The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé This article, excerpted and adapted from the early chapters of a new book, emphasizes the systematic preparations that laid the ground for the expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians from what became Israel in 1948.
While sketching the context and diplomatic and political developments of the period, the article highlights in particular a multi-year “Village Files” project (1940–47) involving the systematic compilation of maps and intelligence for each Arab village and the elaboration—under the direction of an inner “caucus” of fewer than a dozen men led by David Ben-Gurion—of a series of military plans culminating in Plan Dalet, according to which the 1948 war was fought.
The article ends with a statement of one of the author’s underlying goals in writing the book: to make the case for a paradigm of ethnic cleansing to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for the scholarly research of, and the public debate about, 1948
ILAN PAPPÉ, an Israeli historian and professor of political science at Haifa University, is the author of a number of books, including The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947–1951 (I. B. Tauris, 1994) and A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
The current article is extracted from early chapters of his latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oneworld Publications, Oxford, England, forthcoming in October 2006).
THE 1948 ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE ILAN PAPPÉ
This article, excerpted and adapted from the early chapters of a new book, emphasizes the systematic preparations that laid the ground for the expulsion of more than 750,000 Palestinians from what became Israel in 1948.
While sketching the context and diplomatic and political developments of the period, the article highlights in particular a multi-year “Village Files” project (1940–47) involving the systematic compilation of maps and intelligence for each Arab village and the elaboration—under the direction of an inner “caucus” of fewer than a dozen men led by David Ben-Gurion—of a series of military plans culminating in Plan Dalet, according to which the 1948 war was fought.
. The article ends with a statement of one of the author’s underlying goals in writing the book: to make the case for a paradigm of ethnic cleansing to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for the scholarly research of, and the public debate about, 1948.
ON A COLD WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, 10 March 1948, a group of eleven men, veteran Zionist leaders together with young military Jewish officers, put the final touches on a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine1.
That same evening, military orders were dispatched to
units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion of Palestinians from vast areas of the country 2.
The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centers; setting fire to homes, properties, and goods; expelling residents; demolishing homes; and, finally, planting mines in the rubble to prevent the expelled inhabitants from returning.
Each unit was issued its own list of villages and neighborhoods to target in keeping with the master plan.
Code-named Plan D (Dalet in Hebrew), this was the fourth and final version of vaguer plans outlining the fate that was in store for the native population of Palestine 3
The previous three plans had articulated only obscurely how the Zionist leadership intended to deal with the presence of so many Palestinians on the land the Jewish national movement wanted for itself.
This fourth and last blueprint spelled it out clearly and unambiguously: the Palestinians had to go
The plan, which covered both the rural and urban areas of Palestine, was the inevitable result both of Zionism’s ideological drive for an exclusively Jewish presence in Palestine and a response to developments on the ground following the British decision in February 1947 to end its Mandate over the country and turn the problem over to the United Nations
Clashes with local Palestinian militias, especially after the UN partition resolution of November 1947, provided the perfect context and pretext for implementing the ideological vision of an ethnically cleansed Palestine.
Once the plan was finalized, it took six months to complete the mission. When it was over, more than half of Palestine’s native population, over 750,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and 11 urban neighborhoods had been emptied of their inhabitants.
The plan decided upon on 10 March 1948, and above all its systematic implementation in the following months, was a clear case of what is now known as an ethnic cleansing operation.
DEFINING ETHNIC CLEANSING
Ethnic cleansing today is designated by international law as a crime against humanity, and those who perpetrate it are subject to adjudication: a special international tribunal has been set up in The Hague to prosecute those accused of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, and a similar court was established in Arusha, Tanzania, to deal with the Rwanda case.
The roots of ethnic cleansing are ancient, to be sure, and it has been practiced from biblical times to the modern age, including at the height of colonialism and in World War II by the Nazis and their allies
. But it was especially the events in the former Yugoslavia that gave rise to efforts to define the concept and that continue to serve as the prototype of ethnic cleansing. For example, in its special report on ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the U.S. State Department defines the term as “the systematic and forced removal of the members of an ethnic group from communities in order to change the ethnic composition of a given region.”
The report goes on to document numerous cases, including the depopulation within twenty-four hours of the western Kosovar town of Pec in spring 1999, which could
only have been achieved through advanced planning followed by systematic execution.4
Earlier, a congressional report prepared in August 1992 for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee had described the “process of population transfers aimed at removing the nonSerbian population from large areas of Bosnia-Hercegovina,” noting that the campaign had “substantially achieved its goals: an exclusively Serb-inhabited region . . . created by forcibly expelling the Muslim populations that had been the overwhelming majority.”
” According to this report, the two main elements of ethnic cleansing are, first, “the deliberate use of artillery and snipers against the civilian populations of the big cities,” and second, “the forced movement of civilian populations [entailing] the systematic destruction of homes, the looting of personal property, beatings, selective and random killings, and massacres.”5
Similar descriptions are found in the UN Council for Human Rights (UNCHR) report of 1993, which was prepared in follow-up to a UN Security Council Resolution of April 1993 that reaffirmed “its condemnation of all violations of international humanitarian law, in particular the practice of ‘ethnic cleansing.’”
Showing how a state’s desire to impose a single ethnic rule on a mixed area links up to acts of expulsion and violence, the report describes the unfolding ethnic cleansing process where men are separated from women and detained, where resistance leads to massacres, and where villages are blown up, with the remaining houses subsequently repopulated with another ethnic group.6
In addition to the United States and the UN, academics, too, have used the former Yugoslavia as the starting point for their studies of the phenomenon.
Drazen Petrovic has published one of the most comprehensive studies of ethnic cleansing, which he describes as “a well-defined policy of a particular group of persons to systematically eliminate another group from a given territory on the basis of religious, ethnic or national origin.
Such a policy involves violence and is very often connected with military operations.”7 Petrovic associates ethnic cleansing with nationalism, the creation of new nation-states, and national struggle, noting the close connection between politicians and the army in the perpetration of the crime: the political leadership delegates the implementation of the ethnic cleansing to the military level, and although it does not furnish systematic plans or provide explicit instructions, there is no doubt as to the overall objective
These descriptions almost exactly mirror what happened in Palestine in 1948: Plan D constitutes a veritable repertoire of the cleansing methods described in the various reports on Yugoslavia, setting the background for the massacres that accompanied the expulsions.
Indeed, it seems to me that had we never heard about the events in the former Yugoslavia of the 1990s and were aware only of the Palestine case, we would be forgiven for thinking that the Nakba had been the inspiration for the descriptions and definitions above, almost to the last detail.
Yet when it comes to the dispossession by Israel of the Palestinians in 1948, there is a deep chasm between the reality and the representation.
This is most bewildering, and it is difficult to understand how events perpetrated in modern times and witnessed by foreign reporters and UN observers could be systematically denied, not even recognized as historical fact, let
PAGE 4
Institute for Palestine Studies | Journals
alone acknowledged as a crime that needs to be confronted, politically as well as morally.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the ethnic cleansing of 1948, the most formative event in the modern history of the land of Palestine, has been almost entirely eradicated from the collective global memory and erased from the world’s conscience.
SETTING THE STAGE
When even a measure of Israeli responsibility for the disappearance of half the Arab population of Palestine is acknowledged (the official government version continues to reject any responsibility whatsoever, insisting that the local population left “voluntarily”), the standard explanation is that their flight was an unfortunate but unavoidable by-product of war.
But what happened in Palestine was by no means an unintended consequence, a fortuitous occurrence, or even a “miracle,” as Israel’s first president Chaim Weitzmann later proclaimed
Rather, it was the result of long and meticulous planning.
The potential for a future Jewish takeover of the country and the expulsion of the indigenous Palestinian people had been present in the writings of the founding fathers of Zionism, as scholars later discovered
. But it was not until the late 1930s, two decades after Britain’s 1917 promise to turn Palestine into a national home for the Jews (a pledge that became enshrined in Britain’s Mandate over Palestine in 1923), that Zionist leaders began to translate their abstract vision of Jewish exclusivity into more concrete plans
New vistas were opened in 1937 when the British Royal Peel Commission8 recommended partitioning Palestine into two states.
Though the territory earmarked for the Jewish state fell far short of Zionist ambitions, the leadership responded favorably, aware of the signal importance of official recognition of the principle of Jewish statehood on even part of Palestine.
Several years later, in 1942, a more maximalist strategy was adopted when the Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, in a meeting at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, put demands on the table for a Jewish commonwealth over the whole of Mandatory Palestine.9
Thus, the geographical space coveted by the movement changed according to circumstances and opportunities, but the principal objective remained the same: the creation in Palestine of a purely Jewish state, both as a safe haven for Jews and as the cradle of a new Jewish nationalism
And this state had to be exclusively Jewish not only in its sociopolitical structure but also in its ethnic composition.
That the top leaders were well aware of the implications of this exclusivity was clear in their internal debates, diaries, and private correspondence. Ben-Gurion, for example, wrote in a letter to his son in 1937, “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.”10
Unlike most of his colleagues in the Zionist leadership, who still hoped that by purchasing a piece of land here and a few houses there they would be able to realize their objective on the ground, Ben-Gurion had long understood that this would never be enough.
He recognized early on that the Jewish state could be won only by force but that it was necessary to bide one’s time until the opportune moment arrived for dealing militarily with the demographic reality on the ground: the
The Zionist movement, led by Ben-Gurion, wasted no time in preparing for the eventuality of taking the land by force if it were not granted through diplomacy.
These preparations included the building of an efficient military organization and the search for more ample financial resources (for which they tapped into the Jewish Diaspora).
In many ways, the creation of an embryonic diplomatic corps was also an integral part of the same general preparations aimed at creating by force a state in Palestine.
The principal paramilitary organization of the Jewish community in Palestine had been established in 1920 primarily to defend the Jewish colonies being implanted among Palestinian villages.
Sympathetic British officers, however, helped transform it into the military force that eventually was able to implement plans for the Zionist military takeover of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of its native population.
One officer in particular, Orde Wingate, was responsible for this transformation.
It was he who made the Zionist leaders realize more fully that the idea of Jewish statehood had to be closely associated with militarism and an army, not only to protect the growing number of Jewish colonies inside Palestine but also—more crucially—because acts of armed aggression were an effective deterrent against possible resistance by local Palestinians.
Assigned to Palestine in 1936, Wingate also succeeded in attaching Haganah troops to the British forces during the Arab Revolt (1936–39), enabling the Jews to practice the attack tactics he had taught them in rural areas and to learn even more effectively what a “punitive mission” to an Arab village ought to entail.
The Haganah also gained valuable military experience in World War II, when quite a few of its members volunteered for the British war effort.
Others who remained behind in Palestine, meanwhile, continued to monitor and infiltrate the 1,200 or so Palestinian villages that had dotted the countryside for hundreds of years.
THE VILLAGE FILES
Attacking Arab villages and carrying out punitive raids gave Zionists experience, but it was not enough; systematic planning was called for. In 1940, a young bespectacled Hebrew University historian named Ben-Zion Luria, then employed by the educational department of the Jewish Agency, the Zionist governing body in Palestine, made an important suggestion.
He pointed out how useful it would be to have a detailed registry of all Arab villages and proposed that the Jewish National Fund (JNF) conduct such an inventory.
“This would greatly help the redemption of the land,” he wrote to the JNF.11
He could not have chosen a better address: the way his initiative involved the JNF in the prospective ethnic cleansing was to generate added impetus and zeal to the expulsion plans that followed.
Founded in 1901 at the fifth Zionist Congress, the JNF was the Zionists’ principal tool for the colonization of Palestine.
. This was the agency the Zionist movement used to buy Palestinian land on which it then settled Jewish immigrants and that spearheaded the Zionization of Palestine throughout the Mandatory years.
“custodian” on behalf of the Jewish people of the land acquired by the Zionists in Palestine. The JNF maintained this role after Israel’s creation, with other missions being added to this primordial task over time.12
Despite the JNF’s best efforts, its success in land acquisition fell far short of its goals. Available financial resources were limited, Palestinian resistance was fierce, and British policies had become restrictive.
. The result was that by the end of the Mandate in 1948 the Zionist movement had been able to purchase no more than 5.8 percent of the land in Palestine.13
This is why Yossef Weitz, the head of the JNF settlement department and the quintessential Zionist colonialist, waxed lyrical when he heard about Luria’s village files, immediately suggesting that they be turned into a “national project.”14
All involved became fervent supporters of the idea.
Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, a historian and prominent member of the Zionist leadership (later to become Israel’s second president), wrote to Moshe Shertock (Sharett), the head of the political department of the Jewish Agency (and later Israel’s prime minister), that apart from topographically recording the layout of the villages, the project should also include exposing the “Hebraic origins” of each village.
Furthermore, it was important for the Haganah to know which of the villages were relatively new, as some of them had been built “only” during the Egyptian occupation of Palestine in the 1830s.15
But the main endeavor was mapping the villages, and to that end a Hebrew University topographer working in the Mandatory government’s cartography department was recruited to the enterprise.
He suggested preparing focal aerial maps and proudly showed Ben-Gurion two such maps for the villages of Sindyana and Sabarin. (These maps, now in the Israeli State Archives, are all that remains of these villages after 1948.)
The best professional photographers in the country were also invited to join the initiative.
Yitzhak Shefer, from Tel Aviv, and Margot Sadeh, the wife of Yitzhak Sadeh, the chief of the Palmah (the commando units of the Haganah), were recruited as well.
The film laboratory operated in Margot’s house with an irrigation company serving as a front: the lab had to be hidden from the British authorities who could have regarded it as an illegal intelligence effort directed against them.
Though the British were aware of the project, they never succeeded in locating the secret hideout.
In 1947, this whole cartographic department was moved to the Haganah headquarters in Tel Aviv.16
The end result of the combined topographic and Orientalist efforts was a large body of detailed files gradually built up for each of Palestine’s villages.
By the late 1940s, the “archive” was almost complete.
Precise details were recorded about the topographic location of each village, its access roads, quality of land, water springs, main sources of income, its sociopolitical composition, religious affiliations, names of its mukhtars, its relationship with other villages, the age of individual men (16–50), and much more
An important category was an index of “hostility” (toward the Zionist project, that is) as determined by the level of the village’s participation in the 1936–39 Arab Revolt. The
material included lists of everyone involved in the revolt and the families of those who had lost someone in the fight against the British. Particular attention was given to people alleged to have killed Jews.
That this was no mere academic exercise in geography was immediately obvious to the regular members of the Haganah who were entrusted with collecting the data on “reconnaissance” missions into the villages.
One of those who joined a data collection operation in 1940 was Moshe Pasternak, who recalled many years later:
We had to study the basic structure of the Arab village.
This means the structure and how best to attack it.
In the military schools, I had been taught how to attack a modern European city, not a primitive village in the Near East.
We could not compare it [an Arab village] to a Polish, or an Austrian one.
The Arab village, unlike the European ones, was built topographically on hills.
That meant we had to find out how best to approach the village from above or enter it from below.
We had to train our “Arabists” [the Orientalists who operated a network of collaborators] how best to work with informants.17
Indeed, the difficulties of “working with informants” and creating a collaborationist system with the “primitive” people “who like to drink coffee and eat rice with their hands” were noted in many of the village files.
Nonetheless, by 1943, Pasternak remembered, there was a growing sense that finally a proper network of informants was in place.
That same year, the village files were rearranged to become even more systematic.
This was mainly the work of one man, Ezra Danin,18 who was to play a leading role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
In many ways, it was the recruitment of Ezra Danin, who had been taken out of his successful citrus grove business for the purpose, that injected the intelligence work and the organization of the village files with a new level of efficiency
Files in the post-1943 era included for each village detailed descriptions of the husbandry, cultivation, the number of trees in plantations, the quality of each fruit grove (even of individual trees!), the average land holding per family, the number of cars, the names of shop owners, members of workshops, and the names of the artisans and their skills.19
Later, meticulous details were added about each clan and its political affiliation, the social stratification between notables and common peasants, and the names of the civil servants in the Mandatory government.
The antlike labor of the data collection created its own momentum, and around 1945 additional details began to appear such as descriptions of village mosques, the names of their imams (together with such characterizations as “he is an ordinary man”), and even precise accounts of the interiors of the homes of dignitaries.
Not surprisingly, as the end of the Mandate approached, the information became more explicitly military orientated: the number of guards in each village (most had none) and the quantity and quality of arms at the villagers’ disposal (generally antiquated or even nonexistent).20
Danin recruited a German Jew named Yaacov Shimoni, later to become one of Israel’s leading Orientalists, and put him in charge of “special projects” in the villages, in particular supervising the work of the informants.21
(One of these informants, nicknamed the “treasurer” (ha-gizbar) by Danin and Shimoni, proved a fountain of information for the data collectors and supervised the collaborators’ network on their behalf until 1945, when he was exposed and killed by Palestinian militants.22)
Other colleagues working with Danin and Shimoni were Yehoshua Palmon and Tuvia Lishanski, who also took an active part in preparing for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Lishanski had already been busy in the 1940s orchestrating campaigns to forcibly evict tenants living on lands purchased by the JNF from present or absentee landlords.
Not far from the village of Furiedis and the “veteran” Jewish settlement, Zikhron Yaacov, where today a road connects the coastal highway with Marj Ibn Amr (Emeq Izrael) through Wadi Milk, lies a youth village called Shefeya.
It was here that in 1944 special units employed by the village files project received their training, and it was from here that they went out on their reconnaissance missions.
Shefeya looked very much like a spy village in the cold war: Jews walking around speaking Arabic and trying to emulate what they believed were the customs and behavior of rural Palestinians.23
3 Many years later, in 2002, one of the first recruits to this special training base recalled his first reconnaissance mission to the nearby village of Umm al-Zaynat in 1944.
The aim had been to survey the village and bring back details of where the mukhtar lived, where the mosque was located, where the rich villagers lived, who had been active in the 1936–39 revolt, and so on.
These were not dangerous missions, as the infiltrators knew they could exploit the traditional Arab hospitality code and were even guests at the home of the mukhtar himself.
As they failed to collect in one day all the data they were seeking, they asked to be invited back.
For their second visit they had been instructed to make sure to get a good idea of the fertility of the land, whose quality seemed to have highly impressed them: in 1948, Umm al-Zaynat was destroyed and all its inhabitants expelled without any provocation on their part whatsoever.24
The final update of the village files took place in 1947. It focused on creating lists of “wanted” persons in each village.
In 1948, Jewish troops used these lists for the search-andarrest operations they carried out as soon as they had occupied a village.
That is, the men in the village would be lined up and those whose names appeared on the lists would be identified, often by the same person who had informed on them in the first place, but now wearing a cloth sack over his head with two holes cut out for his eyes so as not to be recognized.
The men who were picked out were often shot on the spot.
Among the criteria for inclusion in these lists, besides having participated in actions against the British and the Zionists, were involvement in the Palestinian national movement (which could apply to entire villages) and having close ties to the leader of the movement, the Mufti Haj Amin alHusayni, or being affiliated with his political party.25
Given the Mufti’s dominance of Palestinian politics since the establishment of the Mandate in 1923, and the prominent positions held by members of his party in the Arab Higher Committee that became the embryo government of the Palestinians, this offense too was very common. Other reasons
for being included in the list were such allegations as “known to have traveled to Lebanon” or “arrested by the British authorities for being a member of a national committee in the village.”26
An examination of the 1947 files shows that villages with about 1,500 inhabitants usually had 20–30 such suspects (for instance, around the southern Carmel mountains, south of Haifa, Umm al-Zaynat had 30 such suspects and the nearby village of Damun had 25).27
Yigael Yadin recalled that it was this minute and detailed knowledge of each and every Palestinian village that enabled the Zionist military command in November 1947 to conclude with confidence “that the Palestine Arabs had nobody to organize them properly.”
The only serious problem was the British: “If not for the British, we could have quelled the Arab riot [the opposition to the UN Partition Resolution in 1947] in one month.”28
GEARING UP FOR WAR
As World War II drew to a close, the Zionist movement had obtained a much clearer general sense of how best to go about getting its state off the ground.
By that time, it was clear that the Palestinians did not constitute a real obstacle to Zionist plans. True, they still formed the overwhelming majority in the land, and as such they were a demographic problem, but they were no longer feared as a military threat
A crucial factor was that the British had already completely destroyed the Palestinian leadership and defense capabilities in 1939 when they suppressed the 1936–39 Arab Revolt, allowing the Zionist leadership ample time to set out their next moves.
The Zionist leadership was also aware of the hesitant position that the Arab states as a whole were taking on the Palestine question.
Thus, once the danger of Nazi invasion into Palestine had been removed, the Zionist leaders were keenly aware that the sole obstacle that stood in the way of their seizing the country was the British presence.
As long as Britain had been holding the fort against Nazi Germany, it was impossible, of course, to pressure them.
But with the end of the war, and especially with the postwar Labor government looking for a democratic solution in Palestine (which would have spelled doom for the Zionist project given the 75-percent Arab majority), it was clear that Britain had to go.
Some 100,000 British troops remained in Palestine after the war and, in a country with a population under two million, this definitely served as a deterrent, even after Britain cut back its forces somewhat following the Jewish terrorist attack on it headquarters in the King David Hotel.
It was these considerations that prompted Ben-Gurion to conclude that it was better to settle for less than the 100 percent demanded under the 1942 Biltmore program and that a slightly smaller state would be enough to allow the Zionist movement to fulfill its dreams and ambitions.29
This was the issue that was debated by the movement in the final days of August 1946, when Ben-Gurion assembled the leadership of the Zionist movement at the Royal Monsue hotel in Paris.
Holding back the more extremist members, Ben-Gurion told the gathering that 80 to 90 percent of Mandatory Palestine was plenty for creating a viable state, provided
they were able to ensure Jewish predominance. “We will demand a large chunk of Palestine” he told those present.
A few months later the Jewish Agency translated Ben-Gurion’s “large chunk of Palestine” into a map which it distributed to the parties relevant to deciding the future of Palestine.
Interestingly, the Jewish Agency map, which was larger than the map proposed by the UN in November 1947, turned out to be, almost to the last dot, the map that emerged from the fighting in 1948–49: pre-1967 Israel, that is, Palestine without the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.30
The major topic on the Zionist agenda in 1946, the struggle against the British, resolved itself with Britain’s decision in February 1947 to quit Palestine and to transfer the Palestine question to the UN.
In fact, the British had little choice: after the Holocaust they would never be able to deal with the looming Jewish rebellion as they had with the Arab one in the 1930s.
Moreover, as the Labor party had made up its mind to leave India, Palestine lost much of its attraction.
Fuel shortages during a particularly cold winter in 1947 drove the message home to London that the empire was soon to be a second-rate power, its global influence dwarfed by the two new superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) and its postwar economy crippled.
Rather than hold onto remote places such as Palestine, the Labor party saw as its priority the building of a welfare state at home. In the end, Britain pulled out in a hurry, and with no regrets.31
By the end of 1946, even before Britain’s decision, Ben-Gurion had already realized that the British were on their way out and, with his aides, began working on a general strategy that could be implemented against the Palestinian population the moment the British were gone.
This strategy became Plan C, or Gimel in Hebrew. Plan C was a revised version of two earlier plans.
Plan A was also named the “Elimelech Plan,” after Elimelech Avnir, the Haganah commander in Tel Aviv who in 1937, at Ben-Gurion’s request, had set out possible guidelines for the takeover of Palestine in the event of a British withdrawal.
Plan B had been devised in 1946.
Shortly thereafter, the two plans were fused to form Plan C.
Like Plans A and B, Plan C aimed to prepare the Jewish community’s military forces for the offensive campaigns they would be waging against rural and urban Palestine after the departure of the British.
The purpose of such actions would be to “deter” the Palestinian population from attacking Jewish settlements and to retaliate for assaults on Jewish houses, roads, and traffic.
Plan C spelled out clearly what punitive actions of this kind would entail:
Striking at the political leadership.
Striking at inciters and their financial supporters.
Striking at Arabs who acted against Jews.
Striking at senior Arab officers and officials [in the Mandatory system].
Damaging the sources of livelihood and vital economic targets (water wells, mills, etc.).
Attacking villages, neighborhoods, likely to assist in future attacks.
Attacking clubs, coffee houses, meeting places, etc.
Plan C added that the data necessary for the successful performance of these actions could be found in the village files: lists of leaders, activists, “potential human targets,” the precise layout of villages, and so on.32
The plan lacked operational specifics, however, and within a few months, a new plan was drawn up, Plan D (Dalet).
This was the plan that sealed the fate of the Palestinians within the territory the Zionist leaders had set their eyes on for their future Jewish State.
Unlike Plan C, it contained direct references both to the geographical parameters of the future Jewish state (the 78 percent provided for in the 1946 Jewish Agency map) and to the fate of the one million Palestinians living within that space:
These operations can be carried out in the following manner: either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up, and by planting mines in their rubble), and especially those population centers that are difficult to control permanently; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the villages, conducting a search inside them. In case of resistance, the armed forces must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state.33
No village within the planned area of operations was exempted from these orders, either because of its location or because it was expected to put up some resistance.
This was the master plan for the expulsion of all the villages in rural Palestine
Similar instructions were given, in much the same wording, for actions directed at Palestine’s urban centers.
The orders coming through to the units in the field were more specific.
The country was divided into zones according to the number of brigades, whereby the four original brigades of the Haganah were turned into twelve so as to facilitate implementing the plan
Each brigade commander received a list of the villages or neighborhoods in his zone that had to be occupied, destroyed, and their inhabitants expelled, with exact dates
Some commanders were overly zealous in executing their orders, adding other locations as the momentum of their operation carried them forward.
Some of the orders, on the other hand, proved too ambitious and could not be implemented within the expected timetable.
This meant that several villages on the coast that had been scheduled to be occupied in May were destroyed only in July.
And the villages in the Wadi Ara area—a valley connecting the coast near Hadera with Marj Ibn Amr (Emeq Izrael) and Afula (today’s Route 65)—somehow
succeeded in surviving all the Jewish attacks until the end of the war. But they were the exception.
For the most part, the destruction of the villages and urban neighborhoods, and the removal of their inhabitants, took place as planned.
And by the time the direct order had been issued in March, thirty villages were already obliterated.
A few days after Plan D was typed out, it was distributed among the commanders of the dozen brigades that now comprised the Haganah.
With the list each commander received came a detailed description of the villages in his field of operation and their imminent fate— occupation, destruction, and expulsion.
The Israeli documents released from the IDF archives in the late 1990s show clearly that, contrary to claims made by historians such as Benny Morris, Plan Dalet was handed down to the brigade commanders not as vague guidelines, but as clear-cut operative orders for action.34
Unlike the general draft that was sent to the political leaders, the instructions and lists of villages received by the military commanders did not place any restrictions on how the action of destruction or expulsion was to be carried out.
There were no provisions as to how villages could avoid their fate, for example through unconditional surrender, as promised in the general document.
There was another difference between the draft handed to the politicians and the one given to the military commanders: the official draft stated that the plan would not be activated until after the Mandate ended, whereas the officers on the ground were ordered to start executing it within a few days of its adoption.
This dichotomy is typical of the relationship that exists in Israel between the army and politicians until today —the army quite often misinforms the politicians of their real intentions, as Moshe Dayan did in 1956, Ariel Sharon did in 1982, and Shaul Mofaz did in 2000.
What the political version of Plan Dalet and the military directives had in common was the overall purpose of the scheme. In other words, even before the direct orders had reached the field, troops already knew exactly what was expected of them.
The venerable and courageous Israeli fighter for civil rights, Shulamit Aloni, who was an officer at the time, recalls how special political officers would come down and actively incite the troops by demonizing the Palestinians and invoking the Holocaust as the point of reference for the operation ahead, often planned for the day after the indoctrination had taken place.35
THE PARADIGM OF ETHNIC CLEANSING
In my forthcoming book, I want to explore the mechanism of the ethnic cleansing of 1948 as well as the cognitive system that has allowed the world to forget and the perpetrators to deny the crime committed by the Zionist movement against the Palestinian people.
In other words, I want to make the case for a paradigm of ethnic cleansing to replace the paradigm of war as the basis for the scholarly research of, and the public debate about, 1948.
I have no doubt that the absence so far of the paradigm of ethnic cleansing is one reason why the denial of the catastrophe has gone on for so long. It is not that the Zionist
movement, in creating its nation-state, waged a war that “tragically but inevitably” led to the expulsion of “parts of the indigenous population.”
Rather, it is the other way round: the objective was the ethnic cleansing of the country the movement coveted for its new state, and the war was the consequence, the means to carry it out.
On 15 May 1948, the day after the official end of the Mandate and the day the State of Israel was proclaimed, the neighboring Arab states sent a small army—small in comparison to their overall military capability—to try to stop the ethnic cleansing operations that had already been in full swing for over a month.
The war with the regular Arab armies did nothing to prevent the ongoing ethnic cleansing, which continued to its successful completion in the autumn of 1948.
To many, the idea of adopting the paradigm of ethnic cleansing as the a priori basis for the narrative of 1948 may appear no more than an indictment.
And in many ways, it is indeed my own J’Accuse against the politicians who devised the ethnic cleansing and the generals who carried it out.
These men are not obscure.
They are the heroes of the Jewish war of independence, and their names will be quite familiar to most readers.
The list begins with the indisputable leader of the Zionist movement, David Ben-Gurion, in whose private home all the chapters in the ethnic cleansing scheme were discussed and finalized.
He was aided by a small group of people I refer to as the “Consultancy,” an ad-hoc cabal assembled solely for the purpose of planning the dispossession of the Palestinians.36
In one of the rare documents that records the meeting of this body, it is referred to as the Consultant Committee—Haveadah Hamyeazet; in another document the eleven names of the committee appear.37
Though these names were all erased by the censor, it has been possible to reconstruct them.
This caucus prepared the plans for the ethnic cleansing and supervised its execution until the job of uprooting half of Palestine’s native population had been completed.
It included first and foremost the top-ranking officers of the future state’s army, such as the legendary Yigael Yadin and Moshe Dayan.
They were joined by figures little known outside Israel but well grounded in the local ethos, such as Yigal Alon and Yitzhak Sadeh, followed by regional commanders, such as Moshe Kalman, who cleansed the Safad area, and Moshe Carmel, who uprooted most of the Galilee.
Yitzhak Rabin operated both in al-Lyyd and Ramleh, as well as in the Greater Jerusalem area. Shimon Avidan cleansed the south; many years later Rehavam Ze’evi, who fought with him, said admiringly that he “cleansed his front from tens of villages and towns.”38
Also on the southern front was Yitzhak Pundak, who told Ha’Aretz in 2004, “There were two hundred villages [in the front] and they are gone. We had to destroy them, otherwise we would have had Arabs here [namely in the southern part of Palestine] as we have in Galilee. We would have had another million Palestinians.”39
These military men commingled with what nowadays we would call the “Orientalists”: experts on the Arab world at large, and the Palestinians in particular, either because they themselves came from Arab lands or because they were scholars in the field of Middle Eastern studies.
Some of these were intelligence officers on the ground during this crucial period.
Far from being mere collectors of data on the “enemy,” intelligence officers not only
played a major role in preparing for the cleansing, but some also personally took part in some of the worst atrocities that accompanied the systematic dispossession of the Palestinians.
It was they who were given the final authority to decide which villages would be ground to dust and which villagers would be executed.40
In the memories of Palestinian survivors, they were the ones who, after a village or neighborhood had been occupied, decided the fate of its peasants or town dwellers, which could mean imprisonment or freedom or spell the difference between life and death.
Their operations in 1948 were supervised by Issar Harel, who later became the first head of Mossad and the Shin Bet, Israel’s secret services.
I mention their names, but my purpose in doing so is not that I want to see them posthumously brought to trial.
Rather, my aim here and in my book is to humanize the victimizers as well as the victims:
: I want to prevent the crimes Israel committed from being attributed to such elusive factors as “the circumstances,” “the army,” or, as Benny Morris has it, “la guerre comme la guerre,” and similar vague references that let sovereign states off the hook and give individuals a clear conscience.
I accuse, but I am also part of the society that stands condemned.
I feel both responsible for, and part of, the story.
But like others in my own society, I am also convinced that a painful journey into the past is the only way forward if we want to create a better future for us all, Palestinians and Israelis alike.
NOTES
1. The composition of the group that met is the product of a mosaic reconstruction of several documents, as will be demonstrated in my book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006).
The document summarizing the meeting is found in the Israel Defense Force Archives [IDFA], GHQ/Operations branch, 10 March 1948, File no. 922/75/595, and in the Haganah Archives [HA], File no. 73/94.
The description of the meeting is repeated by Israel Galili in the Mapai center meeting, 4 April 1948, found in the HA, File no. 80/50/18. Chapter 4 of my book also documents the messages that went out on 10 March as well as the eleven meetings prior to finalizing of the plan, of which full minutes were recorded only for the January meeting.
2. The historian Meir Pail claims, in From Haganah to the IDF [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Zemora Bitan Modan, n.d.), p. 307, that the orders were sent a week later
For the dispatch of the orders, see also Gershon Rivlin and Elhanan Oren, The War of Independence: Ben-Gurion’s Diary, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense, 1982), p. 147.
The orders dispatched to the Haganah brigades to move to State D—Mazav Dalet—and from the brigades to the battalions can be found in HA, File no. 73/94, 16 April 1948.
3. On Plan Dalet, which was approved in its broad lines several weeks before that meeting, see Uri Ben-Eliezer, The Emergence of Israeli Militarism, 1936–1956 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1995), p. 253: “Plan Dalet aimed at cleansing of villages, expulsion of Arabs from mixed towns.”
21. Hillel Cohen, The Shadow Army: Palestinian Collaborators in the Service of Zionism [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Hozata Ivrit, 2004).
22. Interview with Palti Sela, HA, File no. 205.9, 10 January 1988.
23. Interview, HA, File no. 194.7, pp. 1–3, 19 December 2002
24. HA, Village Files, File no. 105/255 files from January 1947
25. IDFA, File no. 114/49/5943, orders from 13 April 1948.
26. IDFA, File no. 105.178.
27. HA, Village Files, File no. 105/255, from January 1947.
28. Quoted in Harry Sacher, Israel: The Establishment of a State (London: Wiedenfels and Nicloson, 1952), p. 217.
29. On British policy, see Ilan Pappé, Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948–1951 (London: St. Antony’s/Macmillan Press, 1984)
30. Moshe Sluzki interview with Moshe Sneh in Gershon Rivlin, ed., Olive Leaves and Sword: Documents and Studies of the Haganah [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: IDF Publications, 1990), pp. 9– 40
31. See Pappé, Britain.
32. Yehuda Sluzki, The Haganah Book, vol. 3, part 3 [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: IDF Publications, 1964), p. 1942.
33. The English translation is in Walid Khalidi, “Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine,” Journal of Palestine Studies 38, no. 1 (Autumn 1988), pp. 4–20.
34. See discussion of State D (Mazav Dalet)—that is, the transition from Plan D to its actual implementation—in chapter 5 of Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing.
35. The plan distributed to the soldiers and the first direct commands are in IDFA, File no. 1950/2315 File 47, 11 May 1948.
36. The most important meetings are described in chapter 3 of Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing
37. “From Ben-Gurion to Galili and the Members of the Committee,” BGA, Correspondence Section, 1.01.1948–07.01.48, documents 79–81. The document also provides a list of forty Palestinians leaders that are target for assassination by the Haganah forces.
38. Yedi’ot Aharonot, 2 February 1992.
39. Ha’Aretz, 21 May 2004.
40. For details, see Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing. The authority to destroy can be found in the orders sent on 10 March to the troops and specific orders authorizing executions are in IDFA, File no. 5943/49 doc. 114, 13 April 1948.
Kan iemand mij uitleggen wat de grondslag is van het bestaan van een Israëlische staat? Ik probeer zoveel mogelijk te onderzoeken wat hier nu aan de hand is maar ik kan niet echt een rechtmatige grondslag vinden hiervoor.
Oei! Wat een probleem! Ik neem aan dat U thuis ook een ingelijste kopie van de ‘rechtmatige grondslag’ van alle andere ongeveer tweehonderd landen van de wereld boven het dressoir heeft hangen. Maar waar -potverdorie- is nou die van Israël? Nou als U ‘em niet kan vinden, dan zal er wel iets niet in de haak zijn, nietwaar? Een illegaal land! Nee maar! Bel de politie!
De Israëlische staat is uitgeroepen in Tel Aviv op 14 mei 1948 nadat de Verenigde Naties in november 1947 het verdelingsplan, waarbij werd voorgesteld hoe het Britse mandaatgebied ‘Palestina’ zou kunnen worden verdeeld in een Joods en een Arabisch territorium, middels een stemming hadden goedgekeurd. De Britten hadden bekend gemaakt het mandaat terug te geven aan de Verenigde Naties en in mei 1948 te vertrekken. Het Joods Agentschap, dat de Joodse gemeenschap in het Engelse mandaatgebied Palestina vertegenwoordigde had het plan aangenomen maar de Arabische gemeenschap had het afgewezen. Aan de bevolking werd niets gevraagd, aan beide zijden niet. Ondertussen woedde er een halve burgeroorlog waar de Britten steeds meer klem kwamen te zitten tussen de twee partijen. Onmiddellijk op het Britse vertrek volgde het feitelijke uitroepen van de staat Israël door het hoofd van het Joods Agentschap, David Ben Gurion. De staat Israël werd daardoor de legale opvolger van het mandaatgebied Palestina. Er was tenslotte geen Arabische staat om die status mee te delen of te onderhandelen over een verdeling. In plaats daarvan ging de tegenpartij (in de vorm van vijf buurlanden, inclusief Irak) de volgende dag tot de aanval over. Zo begon de Israëlische Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog.
Na de formele stichting erkende het ene na het andere land de nieuwe Joodse staat en een jaar later werd Israël toegelaten tot de Verenigde Naties. Omdat de Arabieren tegen een Joodse staat waren, en noch het bestuur van het gebied wilde delen, noch het gebied zelf wilde vérdelen in verschillende territoria, kwam er geen Arabische staat. Ze blokkeerden hun eigen staat omdat ze het héle gebied voor zichzelf wilden. En dat is nog steeds zo. Ze zijn niet alleen tegen een Joodse staat, ze zijn tegen elke Joodse aanwezigheid in het gebied. Elke Jood is er één teveel. Waar kennen we dat van?
NB: er bestaat geen officiële internationale legale orde voor de ‘wettigheid’ van staten, wel een onofficiële. Daarin staan vuistregels voor soevereiniteit die een soort lakmoesproef zijn voor ‘statendom’: Er moet een gevestigde gemeenschap bestaan die binnen een bepaald afgegrensd territorium leeft en die streeft naar soevereiniteit. Er moet een vorm van georganiseerd gezag bestaan -maar dat kan dus ook een dictator zijn- en dat gezag moet internationale betrekkingen kunnen onderhouden. Een constitutie of een ander soort wettelijk document is niet vereist. Vlaggen, volksliederen en heilige boeken zijn er ook slechts voor de folklore maar mensen hechten er vaak veel waarde aan.
Wat wel belangrijk is, is in hoeverre een staat door de internationale gemeenschap van andere staten wordt erkend en daar gebruiken ze die vuistregels voor. Voor Israël is dat vrijwel alle staten ter wereld minus een handvol Islamitische staten, waaronder staten die het land in 1948 en daarna aanvielen, zoals Libanon, Syrië en Saudie-Arabië. Er zijn zat landen die door heel weinig landen worden erkend zoals Noord-Cyprus en Zuid-Ossetië. Ook Taiwan wordt maar door enkele landen erkend. Die landen voldoen best aan de criteria maar er liggen politieke obstakels in de weg die erkenning in weg staan.
Een Joodse Staat, gesticht in Palestina, over de ruggen van
de autochtone bevolking heen
DAT is het huidige Israel!
”HET IS ALSOF ER NA 2000 JAAR BATAV IEREN NAAR NEDERLAND
KOMEN EN EISEN, DAT NEDERLAND WORDT OPGEDEELD EN DAT
ER EEN BATAAFSE STAAT WORDT GESTICHT OP NEDERLANDS
GRONDGEBIED!
Het IS in zekere zin [helaas toegelaten tot de VN] een Illegaal Land.
Waarom?
Omdat de originele autochtone bevolking, de Palestijnen, zijn verdreven,
gekoloniseerd, hun land afgepakt!
In het Begin [begin twintigste Eeuw] was het huidige Israel, Palestina genaamd.
De originele naam door de Eeuwen heen.
Palestina was een kolonie/bezit van het Ottomaanse Rijk.
Door de opkomst van de zionistishe Beweging [de beweging, die ijverde
voor de vestiging van Joden in Palestina, uitmondend in een Joodse Staat
in Palestina, een beweging, opgericht door de Joodse journalist Theodor Herzl en voortkomende uit de EUROPESE Jodenvervolgingen], werd Palestina,
ergo de oorspronkelijke bewoners, de Palestijnen, een speelbal in
de internationale politiek.
Want de zionistische Beweging groeide en op instigatie van Baron Rotchild, voorzitter van de zionistische beweging in Engeland, kwam de Balfour Declaration tot stand, een belofte van de Britse regering, zich in te zetten
En om een lang Verhaal kort te maken, na de WO II werd via VN AV Resolutie 181 uiteindelijk Palestina verdeeld in een Joods en Arabisch-Palestijns deel
IN DE MAAND JANUARI DOODGESCHOTEN DOOR ISRAELISCHE MILITAIREN [1]
IN MEMORIAM DE TWEE PALESTIJNSE KINDEREN EN HUN VADER, DIE ZIJN OMGEKOMEN BIJ EEN ISRAELISCHE LUCHTAANVAL, WIER BEGRAFENIS IS AFGEBEELD OP DE WINNENDE WORLD PRESS PHOTO
IN MEMORIAM ALLE SLACHTOFFERS VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING HOE LANG NOG?
’’The strength of the pictures lies in the way it contrasts the anger and sorrow of the adults with the innocence of the children. It’s a picture I will not forget’’ [2]
Met deze woorden karakteriseerde jurylid Mayu Mohanna uit Peru op treffende wijze de winnende World Press Photo [3] van de Zweedse fotograaf Paul Hansen voor zijn foto ’’Gaza Burial’’, die een begrafenisstoet van een menigte mannen in Gaza liet zien. Zij brachten twee overleden kinderen en hun vader naar de Moskee, nadat zij waren omgekomen bij een Israelische luchtaanval.
In deze tijd van vluchtige nieuwsinformatie, waar het ene onrecht [4] snel weer plaatsmaakt voor het andere [5] en het bloedige Israelische Gaza offensief van november 2012 [6] alweer vergeten lijkt, is deze prijswinning van deze tegelijkertijd huiveringwekkende en indrukwekkende Gaza Burial foto van groot belang, omdat zo de aandacht weer wordt gevestigd op deze schokkende oorlogsmisdaden, die zich voortdurend herhalen [7] tegen de achtergrond van de reeds 46 jaar durende Israelische bezetting van de Palestijnse gebieden. Van belang dus, wat dieper op die bezetting in te gaan. Maar daarvoor korte aandacht voor de historische oorzaak van her Midden Oostenconflict
VOORGESCHIEDENIS De Palestijnse tragedie/Achtergronden
Hoewel de Israelische bezetting de oorzaak is van het hedendaagse Midden Oostenconflict, gaat de Palestijnse tragedie veel verder terug, namelijk tot aan het eind van de 19 de eeuw, toen, onder invloed van de hevige Jodenvervolgingen, met name in Oost-Europa, maar ook de kwestie Dreyfuss [8], door de Oostenrijkse journalist T Herzl de zionistische beweging werd gesticht, met als doel het stichten van een Joodse Staat in Palestina, toenmalige kolonie van het Ottomaanse Rijk. Dit streven kreeg de eerste voet aan de grond door middel van de Balfour Declaratie in 1917, waarbij de toenmalige Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken in een brief aan Lord Rotschild, voorzitter van de Britse Zionistische Federatie toezegde zich in te zetten voor de stichting van een ’’Joods Nationaal Tehuis’’ in Palestina [9]. Toen na de Eerste Wereldoorlog de vroegere kolonieen van verliezer het Turkse Rijk [10] werden opgedeeld tussen de koloniale machten Groot-Brittannie en Frankrijk, werd Palestina Brits mandaatgebied in 1922. Dit was de tijd, waarin zich in de kolonieen steeds actiever nationalistische onafhankelijkheidsbewegingen gingen ontwikkelen, zo ook in Palestina, waar men door te ijveren voor onafhankelijkheid uiteraard haaks kwam te staan, niet alleen tegenover het Britse kolonialisme, maar ook met tegenover het zionistische streven, een ’’Staat’’ te stichten in Palestina, wat immers een flagrante schending was van het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van het Palestijnse volk.
Dit leidde in de dertiger jaren tot een grote botsing met het Brits koloniale gezag en de zionistische beweging en resulteerde in de Arabische Opstand [11], die hard door de Britten werd neergeslagen.
Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog
Maar de zaak escaleerde pas echt na de Tweede Wereldoorlog, toen middels VN Resolutie 181 [1947] over de ruggen van het Palestijnse volk, Palestina werd verdeeld in een Joods en Arabisch deel Jeruzalem zou een internationale status krijgen. Een puur neo kolonialistische beslissing, die ook grotendeels werd genomen door de toenmalige koloniale mogendheden [de kolonieen waren nog niet onafhankelijk en dus geen lid van de VN] en van hen afhankelijke landen. Het was dan ook geen wonder, dat de Palestijnen daarmee niet akkoord gingen.
In mei 1948 riep de zionistische leider David Ben Goerion eenzijdig de Staat Israel uit [VN resolutie 181 voorzag in een Federatie waarin een Joods en Arabisch deel zou bestaan], waarna een militair treffen plaatsvond tussen de Israelisch-zionistische geregelde [Haganah] troepen en de extreem rechtse terreurbendes Irgoen en Stern enerzijds en de door enkele[slecht bewapende] Arabische landen gesteunde Palestijnen anderszijds.
De oorlog liep voor de Palestijnen uit op een ramp en werd dan ook Al Nakba [ramp] genoemd Meer dan 750 000 Palestijnen werden door Israelisch-zionistische troepen en terreurbenden van huis en haar verdreven, er werden massaslachtingen aangericht zoals in het dorp Deir Yassin [12] en meer dan 400 Arabische dorpen werden verwoest [13]. Ook werd een deel van het aan de Arabieren toegewezen gebied [bij VN Resolutie 181] door de Israelische troepen bezet, waardoor in feite de bezetting al in 1948 begon.
TERUG NAAR HET ’’HEDEN’’ DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING
Het woord heden heb ik tussen aanhalingstekens gezet, omdat de Israelische bezetting in 1967 is begonnen. Aan de andere kant duurt deze tot de dag van vandaag voort, met alle vernietigende gevolgen van dien.
Sinds 1967 is er sprake van de Israelische bezetting van de Palestijnse gebieden op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, Gaza [14] en Oost-Jeruzalem ondanks Vn Veiligheidsraadsresolutie 242, die Israel in 1947 opriep, zich terug te trekken uit de in de juni oorlog veroverde gebieden, waaronder de bovengenoemde Palestijnse. Een Resolutie, waaraan Israel tot op de dag van heden [16 februari 2013] geen gehoor gegeven heeft. Het ziet er ook bepaald niet naar uit, dat dit binnenkort wel zal gebeuren.
Nog los van de onrechtmatigheid van deze bezetting is inherent aan iedere bezetting waar ook ter wereld, onderdrukking, vernederingen en mensenrechtenschendingen. En tegen iedere bezetting komt verzet, in het geval van de Palestijnen in legitiem [gericht tegen het Israelische leger] en niet legitiem [gericht tegen Israelische burgers en burgerdoelen]. Ik ben tegenstander van niet legitiem verzet, maar moet bekennen, dat de Palestijnen steeds meer in een hopeloze situatie worden gedreven. Israel heeft volledig zelf de sleutel in handen om aan die bezetting een einde te maken, maar doet dat niet integendeel.
ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING DUISTER BIJPRODUCT VAN DE BEZETTING/DE NEDERZETTINGEN
Vanaf het einde van de zestiger jaren werden in de bezette Palestijnse gebieden Israelisch-Joodse nederzettingen gesticht. Niet alleen zijn zij in strijd met het Internationaal Recht [15] [artikel 49, 4e Conventie van Geneve en het Haags Verdrag van 1907], bovendien zijn zij tot stand gekomen door massale Palestijnse landonteigeningen, waardoor honderdduizenden Palestijnen nog eens van huis en haard zijn verdreven [16]. Deze nederzettingen zijn ook nogeens veroordeeld in twee VN Veiligheidsraadsresoluties, 446 en 452 en opgeroepen de bouw van nederzettingen in bezet Palestijns gebied te stoppen [17].
NEDERZETTINGENBOUW 2012/2013
Brutaalweg bouwt Israel tot op heden vrolijk door aan de nederzettingen in de Westelijke Jordaanoever en Oost-Jeruzalem [waar Palestijnen uit hun huizen worden verdreven].
Deze onverminderde nederzettingenbouw is in het jaarraport van de mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch in niet mis te verstand termen veroordeeld [18]. Veel minder verwacht is de terechtwijzing door minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Timmermans van het doorgaans zo pro Israel gezinde Nederland [19]. Daarvan trekt Israel zich niets aan. Het heeft zelfs de guts, door te gaan met de nederzettingenuitbreiding als ’’strafmaatregel’’ [20] tegen het feit, dat Palestina te langen leste de status als waarnemend niet lidstaat van de VN heeft verkregen [21]. Daarop heeft de EU voor haar doen schijnbaar pittig gereageerd door de Israelische ambassadeur op het matje te roepen [22], wat ook Groot Brittannie en Frankrijk gedaan hebben [23].
Hoewel het niet vaak voorkomt, dat de EU/EU landen dergelijke ’’schijnbaar pittige’’ signalen aan Israel afgeven [het woord ’’schijnbaar’’ zegt het al], moet men zich daarvan niet teveel voorstellen. Ten eerste heeft het voor Israel geen enkel daadwerkelijk gevolg gehad. Ten tweede heeft diezelfde EU in october 2012, toen de Israelische nederzettingenbouw op de Westelijke Jordaanoever in volle gang was, een handelsdeal met Israel gesloten [24].
ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING DE ISRAELISCHE MUUR/IN STRIJD MET HET INTERNATIONAAL RECHT
Israel bouwt sinds 2002 een Muur, die grotendeels door de bezette Palestijnse gebieden loopt en op 9 juli 2004 door het Internationaal Gerechtshof in Den Haag is veroordeeld als illegaal. Omdat het door bezet Palestijns gebied loopt [25]. Ondanks die veroordeling heeft Israel sindsdien gewoon door gebouwd.
Behalve de de facto annexatie van bezet gebied door Israel heeft het ernstige gevolgen voor het dagelijks leven van de Palestijnse bevolking. Hun bewegingsvrijheid word belemmerd en omdat hun velden vaak in het ’’geannexreerde’’ deel liggen, is oogsten moeilijk evenals het verkopen van producten. Dit gaat om duizenden mensen [26]. Vaak wordt ook de toegang tot onderwijs en medische voorzieningen belemmerd. In sommige gevallen is zelfs een hele stad omsloten door de Muur, zoals bij de stad Qalqilya het geval is. Gevolg is, dat de bewoners alleen via twee controleposten in Oostelijke richting hun stad kunnen verlaten [27].
ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING BLOKKADE GAZA/MISDAAD TEGEN DE MENSELIJKHEID
Een van de meest verachtelijke zaken in een oorlog/conflict is wel het collectief straffen van de burgerbevolking, wat dan ook nadrukkelijk is verboden volgens het Internationaal Recht [28]. Dat collectief straffen kan allerlei vormen aannemen zoals intimidatie en huisvernietigingen [29]. Het meest verachtelijke en misdadige is echter het geheel of gedeeltelijk uithongeren van de burgerbevolking, zoals dat in Gaza door de Gaza Blokkade [30] gebeurt. Het uithongeren van de burgerbevolking ’’as a method of warfare’’ is verboden [31], dat zal iedereen duidelijk zijn. Maar los van dat verbod is het laf, misdadig en minderwaardig. Niet voor niets is de nu reeds vanaf 2006 durende Blokkade van Gaza door VN rapporteur Falk een ’’misdaad tegen de menselijkheid’’ genoemd [32]. Daarbij wordt nu eens wel, dan weer niet, de grens van Gaza door het Israelische leger afgesloten, waardoor allerlei noodzakelijke goederen en levensbehoeften [medicijnen brandstof, voedselproducten] niet door kunnen gaan. Ik heb mij ook in die zin al uitgelaten, voordat ik zijn reactie gezien had [33]. Mensenrechtenorganisaties als Amnesty International en Human Rights Watch roepen geregeld op tot beeindiging van de Gaza Blokkade [34].
Er zitten duizenden Palestijnse gevangenen gedetineerd in Israel, meestal in adminstratieve detentie [35] [zonder vorm van aanklacht en proces] wat verboden is en vaak onder zeer slechte omstandigheden. Voorbeelden zijn slechte hygiënische omstandigheden, slecht voedsel, intimidatie en langdurige eenzame opsluiting [36]. Nog ernstiger is foltering, vaak tijdens verhoren [37]. Ook kinderen zijn vaak slachtoffer van een slechte behandeling en detentieomstandigheden, wat gezien hun jonge en kwetsbare leeftijd nog ernstiger is [38].
Vanzelfsprekend zijn er dan ook geregeld hongerstakingen tegen deze inhumane omstandigheden. Op dit moment vraagt Amnesty International aandacht voor Samer Issawi, 34 jaar, DIE ERNSTIG ZIEK IS EN VOOR WIENS LEVEN GEVREESD MOET WORDEN [39]. De reden voor zijn hongerstaking is zijn protest tegen de weigering van de Israelische militaire Commissie hem en zijn advocaat inzicht te geven in de redenen, waarom hij gevangen zit [40].
ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING/DE ISRAELISCHE VUILE OORLOGEN TEGEN DE PALESTIJNSE BURGERBEVOLKING
’’Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.’’
Terug bij het begin van dit artikel. De dood van twee Palestijnse kinderen en hun vader bij een Israelische luchtaanval op Gaza: Dit is bij Israelische militaire aanvallen eerder regel dan uitzondering!
Een van de grondregels in het Internationaal Humanitair Oorlogsrecht is, naast humane behandeling van [krijgs] gevangenen, de bescherming van de burgerbevolking. Militaire aanvallen mogen alleen gericht zijn tegen combatanten [militairen en strijders] en een strict onderescheid tussen combatanten en non combatanten [burgers] moet gemaakt worden, zowel in aanval als in wapenkeuze. Ik kan wel stellen, na bestudering van een reeks Israelische militaire aanvallen, die zich vooral op Gaza richtten, dat Israel zich zelden of nooit aan die regels gehouden heeft. Het regent bij Israelische militaire campagnes van de willekeurige militaire aanvallen en bij de beruchte Israelische liquidaties van Palestijnse leiders en activisten [die for the record ook verboden zijn als buitengerechtelijke executies] worden meestal ook niets vermoedende voorbijgangers of bewoners getroffen, aangezien die aanvallen vaak plaatsvinden in drukke straten, op vluchtelingenkampen en flatgebouwen [41].
Bij Operation Cast Lead van 2008-2009 werden in drie weken tijd 1389 mensen gedood waaronder 350 kinderen, er raakten meer dan 5300 mensen gewond waaronder 350 ernstig [42].
Bij Operatie Pillars of Defense [of Pillars of Cloud] van 14 november tot 21 november 2012 [43] vielen in de week van strijd meer dan 100 doden aan Palestijnse kant, waaronder ruim 30 kinderen [44]. Aan Israelische zijde vielen drie burgerslachtoffers ten gevolge van Palestijnse raketaanvallen en enkele tientallen gewonden [45].
Na deze zeer bloedige week werd er een wapensstilstand gesloten tussen Israel en Hamas [46], die tot nu toe althans wat betreft de directe militaire confrontatie in Gaza [vertaal: Israelische militaire aanvallen[ stand lijkt te houden. Maar dit is niet aan Israel, maar aan de zelfbeheersing van Hamas [47] te danken Israel namelijk schond reeds de volgende dag de wapenstilstand door een Palestijn neer te schieten, die de bufferzone rondom de Gaza strook bij de stad Khan Younis naderde 8 Palestijnse tieners raakten gewond [48].
PALESTIJNSE RAKETAANVALLEN OP ISRAELISCHE STEDEN
’’Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.’’
Dit artikel is gestart met het onrecht van de israelische bezetting van de Palestijnse gebieden, die de bron is van het hedendaagse Midden Oostenconflict. De oplossing is dan ook gelegen in de het ongedaan maken van die bezetting door Israel Israel, de bezettende macht, is verantwoordelijk voor de onderdrukking, vernederingen en ongestrafte oorlogsmisdaden waaronder het Palestijnse volk al decennialang lijdt.
Dat wil echter niet zeggen, dat er geen onrecht/ mensenrechtenschendingen aan Palestijnse kant plaatsvinden. Dezelfde bescherming, die Palestijnse burgers dienen te krijgen tegen Israelische militaire aanvallen, geldt ook voor Israelische burgers tegen Palestijnse [raket] aanvallen op Israelische burgerdoelen.
Hoe begrijpelijk misschien ook, door de assymetrie van het conflict, de overweldigende militaire macht van bezettingsstaat Israël en de misdadige VS/EU steun aan deze bezettingsstaat, ook de Palestijnse strijd dient uitsluitend gericht te worden tegen het leger van de bezettende macht. Aanvallen op Israelische steden en burgers zijn niet acceptabel. Want ieder mensenleven telt, Israelisch of Palestijns [49].
EPILOOG
Naar aanleiding van de afschuwelijke en toch indrukwekkende foto van twee dode Palestijnse kinderen en hun vader heb ik laten zien, dat deze Israelische luchtaanval, die hen gedood heeft, niet op zichzelf staat, maar deel uitmaakt van de reeks vuile oorlogen, die Israel heeft gevoerd tegen het Palestijnse volk, te beginnen bij de Nakba oorlog van 1948, toen meer dan 750 000 Palestijnse burgers uit hun eigen land en van huis en haard werden verdreven [50]. Die vuile oorlogen minus de Nakba oorlog zijn weer het regelrechte gevolg van de 46 jaar durende Israelische bezetting en onderdrukking van het Palestijnse volk.
Er wordt vaak gesproken over ’’vrede in het Midden Oosten’’’, maar er is maar een sleutel daartoe en die sleutel ligt bij Israel, de bezettende macht.
Israel dient, comform de gerechtigheid en het Internationaal recht, zich terug te trekken uit alle in de juni oorlog [1967] veroverde gebieden, dus naast de Palestijnse OOK de Syrische Golan Hoogte. Het hoort ALLE in bezet gebied gebouwde nederzettingen te ontmantelen, de illegale Muur af te breken, het recht op terugkeer van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen [50] te erkennen en alle verantwoordelijken voor de gepleegde oorlogsmisdaden te berechten.
Iemand vroeg mij een keer, waarom ik zo vaak zeg ’’Israel moet’’. Wel, heel simpel, omdat dat ook zo is. Met als onzalige erfenis het zionisme heeft Israel vanaf 1948 de Schurkenrol in het Midden Oosten gespeeld. met steun van de VS en ook de EU, die wel Israel veroordeelt maar niet eens bereid is, zelfs maar culturele sancties tegen deze bezettingsstaat in te stellen. De VS en de EU zijn dus meer dan medeplichtig aan alle door israel gepleegde oorlogsmisdaden.
Zolang Israel volhardt en zijn bezettingsrol blijft spelen en de Westelijke Jordaanoever volbouwt met nederzettingen, zal het van Kwaad tot Erger worden en de eens gehoopte Palestijnse Staat de vorm van aan Israel onderhorige Bantoestans krijgen en de Palestijnen tot slaven maken.
Dan rest het Palestijnse volk niets anders, dan de wapens op te nemen tegen het Israelische leger in een daadwerkelijke bevrijdingsstrijd. Om te zorgen voor een Palestijnse Lente zonder onderdrukker
Want het is zoals Malcolm X gezegd heeft: ’’‘We declare our right on this earth….to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary
[10] Het Turkse Rijk was bondgenoot van Keizerrijk Duitsland en de Oostenrijks-Hongaarse monarchie geweest tegen de Geallieerde overwinnaars Groot Brittannie en Frankrijk Italie [later kwamen de VS in de strijd].
[11] LET OP: De in onderstaande link als ’’Joden’’ gekwalificeerde termen zijn tendentieus. Bezwaar gold niet het feit dat ’’de Joden’’ [van wie een kleine gemmenschap reeds voor het zionisme in Palestina in vrede leefden met de Arabieren] kwamen, maar het zionistische streven, in het land van de Arabische Palestijnen een Staat te stichten.
[12] The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers
“For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion…The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’…The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel.”’’
[14] Ondanks de Israelische militaire terugtrekking uit Gaza in 2005 is Israel volgens de 4e Conventie van Geneve nog steeds een bezettende macht, omdat het het luchtruim en de grenzen controleert.
Zie VRAAG EN ANTWOORD/ISRAELS TERUGTREKKINGSPLAN UIT DE GAZASTROOK 12. Is Israël nog steeds een bezettende macht na de terugtrekking uit de Gazastrook en is het nog gebonden aan de Vierde Conventie van Genève? http://www.politics.be/ duiding/596/#12
[15] BTSELEM Land Expropriation and Settlements in the International Law Published: 1 Jan 2013 The establishment of settlements in the West Bank violates international humanitarian law which establishes principles that apply during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.’’ http://www.btselem.org/ settlements/international_law
[18] CONTINUERING NEDERZETTINGENBOUW ’’Meanwhile, Israel’s provision of preferential services and planning – such as the approval of thousands of new settlement housing units and the retroactive “authorization” of settlement outposts – encouraged and facilitated civilian settlement in occupied territory in violation of the Geneva Conventions.’’
[26] ’’Thousands of Palestinians have difficulty going to their fields and marketing their produce in other areas of the West Bank. The areas west of the Barrier are one of the most fertile areas in the West Bank, and the agriculture there generates, according to the World Bank, 8 percent of Palestinian agricultural production. The harm to the farming sector prevents Palestinian farmers from gaining additional income and prevents an increase in the number of Palestinians working in agriculture, which is a major sector of the Palestinian economy.’’
[27] PALESTINA-ISRAEL INFO VOOR JONGEREN BEZETTING DE MUUR ’’Op dit kaartje is goed te zien, hoe de Palestijnse stad Qalqilya vrijwel geheel is omsloten door het Israelische Veiligheidshek (de apartheidsmuur). Alleen via twee controleposten in oostelijke richting kunnen de bewoners hun stad (en de directe omgeving) verlaten’’ http://www.palestina-israel. info/demuur.html
[28] VERBOD OP COLLECTIEVE STRAF ’’Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.’’
[31] ’’. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited. ’’ ARTIKEL 54, PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF AUGUST 1949, AND RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS (PROTOCOL l) http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/3ae6b36b4.html
’’Israel should end its punitive closure of Gaza, which Israeli leaders have said was partly to pressure Hamas to release captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, but which extends far beyond denying military shipments to Hamas.’’
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Artikel Astrid Essed in Civis Mundi/”Zweedse fotograaf wint World Press Photo 2012/Misdaden Israelische Politiek in beeld gebracht”
Kan iemand mij uitleggen wat de grondslag is van het bestaan van een Israëlische staat? Ik probeer zoveel mogelijk te onderzoeken wat hier nu aan de hand is maar ik kan niet echt een rechtmatige grondslag vinden hiervoor.
Oei! Wat een probleem! Ik neem aan dat U thuis ook een ingelijste kopie van de ‘rechtmatige grondslag’ van alle andere ongeveer tweehonderd landen van de wereld boven het dressoir heeft hangen. Maar waar -potverdorie- is nou die van Israël? Nou als U ‘em niet kan vinden, dan zal er wel iets niet in de haak zijn, nietwaar? Een illegaal land! Nee maar! Bel de politie!
De Israëlische staat is uitgeroepen in Tel Aviv op 14 mei 1948 nadat de Verenigde Naties in november 1947 het verdelingsplan, waarbij werd voorgesteld hoe het Britse mandaatgebied ‘Palestina’ zou kunnen worden verdeeld in een Joods en een Arabisch territorium, middels een stemming hadden goedgekeurd. De Britten hadden bekend gemaakt het mandaat terug te geven aan de Verenigde Naties en in mei 1948 te vertrekken. Het Joods Agentschap, dat de Joodse gemeenschap in het Engelse mandaatgebied Palestina vertegenwoordigde had het plan aangenomen maar de Arabische gemeenschap had het afgewezen. Aan de bevolking werd niets gevraagd, aan beide zijden niet. Ondertussen woedde er een halve burgeroorlog waar de Britten steeds meer klem kwamen te zitten tussen de twee partijen. Onmiddellijk op het Britse vertrek volgde het feitelijke uitroepen van de staat Israël door het hoofd van het Joods Agentschap, David Ben Gurion. De staat Israël werd daardoor de legale opvolger van het mandaatgebied Palestina. Er was tenslotte geen Arabische staat om die status mee te delen of te onderhandelen over een verdeling. In plaats daarvan ging de tegenpartij (in de vorm van vijf buurlanden, inclusief Irak) de volgende dag tot de aanval over. Zo begon de Israëlische Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog.
Na de formele stichting erkende het ene na het andere land de nieuwe Joodse staat en een jaar later werd Israël toegelaten tot de Verenigde Naties. Omdat de Arabieren tegen een Joodse staat waren, en noch het bestuur van het gebied wilde delen, noch het gebied zelf wilde vérdelen in verschillende territoria, kwam er geen Arabische staat. Ze blokkeerden hun eigen staat omdat ze het héle gebied voor zichzelf wilden. En dat is nog steeds zo. Ze zijn niet alleen tegen een Joodse staat, ze zijn tegen elke Joodse aanwezigheid in het gebied. Elke Jood is er één teveel. Waar kennen we dat van?
NB: er bestaat geen officiële internationale legale orde voor de ‘wettigheid’ van staten, wel een onofficiële. Daarin staan vuistregels voor soevereiniteit die een soort lakmoesproef zijn voor ‘statendom’: Er moet een gevestigde gemeenschap bestaan die binnen een bepaald afgegrensd territorium leeft en die streeft naar soevereiniteit. Er moet een vorm van georganiseerd gezag bestaan -maar dat kan dus ook een dictator zijn- en dat gezag moet internationale betrekkingen kunnen onderhouden. Een constitutie of een ander soort wettelijk document is niet vereist. Vlaggen, volksliederen en heilige boeken zijn er ook slechts voor de folklore maar mensen hechten er vaak veel waarde aan.
Wat wel belangrijk is, is in hoeverre een staat door de internationale gemeenschap van andere staten wordt erkend en daar gebruiken ze die vuistregels voor. Voor Israël is dat vrijwel alle staten ter wereld minus een handvol Islamitische staten, waaronder staten die het land in 1948 en daarna aanvielen, zoals Libanon, Syrië en Saudie-Arabië. Er zijn zat landen die door heel weinig landen worden erkend zoals Noord-Cyprus en Zuid-Ossetië. Ook Taiwan wordt maar door enkele landen erkend. Die landen voldoen best aan de criteria maar er liggen politieke obstakels in de weg die erkenning in weg staan.
Een Joodse Staat, gesticht in Palestina, over de ruggen van
de autochtone bevolking heen
DAT is het huidige Israel!
”HET IS ALSOF ER NA 2000 JAAR BATAV IEREN NAAR NEDERLAND
KOMEN EN EISEN, DAT NEDERLAND WORDT OPGEDEELD EN DAT
ER EEN BATAAFSE STAAT WORDT GESTICHT OP NEDERLANDS
GRONDGEBIED!
Het IS in zekere zin [helaas toegelaten tot de VN] een Illegaal Land.
Waarom?
Omdat de originele autochtone bevolking, de Palestijnen, zijn verdreven,
gekoloniseerd, hun land afgepakt!
In het Begin [begin twintigste Eeuw] was het huidige Israel, Palestina genaamd.
De originele naam door de Eeuwen heen.
Palestina was een kolonie/bezit van het Ottomaanse Rijk.
Door de opkomst van de zionistishe Beweging [de beweging, die ijverde
voor de vestiging van Joden in Palestina, uitmondend in een Joodse Staat
in Palestina, een beweging, opgericht door de Joodse journalist Theodor Herzl en voortkomende uit de EUROPESE Jodenvervolgingen], werd Palestina,
ergo de oorspronkelijke bewoners, de Palestijnen, een speelbal in
de internationale politiek.
Want de zionistische Beweging groeide en op instigatie van Baron Rotchild, voorzitter van de zionistische beweging in Engeland, kwam de Balfour Declaration tot stand, een belofte van de Britse regering, zich in te zetten
En om een lang Verhaal kort te maken, na de WO II werd via VN AV Resolutie 181 uiteindelijk Palestina verdeeld in een Joods en Arabisch-Palestijns deel
TER ERE VAN ISRAEL’S ONAFHANKELIJKHEIDSDAG/CONCERTGEBOUW AMSTERDAM GEEFT FOUT CONCERT
AANCONCERTGEBOUW AMSTERDAM
Onderwerp: Uw concert [zonder publiek]op 28 april 2020 ter ere van Israel’s Onafhankelijkheidsdag
Geacht Bestuur, ”Al is de leugen nog zo snel, de waarheid achterhaalt ze wel” [1]Ongetwijfeld kent u deze oud-vaderlandse uitdrukking, hier op u van toepassing. Want wellicht dacht u”Nu met die Coronamaatregelen gewone concerten [met publiek] niet mogelijk zijn, zal een ter ere van Israel gehouden concert niet of nauwelijks opvallen-en dus niet de nodige kritiek uitlokken.”‘Nou, MIS POES, Geacht Bestuur!Vandaar deze brief, die er NIET om liegt en u een stevige, virtuele draai om uw oren geeft! Want met het faciliteren van dit concert, met of zonder publiek [2] hebt u een eerbetoon gedaan aan bezetting, etnische zuiveringen en massaslachtingen, dit alles gegoten in een neo koloniaal jasje.En kom me niet aan met de smoes, dat uw Bestuur a-politiek zou zijn:U herdenkt en eert hier de ONAFHANKELIJKHEIDSDAG [3] van een land, dat ontstaan is op basis van land en identiteitsroof!Met andere woorden:Gebouwd op Bloed, Zweet en Tranen van een ander volk, namelijk het Palestijnse! [4] TOELICHTING:’ Die Israelische ”Onafhankelijkheidsdag” is een van de meest doortrapte staaltjes van neo-kolonialistisch geschonden zelfbeschikkingsrecht na de Tweede Wereldoorlog!Ik zeg nadrukkelijk NA de Tweede Wereldoorlog, want voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog, zeker aan het begin van de twintigste eeuw, toen de Israelisch [al werd dat toen nog ”zionistisch” genoemd Joodse kolonisatie van Palestina eenaanvang nam aanvang nam, werd de opdeling van het land van andere volkeren, of de inbeslagname van hun land als gewoon gezien, gebaseerd als dat was op in de 19e eeuw ontwikkelde Westerse superioriteitstheorieeen. Hiervan zijn de Palestijnen het slachtoffer geworden, want waar het in het kort op neer komt is dat hun land, historisch Palestina [eeuwenlang behorend tot het Ottomaanse Rijk] waarin zij eeuwenlang woonden, over hun ruggen is opgedeeld in een Joods en een Arabisch deel in 1947, bij VN Resolutie 181. [5] Daaraan voorafgegaan was het aan het eind van de 19e eeuw door de Oostenrijkse journalist Theodor Herzl opgerichte zionistische beweging [6]met als doel het creeren van een Joods Thuisland in Palestina. [7]Dit begon verwezenlijkt te worden door de Balfour Declaratie in 1917 [8], waarbij aan de voorzitter van de zionistische beweging in Groot-Britannie door de toenmalige minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Balfour de belofte werd gedaan van een Joods Thuisland in het toen nog bij het Ottomaanse Rijk behorende Palestina.Palestina, dat alvast in 1916 als een Taart door toenmalige koloniale machten Frankrijk en Groot Britannie in het Sykes-Picot Verdrag aan de Britten was toegewezen.[9]”Grappig” was wat schrijver Arthur Koestler opmerkte over die Balfour Declaration:dat ”“one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third,” [10]Een buitengewoon rake beschrijving van wat er in werkelijkheid gebeurde.Want het ging al gauw niet meer om de bewoning van Joodse mensen in Palestina [die migratie was vanaf het begin van de twintigste eeuw mondjesmaat en later veel enthousiaster, op gang gekomen], maar om het stichten van een Staat in anderman’s land.Complicerende factor:Dat ”anderman’s land, was eerst een onderdeel van het Ottomaanse Rijk en na de Eerste Wereldoorlog vanaf 1922 ”Mandaatgebied Palestina” [11], met andere woorden een situatie waarin de Palestijnse bevolking geen zelfbeschikking had.Maar het was ook de tijd, dat overal in de kololnieen onafhankelijkheidsbewegingen opkwamen, wat uiteindelijk na WO II leidde tot onafhankelijkheid en zelfbeschikkingsrecht.Maar doordat er deals tussen Groot-Britannie en de zionistische beweging waren gesloten, werd dat zelfbeschikkingsrecht de Palestijnen door de neus geboord en hun land in 1947 over hun ruggen heen, opgedeeld in een Joods en Palestijns gedeelte. [12]Daarna [eind 1947] liepen de spanningen tussen de zionistische organisaties en hun achterban enerzijds en de Palestijnse bevolking anderszijds steeds hoger op, Palestijnen werden toen reeds etnisch gezuiverd [verdreven van huis en haard] en in mei 1948 riep de zionistische leider David Ben Goerion eenzijdig [In VN resolutie 181 werd nog gesproken van het ”toekomstige bestuur van Palestina” de zionistisch-Israelische Staat uit [die eenzijdige uitroeping vieren ze dus nu als ”Onafhankelijkheidsdag] [13]De spanningen liepen verder op, een openlijke strijd brak uit en in de zogenaamde ”Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog” werden meer dan 750 000 Palestijnen etnisch gezuiverd. [14]Een VN bemiddelaar, Graaf Bernadotte, die ten gunste van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen wilde ingrijpen, werd geliquideerd door zionistische terroristen. [15]Van Bernadotte is bekend, dat hij gezegd heeft”It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries” [16]
EPILOOG Dat u niet van al die details/voorgeschiedenis op de hoogte bent, neem ik u op zich niet kwalijk.Echter:Wanneer u een de ”Onafhankelijkheidsdag” van een land eert, hoort u zich eerst in de voorgeschiedenis ervan te verdiepen, om in dit geval tot de conclusie te komen, dat niet Israel een onafhankelijkheidsdag had moeten vieren, maar de Palestijnen! Maar wat ik u WEL in hoge mate aanreken, is dat u een concert organiseert ter ere van een land, dat zich -en DAT hoort u WEL te weten, al 53 jaar schuldig maakt aan de meest universele schendingen van mensenrechten.Namelijk bezetting, onderdrukking, oorlogsmisdaden. [17]Een land, dat letterlijk land heeft gestolen in bezet Palestijns gebied door het bouwen van nederzettingen, die in strijd zijn met het Internationaal Recht [18]En die nederzettingen zijn niet alleen een hap uit bezet Palestijns gebied, Israel gaat vrolijk door met de uitbreiding ervan. [19] De onafhankelijkheidsdag van een dergelijk land eren is de legitimatie van bezetting, onderdrukking, etnische zuiveringen. Met het geven van een concert, onder deze condities, getuigt u van het totaal ontbreken van elementaire beschaving en gebrek aan respect voor het Internationaal Recht.Weet u wel, hoe vaak Israel VN Resoluties aan zijn laars gelapt heeft? [20] En daarvan, van die bezetting en onderdrukking, hoort u anno 2020 op de hoogte te zijn. Ik eis dan ook van u, dat het de laatste keer is geweest, dat u een concert ter ere van Israel gegeven hebt. Dat dit zonder publiek heeft plaatsgehad, is meer dan passend. Een dikke NUL voor uw handelwijze. BAH!
JEWISH TELEGRAPH AGENCYISRAEL’S INDEPENDENCE DAY GETS FIRST CELEBRATION AT THE DUTCH ROYAL CONCERT HALL-WITHOUT A CROWD28 APRIL 2020 https://www.jta.org/quick-reads
AMSTERDAM (JTA) — This year was supposed to be the first time that Israel’s Independence Day was celebrated in a public concert at the main royal concert hall in the Netherlands.
Planned for April 28 at the main hall of the 134-year-old Royal Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, the concert was to feature well-known artists including Shuly Nathan playing her iconic “Jerusalem of Gold” before an expected sellout crowd of 2,000 spectators.
The event was canceled because of the coronavirus, yet Israel’s 72nd birthday was still celebrated at the Concertgebouw thanks to the determination of the concert’s producer, Barry Mehler, who also produces the annual Hanukkah concert at the hall.
Mehler, a U.S.-born professional singer and cantor who has been living in Amsterdam since 1989, in recent days recorded five tracks in Israel’s honor with a group of musicians from the Jewish Amsterdam Chamber Ensemble. They played in an empty hall while observing social distancing protocols.
The setup used the empty hall as background to haunting effect: The musicians are facing the camera with their backs to the red velvet-upholstered seats.
The tracks, which Mehler has shared online, include an instrumental rendition of “Hatikvah,” Israel’s national anthem, and the melancholic song “Mishehu,” or “Someone,” written by Matti Caspi, for Israel’s Memorial Day, which symbolically precedes the nation’s Independence Day.
“Performing in the main hall of the Concertgebouw is an honor reserved to few professional musicians, and more so, that they have allowed us to record parts of our canceled concert,” Mehler, 54, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.BY CNAAN LIPHSHIZ
What should have been first public concert to mark anniversary of Jewish state’s founding is canceled due to coronavirus lockdown, but organizers record performance anyway
AMSTERDAM (JTA) — This year was supposed to be the first time that Israel’s Independence Day was celebrated in a public concert at the main royal concert hall in the Netherlands.
Planned for April 28 at the 134-year-old Royal Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, the concert was to feature well-known artists including Shuly Nathan playing her iconic “Jerusalem of Gold” before an expected sellout crowd of 2,000 spectators.
The event was canceled because of the coronavirus, yet Israel’s 72nd birthday was still celebrated at the Concertgebouw thanks to the determination of the concert’s producer, Barry Mehler, who also produces the annual Hanukkah concert at the hall.
Mehler, a US-born professional singer and cantor who has been living in Amsterdam since 1989, in recent days recorded five tracks in Israel’s honor with a group of musicians from the Jewish Amsterdam Chamber Ensemble. They played in an empty hall while observing social distancing protocols.
The setup used the empty hall as background to haunting effect: The musicians are facing the camera with their backs to the red velvet-upholstered seats.
The tracks, which Mehler has shared online, include an instrumental rendition of “Hatikvah,” Israel’s national anthem, and the melancholic song “Mishehu,” or “Someone,” written by Matti Caspi, for Israel’s Memorial Day, which symbolically precedes the nation’s Independence Day.“Performing in the main hall of the Concertgebouw is an honor reserved to few professional musicians, and more so, that they have allowed us to record parts of our canceled concert,” Mehler, 54, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
[3]
”Independence Day (Hebrew: יום העצמאות Yom Ha’atzmaut, lit. “Day of Independence”) is the national day of Israel, commemorating the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948. The day is marked by official and unofficial ceremonies and observances.
Because Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, which corresponded with the Hebrew date 5 Iyar in that year, Yom Ha’atzmaut was originally celebrated on that date. However, to avoid Sabbath desecration, it may be commemorated one or two days before or after the 5th of Iyar if it falls too close to the Jewish Sabbath. Yom Hazikaron, the Israeli Fallen Soldiers and Victims of Terrorism Remembrance Day is always scheduled for the day preceding Independence Day.
In the Hebrew calendar, days begin in the evening.[2] The next occurrence of Yom Haatzmaut will take place on 28–29 April 2020”
Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power to constitute and instruct a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine at the second regular session;
Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and
Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364) 1/ including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,
Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;
Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 August 1948;
Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
Requests that
(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
(b) The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;
(c) The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;
(d) The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;
Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;
Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations, and
Authorizes the Secretary-General to reimburse travel and subsistence expenses of the members of the Commission referred to in Part I, Section B, paragraph 1 below, on such basis and in such form as he may determine most appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the Commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the Commission by the General Assembly.
B 2/ The General Assembly
Authorizes the Secretary-General to draw from the Working Capital Fund a sum not to exceed $2,000,000 for the purposes set forth in the last paragraph of the resolution on the future government of Palestine.
Hundred and twenty-eighth plenary meeting 29 November 1947
[At its hundred and twenty-eighth plenary meeting on 29 November 1947 the General Assembly, in accordance with the terms of the above resolution [181 A], elected the following members of the United Nations Commission on Palestine: Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama and Philippines.]
PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION
PART I
Future constitution and government of Palestine
A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
1. The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
2. The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the Mandate and to evacuate each area.
The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure than an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.
3. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.
4. The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.
B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE
1. A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible.
2. The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.
In the discharge of this administrative responsibility the Commission shall have authority to issue necessary regulations and take other measures as required.
The mandatory Power shall not take any action to prevent, obstruct or delay the implementation by the Commission of the measures recommended by the General Assembly.
3. On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.
4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.
If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.
5. Subject to the provisions of these recommendations, during the transitional period the Provisional Councils of Government, acting under the Commission, shall have full authority in the areas under their control, including authority over matters of immigration and land regulation.
6. The Provisional Council of Government of each State acting under the Commission, shall progressively receive from the Commission full responsibility for the administration of that State in the period between the termination of the Mandate and the establishment of the State’s independence.
7. The Commission shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
8. The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.
This armed militia in each State shall, for operational purposes, be under the command of Jewish or Arab officers resident in that State, but general political and military control, including the choice of the militia’s High Command, shall be exercised by the Commission.
9. The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, not later than two months after the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines.
The election regulations in each State shall be drawn up by the Provisional Council of Government and approved by the Commission. Qualified voters for each State for this election shall be persons over eighteen years of age who are: (a) Palestinian citizens residing in that State and (b) Arabs and Jews residing in the State, although not Palestinian citizens, who, before voting, have signed a notice of intention to become citizens of such State.
Arabs and Jews residing in the City of Jerusalem who have signed a notice of intention to become citizens, the Arabs of the Arab State and the Jews of the Jewish State, shall be entitled to vote in the Arab and Jewish States respectively.
Women may vote and be elected to the Constituent Assemblies.
During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission.
10. The Constituent Assembly of each State shall draft a democratic constitution for its State and choose a provisional government to succeed the Provisional Council of Government appointed by the Commission. The constitutions of the States shall embody chapters 1 and 2 of the Declaration provided for in section C below and include inter alia provisions for:
(a) Establishing in each State a legislative body elected by universal suffrage and by secret ballot on the basis of proportional representation, and an executive body responsible to the legislature;
(b) Settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;
(c) Accepting the obligation of the State to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;
(d) Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;
(e) Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.
11. The Commission shall appoint a preparatory economic commission of three members to make whatever arrangements are possible for economic co-operation, with a view to establishing, as soon as practicable, the Economic Union and the Joint Economic Board, as provided in section D below.
12. During the period between the adoption of the recommendations on the question of Palestine by the General Assembly and the termination of the Mandate, the mandatory Power in Palestine shall maintain full responsibility for administration in areas from which it has not withdrawn its armed forces. The Commission shall assist the mandatory Power in the carrying out of these functions. Similarly the mandatory Power shall co-operate with the Commission in the execution of its functions.
13. With a view to ensuring that there shall be continuity in the functioning of administrative services and that, on the withdrawal of the armed forces of the mandatory Power, the whole administration shall be in the charge of the Provisional Councils and the Joint Economic Board, respectively, acting under the Commission, there shall be a progressive transfer, from the mandatory Power to the Commission, of responsibility for all the functions of government, including that of maintaining law and order in the areas from which the forces of the mandatory Power have been withdrawn.
14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.
The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.
15. The Commission shall make its final report to the next regular session of the General Assembly and to the Security Council simultaneously.
C. DECLARATION
A declaration shall be made to the United Nations by the provisional government of each proposed State before independence. It shall contain inter alia the following clauses: General Provision
The stipulations contained in the declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.
Chapter 1
Holy Places, religious buildings and sites
1. Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired.
2. In so far as Holy Places are concerned, the liberty of access, visit and transit shall be guaranteed, in conformity with existing rights, to all residents and citizens of the other State and of the City of Jerusalem, as well as to aliens, without distinction as to nationality, subject to requirements of national security, public order and decorum.
Similarly, freedom of worship shall be guaranteed in conformity with existing rights, subject to the maintenance of public order and decorum.
3. Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved. No act shall be permitted which may in any way impair their sacred character. If at any time it appears to the Government that any particular Holy Place, religious building or site is in need of urgent repair, the Government may call upon the community or communities concerned to carry out such repair. The Government may carry it out itself at the expense of the community or communities concerned if no action is taken within a reasonable time.
4. No taxation shall be levied in respect of any Holy Place, religious building or site which was exempt from taxation on the date of the creation of the State.
No change in the incidence of such taxation shall be made which would either discriminate between the owners or occupiers of Holy Places, religious buildings or sites, or would place such owners or occupiers in a position less favourable in relation to the general incidence of taxation than existed at the time of the adoption of the Assembly’s recommendations.
5. The Governor of the City of Jerusalem shall have the right to determine whether the provisions of the Constitution of the State in relation to Holy Places, religious buildings and sites within the borders of the State and the religious rights appertaining thereto, are being properly applied and respected, and to make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community with respect to such places, buildings and sites. He shall receive full co-operation and such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of his functions in the State.
Chapter 2
Religious and Minority Rights
1. Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.
2. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.
3. All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.
4. The family law and personal status of the various minorities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.
5. Except as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government, no measure shall be taken to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of religious or charitable bodies of all faiths or to discriminate against any representative or member of these bodies on the ground of his religion or nationality.
6. The State shall ensure adequate primary and secondary education for the Arab and Jewish minority, respectively, in its own language and its cultural traditions.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the State may impose, shall not be denied or impaired. Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights.
7. No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any citizen of the State of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the Press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.3/
8. No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)4/ shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.
Chapter 3
Citizenship, international conventions and financial obligations
1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.
Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.
2. International conventions. (a) The State shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party. Subject to any right of denunciation provided for therein, such agreements and conventions shall be respected by the State throughout the period for which they were concluded.
(b) Any dispute about the applicability and continued validity of international conventions or treaties signed or adhered to by the mandatory Power on behalf of Palestine shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
3. Financial obligations. (a) The State shall respect and fulfil all financial obligations of whatever nature assumed on behalf of Palestine by the mandatory Power during the exercise of the Mandate and recognized by the State. This provision includes the right of public servants to pensions, compensation or gratuities.
(b) These obligations shall be fulfilled through participation in the Joint economic Board in respect of those obligations applicable to Palestine as a whole, and individually in respect of those applicable to, and fairly apportionable between, the States.
(c) A Court of Claims, affiliated with the Joint Economic Board, and composed of one member appointed by the United Nations, one representative of the United Kingdom and one representative of the State concerned, should be established. Any dispute between the United Kingdom and the State respecting claims not recognized by the latter should be referred to that Court.
(d) Commercial concessions granted in respect of any part of Palestine prior to the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly shall continue to be valid according to their terms, unless modified by agreement between the concession-holder and the State.
Chapter 4
Miscellaneous provisions
1. The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United nations. Any Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.
2. Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
D. ECONOMIC UNION AND TRANSIT
1. The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall enter into an undertaking with respect to economic union and transit. This undertaking shall be drafted by the commission provided for in section B, paragraph 1, utilizing to the greatest possible extent the advice and co-operation of representative organizations and bodies from each of the proposed States. It shall contain provisions to establish the Economic Union of Palestine and provide for other matters of common interest. If by 1 April 1948 the Provisional Councils of Government have not entered into the undertaking, the undertaking shall be put into force by the Commission.
The Economic Union of Palestine
2. The objectives of the Economic Union of Palestine shall be:
(a) A customs union;
(b) A joint currency system providing for a single foreign exchange rate;
(c) Operation in the common interest on a non-discriminatory basis of railways; inter-State highways; postal, telephone and telegraphic services, and port and airports involved in international trade and commerce;
(d) Joint economic development, especially in respect of irrigation, land reclamation and soil conservation;
(e) Access for both States and for the City of Jerusalem on a non-discriminatory basis to water and power facilities.
3. There shall be established a Joint Economic Board, which shall consist of three representatives of each of the two States and three foreign members appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The foreign members shall be appointed in the first instance for a term of three years; they shall serve as individuals and not as representatives of States.
4. The functions of the Joint Economic Board shall be to implement either directly or by delegation the measures necessary to realize the objectives of the Economic Union. It shall have all powers of organization and administration necessary to fulfil its functions.
5. The States shall bind themselves to put into effect the decisions of the Joint Economic Board. The Board’s decisions shall be taken by a majority vote.
6. In the event of failure of a State to take the necessary action the Board may, by a vote of six members, decide to withhold an appropriate portion of that part of the customs revenue to which the State in question is entitled under the Economic Union. Should the State persist in its failure to co-operate, the Board may decide by a simple majority vote upon such further sanctions, including disposition of funds which it has withheld, as it may deem appropriate.
7. In relation to economic development, the functions of the Board shall be the planning, investigation and encouragement of joint development projects, but it shall not undertake such projects except with the assent of both States and the City of Jerusalem, in the event that Jerusalem is directly involved in the development project. 8. In regard to the joint currency system the currencies circulating in the two States and the City of Jerusalem shall be issued under the authority of the Joint Economic Board, which shall be the sole issuing authority and which shall determine the reserves to be held against such currencies.
9. So far as is consistent with paragraph 2 (b) above, each State may operate its own central bank, control its own fiscal and credit policy, its foreign exchange receipts and expenditures, the grant of import licenses, and may conduct international financial operations on its own faith and credit. During the first two years after the termination of the Mandate, the Joint Economic Board shall have the authority to take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that–to the extent that the total foreign exchange revenues of the two States from the export of goods and services permit, and provided that each State takes appropriate measures to conserve its own foreign exchange resources–each State shall have available, in any twelve months’ period, foreign exchange sufficient to assure the supply of quantities of imported goods and services for consumption in its territory equivalent to the quantities of such goods and services consumed in that territory in the twelve months’ period ending 31 December 1947.
10. All economic authority not specifically vested in the Joint Economic Board is reserved to each State.
11. There shall be a common customs tariff with complete freedom of trade between the States, and between the States and the City of Jerusalem.
12. The tariff schedules shall be drawn up by a Tariff Commission, consisting of representatives of each of the States in equal numbers, and shall be submitted to the Joint Economic Board for approval by a majority vote. In case of disagreement in the Tariff Commission, the Joint Economic Board shall arbitrate the points of difference. In the event that the Tariff Commission fails to draw up any schedule by a date to be fixed, the Joint Economic Board shall determine the tariff schedule.
13. The following items shall be a first charge on the customs and other common revenue of the Joint Economic Board:
(a) The expenses of the customs service and of the operation of the joint services;
(b) The administrative expenses of the Joint Economic Board;
(c) The financial obligations of the Administration of Palestine consisting of:
(i) The service of the outstanding public debt;
(ii) The cost of superannuation benefits, now being paid or falling due in the future, in accordance with the rules and to the extent established by paragraph 3 of chapter 3 above.
14. After these obligations have been met in full, the surplus revenue from the customs and other common services shall be divided in the following manner: not less than 5 per cent and not more than 10 per cent to the City of Jerusalem; the residue shall be allocated to each State by the Joint Economic Board equitably, with the objective of maintaining a sufficient and suitable level of government and social services in each State, except that the share of either State shall not exceed the amount of that State’s contribution to the revenues of the Economic Union by more than approximately four million pounds in any year. The amount granted may be adjusted by the Board according to the price level in relation to the prices prevailing at the time of the establishment of the Union. After five years, the principles of the distribution of the joint revenues may be revised by the Joint Economic Board on a basis of equity.
15. All international conventions and treaties affecting customs tariff rates, and those communications services under the jurisdiction of the Joint Economic Board, shall be entered into by both States. In these matters, the two States shall be bound to act in accordance with the majority vote of the Joint Economic Board.
16. The Joint Economic Board shall endeavour to secure for Palestine’s export fair and equal access to world markets.
17. All enterprises operated by the Joint Economic Board shall pay fair wages on a uniform basis.
Freedom of transit and visit
18. The undertaking shall contain provisions preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents or citizens of both States and of the City of Jerusalem, subject to security considerations; provided that each state and the City shall control residence within its borders.
Termination, modification and interpretation of the undertaking
19. The undertaking and any treaty issuing therefrom shall remain in force for a period of ten years. It shall continue in force until notice of termination, to take effect two years thereafter, is given by either of the parties.
20. During the initial ten-year period, the undertaking and any treaty issuing therefrom may not be modified except by consent of both parties and with the approval of the General Assembly.
21. Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of the undertaking and any treaty issuing therefrom shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the international Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.
E. ASSETS
1. The movable assets of the Administration of Palestine shall be allocated to the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem on an equitable basis. Allocations should be made by the United Nations Commission referred to in section B, paragraph 1, above. Immovable assets shall become the property of the government of the territory in which they are situated.
2. During the period between the appointment of the United Nations Commission and the termination of the Mandate, the mandatory Power shall, except in respect of ordinary operations, consult with the Commission on any measure which it may contemplate involving the liquidation, disposal or encumbering of the assets of the Palestine Government, such as the accumulated treasury surplus, the proceeds of Government bond issues, State lands or any other asset.
F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
PART II
Boundaries5/
A. THE ARAB STATE
The area of the Arab State in Western Galilee is bounded on the west by the Mediterranean and on the north by the frontier of the Lebanon from Ras en Naqura to a point north of Saliha. From there the boundary proceeds southwards, leaving the built-up area of Saliha in the Arab State, to join the southernmost point of this village. Thence it follows the western boundary line of the villages of `Alma, Rihaniya and Teitaba, thence following the northern boundary line of Meirun village to join the Acre-Safad sub-district boundary line. It follows this line to a point west of Es Sammu’i village and joins it again at the northernmost point of Farradiya. Thence it follows the sub-district boundary line to the Acre-Safad main road. From here it follows the western boundary of Kafr I’nan village until it reaches the Tiberias-Acre sub-district boundary line, passing to the west of the junction of the Acre-Safad and Lubiya-Kafr I’nan roads. From south-west corner of Kafr I’nan village the boundary line follows the western boundary of the Tiberias sub-district to a point close to the boundary line between the villages of Maghar and Eilabun, thence bulging out to the west to include as much of the eastern part of the plain of Battuf as is necessary for the reservoir proposed by the Jewish Agency for the irrigation of lands to the south and east.
The boundary rejoins the Tiberias sub-district boundary at a point on the Nazareth-Tiberias road south-east of the built-up area of Tur’an; thence it runs southwards, at first following the sub-district boundary and then passing between the Kadoorie Agricultural School and Mount Tabor, to a point due south at the base of Mount Tabor. From here it runs due west, parallel to the horizontal grid line 230, to the north-east corner of the village lands of Tel Adashim. It then runs to the north-west corner of these lands, whence it turns south and west so as to include in the Arab State the sources of the Nazareth water supply in Yafa village. On reaching Ginneiger it follows the eastern, northern and western boundaries of the lands of this village to their south-west corner, whence it proceeds in a straight line to a point on the Haifa-Afula railway on the boundary between the villages of Sarid and El Mujeidil. This is the point of intersection.
The south-western boundary of the area of the Arab State in Galilee takes a line from this point, passing northwards along the eastern boundaries of Sarid and Gevat to the north-eastern corner of Nahalal, proceeding thence across the land of Kefar ha Horesh to a central point on the southern boundary of the village of `Ilut, thence westwards along that village boundary to the eastern boundary of Beit Lahm, thence northwards and north-eastwards along its western boundary to the north-eastern corner of Waldheim and thence north-westwards across the village lands of Shafa ‘Amr to the south-eastern corner of Ramat Yohanan’. From here it runs due north-north-east to a point on the Shafa ‘Amr-Haifa road, west of its junction with the road to I’Billin. From there it proceeds north-east to a point on the southern boundary of I’Billin situated to the west of the I’Billin-Birwa road. Thence along that boundary to its westernmost point, whence it turns to the north, follows across the village land of Tamra to the north-westernmost corner and along the western boundary of Julis until it reaches the Acre-Safad road. It then runs westwards along the southern side of the Safad-Acre road to the Galilee-Haifa District boundary, from which point it follows that boundary to the sea.
The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the sub-districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin. From that point it follows the Nablus-Jenin sub-district boundary westwards for a distance of about three kilometres and then turns north-westwards, passing to the east of the built-up areas of the villages of Jalbun and Faqqu’a, to the boundary of the sub-districts of Jenin and Beisan at a point north-east of Nuris. Thence it proceeds first north-westwards to a point due north of the built-up area of Zir’in and then westwards to the Afula-Jenin railway, thence north-westwards along the district boundary line to the point of intersection on the Hejaz railway. From here the boundary runs south-westwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh.Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi. It follows this boundary to the southernmost point of the village of El Buteimat. From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar’ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi’Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village. From here it runs along the railway line some distance to the east of it to a point just east of the Tulkarm railway station. Thence the boundary follows a line half-way between the railway and the Tulkarm-Qalqiliya-Jaljuliya and Ras el Ein road to a point just east of Ras el Ein station, whence it proceeds along the railway some distance to the east of it to the point on the railway line south of the junction of the Haifa-Lydda and Beit Nabala lines, whence it proceeds along the southern border of Lydda airport to its south-west corner, thence in a south-westerly direction to a point just west of the built-up area of Sarafand el’Amar, whence it turns south, passing just to the west of the built-up area of Abu el Fadil to the north-east corner of the lands of Beer Ya’Aqov. (The boundary line should be so demarcated as to allow direct access from the Arab State to the airport.) Thence the boundary line follows the western and southern boundaries of Ramle village, to the north-east corner of El Na’ana village, thence in a straight line to the southernmost point of El Barriya, along the eastern boundary of that village and the southern boundary of ‘Innaba village. Thence it turns north to follow the southern side of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road until El Qubab, whence it follows the road to the boundary of Abu Shusha. It runs along the eastern boundaries of Abu Shusha, Seidun, Hulda to the southernmost point of Hulda, thence westwards in a straight line to the north-eastern corner of Umm Kalkha, thence following the northern boundaries of Umm Kalkha, Qazaza and the northern and western boundaries of Mukhezin to the Gaza District boundary and thence runs across the village lands of El Mismiya, El Kabira, and Yasur to the southern point of intersection, which is midway between the built-up areas of Yasur and Batani Sharqi.
From the southern point of intersection the boundary lines run north-westwards between the villages of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the sea at a point half way between Nabi Yunis and Minat el Qila, and south-eastwards to a point west of Qastina, whence it turns in a south-westerly direction, passing to the east of the built-up areas of Es Sawafir, Es Sharqiya and Ibdis. From the south-east corner of Ibdis village it runs to a point south-west of the built-up area of Beit ‘Affa, crossing the Hebron-El Majdal road just to the west of the built-up area of Iraq Suweidan. Thence it proceeds southwards along the western village boundary of El Faluja to the Beersheba sub-district boundary. It then runs across the tribal lands of ‘Arab el Jubarat to a point on the boundary between the sub-districts of Beersheba and Hebron north of Kh. Khuweilifa, whence it proceeds in a south-westerly direction to a point on the Beersheba-Gaza main road two kilometres to the north-west of the town. It then turns south-eastwards to reach Wadi Sab’ at a point situated one kilometre to the west of it. From here it turns north-eastwards and proceeds along Wadi Sab’ and along the Beersheba-Hebron road for a distance of one kilometre, whence it turns eastwards and runs in a straight line to Kh. Kuseifa to join the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary. It then follows the Beersheba-Hebron boundary eastwards to a point north of Ras Ez Zuweira, only departing from it so as to cut across the base of the indentation between vertical grid lines 150 and 160.
About five kilometres north-east of Ras ez Zuweira it turns north, excluding from the Arab State a strip along the coast of the Dead Sea not more than seven kilometres in depth, as far as Ein Geddi, whence it turns due east to join the Transjordan frontier in the Dead Sea.
The northern boundary of the Arab section of the coastal plain runs from a point between Minat el Qila and Nabi Yunis, passing between the built-up areas of Gan Yavne and Barqa to the point of intersection. From here it turns south-westwards, running across the lands of Batani Sharqi, along the eastern boundary of the lands of Beit Daras and across the lands of Julis, leaving the built-up areas of Batani Sharqi and Julis to the westwards, as far as the north-west corner of the lands of Beit Tima. Thence it runs east of El Jiya across the village lands of El Barbara along the eastern boundaries of the villages of Beit Jirja, Deir Suneid and Dimra. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Dimra the boundary passes across the lands of Beit Hanun, leaving the Jewish lands of Nir-Am to the eastwards. From the south-east corner of Beit Hanun the line runs south-west to a point south of the parallel grid line 100, then turns north-west for two kilometres, turning again in a south-westerly direction and continuing in an almost straight line to the north-west corner of the village lands of Kirbet Ikhza’a. From there it follows the boundary line of this village to its southernmost point. It then runs in a southernly direction along the vertical grid line 90 to its junction with the horizontal grid line 70. It then turns south-eastwards to Kh. el Ruheiba and then proceeds in a southerly direction to a point known as El Baha, beyond which it crosses the Beersheba-El ‘Auja main road to the west of Kh. el Mushrifa. From there it joins Wadi El Zaiyatin just to the west of El Subeita. From there it turns to the north-east and then to the south-east following this Wadi and passes to the east of ‘Abda to join Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh. It then bulges to the south-west along Wadi Nafkh, Wadi Ajrim and Wadi Lassan to the point where Wadi Lassan crosses the Egyptian frontier.
The area of the Arab enclave of Jaffa consists of that part of the town-planning area of Jaffa which lies to the west of the Jewish quarters lying south of Tel-Aviv, to the west of the continuation of Herzl street up to its junction with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road, to the south-west of the section of the Jaffa-Jerusalem road lying south-east of that junction, to the west of Miqve Israel lands, to the north-west of Holon local council area, to the north of the line linking up the north-west corner of Holon with the north-east corner of Bat Yam local council area and to the north of Bat Yam local council area. The question of Karton quarter will be decided by the Boundary Commission, bearing in mind among other considerations the desirability of including the smallest possible number of its Arab inhabitants and the largest possible number of its Jewish inhabitants in the Jewish State.
B. THE JEWISH STATE
The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.
The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
C. THE CITY OF JERUSALEM
The boundaries of the City of Jerusalem are as defined in the recommendations on the City of Jerusalem. (See Part III, Section B, below).
PART III
City of Jerusalem
A. SPECIAL REGIME
The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council shall be designated to discharge the responsibilities of the Administering Authority on behalf of the United Nations.
B. BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY
The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat, as indicated on the attached sketch-map (annex B).
C. STATUTE OF THE CITY
The Trusteeship Council shall, within five months of the approval of the present plan, elaborate and approve a detailed Statute of the City which shall contain inter alia the substance of the following provisions:
1. Government machinery; special objectives. The Administering Authority in discharging its administrative obligations shall pursue the following special objectives:
(a) To protect and to preserve the unique spiritual and religious interests located in the city of the three great monotheistic faiths throughout the world, Christian, Jewish and Moslem; to this end to ensure that order and peace, and especially religious peace, reign in Jerusalem;
(b) To foster co-operation among all the inhabitants of the city in their own interests as well as in order to encourage and support the peaceful development of the mutual relations between the two Palestinian peoples throughout the Holy Land; to promote the security, well-being and any constructive measures of development of the residents, having regard to the special circumstances and customs of the various peoples and communities.
2. Governor and administrative staff. A Governor of the City of Jerusalem shall be appointed by the Trusteeship Council and shall be responsible to it. He shall be selected on the basis of special qualifications and without regard to nationality. He shall not, however, be a citizen of either State in Palestine.
The Governor shall represent the United Nations in the City and shall exercise on their behalf all powers of administration, including the conduct of external affairs. He shall be assisted by an administrative staff classed as international officers in the meaning of Article 100 of the Charter and chosen whenever practicable from the residents of the city and of the rest of Palestine on a non-discriminatory basis. A detailed plan for the organization of the administration of the city shall be submitted by the Governor to the Trusteeship Council and duly approved by it.
3. Local autonomy. (a) The existing local autonomous units in the territory of the city (villages, townships and municipalities) shall enjoy wide powers of local government and administration.
(b) The Governor shall study and submit for the consideration and decision of the Trusteeship Council a plan for the establishment of a special town units consisting respectively, of the Jewish and Arab sections of new Jerusalem. The new town units shall continue to form part of the present municipality of Jerusalem.
4. Security measures. (a) The City of Jerusalem shall be demilitarized; its neutrality shall be declared and preserved, and no para-military formations, exercises or activities shall be permitted within its borders.
(b) Should the administration of the City of Jerusalem be seriously obstructed or prevented by the non-co-operation or interference of one or more sections of the population, the Governor shall have authority to take such measures as may be necessary to restore the effective functioning of the administration.
(c) To assist in the maintenance of internal law and order and especially for the protection of the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites in the city, the Governor shall organize a special police force of adequate strength, the members of which shall be recruited outside of Palestine. The Governor shall be empowered to direct such budgetary provision as may be necessary for the maintenance of this force.
5. Legislative organization. A Legislative Council, elected by adult residents of the city irrespective of nationality on the basis of universal and secret suffrage and proportional representation, shall have powers of legislation and taxation. No legislative measures shall, however, conflict or interfere with the provisions which will be set forth in the Statute of the City, nor shall any law, regulation, or official action prevail over them. The Statute shall grant to the Governor a right of vetoing bills inconsistent with the provisions referred to in the preceding sentence. It shall also empower him to promulgate temporary ordinances in case the council fails to adopt in time a bill deemed essential to the normal functioning of the administration.
6. Administration of justice. The Statute shall provide for the establishment of an independent judiciary system, including a court of appeal. All the inhabitants of the City shall be subject to it.
7. Economic union and economic regime. The City of Jerusalem shall be included in the Economic Union of Palestine and be bound by all stipulations of the undertaking and of any treaties issued therefrom, as well as by the decision of the Joint Economic Board. The headquarters of the Economic Board shall be established in the territory of the City.
The Statute shall provide for the regulation of economic matters not falling within the regime of the Economic Union, on the basis of equal treatment and non-discrimination for all members of the United Nations and their nationals.
8. Freedom of transit and visit; control of residents. Subject to considerations of security, and of economic welfare as determined by the Governor under the directions of the Trusteeship Council, freedom of entry into, and residence within, the borders of the City shall be guaranteed for the residents or citizens of the Arab and Jewish States. Immigration into, and residence within, the borders of the city for nationals of other States shall be controlled by the Governor under the directions of the Trusteeship Council.
9. Relations with the Arab and Jewish States. Representatives of the Arab and Jewish States shall be accredited to the Governor of the City and charged with the protection of the interests of their States and nationals in connexion with the international administration of the City.
10. Official languages. Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of the city. This will not preclude the adoption of one or more additional working languages, as may be required.
11. Citizenship. All the residents shall become ipso facto citizens of the City of Jerusalem unless they opt for citizenship of the State of which they have been citizens or, if Arabs or Jews, have filed notice of intention to become citizens of the Arab or Jewish State respectively, according to part I, section B, paragraph 9, of this plan.
The Trusteeship Council shall make arrangements for consular protection of the citizens of the City outside its territory.
12. Freedoms of Citizens. (a) Subject only to the requirements of public order and morals, the inhabitants of the City shall be ensured the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, religion and worship, language, education, speech and press, assembly and association, and petition.
(b) No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the grounds of race, religion, language or sex.
(c) All persons within the City shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.
(d) The family law and personal status of the various persons and communities and their religious interests, including endowments, shall be respected.
(e) Except as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government, no measure shall be taken to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of religious or charitable bodies of all faiths or to discriminate against any representative or member of these bodies on the ground of his religion or nationality.
(f) The City shall ensure adequate primary and secondary education for the Arab and Jewish communities respectively, in their own languages and in accordance with their cultural traditions.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the City may impose, shall not be denied or impaired. Foreign educational establishments shall continue their activity on the basis of their existing rights.
(g) No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any inhabitant of the City of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the Press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.
13. Holy Places. (a) Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired.
(b) Free access to the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites and the free exercise of worship shall be secured in conformity with existing rights and subject to the requirements of public order and decorum.
(c) Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall be preserved. No act shall be permitted which may in any way impair their sacred character. If at any time it appears to the Governor that any particular Holy Place, religious building or site is in need of urgent repair, the Governor may call upon the community or communities concerned to carry out such repair. The Governor may carry it out himself at the expense of the community or communities concerned if no action is taken within a reasonable time.
(d) No taxation shall be levied in respect of any Holy Place, religious building or site which was exempt from taxation on the date of the creation of the City. No change in the incidence of such taxation shall be made which would either discriminate between the owners or occupiers of Holy Places, religious buildings or sites, or would place such owners or occupiers in a position less favourable in relation to the general incidence of taxation than existed at the time of the adoption of the Assembly’s recommendations.
14. Special powers of the Governor in respect of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in the City and in any part of Palestine. (a) The protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites located in the City of Jerusalem shall be a special concern of the Governor.
(b) With relation to such places, buildings and sites in Palestine outside the city, the Governor shall determine, on the ground of powers granted to him by the Constitutions of both States, whether the provisions of the Constitutions of the Arab and Jewish States in Palestine dealing therewith and the religious rights appertaining thereto are being properly applied and respected.
(c) The Governor shall also be empowered to make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community in respect of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in any part of Palestine.
In this task he may be assisted by a consultative council of representatives of different denominations acting in an advisory capacity.
D. DURATION OF THE SPECIAL REGIME
The Statute elaborated by the Trusteeship Council on the aforementioned principles shall come into force not later than 1 October 1948. It shall remain in force in the first instance for a period of ten years, unless the Trusteeship Council finds it necessary to undertake a re-examination of these provisions at an earlier date. After the expiration of this period the whole scheme shall be subject to re-examination by the Trusteeship Council in the light of the experience acquired with its functioning. The residents of the City shall be then free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the City.
PART IV
CAPITULATIONS
States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to the re-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem.
* * *
Notes
1/ See Official Records of the second session of the General Assembly, Supplement No. 11, Volumes I-IV.
2/ This resolution was adopted without reference to a Committee.
3/ The following stipulation shall be added to the declaration concerning the Jewish State: “In the Jewish State adequate facilities shall be given to Arab-speaking citizens for the use of their language, either orally or in writing, in the legislature, before the Courts and in the administration.”
4/ In the declaration concerning the Arab State, the words “by an Arab in the Jewish State” should be replaced by the words “by a Jew in the Arab State”.
5/ The boundary lines described in part II are indicated in Annex A. The base map used in marking and describing this boundary is “Palestine 1:250000” published by the Survey of Palestine, 1946.
”His support for Israel wasn’t entirely without qualification, though: he famously said about the Balfour Declaration that “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third,””
The British pledge to establish a ‘Jewish national home’ in Palestine is being celebrated and condemned as a divisive anniversary approaches. By Ian Black
Tue 17 Oct 2017 06.00 BSTLast modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 15.20 GMT
Shares848
On the evening of Thursday 2 November, at an elegant but as yet undisclosed central London location, Theresa May will sit down for a festive dinner with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and 150 other carefully selected VIP guests. They will be celebrating the historic promise, made a century ago to the day, that the British government would use its “best endeavours” to facilitate the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Security for the event will be tight and protesters will be kept well away. This is no ordinary anniversary.
That 1917 pledge – known to posterity as the Balfour declaration – had fateful consequences for the Middle East and the world. It paved the way for the birth of Israel in 1948, and for the eventual defeat and dispersal of the Palestinians – which is why its centenary next month is the subject of furious contestation. After 100 years, the two sides in the most closely studied conflict on earth are still battling over the past.
Controversy dogged the declaration from the moment that Arthur Balfour, then foreign secretary, sent it to Lionel Walter, Lord Rothschild, who represented the British Jewish community. Its 67 words combined considerations of imperial planning, wartime propaganda, biblical resonances and a colonial mindset, as well as evident sympathy for the Zionist idea – embodied in the famous commitment to “view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in the Holy Land. It ended with two important qualifications: first, that nothing should be done to prejudice the “civil and religious rights” of Palestine’s “existing non-Jewish communities.” And second, that the declaration should not affect the rights and political status of Jews living in other countries.
This contested anniversary is a dangerous minefield for May’s embattled government. The prime minister has said she is looking forward to it – although the London dinner, as all those involved are anxious to emphasise, is deliberately being hosted not by her, but by the current Lords Rothschild and Balfour. In addition to the two prime ministers and other political heavyweights, invitees include the historian Simon Schama, who will deliver a public lecture on the subject the day before. Scores of other events are being organised by Jewish communities across the UK. Christian Zionists, who believe in the unerring power of biblical prophecy, are to celebrate at the Albert Hall under the slogan “Partners in this Great Enterprise”.FacebookTwitterPinterest The Balfour declaration of 1917. Photograph: Universal History Archive/UIG/Getty
Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, will hold a special session honouring Balfour, while British immigrants to the Jewish state are organising street parties to celebrate the day. In the US, the Israel Forever Foundation is urging supporters to “Stand with Balfour and make it YOUR declaration”. The original letter, kept in the British Library, may be loaned to Israel next year to mark the 70th anniversary of the country’s independence. In 2015 it was inspected by a reverential Netanyahu, who used the photo opportunity to call for a renewal of the “partnership” of 1917. (Netanyahu’s official residence, incidentally, is on Balfour Street in West Jerusalem. The address is used in the Israeli media, like Downing Street in Britain, as shorthand for its occupant.) A copy of Balfour’s letter is also on permanent display at the Yasser Arafat Museum in the West Bank town of Ramallah, seat of the Palestinian Authority and, since the 1967 war, occupied territory under international law.Advertisement
In London, Jerusalem and elsewhere, however, others will be commemorating and protesting what they condemn as an act of betrayal and perfidy, the “original sin” that led to injustice, war and disaster for the Palestinians in the Nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”) of 1948. Two packed conferences took place on the same day in London in early October, with speakers lambasting British responsibility for continuing Palestinian suffering.
The Balfour Project – founded by clergymen and academics who want to see change in the UK’s Middle East policy – is holding a public meeting in Westminster on 31 October. Its slogan is: “Britain’s Broken Promise – Time for a New Approach”. But concern for the plight of the Palestinians is no fringe preoccupation. The former UN envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi – one of the Elders, a group of world leaders founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007 – is the biggest name on a Chatham House panel on Balfour. The British Academy is organising a seminar about the decision, which was described by the historian Elizabeth Monroe in the 1960s as “one of the greatest mistakes of our imperial history”. A London art gallery is running a series of events called “Turning the Page on the Balfour Declaration”, focusing on Arab culture and identity in Palestine before 1948. The centenary was debated in the House of Lords in July.
In an age when the conflict is increasingly waged by volunteer armies of social-media warriors, it should come as no surprise that both sides are determined to press their competing claims. The Balfour Apology Campaign is demanding Britain make amends for “colonial crimes” in Palestine. It is promoting a short film, 100 Balfour Road, which tries to explain the long-term effect of the declaration by showing the Joneses, an ordinary family in suburban London who are evicted from their home by soldiers and forced to live in appalling conditions in their back yard. Another family, the Smiths, take over their house and, supported by the soldiers, mistreat the Joneses and deprive them of food, medicine and their basic rights. The dissident group Independent Jewish Voices has produced a critical talking-heads documentary about Balfour – being circulated under the Twitter hashtag #NoCelebration.
”For the past year, the Palestinian mission to the UK has been running its own campaign around the centenary, titled “Make It Right”, to demonstrate that “the legacy of the British government’s broken promise still continues”. This month, the Palestinians attempted to place adverts on the London underground and buses, citing Balfour’s qualification about “the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities”, alongside before-and-after pictures highlighting Palestinian suffering since 1948. But Transport for London blocked the ads on the grounds that the issue is too sensitive and controversial. Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian Authority’s ambassador to the UK, has complained of “censorship”.
In Jerusalem on 2 November, separate Palestinian and Israeli Balfour conferences are being held – completely ignoring each other – on the eastern and western sides of what Israeli governments call the country’s “united” capital. In the UK, a national march and rally will be staged on 4 November by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Stop the War Campaign. History is alive, toxic, intensely political and bitterly divisive – and it will be revisited with passion and anger on this resonant anniversary.
The battle over Balfour has much in common with other disputes over historic apologies or redress for the wrongs of the past. It may be seen alongside recent rows over the Cecil Rhodes statues in Oxford and Cape Town and Confederate memorials in the US, compensation for British mistreatment of Mau Mau rebels in Kenya and French atonement for atrocities in Algeria. But the Israel-Palestine issue is far harder to deal with. Its past is not another country. Truth and reconciliation, let alone closure, are remote fantasies. Unlike slavery, apartheid, the Irish famine and western colonialism – all, at least formally, consigned to the dust heap of history – the Arab-Jewish conflict between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan shows no signs of fading. Indeed, it remains as bitter as ever, stuck in a volatile status quo of unending occupation and political deadlock.
Arthur James Balfour has always been a hero to Zionists and a villain to Arabs and their respective supporters. The brief document that bears his name is seen as marking the beginning of what is today widely considered the world’s most intractable conflict. On that, if on little else, Israelis and Palestinians agree. The central issue is that when the declaration promised that “Jewish national home”, what it defined as Palestine’s “existing non-Jewish communities” – who remained unnamed – made up some 90% of the 700,000-strong population. The words Arab, Muslim or Christian were not mentioned. Nor were those natives consulted as to the future of their country, which was then made up of three provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Their “civil and religious rights” in fact counted for little.
The anniversary has been marked by Arab protests since the very first one in 1918. In 2004, when president George W Bush issued a statement that reversed decades of US policy by stating that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories could stay put, the Palestine Liberation Organisation compared it to Balfour’s declaration – which has been traditionally described in Arabic as a “calamitous promise”.
“For Palestinians, the Balfour declaration is the root cause of our destitution, dispossession and the ongoing occupation,” the Palestinian mission to the UK told the Commons foreign affairs committee in April as it gathered evidence for an inquiry into British policy towards the Middle East peace process. “The centenary … allows us to take the long view. Our present reality is a consequence of a British policy that created Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.”
At a recent film festival in Gaza – ruled by the Islamist movement Hamas – attendees walked up a red carpet that had been imprinted with quotations from the declaration. In Ramallah this February, a day after the Knesset voted to retroactively legalise West Bank Jewish settlements, which are seen by most of the world as illegal, I interviewed Hanan Ashrawi, the veteran Palestinian spokesperson and legislator, who described the ongoing occupation as a natural consequence of the 1917 declaration. “This is Balfour’s chickens,” she said, “coming home to roost.”FacebookTwitterPinterest ‘Dripping with Olympian disdain’ … Arthur Balfour. Photograph: Corbis/Getty
The declaration, Ashrawi said, “didn’t create the state of Israel, but it set in motion a process by which Zionism was adopted internationally. It is an outcome of a colonial era and it belongs to that era in many ways – the European white man’s burden of trying to reorganise the world as they saw fit, to distribute land, to create states. They defined us as the ‘non-Jewish communities’. It’s so patronising, so racist.”
By contrast, Israel and its supporters like to remember a magnanimous British gesture towards a persecuted people who were yearning, according to the Zionist narrative, to “return” from exile to their biblical homeland – even though, in the three decades before the first world war, the vast majority of east European Jews who were able to were heading west to that far more promising land, the US. (Britain’s self-interested motives are acknowledged too, and there is an awareness, on what remains of the Israeli left, of the stigma of colonialist patronage.)
Yet not only is there nothing to be sorry about, many insist, but to demand an apology is an act of antisemitism; to question the justice of the declaration, it is argued, is to question the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in a century that saw a third of them exterminated by the Nazis. “The Palestinians’ new campaign to highlight the ostensible illegalities and iniquities of the Balfour declaration,” David Horovitz, the editor of the Times of Israel, has written, “shows an undimmed hostility to the very notion of Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the holy land, and an abiding refusal to accept Jewish legitimacy here.”
Netanyahu uses similar language – stating ever more explicitly, especially since the Donald Trump era began, that a Palestinian state worthy of the name will never be created. His government is the most rightwing in Israel’s history. The “peace process” has been clinically dead for three years, and moribund for several more. Pro-Palestinian activists are using the centenary to step up the international campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), many of whose supporters characterise Israel unequivocally as an apartheid settler state, and whose modest successes so far have alarmed many Israelis and Jews. Others, including the UK’s Balfour Project, are adamant that they are not questioning the legitimacy of Israel, but working for Palestinian rights and a two-state solution. But a middle ground is hard to find when the mainstream positions of the two sides on this question are so very far apart. “God did not give you the land,” protested one pro-Palestinian Twitter message this month. “The UK did – illegally.”
The most memorable line about the Balfour declaration was composed by the Hungarian-born Jewish writer Arthur Koestler. With it, he quipped, “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third” – an echo of the popular early Zionist slogan that depicted Palestine as “a land without a people for a people without a land”. Questions about exactly what constituted a nation or people, Palestine’s identity and borders and how these related to Britain’s other wartime promises have occupied historians – and propagandists – ever since. Avi Shlaim, emeritus professor of international relations at Oxford and a leading expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict, has described Balfour as “a millstone round Britain’s neck” because it prompted the wrath of both dissatisfied or impatient Zionists and angry Arabs and Muslims. Jonathan Schneer, an American historian, has called the pledge “the highly contingent product of a tortuous process characterised as much by deceit and chance as by vision and diplomacy”.
There has long been debate over the intentions and meaning of the declaration. David Lloyd George, the Liberal prime minister at the time, highlighted sympathy for Jews and his own Welsh nonconformist familiarity with the Old Testament. But British motives in the penultimate year of the first world war, following the February revolution in Russia and America’s entry into the conflict, were mixed. The decisive considerations were the wish to outsmart the French in the postwar Levant, and to use Palestine’s strategic location to protect Egypt, the Suez canal and the route to India by creating “a loyal Jewish Ulster”, in the words of Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor of Jerusalem.Advertisement
Other scholars have placed greater emphasis on the need to mobilise Jewish public opinion behind the flagging allied war effort. Balfour told the cabinet: “If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal [Zionism], we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and in America.” This approach, as modern researchers have observed, wildly exaggerated Jewish wealth, power and influence – a familiar antisemitic habit. Balfour, as Conservative prime minister, had, after all, backed the 1905 Aliens Act, which severely restricted Jewish immigration. Anti-Zionist critics like to point out that he never proposed a national home for oppressed Jews in his native Scotland; he was “uncertain and uncomfortable about their place in gentile society,” reported Leonard Stein, who published the first serious study of the declaration.
Questions continue to be asked about the connections and contradictions between Balfour’s public statement of support for Zionism; the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain, France and Russia to carve up Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq; and earlier secret pledges about Arab independence made by the British to encourage Sharif Hussein of Mecca to launch his “revolt in the desert” against the Turks (with the help of TE Lawrence “of Arabia”). The truth, buried in imprecise definitions, misunderstandings and duplicity, remains elusive. But Britain’s own wartime interests, in any event, were the absolute priority.
Arab views were blunt from the start. The Balfour declaration, argued the Lebanese historian George Antonius, betrayed the understandings between Sharif Hussein and Sir Henry McMahon, Britain’s high commissioner in Egypt. And these in turn were contradicted by Sykes-Picot, under which much of Palestine was to be under international administration. Britain’s promise to the Zionists, Antonius wrote in his 1938 book The Arab Awakening, “lacks real validity, partly because she had previously committed herself to recognising Arab independence in Palestine, and partly because the promise involves an obligation which she cannot fulfil without Arab consent”. If the first point – often summarised as “the twice-promised land” – was debatable, the second was not. Arabs had not consented; they felt, then as now, that they had been cheated.
Balfour’s carefully drafted formulation was also studiously vague – a diplomatic “fudgerama” in the words of the current foreign secretary, Boris Johnson. It neither defined the legal meaning of a “national home” nor promised to create a Jewish state. And that vagueness encouraged Palestinians to hope that Britain’s policy would not be pursued. Chaim Weizmann, the Russian-born Zionist leader whose charm and assiduous lobbying were instrumental in securing the declaration, was disappointed with its final wording. “I did not like the boy at first,” he wrote. “He was not the one I had expected. But I knew this was a great event.”
The key fact was that the world’s greatest power had given a massive boost to the Zionist movement 20 years after its birth – against the background of Russian pogroms and the Dreyfus affair in France. In a mood that is often described as “messianic”, Balfour was hailed as a “new Cyrus” – the Persian king who liberated the Jews from their Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC. “There was a great stirring of the dry bones of Israel,” one Zionist wrote, “as if in realisation of the prophetic vision of Ezekiel.”
The Manchester Guardian gave the declaration an effusive welcome. CP Scott, its editor, had introduced Weizmann to Lloyd George; his editorial invoked the memory of the recent massacres of the (Christian) Armenians by the (Muslim) Turks, as well as reflecting contemporary colonialist assumptions. Jews needed a national home for their security, wrote Scott, calling Balfour “the signpost of a destiny”.
Arabs in Palestine reacted with alarm. The country’s native Jews were predominantly Orthodox, and enjoyed religious autonomy under Ottoman rule. But the demographics of the Jewish community had begun to change with the arrival of the first Zionist settlers from Europe in the 1880s. In 1910, an Arab writer fretted that Jews in Haifa were starting to interact exclusively with their own community. “Establishing a Jewish state after thousands of years of decline … we [Arabs] fear that the new settler will expel the indigenous and we will have to leave our country en masse. We shall then be looking back over our shoulder and mourn our land as did the Muslims of Andalusia,” Abdullah Mukhlis warned in a remarkably prescient article. “Palestine may be endangered. In a few decades it might witness a struggle for survival.”
The new reality of British rule arrived on 11 December 1917, when General Sir Edmund Allenby walked through the Jaffa Gate into Jerusalem’s Old City. “Palestine is Arab”, a newly created nationalist association declared. “Its language is Arabic. We want to see this formally recognised. It was Great Britain that rescued us from Turkish tyranny and we do not believe that it will deliver us into the claws of the Jews. We ask for fairness and justice. We ask that it protect our rights and not decide the future of Palestine without asking our opinion.”
That 1917 pledge – known to posterity as the Balfour declaration – had fateful consequences for the Middle East and the world. It paved the way for the birth of Israel in 1948, and for the eventual defeat and dispersal of the Palestinians – which is why its centenary next month is the subject of furious contestation. After 100 years, the two sides in the most closely studied conflict on earth are still battling over the past.
Controversy dogged the declaration from the moment that Arthur Balfour, then foreign secretary, sent it to Lionel Walter, Lord Rothschild, who represented the British Jewish community. Its 67 words combined considerations of imperial planning, wartime propaganda, biblical resonances and a colonial mindset, as well as evident sympathy for the Zionist idea – embodied in the famous commitment to “view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in the Holy Land. It ended with two important qualifications: first, that nothing should be done to prejudice the “civil and religious rights” of Palestine’s “existing non-Jewish communities.” And second, that the declaration should not affect the rights and political status of Jews living in other countries.
This contested anniversary is a dangerous minefield for May’s embattled government. The prime minister has said she is looking forward to it – although the London dinner, as all those involved are anxious to emphasise, is deliberately being hosted not by her, but by the current Lords Rothschild and Balfour. In addition to the two prime ministers and other political heavyweights, invitees include the historian Simon Schama, who will deliver a public lecture on the subject the day before. Scores of other events are being organised by Jewish communities across the UK. Christian Zionists, who believe in the unerring power of biblical prophecy, are to celebrate at the Albert Hall under the slogan “Partners in this Great Enterprise”.
The new reality of British rule arrived on 11 December 1917, when General Sir Edmund Allenby walked through the Jaffa Gate into Jerusalem’s Old City. “Palestine is Arab”, a newly created nationalist association declared. “Its language is Arabic. We want to see this formally recognised. It was Great Britain that rescued us from Turkish tyranny and we do not believe that it will deliver us into the claws of the Jews. We ask for fairness and justice. We ask that it protect our rights and not decide the future of Palestine without asking our opinion.”Advertisement
British officials ignored such appeals, though some quickly recognised what was happening. “It is indeed difficult to see how we can keep our promises to the Jews by making the country a ‘national home’ without inflicting injury on nine-tenths of the population,” one wrote in 1920. “But we have now got the onus of it on our shoulders, and have incurred odium from the Moslems & Christians, who are not appeased by vague promises that their interests will not be affected.” In 1922, Balfour’s pledge was incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, setting out the terms for Britain’s administration – what the new body called a “sacred trust for civilisation”. Promotion of Jewish immigration and the revived Hebrew language were key commitments. The word “Arab” did not appear in it.
Early Arab opposition to Zionism was often described as an “unseen question”, and it was frequently suggested that the Palestinians had no national identity before the arrival of the first Jewish settlers. But both the British and Zionists were acutely aware of local objections from the start. “Even if all our political schemings turn out the way we desire, the Arabs will remain our most tremendous problem,” Weizmann’s colleague Harry Sacher worried in June 1917. “I don’t want us in Palestine to deal with the Arabs as the Poles deal with the Jews, and with the lesser excuse that belongs to a numerical minority.” Zionists believed fervently in their “right to national rebirth” in Eretz-Yisrael (“the land of Israel”) – from where their ancestors had been exiled by the Romans in AD70. Earlier efforts to secure recognition from the Turks had failed. Balfour mattered because the alliance with Britain allowed them to exercise that right. And there was wider support – contrary to Koestler’s clever “one nation” quip – from the US, France, and Italy.
The League of Nations mandate, five years after Balfour, provided the first international legal framework for Zionist ambitions – ignoring Palestinian objections and setting a pattern that would be repeated in the future. Britain’s recognition also helped the Zionist movement evolve from an insignificant minority in world Jewry to one that attracted growing sympathy. Objections by Jews to Zionism started to fade once the mandate was in place – though it took the horrors of the second world war for them to all but disappear. Arab opposition never weakened.
Balfour showed no regrets. In 1919 he famously told his cabinet colleague, Lord Curzon, who had expected the declaration to cause trouble for Britain, that “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”. This brutally candid display of partiality – “dripping with Olympian disdain” in the words of the veteran Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi – still arouses Arab anger.Advertisement
The aftermath was marked out by sombre milestones, each representing further escalation. Arabs attacked Jews in 1920 and 1921. In 1925 Balfour, now retired, visited Palestine, where he was feted by Jews – who named a new settlement in the Jezreel Valley (Marj Ibn Amr in Arabic) after him. Arabs shunned him. Four years later came new disturbances in Jerusalem: the focus, then as now, was the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, site of the al-Aqsa mosque. The worst bloodshed, though, was in Hebron, where Arabs killed 67 defenceless Orthodox Jews who were not part of the Zionist camp – though that old distinction was rapidly disappearing. Three of the 1929 killers were hanged by the British in Acre jail – and are still hailed in a popular song as “martyrs” to the Palestinian cause.
British officials ignored such appeals, though some quickly recognised what was happening. “It is indeed difficult to see how we can keep our promises to the Jews by making the country a ‘national home’ without inflicting injury on nine-tenths of the population,” one wrote in 1920. “But we have now got the onus of it on our shoulders, and have incurred odium from the Moslems & Christians, who are not appeased by vague promises that their interests will not be affected.” In 1922, Balfour’s pledge was incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, setting out the terms for Britain’s administration – what the new body called a “sacred trust for civilisation”. Promotion of Jewish immigration and the revived Hebrew language were key commitments. The word “Arab” did not appear in it.
Early Arab opposition to Zionism was often described as an “unseen question”, and it was frequently suggested that the Palestinians had no national identity before the arrival of the first Jewish settlers. But both the British and Zionists were acutely aware of local objections from the start. “Even if all our political schemings turn out the way we desire, the Arabs will remain our most tremendous problem,” Weizmann’s colleague Harry Sacher worried in June 1917. “I don’t want us in Palestine to deal with the Arabs as the Poles deal with the Jews, and with the lesser excuse that belongs to a numerical minority.” Zionists believed fervently in their “right to national rebirth” in Eretz-Yisrael (“the land of Israel”) – from where their ancestors had been exiled by the Romans in AD70. Earlier efforts to secure recognition from the Turks had failed. Balfour mattered because the alliance with Britain allowed them to exercise that right. And there was wider support – contrary to Koestler’s clever “one nation” quip – from the US, France, and Italy.
The League of Nations mandate, five years after Balfour, provided the first international legal framework for Zionist ambitions – ignoring Palestinian objections and setting a pattern that would be repeated in the future. Britain’s recognition also helped the Zionist movement evolve from an insignificant minority in world Jewry to one that attracted growing sympathy. Objections by Jews to Zionism started to fade once the mandate was in place – though it took the horrors of the second world war for them to all but disappear. Arab opposition never weakened.
Balfour showed no regrets. In 1919 he famously told his cabinet colleague, Lord Curzon, who had expected the declaration to cause trouble for Britain, that “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”. This brutally candid display of partiality – “dripping with Olympian disdain” in the words of the veteran Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi – still arouses Arab anger.
The aftermath was marked out by sombre milestones, each representing further escalation. Arabs attacked Jews in 1920 and 1921. In 1925 Balfour, now retired, visited Palestine, where he was feted by Jews – who named a new settlement in the Jezreel Valley (Marj Ibn Amr in Arabic) after him. Arabs shunned him. Four years later came new disturbances in Jerusalem: the focus, then as now, was the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, site of the al-Aqsa mosque. The worst bloodshed, though, was in Hebron, where Arabs killed 67 defenceless Orthodox Jews who were not part of the Zionist camp – though that old distinction was rapidly disappearing. Three of the 1929 killers were hanged by the British in Acre jail – and are still hailed in a popular song as “martyrs” to the Palestinian cause
On 2 November 1932, by now a familiar date, the Arabic newspaper Filastin devoted its front page to a cartoon picturing Lord Balfour dominating a map of the country, clutching his “calamitous promise”. It displayed “the woes inflicted on Palestine” – the advances of Zionism under the protection of the British, represented by a haughty officer in riding boots and a warship moored off Haifa. It shows Jewish immigrants striding energetically towards Tel Aviv, passing a glum-looking Arab peasant family on a camel, evicted from their land and plodding towards the desert. The scenery is dotted with factories, mechanised agriculture and bustling public works – all Jewish achievements. In the corner stand Arab men in European suits and tarbushes, arguing (presumably ineffectively) about the transformation they are witnessing. Sir John Chancellor, British high commissioner until shortly before, reflected that Balfour had been “a colossal blunder”. Events elsewhere, however, were soon to mean that it was too late to do very much about it.Advertisement
In the mid-1930s, with the spread of antisemitic legislation in eastern Europe and Hitler’s rise to power, came a massive wave of immigration – of refugees who were also settlers – doubling Palestine’s Jewish population. In the wake of the Arab rebellion in 1937 – Balfour’s 20th anniversary – Britain’s Peel Commission, which was established to look at the cause of the violence, acknowledged the “irreconcilable aspirations” of the two peoples. It proposed partitioning the country into Jewish and Arab states, but retreated from the idea as a new war approached. Only in 1939 did Britain change policy, severely restricting Jewish immigration and land sales, and promising Palestinian independence. “The framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population,” stated that year’s white paper. “His Majesty’s government … now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state.” The Jews, outraged, rejected this – many now viewing the British as their enemy. But so, foolishly, did the Arabs, missing a last chance to salvage something from what the Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi has called the “iron cage” of the mandate and the wreckage of the preceding two decades.
By the declaration’s 30th anniversary, in November 1947, in the wake of the Holocaust, public opinion outside the Arab and Muslim world backed the creation of a Jewish state. Even as the Royal Navy was turning back Jewish refugees trying desperately to reach the shores of Palestine, and Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists were targeting the British, the Jewish population had reached a third of the total. In the US in particular, Zionists were seen as progressives, fighting both British imperialism and its reactionary Arab lackeys. In those early cold war days, the US and USSR both supported that month’s UN plan to partition the country into separate Jewish and Arab states. It was rejected by the Palestinians, because they refused to surrender to what they saw as foreign settlers who had transformed the country while ignoring them. It was another error – though arguably an understandable one. Israel’s independence became the Palestinians’ catastrophe – the Nakba – in which half the country’s Arabs were driven out or fled. Arab Palestine was erased by Israel and Jordan. The UN’s decision would not have taken place without the British one in November 1917. Balfour remains a byword for the legitimacy of Zionism, and for the calamity that it brought the Palestinians. It is hard to imagine that changing.
Preparations for the centenary have posed a difficult challenge for the British government. It continues to emphasise support for a two-state solution to the conflict, a position that dates back to the late 1980s, though its roots can be traced to 1967, when Balfour’s jubilee was overshadowed by the six-day war. Israel’s stunning feat of arms that year meant that all of Mandatory Palestine – as well as the Egyptian Sinai peninsula and Syria’s Golan Heights – was re-reunited under its rule. Military victory, though, turned out to be the easy part.
The timing created a neat and thought-provoking link between two towering historical landmarks: the first political triumph of Zionism, and the beginning of an occupation that would, over the years, undermine it and threaten to isolate Israel. “If the Balfour declaration represents the moment the goal of Jewish statehood first gained formal international recognition and legitimacy, 1967 was the moment when the recognition and legitimacy started to ebb, gradually giving way to 50 years of growing unease,” Jewish-American journalist JJ Goldberg wrote this summer. “Put differently, the Balfour declaration launched a diplomatic process that led to an international embrace of what had been up to then a crazy dream of Jewish national rebirth. The six-day war touched off a series of events that may yet end in the dream’s demise.”
It was then that the Palestinians, remembered since 1948 only as “Arab refugees,” returned to centre stage. Resistance to occupation or terrorist acts such as the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972 made headlines. Sympathy for them grew with the Lebanon war of 1982. But the Israelis were only seriously challenged in 1987, by the first intifada – the “war of the stones” – when the world saw Palestinian children confront Israel’s armed might. That was followed by Yasser Arafat’s unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, which paved the way for the 1993 Oslo agreement. Oslo was killed off – after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin – by settlement expansion, bad faith, suicide bombings and a second, armed intifada that erupted disastrously after the collapse of the Camp David summit in 2000. Arafat’s death in 2004 marked a nadir for the Palestinian cause. Little has changed since he was succeeded by Mahmoud Abbas, though the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007 was deeply divisive. In 2012, when Abbas secured UN observer status for Palestine, the UK refused to follow the 136 other countries which had recognised it, standing loyally by the US.
Last year the government’s initial public line, after nervous consultations in Whitehall, was awkwardly defensive: Britain would simply “mark”, not “celebrate”, Balfour because the declaration was flawed in not backing political rights for Arabs as well as Jews. But Britain would not apologise. To do so, ministers told Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian ambassador, would open a Pandora’s box of demands about Cyprus and Kashmir and other festering imperial wounds. “It can’t be all bells and whistles to support Israel, but nor can it be complete sackcloth and ashes and let’s hear it for those who would recover Palestine,” one well-placed politician told me. “It’s about finding a line between those two.”
The aftermath of the EU referendum in 2016 brought a small but significant change in Britain’s public stance. May, attempting to think more “globally” after the Brexit vote and Trump’s election victory, criticised Barack Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, for his warning that the expansion of Israeli settlements was leading to “one state and perpetual occupation”. Kerry’s remarks followed the passage of UN security resolution 2334, which reiterated that Israeli settlements were illegal under international law – and which was backed by the UK and, unusually, not vetoed by the US. That was widely seen as a frustrated Obama’s parting shot and an attempt (so far in vain) to “Trump-proof” US policy.
May was scorned for trying to curry favour with the incoming president. Soon afterwards she invited Netanyahu to London for the Balfour centenary, and added that Britain would mark it “with pride” – two words that attracted disproportionate attention, as ever with this most sensitive of subjects. And that remains the current official mantra – albeit muttered sheepishly by embarrassed FCO officials.
The official UK response to the demand for a Balfour apology – which had been supported by 13,600 people who signed a petition to parliament – was released this April. “We are proud of our role in creating the state of Israel,” it said. “Establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do, particularly against the background of centuries of persecution.” Alistair Burt, minister for the Middle East, has quietly compromised since then by talking of “pride and sadness”.
Brexit also killed off the ongoing investigation by the Commons foreign affairs committee into UK policy towards the conflict. The FAC, as the rules require, was dissolved along with parliament when the election was called. Its chairman, Crispin Blunt, had hoped to publish his report on 2 November – for symbolic reasons – and had been expected to challenge government positions. Blunt was unpopular with Israel and its supporters. His replacement, Tom Tugendhat, is far closer to Israeli views and emphasises wider regional instability. The Arab spring and its bloody aftermath, he has suggested, “showed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn’t matter”. There is said to be “no appetite” to reopen the FAC investigation on his watch.
Sir Vincent Fean, the former British consul-general in East Jerusalem, and a supporter of the Balfour Project, never believed that an apology for Balfour was worth pursuing, preferring to call for UK recognition of Palestine. “Recognition means that when Abbas or whoever comes after him next applies to the UN for full membership, the UK will vote yes,” he argues. “That will put us in a different part of the forest from the US, and it does strengthen the argument that there should be consequences for breaches of international law. It could cause other EU members to think hard about doing it, too.” Foreign Office officials insist, however, that recognition will not happen until or unless it can help advance peace – leaving unsaid that a decision of that magnitude is, of course, for Washington to make. Still, resentment at the UK attitude may yet produce a pre-centenary parliamentary statement that at least reiterates support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
………”It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries’
[18]DE ILLEGALITEIT VAN DE NEDERZETTINGEN ”The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49).The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population. ”BTSELEM.ORGSETTLEMENTS
Reuters
Reuters
