Palestine Was Meant for the Jews and - When Palestine Was Syria

Here is a clipping from the New York Times newspaper, dated September 1, 1921, yes, 1921:

As you can read, the Arab delegation had two demands which they submitted to the League of Nations and to US President Harding:

a) France should not be awarded a Mandate over Syria

and

b) Palestine should not become a national home for the Jews.

Moreover, the telegram of protest to President Harding demanded that "Syria and Palestine should form one country" and that is based on a racial principle, that the country as formed, is one that only Arabs inhabit the land, Jews being only 7%.

In other words, minorities don't count.

But more important, a full year, at the least, prior to the League of Nations decision awarding Great Britain the Mandate over Palestine, all the civilized world, over 50 countries knew that Arabs thought Syria and Palestine one country, i.e., there really wasn't, at that time, a separate "Palestinian nationalism" and even more important, the Arabs knew quite well that Palestine was going to be the national home for the Jews, even over their opposition.

No mistake was made. Nor error. All knew that Palestine was meant for the Jews.

^

Klug is Sluggish

Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford, and associate editor of Patterns of Prejudice, has a problem. And being a good Jew, he takes that problem to The Guardian where he published an op-ed entitled, "No one has the right to speak for British Jews on Israel and Zionism".

He announced there that "We will not accept the vilification of those who protest at injustices carried out in the name of the Jewish people". Notice the "we"? The Royal "we", or the Papal "we".

And he goes on:-

today an oppressive and unhealthy atmosphere is leading many Jews to feel uncertain about speaking out on Israel and Zionism. People are anxious about contravening an unwritten law on what you can and cannot discuss, may or may not assert. It is a climate that raises fundamental questions: about freedom of expression, Jewish identity, representation...Anguish turns to outrage when the human rights of a population under occupation are repeatedly violated in the name of the Jewish people.

No one has the authority to speak for the Jewish people...

...Faced with this state of affairs, a group of Jews in Britain has come together to launch Independent Jewish Voices (IJV). We come from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life. we are united by certain fundamental commitments...They include: putting human rights first; giving equal priority to Palestinians and Israelis in their quest for a peaceful and secure future; and repudiating all forms of racism aimed at Jews, Arabs, Muslims or whomever.

We believe that these commitments - not ethnic or group loyalties - define the limits of legitimate debate. We invite like-minded Jews in Britain to add their names to the list of IJV signatories...

...when we speak out against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, or the bombing of Lebanon, or discrimination against Palestinians within Israel itself, we are not turning against our Jewish identity; we are turning to it. Some of us, recalling that nearly 40 years have passed since Israel's occupation began, hear a resonance. This was the length of time the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, near the end of which Moses gave them a directive: "Justice, justice shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). It is a compass bearing for all humanity, especially when we are trying to find our way - or help others to find theirs - to a better future.

So, here's my letter-to-the-editor:-

Brian Klug bemoans an "oppressive atmosphere" that limits, he asserts, his and his comrades' freedom of expression within the Jewish community in the UK ("No one has the right to speak for British Jews on Israel and Zionism", Feb. 5). Well, thank God for The Guardian then.

As Klug is well aware, it is not the principle that is in dispute but the details. When critics of Israel's policies in the disputed territories or in Lebanon or in Israel itself adopt a standard of moral inequivalency, ignore Arab sins, glide over major societal and cultural differences, fudge historical facts, forget legal rights and in general, act in a street gang manner, they should know that it is fair and just to question their Jewish identity, or, at the very least, cast doubt whether they are interpreting to the non-Jewish public what Jewish identity is and what is Jewish nationalism.

The Biblical verse he quotes from Deuteronomy, "Justice, justice shall you pursue", is interpreted by the Rabbis as meaning that justice shall be pursued with justice. Klug , in his injudicious claims, is violating that instruction.

Nabbing at Annab

I found this sentence in a letter in the New York Times today:-

"Any variation of 'Free Palestine' is simply a plea for real justice and a
lasting peace, as is the reminder that the Palestinian refugees have always had
the inalienable, legal and sacred right to return to their original homes and
lands."

The letter was composed by Anne Selden Annab of Mechanicsburg, Pa. and I searched around an found her site (and there's another collection of her writings here).

Being who I am, I entered a comment although I am not sure it appears.

Here it is:-

"Congrats on getting published in the NYTimes. However, I really don't think the "sacred right" of which you write is the one that needs to be debated.

Arabs living in Palestine decided that Jews should not be able to immigrate to the country in great numbers, to buy land there and to attempt to establish a political framework to enable them to rule the land. While that is a position that can be understood and even considered admirable, it was morally, historical and legally misconstrued in that the land the Arabs were living on and in was the territory of the Jewish national homeland. That the Jews possessed a right to reconstitute their national existence there was recognized by the entire civilized world who conditioned the Zionist enterprise on assuring the personal and civil rights of the non-Jewish residents.

But the Arabs wanted to have it all and in the end, after 27 years of constant violence directed at Jews (newcomers, Orthodox with no discrimination), despite a compromise suggested by the United Nations which would award them 75% of the original Mandate area with 45% of the population of the new state to be of Arab demographics, they still wanted it all and launched a war.That war negated any suggested inalienable, legal and sacred right of return.

The recent violence (2000-2005) which saw the horrific acts of suicide bombers - a threat, by the way, not yet over - most certainly indicates a perverse attitude that needs to be corrected. How can someone hate another human being so much that they would kill themselves and specifically, in the process, seek out infants, children and non-combatants?"

Of course, I could have added that the current Pal. behavior is atrocious (and an update is here):-

Hamas gunmen stormed the home of a militant from the rival Fatah movement
on Friday, witnesses said, setting off a deadly gunfight and capping a day
of factional violence across the Gaza Strip that killed at least 13 people,
including a 2-year-old boy.

The fighting, among the deadliest in nearly two months, marred the
first anniversary of Hamas’s victory in Palestinian elections. After nightfall,
the fighting showed no signs of slowing, as the sound of gunfire echoed
throughout Gaza City.