The Creation of Israel Violated the Palestinian Right to Self-Determination

[The Great Zaganza]

If only there was a UN organization to administer aid ...
oh wait, there is, and it's Israel's no.1 enemy, much worse than Hamas or Iran.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Palestinians will just sell their weapons to Hamas for food.
If Israel wanted to undermine Hamas, it should send supplies to Palestinians it deems friendly.
Instead, they want excuses to continue fighting and blocking aid.

If Israel wanted to undermine Hamas it shouldn't have funded them for nigh on forty years.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Source: From Albert Einstein to Noam Chomsky: famous Jews who have opposed Israel

From the list, a succinct expression of the fundamental paradox at the heart of the issue:

I.F. Stone, US journalist:
“Israel is creating a kind of moral schizophrenia in world Jewry. In the outside world the welfare of Jewry depends on the maintenance of secular, non-racial, pluralistic societies. In Israel, Jewry finds itself defending a society in which mixed marriages cannot be legalized, in which the ideal is racial and exclusionist.”

Amen.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Wiki: The King–Crane Commission, officially called the 1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, consisting primarily of an American delegation was a commission of inquiry concerning the disposition of areas within the former Ottoman Empire. The Commission began as an outgrowth of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The Commission visited areas of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Anatolia, surveyed local public opinion, and assessed its view on the best course of action for the region....

Although the commission was sympathetic toward Zionism, the Balfour Declaration's requirement that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights existing in non-Jewish communities in Palestine" led the commission to recommend "that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated." The commission found that "Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase". Nearly 90% of the Palestinian population was emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The report noted that there is a principle that the wishes of the local population must be taken into account and that there is widespread anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria, and the holy nature of the land to Christians and Moslems as well as Jews must preclude solely Jewish dominion. It also noted that Jews at that time constituted only 10% of the population of Palestine.

Note the population counts found in the Wiki entry within the OETA (Occupied Enemy Territory Administration):

Group	South	West	East
Muslims	515,000	600,000	1,250,000	2,365,000
Christians	62,500	400,000	125,000	587,500
Druses		60,000	80,000	140,000
Jews	65,000	15,000	30,000	110,000
Others	5,000	20,000	20,000	45,000
Totals	647,500	1,095,000	1,505,000
Grand Total				3,247,500

No question that the creation of a Jewish-only state was a moral and legal abomination.

 

[Hercules56]

Note the population counts found in the Wiki entry within the OETA (Occupied Enemy Territory Administration):

​

Group	South	West	East
Muslims	515,000	600,000	1,250,000	2,365,000
Christians	62,500	400,000	125,000	587,500
Druses		60,000	80,000	140,000
Jews	65,000	15,000	30,000	110,000
Others	5,000	20,000	20,000	45,000
Totals	647,500	1,095,000	1,505,000
Grand Total				3,247,500

No question that the creation of a Jewish-only state was a moral and legal abomination.

Nobody would have cared if a Jewish state had been created in just the Negev of Palestine.

 

[Hercules56]

Note the population counts found in the Wiki entry within the OETA (Occupied Enemy Territory Administration):

​

Group	South	West	East
Muslims	515,000	600,000	1,250,000	2,365,000
Christians	62,500	400,000	125,000	587,500
Druses		60,000	80,000	140,000
Jews	65,000	15,000	30,000	110,000
Others	5,000	20,000	20,000	45,000
Totals	647,500	1,095,000	1,505,000
Grand Total				3,247,500

No question that the creation of a Jewish-only state was a moral and legal abomination.

Also, the Partition Plan of 1947 did not create a "jewish-only" state.

 

[Hercules56]

The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP minority recommendation, which called for a single state with Arab and Jewish autonomous areas. They refused to accept anything less than an Arab State in Palestine.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP minority recommendation, which called for a single state with Arab and Jewish autonomous areas. They refused to accept anything less than an Arab State in Palestine.

Of course they rejected a committee dedicated to blessing an invasion backed by Zionist terrorists. Palestine was an Arab state; it was the Zionists who wanted to change that through abuse of the Mandate and the use of terrorism.

There never was any political, legal or moral onus on Palestinians to "accept" any sort of forced settler colonialism. The entire colonial enterprise was sick and immoral from the start, based as it was on ethnoreligious criteria.

This is fully borne out by the declared intentions of Zionists since the early 20th c. and all Israeli actions and policies since, which pursue ethnic cleansing to achieve a Jewish homeland; namely, what Israel is today, an apartheid state afoul of international law, a Jewish supremacist nightmare.

Also, the Partition Plan of 1947 did not create a "jewish-only" state.

He, he. That's really funny. No, it was Israel's unilateralism that did so using terrorism. The Nakba "created" Israel via land theft. Tell me, what is the Absentee Property Law, and what conditions does it set for a private Palestinian landowner to recover their property?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Except from The Iron Wall, Vladimir Jabotinsky, advocate of revisionist Zionism at the beginning of the 20th century (1923), writing prior to WWII and before the rise of National Socialism in Germany. The ideas, therefore, cannot be construed as a reaction to the Holocaust, but as purely ideological in inspiration. Notice how the colonialism, typical of the time across the West, is unquestioned and held to be a moral political philosophy (un- or underdeveloped peoples were "savages" who should welcome the enlightenment and material advancement offered by a superior culture or race, but never do.) Link below in blue downloads the 7 page pdf.

Voluntary Agreement Not Possible. There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.....

The above explicitly recognizes of the existence (1) of Palestine and (2) of Palestinian Arabs. This should now end all Zionist-Amerisraeli BS about the status quo ante and the reality of Palestine prior to the use of force.

Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.....

Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico , and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies.....

Spoken like a smug colonialist of his backward times. Note the hubris. Now comes the clearly stated intention to ethnically cleanse the land:

There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding". The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want... It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's. Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

And now, The Iron Wall, and the justification of violence against the Palestinians and of reliance on an "outside Power"

We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism. Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach. That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible. And we are all of us, without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.

Bad habits have a way of sticking around, now, don't they? Let us not quibble nor equivocate; the creation of the State of Israel necessitated and constituted violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination.

Q.E.D.

Whenever Zioinists speak, prosecutors everywhere should take note: a heinous crime is either in progress or is about to take place. And they will, as before, ask others, other "powers", to help them do their dirty work. Were Hell real, we'd see them today in a flaming rogues gallery.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The Creation of the USA Violated the Indigenous peoples Right to Self-Determination

The Creation of Australia Violated the Aborigenes Right to Self-Determination

The Creation of New Zealand Violated the Maori Right to Self-Determination

The Creation of South Africa Violated the .....

Etc.

Etc.

Israel is not special in this regard.

Pap for the weak minded.


"Yesterday xyz crime happened. It happens all the time. It is common to humanity. Bless xyz, for it is holy."

"The answer to two major world wars, now in the atomic age, is to do nothing. Nothing has changed, nor will it. Bombs away!"

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Evidence for the genocide you claim is noticeably lacking.



I have no doubt you think so.

Really? Someone now has his intellectual trousers down around his tripping ankles. Pratfall!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I asked Hlaforlaes this question several days ago. So far, he has refused to answer. Tricky questions like that tend to be avoided by the chronically dishonest.

Your spirited defense of the West Bank settlements is now two years delinquent. Two years of evasion and silence. Must be because there can be no defending land theft and war crimes.

 

[Hercules56]

What is not in dispute: The arrival of the vast majority of the Jewish population in the region took the form of mass migration, particularly following the events of WWII. It is therefore hard to dispute that the creation of a nation-state for arriving migrants was not a case of indigenous self-determination. To the contrary, conquest via occupation of land and displacement of peoples is generally regarded as illegal by international law. A play-by-play of what generally happened just before and since the time of mass migration can be found in the Wiki description of the 1936-39 Arab Revolt. This thread relies on the reader taking the time to read that reference in order to make its points.

One highly significant part of the text reads:


There we have the font et origo of the ME conflict, right there.

I will also argue, I believe successfully, that support for the state of Israel as a Jewish state relies primarily on explicit acceptance of a religious tenet; namely, the "promised land", representing therefore the intellectual equivalent of an Islamist arguing for the restoration of the Caliphate. Further, that the plight of the Jewish people prior to the creation of Israel was primarily driven by virulent Christian ideology. The crux of the whole affair is religious fanaticism as practiced by all sides, certainly that of Islam being wholly destructive of the points they may otherwise have legitimately wished to make.

As for the protection and security of the Jewish people after WWII, the proper remedy was in the strengthening of Western democracy to assure sufficient guardrails were in place, perhaps including modifications to the First Amendment in the US case, such that denying basic humanity to anyone is an attack on foundational principles granting all rights, and thus a core philosophical contradiction (dehumanizing hate speech, internally inconsistent with "all men created equal") that can be banned in the name of protecting democracy.

Relating to current events, we have a simple conclusion laid out for us explicitly by the top two Israeli governmental officials:
(1) Israeli PM: Benjamin Netanyahu insists on Hamas ‘destruction’ as part of plan to end Gaza war
****plus
(1) Israeli President: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” Isaac Herzog said as Israel ordered 1.1 million Palestinians to evacuate their homes.
****equals
(2) An explicit policy of genocide.

A remedy to the situation is available: the single-state solution. A democracy that represents a transition to the rule of law does not constitute the destruction of a people, only of a regime. International law goes so far as to place the onus on the general public for coming to terms with, denouncing, and acting to stop and prevent genocide, and to suggest in some cases the prosecution of those actively supporting it. Time to take sides and make positions clear. My position: Zionism is a genocidal ideology as argued and practiced for nearly a century. All policy measures providing for a peaceful transition to a single state solution should be the sole focus going forward.

ETA: Interesting to note that the creation of the state of Israel took place precisely when the entire region lacked all sovereignty guardrails and was therefore incapable of acting in defense of self-interest. Hardly fair.

Big question for you:

More than one million of the direct descendants of the ancient Israelite/Jewish people lived not too far from their ancient homeland of Israel. They lived in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Morocco, Turkey.

They have never been treated or viewed as equals by their Muslim neighbors. They have suffered from various levels of discrimination and sometimes racist massacres and expulsions.

During WW2 many of them suffered under Nazi oppression and discrimination or Nazi-inspired oppression and discrimination

Why do these people, who look like their ancient ancestors, not have a right to return to their ancient homeland that was taken from them 2,000 years ago?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This is pointless.

It's exactly like the argument from religion.



Unless we all agree that all of North America has to be returned the Native Tribes, no argument based on who lived when where before the Israeli settlers came matters.

There is only one logical Time 0.

 

[Hercules56]

This is pointless.

It's exactly like the argument from religion.



Unless we all agree that all of North America has to be returned the Native Tribes, no argument based on who lived when where before the Israeli settlers came matters.

There is only one logical Time 0.

I fully accept and agree that some of the USA should be given back to the Native Americans. Starting with all of Oklahoma.

 

[Olmstead]

This is pointless.

It's exactly like the argument from religion.



Unless we all agree that all of North America has to be returned the Native Tribes, no argument based on who lived when where before the Israeli settlers came matters.

There is only one logical Time 0.

Okay, but which argument does matter?

Other than an argument from power of course. Take it and hold it, and it is yours.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The US has completely blown up any International Law, right of self determination and resistance against occupation.

The chance for a 2 State Solution that gives Israeli and Palestinians enough territory for a fully autonomous State separately has long passed.

The (IMO) only way forward that doesn't mean either genocide of all Palestinians or the destruction of Israel after decades as a failed Apartheid State would be a One State Solution with full rights for everyone, including a Right of Return, enforced through international troops and supported by Truth and Reconciliation commissions and a purely Secular Democratic State.
I think that a majority of Israeli and Palestinians would be in favor of this if it would mean an end to endless fighting.

But the current Israeli government wants everything, with no justification other than they have the power to do so thanks to US power and the lives of Israeli soldiers.