Response to our accusers

“The Holocaust denied life & existence to anyone & anything Jewish. Israel protects & affirms Jewish existence on every conceivable level.”[1]

Once again our emotions literally choke us as we recall lKristelnacht.. Every conceivable level demands questioning, in consideration of the loss of 23,000 lives in wars & terrorism over 67 years. True, we no longer depend on others militarily as we have so brilliantly demonstrated. On the other hand are we to live in a state of siege to the end of times? Too few in positions of authority have appreciated that the gains by our enemies largely owe themselves to the war of ideas i.e. our lack of concentrated meaningful propaganda. It is easy to explain the opposition to our sovereignty in terms of anti-Semitism. This aside, the masses are largely influenced by the media & political leaders.

With great regularity, the very existence of the state of Israel is challenged, and in fact denied. Recalling that Goebbels once said if a lie is repeated often enough it will be believed & in recognition of the Arab world’s alliance with the Nazis, it may become comprehensible but does not justify the medias lack of professionalism. Eric R. Mandel in “Lessons to learn before the next war” which appeared in the JP Christian edition of September 2014, references Hasbara; “Media bias against Israel will never end.” Of course, this is only so, unless a concerted effort is made to disseminate the truth via historical facts through well written articles presented in every conceivable communication channel. Words have meaning and in understanding this, our enemies have succeeded in achieving extraordinary gains across the board [UN Resolutions, nationwide condemnation, political speeches etc.]

Israel’s sovereignty is not a function of a UN declaration but owes its origin to the San Remo Conference of 1920. The Palestinian Mandate which followed on September 29, 1923 is a matter of International Law which cannot be rescinded. As to the argument that Palestine was a twice-promised land by the British, Isaiah Friedman, undoubtedly the historian par excellence has unquestionably demonstrated the misrepresentation of this allegation. In his “Palestine a twice-promised land?”, he explains that MacMahon’s letter of October 24, 1915 was not a legal letter “and did not bear a unilateral nature” in that the ‘pledge’ “for Arab independence was conditioned on the general Arab uprising in the whole of the Fertile Crescent.”  This requirement, which did not occur, was intended by way of assistance to Britain’s war effort against the Ottoman Empire during WW1.[2] Speaking in the House of Commons in 1922, Winston Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, referred to the MacMahon correspondence, stating that “His Majesty’s Government have always regarded, and continue to regard Palestine as excluded by these provisos from the scope of their understanding.” ‘MacMahon himself wrote to the London Times in 1937 that’ “I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely & emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised.” [3]

In his “The Boundaries of Palestine” published in Spring 1988, Pau S. Riebenfeld fully addresses the charge of robbing the Arabs of “their country” and the resultant myth of “Palestinian Arab homelessness”. In support of his assertions, Riebenfeld covers the following topics:

1. Transjordan was separated from the Balfour Declaration but NOT from Palestine.

2. No obstacle apart from security requirements prevented the free movement of Arabs between Cis & Transjordan.

3.The British fostered the growing habit of referring as “Palestine” only that part of the mandated territory on which world attention was focused.

4.Weizmann, wrote “Transjordan is legally a part of Palestine—-its people are indistinguishable from the Arabs of Western Palestine —”

5.The establishment of a third Palestine state—could only be the beginning of a new chapter in the Palestine conflict. [4]

The original draft of the Balfour Declaration submitted to the Cabinet by Lloyd George & Balfour was worded “Palestine should be constituted as the National Home of the Jewish people.” Upon the objections of British Jewry in fear of any suggestions concerning dual loyalty the text was modified to “the establishment in Palestine of a National Home.” Michael Comay, who served as Israel’s chief delegate to the UN in the 1960’s, makes the case for Israel with a few key statements:

  1. It was clear from the outset that Palestine was a special case, subject to unique circumstances, which did not arise with the other mandated territories.
  2. The preamble to the Mandate speaks not of “constituting” but of “reconstituting” the Jewish National Home, thereby recognizing that Palestine was the historic Land of Israel. That, being so, the international community did not accept that Palestine should become another Arab state simply because the 700,000 Arabs living in it were a majority of its population at that time. They were a tiny fraction of a larger Near Eastern Arab community of many millions, which was about to become richly endowed with sovereignty & to master vast territories, compared to which Palestine was, in Balfour’s phrase, only a “small notch.” [5]

From David Fromkin;  “Lloyd George was particularly incensed by claims that he had not honored the pledges made to the Arab-speaking peoples, saying ‘The Allies redeemed the promises made in the Declaration to the full. No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to the oppressed races than the Arabs——-the  Arabs have already won independence in Iran, Arabia, Syria & Trans-Jordania, although most of the Arab races  fought throughout  the war for their Turkish oppressors. Arabia was the only exception in that respect. The Palestinian  Arabs fought for Turkish rule.'”[6]

With the creation of Jordan from Transjordan as a state had not a two state solution in effect been satisfied? In fact, Moshe Arens outstanding January 7, 2014 piece, “Two state for two people? When pigs fly”, what is now being demanded by the US, the EU and many countries is three Palestinian states without a single Jew in any of them; East Palestine [Jordan], West Palestine [Judea & Samaria] and South Palestine [the Gaza Strip]i.e. four states for two people – three without Jews &one whose population is 20 % Arab. [7]

References

[1]Genocide – edited by Alex Grobman & Daniel Landes.

[2]The British, the Arabs & Zionism 1915-1920, Isaiah Friedman.

[3] The Question of Palestine; British – Jewish – Arab Relations 1914 – 1918, Isaiah Fiedman.

[4] The Boundaries of Palestine – Spring 1988, Paul S. Riebenfeld.

[5] Zionism , Israel, and the Palestinian Arabs 1983, Michael Comay.

[6] The Peace to end all Peace, David Fromkin.

[7]Two States for two people? When pigs fly. Haaretz, Moshe Aarons.

 

Biography

Alex Rose is an engineering consultant who was formerly on the Executive of Americans for a Safe Israel & a founding member of CAMERA, NY City. He made Alyah in 2003 & now resides in Ashkelon.

About the Author
Alex Rose was born in South Africa in 1935 and lived there until departing for the US in 1977 where he spent 26 years. He is an engineering consultant. For 18 years he was employed by Westinghouse until age 60 whereupon he became self-employed. He was also formerly on the Executive of Americans for a Safe Israel and a founding member of CAMERA, New York (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and today one of the largest media monitoring organizations concerned with accuracy and balanced reporting on Israel). In 2003 he and his wife made Aliyah to Israel and presently reside in Ashkelon.
Comments