all):

Mocking a wall that saves Jewish lives ... nice Christian way to behave, vicar.

(Daphne is far too ladylike to call our old mate a non-kosher prick.)

What a bummer, after all that effort, vicar!

A Fashion Icon in Black & White

What she's wearing,  Baroness [Jenny] Tonge:

And the Aussie Sizer, Father Dave Smith:

Here's the lowdown on this staple of many an Israel-demoniser's wardrobe:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SUmXUcYwsE

And on this, the centenary of the Balfour Declaration,  a fascinating lecture by the late Sir Martin Gilbert (the Irene and Hyman Kreitman Annual Memorial Lecture on May 30, 2011 during the 41st Annual Board of Governors Meeting at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev) entitled Sowing the Seeds of Jewish Statehood: Britain and Palestine, 1909-1922

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kub6d-ik6w

Be warned: it's about 52 minutes long.  Perhaps best listened to while pottering about.
Hat tip: JH

Great talk by historian Stephen Schama: "Israel's life is Hitler's failure"

Meanwhile, in retaliation for the creation of Israel and its refusal to die,  just three current social media displays of pique and antisemitism out of a vast number, the first by this funny chap:

David Singer: Balfour Declaration Falsehoods Fuel Jew-Hatred and Israel-Bashing

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The centenary of the Balfour Declaration issued on 2 November 1917 is being used to unleash a barrage of falsehoods designed to denigrate the Jewish people and delegitimise the Jewish State of Israel.

Among those current egregious falsehoods:

1. Raja Zaatry – an official of the High Follow-up Committee – the Arab community’s leadership body in Israel – has asserted:

 “In 1917 less than 10% of the population was Jewish and more than 90% Arab. The British gave to the Jews something that didn’t belong to them”

The British Government gave nothing to the Jews in 1917 other than its “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations" expressed in the Balfour Declaration. Palestine in 1917 still remained under Turkey’s rule as part of the 400 years old Ottoman Empire. 

 2. Sir Vincent Fean – British consul general to Jerusalem between 2010 and 2014 – reportedly said the UK should uphold its commitment to helping achieve a two-state solution promised in the Balfour Declaration – if only to prevent radicalization at home – stating

“I firmly believe that this unresolved issue contributes to radicalization in our own country among the Muslim community and if only for that self-interested reason we should think of doing something about it.”

The Balfour Declaration promised no two-state solution.

Islamic State has caused Muslim radicalization in Britain.

3. The Balfour Apology Campaign and the Palestinian Return Centre – protesting the Royal Albert Hall being used to host a Balfour Declaration Centenary event on 7 November – have urged the public to sign a letter containing the following statement:

“The 1917 Balfour Declaration directly caused the 1948 Arab-Israeli War where Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians and then established a state in Palestine.”

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War was directly caused by six Arab armies from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq invading Palestine in total violation of international law. No invasion – no war.

 4. University of Manchester academic Nick Thoburn grabbed some media space by reportedly saying he was dismayed that the University had allowed a Balfour Declaration commemoration event to take place on its campus – adding for good measure:

"Lord Balfour (declared), chillingly, that Zionism was 'of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land'" 

Chillingly – our news-grabbing academic selectively misquoted what Lord Balfour actually said:

“The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”

Nick appears to have been engaging in deliberate spin.

Nick should be looking for another job outside academia if this is the standard of his intellectual expertise. 

 5. Ambassador Jonathan Allen – UK deputy permanent representative to the UN – told the Security Council on 17 October:

“And let us remember, there are two halves of Balfour, the second half of which has not been fulfilled. There is therefore unfinished business.”

Ambassador Allen was spouting pure unadulterated fiction.

 There are no two halves of the Balfour Declaration.

There is however “unfinished business”: allocating sovereignty in the last remaining 5 per cent of Palestine between Jordan and Israel – the two successor States in Palestine – as was first envisaged by Article 25 of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

The sooner this business is concluded – the sooner the Arab-Jewish conflict can be resolved.

It surely is time to end 100 years of relentlessly hounding 15 million Jews world-wide and falsely and misleadingly lambasting their tiny Jewish State.

David Singer: Balfour Declaration Centenary Shames Arab and UN Deniers

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The continuing Arab refusal – aided and abetted by the United Nations – to recognise the international legitimacy of the Balfour Declaration 100 years after it was first issued on 2 November 1917 – remain the greatest obstacles to resolving the Jewish–Arab conflict.

The current Arab culprits are the Arab League, the PLO and Hamas who unconditionally reject the binding international legal validity of the Balfour Declaration. However their efforts to nullify the Balfour Declaration would have been undermined long ago had the United Nations not lent its support by propagating a fictitious narrative of the Jewish-Arab conflict.

United Nations involvement has occurred through the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” which has published “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1988” containing numerous false and misleading facts on the Jewish-Arab conflict which remain uncorrected.

The Balfour Declaration – when issued – was merely a “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” having no binding legal effect – since “Palestine” was still then part of Turkey’s Ottoman Empire and had been so for the previous 400 years.

The Balfour Declaration first gained international endorsement following Turkey’s defeat in World War 1 when the Treaty of Sevres – concluding a truce with Turkey – was signed on 10 August 1920 by:

1. The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan (“The Principal Allied Powers”)

2. Armenia, Belgium, Greece, the Hedjaz, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and Czechoslovakia (constituting with the Principal Allied Powers “the Allied Powers”) and 

3. Turkey

Article 95 of the Treaty provided for:

“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 2, 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.”

This acceptance of the Balfour Declaration by the Allied Powers was subsequently embraced by all 51 member countries of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 – when the terms of the Balfour Declaration were incorporated in the preamble to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
Those 51 countries were:

Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British India, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Article 25 of the Mandate was subsequently invoked on 23 September 1922 to restrict the Jewish National Home to just 22 per cent of the territory encompassed by the Mandate – whilst the remaining 78 per cent eventually became an Arabs-only, Jew-free State in 1946 – now called Jordan.

The Jews reluctantly accepted these decisions – but the Arabs never have. The Arabs (with the exception of Jordan and Egypt) still claim 100 per cent of former Palestine by refusing to recognise the Jewish State.

Peace cannot occur until the UN demands Arab recognition of the Balfour Declaration. The UN’s continuing refusal to do so is truly shameful.

"When the Discussion Opened to the Floor, a pro-Israeli Commentator Spoke ..."

As I noted last week, anti-Israel events are sprouting thick and fast in the countdown to 2 November and the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, with Israel-denouncing Christians doing their share of the participating.

One such event that caught my eye was that held on 7 October  at the British Library.  Sponsored by the anti-Israel Middle East Monitor, it was entitled "Palestine, Britain and the Balfour Declaration 100 Years on".

Professor Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, was the keynote speaker, and you can read about the rest of the panelists, and their highly biased offerings, here, where there is also a video and several photos of the event. Begins the account:

 "The grey weather did not deter the hundreds of attendees who arrived early on Saturday morning at the British Library in London to attend MEMO’s conference to commemorate 100 years since the Balfour Declaration. A heavily subscribed event, the conference took a detailed look at Britain’s role in the creation of Israel, past and present, showcasing an alternative narrative to the celebrations promised by British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Attendees were able to purchase books on the Palestinian issue, including those shortlisted for the Palestine Book Awards 2017 and indulge in refreshments before being ushered into the auditorium. They were welcomed by Dr Daud Abdullah, the Director of MEMO, who expressed the importance of recognising the Balfour Declaration for what is was."

Professor Penny Green of Queen Mary’s University of London, chaired the first session, journalist Peter Oborne (notorious for his obsession with Britain's so-called "Israel Lobby") the second, and Corbynista ex-Labour cabinet minister Clare Short [read me here] the third.

"Zionism was a settler colonial movement and the state of Israel its progeny, is a settler colonial state," 

declares that account, inter alia,in effect summarising the conference's thrust.

Note this paragraph:

"Journalist David Cronin [associate editor of the Electronic Intifada, folks], looked at strategies used to oppose the Israeli occupation, namely the use of boycotts. He pointed out that Balfour had an aversion to boycotts, namely because of the powerful symbolic nature that withholding payment presented. He advocated that the international community and Palestinians should harness the power of boycotts to bring about a change in Israel."

And these (emphasis added):

"Dr Jacob Cohen [praised by no less an antisemite than Gilad Atzmon here], who joined the Zionist movement at the age of 16 before leaving it four years later, also praised how the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement had expanded its international influence and hoped that the global community would continue such long-term campaigns. He was heckled during his speech when he accused of Israel of perpetuating conflict in order to receive foreign aid and weapons investment, an argument the majority of the audience applauded.

When the discussion opened to the floor, a pro-Israeli commentator spoke in defence of Israel, alleging that it had made peace with Arab countries, retreated from Gaza and was prepared to sacrifice it’s land for peace. Other questioners spoke positively of the support for the Palestine movement and encouraged all listeners to transform their attendance into activism.

As the attendees filed out of the auditorium, many expressed their gratitude to MEMO for hosting such a comprehensive event that had invited speakers from all over the world, to discuss the origins of an enduring conflict that has affected millions of people."

There he sits, if I'm not mistaken, in the centre of this photo of the audience, that same "pro-Israel commentator", I'll wager, namely the intrepid Jonathan Hoffman (good onya, sir!):

A shot of the event by a certain clerical anti-Israel activist:

 A shot of Mr Hoffman at the conference by Sizer here

(Plenty of antisemitic posts below the line on the account I've linked to show some of the supporters of the event for what they are.)

Incidentally, just when I thought that theological Christian antisemitism was sooooooo last millennium:

Our old friend makes a despicable analogy:

Meanwhile, more mischief here

Oh dear! I do hope that next guest didn't catch our old friend's, um, anti-Zionism!

Israel-Bashing English ChristiansTwinkling Among Tinkling Teacups

2 November 2017.  Tick tock. Tick tock.

In the countdown to the centenary of the Balfour Declaration anti-Israel initiatives in the UK are coming thick and fast, and Christian Israel-bashers are joining in with gusto.

Our old friend Stephen Sizer, the ex-vicar of Virginia Water and now based in Southampton as CEO of the so-called Peacemaker Mediators organisation, has been very active, with Peacemaker Mediators leaving little doubt that it has Israel and Israel's supporters centrally in its sights.

Sizer has recently been to Amersfoort in the Netherlands for the Kairos/Sabeel Conference.

It was there that he presented his analysis of Walter Bruggemann's Chosen? that he'd begun in note form while in Kigali awaiting a delayed flight to Doha, sustained by cups of refreshing African tea. (Photo above)

Should you be so inclined, you can view the analysis here

One of his allies, Robert Cohen, who's married to an Anglican vicar (of the double X chromosome variety) and blogs against Israel at Micah's Paradigm Shift and Pantheos, was recently in posh Cheltenham for a churchy Israel-bashing shmooze which apparently had the local Conservative MP purring:

Funny of Cohen to term organiser Symon"brave"; I'm sure there were no Israeli suicide bombers on hand to vent disapproval).

From here:

Reverting to our old friend, in whose name the Balfour Project website was (and perhps still is) rumoured to be registered, he's been full of excitement over this.  And so, evidently, has antisemite and  9/11 troofer Tony Gratrex, long associated with the Reading Palestine Solidarity Campaign:

(See more on that event, due to take place on 31 October, here)

Sizer gloats on the Peacemaker Mediators' website:

"There's Never Been A Love Affair Like It in All History"

That's how Lord Sacks, in this wonderful video, aptly describes the Jewish attachment to Jerusalem, and reminds us that it's only under Jewish rule over the past 50 years that worshippers from all three monotheistic religions have been able to pray freely there.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd9PCaqWQaI

Another good video here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2VTl4ciAQM

The following post by British reader Brian Goldfarb first appeared as a guest post on the robust Israeli blog Anne's Opinions early in May. Now, with his permission, I'm reproducing it here:

As we approach the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, although it is five months away, it seems to me that it is important to start talking about it and what it does say and what it doesn’t say, as well as trying to make clear its status and impact.

The actual Declaration itself is but one sentence in a letter sent to Baron Rothschild: brief to the point of being easy to miss. As Wikipedia notes:

 'The Balfour Declaration was a single paragraph in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It read:

"His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The text of the letter was published in the press one week later, on 9 November 1917. The “Balfour Declaration” was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was, of course, the culmination of a long campaign by the Zionist Federation (ZF) (and by Chaim Weizmann in particular). Weizmann was especially influential in this, largely because of his scientific work, as a research chemist, and especially his development of the extraction of acetone (vital for the munitions industry) from maize during the First World War on behalf of the Allies. This meant that the British Government of the day was particularly beholden to him, and Weizmann used this influence wholeheartedly on behalf of the Zionist Federation.

 (The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on Weizmann is particularly informative on this period of his life.) It is important to note developments such as the San Remo Conference of Allied Powers (1920), which confirmed the Balfour Declaration and awarded the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain (Britannica, ibid).

It is as important, at this point, to remember that phrase from the Declaration 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.” This will be returned to below.

To move on, it is possible to argue that the Peel Commission recommendations of 1936 come close to allocating much the same territory to each side as did the 1947 UN Resolution on the ending of the British Mandate. Remember: I said “much the same” not exactly the the same, though it’s a moot point, as the Arab side rejected the Commission’s recommendations outright, despite earlier agreements between at least some Arab leaders and the Jewish Agency.

 All that said, the British Government failed, consistently, to live up to the wording of the Declaration. From the San Remo Conference onwards, despite that Conference’s agreement that

 "Britain was charged with establishing a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine [although] Terroritorial boundaries were not decided until four years after"

Britain did nothing to establish any boundaries, then or later, including after World War II and, indeed, after the 1947 UN Resolution ending the Mandate. The British didn’t even take steps to establish Transjordan, although they much favoured its creation. As a result, it is hardly surprising that the Arabs, both those in the Mandate territory and the independent nations outside it, utterly rejected the 1947 Resolution.

This background is important because of what happened next. We know that, as Weizmann later said, (paraphrasing his words) the Jews would accept any state, even if it was only the size of a tablecloth, whereas the Arabs (Palestinians weren’t invented until the early 1960s) rejected the whole idea of an Israel of any size at all.

 What happened next has been well written about by Benny Morris in “1948: The First Arab-Israeli War”: the Arab militias, from the passing of the ’47 resolution until May 1948 attempted to throw the Jews into the sea, and failed miserably, losing land and men. Then the armies of five surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq), from the Declaration of Independence on, attempted the same and also failed (except for the Jordanians, who took the land the Resolution assigned to them, more or less.

 Morris notes, more than once, that it was never policy, official or unofficial, of the Jewish Agency (the Sochnut), effectively the government of Israel in waiting, to deliberately displace the Arab population of what became Israel. The most public “expulsion”, that of Deir Yassin, was carried out by Irgun, never an official part of the Israeli state.

It is only the anti-Zionists who wish us (and themselves) to believe otherwise.

However, for the Israelis, the cost was horribly high, despite the cost to the world-wide Jewish population of the Holocaust:

4,000 Israeli soldiers and 2,000 Israeli civilians lost their lives fighting for Israeli independence. That number amounted to one percent of the Israeli population at the time. Considering the size of the Israeli population back then, this number amounted to triple the percentage of American causalities during World War II.  (See here )

Note that this quote says “casualties” for the USA, not deaths.

All this history is, for many, and, I’m sure, the vast majority of visitors to this site, well known, so why visit it again? For a very simple reason: with the approach of the centenary of the Declaration, many of those who oppose the very existence of Israel are demanding an apology from Britain for the Declaration, as though, were this to be provided, all would, in their eyes, be put right.

In their dreams.

 It’s not going to happen, probably ever, because even if Labour under Corbyn were to win the British General Election on June 8 ( a remote possibility), a majority of the MPs in the House of Commons would reject such an apology being delivered.

 As it already has. Just note the following, from Honest Reporting’s Israel Daily News Service (IDNS) of 26/4/17:

'After Britain refused to apologize for the Balfour declaration, the Palestinian Authority threatens legal action.

 Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority ambassador to the UK, said on Tuesday that unless Britain apologized, canceled planned celebrations and recognized a Palestinian state, the Palestinians would go ahead with plans for a lawsuit against the British government for issuing the Balfour Declaration.'

The British government are in fact proud of their role in the Balfour Declaration (as seen here):

“The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) does not intend to apologise,” the response began. “We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace.”

Honest Reporting notes:

"But why stop with Balfour? The PA should also sue Britain and France (for the the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement), Britain and the Husseini family (for the 1922 Cairo Conference, which created an independent Transjordan), and the UN (for the 1948 Partition Plan). The Palestinians can even sue themselves for signing the 1993 Oslo accords . . .

The UK government’s announcement was made on a petition page where Palestinian activists seeking an apology are collecting signatures.”

The British Government, under the leadership of Theresa May, is, of course, quaking in its collective boots at this threat. 

Meanwhile:

"Israel is not facing a dilemma about how much, if any, land to give up from the West Bank, because the Palestinians will not agree to take land and cannot be forced to do so. The Palestinian community sees peace with Israel as defeat in their 100-year struggle. Continued Israeli occupation is one of the Palestinians’ best weapons against Israel, and they will not give it up while their war to eliminate Israel continues. Israelis should recognize that since the Palestinians are forcing Israel to continue the temporary but long-term occupation, Israelis need to a) cooperate in reducing the moral and other costs of that occupation; and b) stop telling the world that Israel could choose to end the occupation. The occupation, like the need for military strength and to absorb casualties, is part of the price Israel has to pay to live here. Maturity means being able to go forward with no solution in sight."

That, in a nutshell, is the view of Dr Max Singer, a founder and senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, is a senior fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

Read the whole article here

David Singer: United Nations Rewrites Balfour Declaration Parliamentary Debate Records

Here's the outcome of a fine piece of sleuthing: the latest important article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

An official United Nations document published by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat contains a deliberately altered record of a 1922 parliamentary House of Lords debate on the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration – dated 2 November 1917 – called for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people – it being clearly understood that nothing would be done which might 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.

The Balfour Declaration was subsequently written into international law after being incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922.

The upcoming centenary of the Balfour Declaration has prompted a concerted international campaign calling on the British Government to apologise for another Government’s decision taken 100 years ago. Baroness Anelay – Minister of State (Foreign Commonwealth Office) – told the House of Lords on 3 April 2017 that no such apology would be forthcoming.

The UN’s rewriting of Parliamentary debate records actually came to light whilst I was researching the source of a quote appearing in four articles by Stuart Littlewood provocatively headlined

 1. “Who will Finally Heal the “Running Sore in the East”?

 2. “Will the Royal Family Celebrate 100 Years of Shame by Endorsing Israel?”

 3. “Despicable Balfour: A story of betrayal” 

 4. “Jeremy Corbyn: the antidote to the Blairite “virus” and Zionist snake-bite”

All four articles contained the following quote purportedly made in 1922 by a bitter opponent of the Balfour Declaration – Lord Sydenham:

“The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country… may never be remedied… What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.” 

My research eventually led to a United Nations Study titled “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988”  – the Foreword stating:

“This study has been prepared by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977.” 

This UN Study claimed Lord Sydenham had said:

"... the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country - Arab all around in the hinterland - may never be remedied ... what we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend" 

sourcing this quote to British Hansard  – the official record of parliamentary debates.

However Hansard records Lord Sydenham actually saying on 21 June 1922:

“What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend. Zionism will fail, the experiment to which the noble Earl referred will fail, but the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country—Arab all round in the hinterland— may never be remedied.”

Deliberately rewriting Hansard raises the distinct possibility there may be other similar such instances in this UN Study.

A full investigation by the United Nations Secretariat to discover the reason is urgently required.

An immediate retraction, correction and apology must be made by the UN Secretariat.

David Singer: Britain rebuffs Abbas call to apologise for Balfour Declaration

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s demand that Britain apologise for the Balfour Declaration has been rebuffed by British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Addressing the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) on 12 December, May responded:

'… we are entering the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration.

On the 2nd of November 1917, the then Foreign Secretary – a Conservative Foreign Secretary – Arthur James Balfour wrote: 

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” 

It is one of the most important letters in history.

It demonstrates Britain’s vital role in creating a homeland for the Jewish people.

And it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride.' 

The Balfour Declaration became established international law after being incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922 – all 51 Member States of the League of Nations unanimously agreeing that: 

“recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;” 

The Mandate further affirmed that Britain would be responsible for:

“placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.” 

The use of the terms

* “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” in the Balfour Declaration and

* “all the inhabitants of Palestine” in the Mandate document

–  rather than the term “Palestinians” – clearly refutes the existence of any identifiable “Palestinian – people” in Palestine in 1917 or 1922.

However, fake news stories repetitively dealing with the “stateless Palestinians” may have influenced Ms May into also telling the CFI meeting:

“Of course, people are correct when they say that securing the rights of Palestinians and Palestinian statehood have not yet been achieved.”

The Prime Minister has ignored the following pertinent facts:

1. The term “Palestinians” was not defined until 1964 when article 6 of the PLO Charter stipulated:

“The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.”

2. The “Palestinian people” was declared to be an integral part of the Arab Nation under Article 1 of the revised 1968 PLO Charter – not a separate and distinct people.

3. The rights of the Arab citizens of Palestine were secured in 1922 by articles 2 and 25 of the Mandate.

4. On 13 September 1922 a Note communicated to the League of Nations by the Secretary General contained a Memorandum by the British Representative limiting the site designated for the Jewish National Home to just 22 per cent of the mandate territory.

The other 78 per cent was designated for the Arab citizens of Palestine – where Statehood was finally declared on 25 May 1946 when the area was renamed the “Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan”. Another name change to “Jordan” in 1950 followed Transjordan’s illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

A second Arab State in former Palestine – in addition to Jordan – remains a fatuous and unrealistically attainable goal.

A 99th Anniversary

As the Israel-demonisers' pernicious campaign against the Balfour Declaration hots up (see, for instance, here and here and here ), there is a wonderful new online iniative here.

Below are some home truths from StandWithUs about the Declaration.

Simplified stuff that the most thick-headed Israel-hater is guaranteed to understand (but of course is unlikely to heed.)

To quote the uploader:

"100 years ago today, the Balfour Declaration was penned. The declaration confirmed the UK's commitment to and recognition of the right to a Jewish state in their historic homeland. Through this document, the re-birth of Israel became a reality for Jews already living in their homeland, and for Jews in the disapora who had been expelled historically.

Today, we celebrate and thank Arthur Balfour for writing the Balfour Declaration and believing in Israel!"

Learn more about the historical legitimacy and importance of the Balfour Declaration in this handy booklet

 Bonus video from the same source:

To quote the uploader:

"Enough of the bullying from the Palestinian Authority and other Arab nations in international bodies. These organizations were not created to promote racist xenophobic agendas, yet that is exactly what the PA and other UNESCO member states have used them for."

 More anti-Israel propaganda in the offing:

David Singer: Abbas Abandons Peace Negotiations With Israel

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to prosecute Britain for publishing the 1917 Balfour Declaration amounts to an outright rejection of the right of the Jewish People to have their own State in former Palestine  – the major stumbling block to peacefully resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict for the last 100 years.

Abbas effectively abandoned further peace negotiations with Israel when his Foreign Minister Riad al-Maliki announced Abbas’s decision during an Arab League meeting in the Mauritanian capital of Nouakchott on 25 July:

"We are working to open up an international criminal case for the crime which they [Britain] committed against our nation – from the days of the British Mandate all the way to the massacre which was carried out against us from 1948 onwards …

… With the commemoration of 100 years since this historic massacre, and following the continuity of this tragedy, we request that the Secretary General of the Arab League assist us in prosecuting the British government for publishing the Balfour Declaration which caused this catastrophe against the Palestinian people."

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO),  from its founding in 1964, had labelled the Balfour Declaration a “fraud” – revising this position in 1968 by claiming it was “deemed null and void”.

Such unsubstantiated assertions of British fraud and illegality are supposedly now to be legally challenged – but can Abbas be taken seriously?

Abbas has not similarly threatened France, although France’s Secretary General For Foreign Affairs, Jules Cambon, informed Nahum Sokolow on 4 June 1917 – 5 months before the Balfour Declaration:

“You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine. You consider that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.

The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies.

I am happy to give you herewith such assurance.”

Abbas is not proposing to sue all 51 member states of the League of Nations who unanimously adopted and incorporated the Balfour Declaration in the Mandate for Palestine – when calling for the “reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine”.

Threatened legal action against Britain only will probably never eventuate – let alone have any chance of success.

Abbas’s latest grandstanding ploy comes as he desperately tries to recover lost political ground to Hamas by reinforcing his own Jew-hating credentials.

The Nouakchott Declaration has however served to focus attention on thirty years of long-overlooked international political decisions taken between 1917 and 1947 which resulted in:

* 99.99 per cent of the Ottoman Empire lands conquered by Britain and France in World War 1 being set aside for Arab self-determination whilst only 0.01per cent – Palestine – was set aside for Jewish self-determination

* 78 per cent of Palestine being closed in 1922 to Jewish settlement and development of the Jewish National Home – such territory subsequently becoming an independent sovereign Jew-free Arab State in 1946 – today called Jordan.

Burying Arab heads in the sand by refusing to accept these decisions remains an exercise in futility.

When Arab minds acknowledge these historic and legal realities, the peaceful resolution of the century-old conflict between Arabs and Jews becomes certainly attainable.