The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel

This essay is available in PDF format. It’s free to download, but please consider making a donation to support my work.

The U.N. General Assembly, November 29, 1947There is a widely accepted belief that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 “created” Israel, based upon an understanding that this resolution partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority or legitimacy to the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel. However, despite its popularity, this belief has no basis in fact, as a review of the resolution’s history and examination of legal principles demonstrates incontrovertibly.

Great Britain had occupied Palestine during the First World War, and in July 1922, the League of Nations issued its mandate for Palestine, which recognized the British government as the occupying power and effectively conferred to it the color of legal authority to temporarily administrate the territory.[1] On April 2, 1947, seeking to extract itself from the conflict that had arisen in Palestine between Jews and Arabs as a result of the Zionist movement to establish in Palestine a “national home for the Jewish people”,[2] the United Kingdom submitted a letter to the U.N. requesting the Secretary General “to place the question of Palestine on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular Annual Session”, and requesting the Assembly “to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine.”[3] To that end, on May 15, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 106, which established the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to investigate “the question of Palestine”, to “prepare a report to the General Assembly” based upon its findings, and to “submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine”.[4]

On September 3, UNSCOP issued its report to the General Assembly declaring its majority recommendation that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states. It noted that the population of Palestine at the end of 1946 was estimated to be almost 1,846,000, with 1,203,000 Arabs (65 percent) and 608,000 Jews (33 percent). Growth of the Jewish population had been mainly the result of immigration, while growth of the Arab population had been “almost entirely” due to natural increase. It observed that there was “no clear territorial separation of Jews and Arabs by large contiguous areas”, and even in the Jaffa district, which included Tel Aviv, Arabs constituted a majority.[5] Land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district in Palestine. The district with the highest percentage of Jewish ownership was Jaffa, where 39 percent of the land was owned by Jews, compared to 47 percent owned by Arabs.[6] In the whole of Palestine at the time UNSCOP issued its report, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land,[7] while Jews owned less than 7 percent.[8]

Despite these facts, the UNSCOP proposal was that the Arab state be constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total area for their state.[9] The UNSCOP report acknowledged that

With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the ‘A’ Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.[10]

In other words, the report explicitly recognized that the denial of Palestinian independence in order to pursue the goal of establishing a Jewish state constituted a rejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination. And yet, despite this recognition, UNSCOP had accepted this rejection of Arab rights as being within the bounds of a legitimate and reasonable framework for a solution.

Following the issuance of the UNSCOP report, the U.K. issued a statement declaring its agreement with the report’s recommendations, but adding that “if the Assembly should recommend a policy which is not acceptable to both Jews and Arabs, the United Kingdom Government would not feel able to implement it.”[11] The position of the Arabs had been clear from the beginning, but the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement on September 29 reiterating that “the Arabs of Palestine were determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal, any scheme that provided for segregation or partition, or that would give to a minority special and preferential status”. It instead

advocated freedom and independence for an Arab State in the whole of Palestine which would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law, and would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities whilst guaranteeing freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.[12]

The U.K. followed with a statement reiterating “that His Majesty’s Government could not play a major part in the implementation of a scheme that was not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews”, but adding “that they would, however, not wish to impede the implementation of a recommendation approved by the General Assembly.”[13]

The Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question was established by the General Assembly shortly after the issuance of the UNSCOP report in order to continue to study the problem and make recommendations. A sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11. It observed that the UNSCOP report had accepted a basic premise “that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews both possess validity”, which was “not supported by any cogent reasons and is demonstrably against the weight of all available evidence.” With an end to the Mandate and with British withdrawal, “there is no further obstacle to the conversion of Palestine into an independent state”, which “would be the logical culmination of the objectives of the Mandate” and the Covenant of the League of Nations. It found that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine.” It concluded that “no further discussion of the Palestine problem seems to be necessary or appropriate, and this item should be struck off the agenda of the General Assembly”, but that if there was a dispute on that point, “it would be essential to obtain the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on this issue”, as had already been requested by several of the Arab states. It concluded further that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the Charter, and the United Nations have no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not

deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country…. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal, as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.[14]

Nevertheless, the General Assembly passed Resolution 181 on November 29, with 33 votes in favor to 13 votes against, and 10 abstentions.[15] The relevant text of the resolution stated:

The General Assembly….

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 measure 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 measure, 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….[16]

A simple reading of the text is enough to show that the resolution did not partition Palestine or offer any legal basis for doing so. It merely recommended that the partition plan be implemented and requested the Security Council to take up the matter from there. It called upon the inhabitants of Palestine to accept the plan, but they were certainly under no obligation to do so.

A Plan Never Implemented

The matter was thus taken up by the Security Council, where, on December 9, the Syrian representative to the U.N., Faris El-Khouri, observed that “the General Assembly is not a world government which can dictate orders, partition countries or impose constitutions, rules, regulations and treaties on people without their consent.” When the Soviet representative Andrei Gromyko stated his government’s opposing view that “The resolution of the General Assembly should be implemented” by the Security Council, El-Khouri replied by noting further that

Certain paragraphs of the resolution of the General Assembly which concern the Security Council are referred to the Council, namely, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), outlining the functions of the Security Council in respect of the Palestinian question. All of the members of the Security Council are familiar with the Council’s functions, which are well defined and clearly stated in the Charter of the United Nations. I do not believe that the resolution of the General Assembly can add to or delete from these functions. The recommendations of the General Assembly are well known to be recommendations, and Member States are not required by force to accept them. Member States may or may not accept them, and the same applies to the Security Council. [17]

On February 6, 1948, the Arab Higher Committee again communicated to the U.N. Secretary General its position that the partition plan was “contrary to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter”. The U.N. “has no jurisdiction to order or recommend the partition of Palestine. There is nothing in the Charter to warrant such authority, consequently the recommendation of partition is ultra vires and therefore null and void.” Additionally, the Arab Higher Committee noted that

The Arab Delegations submitted proposals in the Ad Hoc Committee in order to refer the whole legal issue raised for a ruling by the International Court of Justice. The said proposals were never put to vote by the president in the Assembly. The United Nations is an International body entrusted with the task of enforcing peace and justice in international affairs. How would there be any confidence in such a body if it bluntly and unreasonably refuses to refer such a dispute to the International Court of Justice?

“The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them”, the Arab Higher Committee declared, and they would “consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power or group of powers to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense by force.”[18]

On February 16, the U.N. Palestine Commission, tasked by the General Assembly to prepare for the transfer of authority from the Mandatory Power to the successor governments under the partition plan, issued its first report to the Security Council. It concluded on the basis of the Arab rejection that it “finds itself confronted with an attempt to defect its purposes, and to nullify the resolution of the General Assembly”, and calling upon the Security Council to provide an armed force “which alone would enable the Commission to discharge its responsibilities on the termination of the Mandate”. In effect, the Palestine Commission had determined that the partition plan should be implemented against the will of the majority population of Palestine by force.[19]

In response to that suggestion, Colombia submitted a draft Security Council resolution noting that the U.N. Charter did “not authorize the Security Council to create special forces for the purposes indicated by the United Nations Palestine Commission”.[20] The U.S. delegate, Warren Austin, similarly stated at the 253rd meeting of the Security Council on February 24 that

The Security Council is authorized to take forceful measures with respect to Palestine to remove a threat to international peace. The Charter of the United Nations does not empower the Security Council to enforce a political settlement whether it is pursuant to a recommendation of the General Assembly or of the Security Council itself. What this means is this: The Security Council, under the Charter, can take action to prevent aggression against Palestine from outside. The Security Council, by these same powers, can take action to prevent a threat to international peace and security from inside Palestine. But this action must be directed solely to the maintenance of international peace. The Security Council’s action, in other words, is directed to keeping the peace and not to enforcing partition.[21]

The United States nevertheless submitted its own draft text more ambiguously accepting the requests of the Palestine Commission “subject to the authority of the Security Council under the Charter”.[22] Faris El-Khouri objected to the U.S. draft on the grounds that “before accepting these three requests, it is our duty to ascertain whether they are or are not within the framework of the Security Council as limited by the Charter. If it is found that they are not, we should decline to accept them.” He recalled Austin’s own statement on the lack of authority of the Security Council, saying, “It would follow from this undeniable fact that any recommendation on a political settlement can be implemented only if the parties concerned willingly accept and complement it.” Furthermore, “the partition plan itself constitutes a threat to the peace, being openly rejected by all those at whose expense it was to be executed.”[23] Austin in turn explained the intent of the U.S. draft that its acceptance of Resolution 181 is

subject to the limitation that armed force cannot be used for implementation of the plan, because the Charter limits the use of United Nations force expressly to threats to and breaches of the peace and aggression affecting international peace. Therefore, we must interpret the General Assembly resolution as meaning that the United Nations measures to implement this resolution are peaceful measures.

Moreover, explained Austin, the U.S. draft

does not authorize use of enforcement under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter to empower the United Nations Commission to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by the resolution, because the Charter does not authorize either the General Assembly or the Security Council to do any such thing.[24]

When the Security Council did finally adopt a resolution on March 5, it merely made a note of “Having received General Assembly resolution 181″ and the first monthly Palestine Commission report, and resolved

to call on the permanent members of the Council to consult and to inform the Security Council regarding the situation with respect to Palestine and to make, as the result of such consultations, recommendations to it regarding the guidance and instructions which the Council might usefully give to the Palestine Commission with a view to implementing the resolution of the General Assembly.[25]

During further debates at the Security Council over how to proceed, Austin observed that it had become “clear that the Security Council is not prepared to go ahead with efforts to implement this plan in the existing situation.” At the same time, it was clear that the U.K.’s announced termination of the Mandate on May 15 “would result, in the light of information now available, in chaos, heavy fighting and much loss of life in Palestine.” The U.N. could not permit this, he said, and the Security Council had the responsibility and authority under the Charter to act to prevent such a threat to the peace. The U.S. also proposed establishing a Trusteeship over Palestine to give further opportunity to the Jews and Arabs to reach a mutual agreement. Pending the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to that end, “we believe that the Security Council should instruct the Palestine Commission to suspend its efforts to implement the proposed partition plan.”[26]

The Security Council President, speaking as the representative from China, responded: “The United Nations was created mainly for the maintenance of international peace. It would be tragic indeed if the United Nations, by attempting a political settlement, should be the cause of war. For these reasons, my delegation supports the general principles of the proposal of the United States delegation.”[27] At a further meeting of the Security Council, the Canadian delegate stated that the partition plan “is based on a number of important assumptions”, the first of which was that “it was assumed that the two communities in Palestine would co-operate in putting into effect the solution to the Palestine problem which was recommended by the General Assembly.”[28] The French delegate, while declining to extend either approval for or disapproval of the U.S. proposal, observed that it would allow for any number of alternative solutions from the partition plan, including “a single State with sufficient guarantees for minorities”.[29] The representative from the Jewish Agency for Palestine read a statement categorically rejecting “any plan to set up a trusteeship regime for Palestine”, which “would necessarily entail a denial of the Jewish right to national independence.”[30]

Mindful of the worsening situation in Palestine, and wishing to avoid further debate, the U.S. proposed another draft resolution calling for a truce between Jewish and Arab armed groups that Austin noted “would not prejudice the claims of either group” and which “does not mention trusteeship.”[31] It was adopted as Resolution 43 on April 1.[32] Resolution 44 was also passed the same day requesting “the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 20 of the United Nations Charter, to convoke a special session of the General Assembly to consider further the question of the future government of Palestine.”[33] Resolution 46 reiterated the Security Council’s call for the cessation of hostilities in Palestine,[34] and Resolution 48 established a “Truce Commission” to further the goal of implementing its resolutions calling for an end to the violence.[35]

On May 14, the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared the existence of the State of Israel, citing Resolution 181 as constituting “recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State”.[36] As anticipated, war ensued.

The Authority of the U.N. with Regard to Partition

Chapter 1, Article 1 of the U.N. Charter defines its purposes and principles, which are to “maintain international peace and security”, to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”, and to “achieve international co-operation” on various issues and “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all”.

The functions and powers of the General Assembly are listed under Chapter IV, Articles 10 through 17. It is tasked to initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international cooperation and the development of international law, to receive reports from the Security Council and other organs of the U.N., and to consider and approve the organization’s budget. It is also tasked with performing functions under the international trusteeship system. Its authority is otherwise limited to considering and discussing matters within the scope of the Charter, making recommendations to Member States or the Security Council, or calling attention of matters to the Security Council.

Chapter V, Articles 24 through 26, states the functions and powers of the Security Council.  It is tasked with maintaining peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the U.N. The specific powers granted to the Security Council are stated in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII. Under Chapter VI, the Security Council may call upon parties to settle disputes by peaceful means, investigate, and make a determination as to whether a dispute or situation constitutes a threat to peace and security. It may recommend appropriate procedures to resolve disputes, taking into consideration that “legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice”. Under Chapter VII, the Security Council may determine the existence of a threat to peace and make recommendations or decide what measures are to be taken to maintain or restore peace and security. It may call upon concerned parties to take provisional measures “without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.” It may call upon member states to employ “measures not involving the use of armed force” to apply such measures. Should such measures be inadequate, it may authorize the use of armed forces “to maintain or restore international peace and security”. Chapter VIII states that the Security Council “shall encourage the development of pacific settlements of local disputes” through regional arrangements or agencies, and utilize such to enforce actions under its authority.

The functions and powers of the International Trusteeship System are listed under Chapter XII, Articles 75 through 85. The purpose of the system is to administer and supervise territories placed therein by agreement with the goal of “development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”. The system is to operate in accordance with the purposes of the U.N. stated in Article 1, including respect for the right of self-determination. The General Assembly is tasked with all functions “not designated as strategic”, which are designated to the Security Council. A Trusteeship Council is established to assist the General Assembly and the Security Council to perform their functions under the system.

Chapter XIII, Article 87 states the functions and powers of the Trusteeship Council, which are shared by the General Assembly. Authority is granted to consider reports, accept and examine petitions, provide for visits to trust territories, and “take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements.”

Another relevant section is Chapter XI, entitled the “Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories”, which states that

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories…

To that end, Member states are “to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions”.

Conclusion

The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7 percent of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews. The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government. The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The U.S., Syria, and other member nations were correct in their observations that, while the Security Council did have authority to declare a threat to the peace and authorize the use of force to deal with that and maintain or restore peace and security, it did not have any authority to implement by force a plan to partition Palestine contrary to the will of most of its inhabitants. Any attempt to usurp such authority by either the General Assembly or the Security Council would have been a prima facie violation of the Charter’s founding principle of respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples, and thus null and void under international law.

In sum, the popular claim that the U.N. “created” Israel is a myth, and Israel’s own claim in its founding document that U.N. Resolution 181 constituted legal authority for Israel’s creation, or otherwise constituted “recognition” by the U.N. of the “right” of the Zionist Jews to expropriate for themselves Arab land and deny to the majority Arab population of that land their own right to self-determination, is a patent fraud.

Further corollaries may be drawn. The disaster inflicted upon Palestine was not inevitable. The U.N. was created for the purpose of preventing such catastrophes. Yet it failed miserably to do so, on numerous counts. It failed in its duty to refer the legal questions of the claims to Palestine to the International Court of Justice, despite requests from member states to do so. It failed to use all means within its authority, including the use of armed forces, to maintain peace and prevent the war that was predicted would occur upon the termination of the Mandate. And most importantly, far from upholding its founding principles, the U.N. effectively acted to prevent the establishment of an independent and democratic state of Palestine, in direct violation of the principles of its own Charter. The consequences of these and other failures are still witnessed by the world today on a daily basis. Recognition of the grave injustice perpetrated against the Palestinian people in this regard and dispelling such historical myths is essential if a way forward towards peace and reconciliation is to be found.


[1] The Palestine Mandate of the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp.

[2] Great Britain had contributed to the conflict by making contradictory promises to both Jews and Arabs, including a declaration approved by the British Cabinet that read, “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” This declaration was delivered by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to representative of the Zionist movement Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild in a letter on November 2, 1917, and thus came to be known as “The Balfour Declaration”, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp.

[3] Letter from the United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations to the U.N. Secretary-General, April 2, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/87aaa6be8a3a7015802564ad0037ef57?OpenDocument.

[4] U.N. General Assembly Resolution 106, May 15, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/f5a49e57095c35b685256bcf0075d9c2?OpenDocument.

[5] United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Report to the General Assembly, September 3, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument.

[6] “Palestine Land Ownership by Sub-Districts (1945)”, United Nations, August 1950, http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg. The map was prepared on the instructions of Sub-Committee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian question and presented as Map No. 94(b). Statistics were as follows (Arab/Jewish land ownership in percentages): Safad: 68/18; Acre: 87/3; Tiberias: 51/38; Haifa: 42/35; Nazareth: 52/28; Beisan: 44/34; Jenin: 84/1, Tulkarm: 78/17; Nablus: 87/1; Jaffa: 47/39; Ramle: 77/14; Ramallah: 99/less than 1; Jerusalem: 84/2; Gaza: 75/4; Hebron: 96/less than 1; Beersheeba: 15/less than 1.

[7] UNSCOP Report.

[8] Walid Khalidi, “Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution”, Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII, no. 1 (Autumn 1997), p. 11, http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/diplomacy/Khalidi,%20Revisiting%20the%201947%20UN%20Partition%20Resolution.pdf. Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1992), pp. 23, 98.

[9] Khalidi, p. 11.

[10] UNSCOP Report.

[11] “U.K. Accepts UNSCOP General Recommendations; Will Not Implement Policy Unacceptable by Both Arabs and Jews”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 2nd Meeting, September 26, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ecb5eae2e1d29ed08525686d00529256?OpenDocument.

[12] “The Arab Case Stated by Mr. Jamal Husseini”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestinian Question 3rd Meeting, United Nations, September 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/a8c17fca1b8cf5338525691b0063f769?OpenDocument.

[13] “Palestine Committee Hears U.K. Stand and Adjourns; Sub-Committees Meet”, Press Release, Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine 24th Meeting, United Nations, November 20, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/12966c9f443583e085256a7200661aab?OpenDocument.

[14] “Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question Report of Sub-Committee 2″, United Nations, November 11 1947, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf.

[15] United Nations General Assembly 128th Plenary Meeting, United Nations, November 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/46815f76b9d9270085256ce600522c9e?OpenDocument.

[16] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253?OpenDocument.

[17] United Nations Security Council 222nd Meeting, December 9, 1947, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ce37bc968122a33985256e6900649bf6?OpenDocument.

[18] “First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine”, United Nations Palestine Commission, February 16, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/fdf734eb76c39d6385256c4c004cdba7?OpenDocument.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of Colombia at the 254th Meeting of the Security Council, February 24, 1948, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/S684.pdf.

[21] U.N. Security Council 253rd Meeting (S/PV.253), February 24, 1948, http://documents.un.org.

[22] Draft Resolution on the Palestinian Question Submitted by the Representative of the United States at the Two Hundred and Fifty Fifth Meeting of the Security Council, February 25, 1948, http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/S685.pdf.

[23] United Nations Security Council 260th Meeting, March 2, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/fcbe849f43cbb7158525764f00537dcb?OpenDocument.

[24] Ibid.

[25] United Nations Security Council Resolution 42, March 5, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d0f3291a30a2bc30852560ba006cfb88?OpenDocument.

[26] U.N. Security Council 271st Meeting, March 19, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5072db486adf13d0802564ad00394160?OpenDocument.

[27] Ibid.

[28] United Nations Security Council 274th Meeting, March 24, 1948, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/32/PDF/NL481232.pdf?OpenElement.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] United Nations Security Council 275th Meeting, March 30, 1948, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/812/32/PDF/NL481232.pdf?OpenElement.

[32] United Nations Security Council Resolution 43, April 1, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/676bb71de92db89b852560ba006748d4?OpenDocument.

[33] United Nations Security Council Resolution 44, April 1, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/1b13eb4af9118629852560ba0067c5ad?OpenDocument.

[34] United Nations Security Council Resolution 46, April 17, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/9612b691fc54f280852560ba006da8c8?OpenDocument.

[35] United Nations Security Council Resolution 48, April 23, 1948, http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/d9c60b4a589766af852560ba006ddd95?OpenDocument.

[36] The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%20to%20the%20peace%20process/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.

  • Pingback: J.R. Hammond: The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel « Dr Nasir Khan

  • Pingback: The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel by Jeremy R. Hammond « Dandelion Salad

  • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/members/markrichey/ Mark Richey

    This is a through analysis of a question the major media, of course, prefer to ignore:the history of the creation of Israel.

    They don’t like it discussed that the UN itself at the time adknowledged the illegality of the creation of a Jewish state.

    Great work, Jeremy

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Thanks, Mark. Israel National News has attempted a rebuttal:

      http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/140301

      Emphasis on “attempted”. Notice the good Dr. Nisan actually acknowledges that my thesis is correct, despite all his vain efforts to obfuscate the logical corollary.

  • AYM

    I haven’t fully finished reading the article yet but I have a few questions which I hope you can answer:
    What level of power and autonomy did the Palestinian Administration under the British mandate have?
    When did the Jew immigration start?
    Was Palestine an independent state when the unilateral declaration of the creation of Israel occurred?

    I would very much appreciate it if you could answer these questions for me.
    Thank you beforehand.

    • AYM

      I forgot to ask for some bibliographical reference to those questions if possible!
      Thanks again

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Not sure how to answer your first question, as I’m not sure how to quantify “level of power and autonomy”. Their country was occupied by a European colonial power that permitted immigration resulting in their own displacement and threatening their rights and sovereignty, so that should tell you pretty much what level of power and autonomy they had.

      Immigration began in earnest following WWI, during the British Mandate.

      Palestine was occupied territory up until the unilateral declaration. The Zionists coincided their declaration with the British withdrawal.

      • AYM

        Thank you very much for the answers. If I may be so bold as to ask:

        Who do you consider started the conflict between Palestine and Israel?
        Do you consider that Israel, as a country threatened and surrounded by enemies, are legitmitaley defending themselves?

        I had a discussion with a friend where he defended that the British Mandate was the one that created Israel and therefore was to blame. That subsequent wars between arabs and the newly declared state of Israel was simply self defense by the Jews and that they had the right to conquer and move palestinians out of their homes. To justify kicking people out of their homes he used the argument that everything can be done in war.

        I did see some logic to the fact that, if Britain had given the Jews the right to create a state, then they could legitimately defend themselves. But this article has proved otherwise. From what I read of the resolution, British Mandate was supposed to help in the creation of a Jew Homeland (which doesn’t mean a State I suppose) within Palestine keeping in mind the right of self-determination of the Palestinians (as you point out throughout the article). It was also supposed to take in mind the declaration of Balfour again in favor of the Jews. I understand that the British Mandate had no actual power to allow the Jews to create a State and much less without the consent of the majority of Palestinians. Having declared the creation of the state unilaterally:

        Does this mean that the State of Israel is illegal?

        I believe that there have been other cases of unilateral declarations of indepence. They probably haven’t been recognized as independent states (I’m not sure since I havent read much about it).
        This triggers a questions which I hope someone can answer: Why?
        Why can the Jews create a state, transcending peoples’ right, and others can’t?
        It makes me sick and angry to think that such a long and painful conflict resulted from the selfishness of Jews (which we have to note are not a race). It is true that they suffered an unprecedented massacre but they aren’t the only ones: take the Armenians for example. We could also include the years of slavery the Africans had to suffer.
        Anyway, I’m just ranting here, which wasn’t the original idea when writing the comment.
        I hope some of the questions posed here will be answered and also make people think about the whole situation.

        Thank you very much for this enlightening article Jeremy.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          I don’t mean to dodge your question about “who started it”, but I don’t think it’s a relevant question, because any one particular event one might choose as the precise “starting point”, another could point to an event prior to that that might have been causal in some way. It becomes kind of a “tit for tat” discussion. So I would prefer for this reason to ask the question: What is the root cause? And the root cause is very simple and clear: the rejection of the Palestinian right to self-determination. Thus the question becomes: Who was responsible for rejecting their rights? The answer is not only the Zionists, but also Britain, the League of Nations, and the U.S.

          Your friend is wrong. Israel was not created under the British Mandate. It was created through a unilateral declaration by the Zionists, with absolutely no legal foundation whatsoever (I only address UNGA Res 181 here, but could just as well discuss other claimed legal foundations). Nor were the British responsible for the Zionist movement and activities. Actually, the first acts of terrorism in Palestine were carried out by Zionists against both Arabs and the British (and, actually, against other Jews, as well, such as in the bombing of the King David Hotel). I also don’t put any weight into the argument that “everything can be done in war” and therefore the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is justified. I realize that morality may be a subjective concept, but there are standardized norms of human behavior, and your friend’s comment in this regard just rejects all recognized human decency, such as is reflected in international law (e.g. UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, etc.). I mean, come on, by such logic as your friend’s, one could justify the Holocaust. I presume your friend is not an admirer or apologist of Hitler or the Nazi regime, so I cannot believe he actually honestly believes his own rhetoric. That he is selective in his use of this standard merely shows that he is a hypocrite, sadly enough. Or maybe he really would justify the slaughter of millions of Jews, in which case I can only advise you to choose your friends more wisely (not to condescend; I only say that because I’m confident it isn’t really the case).

          You said: “I did see some logic to the fact that, if Britain had given the Jews the right to create a state, then they could legitimately defend themselves.” You have rightly pointed out the fallacy in that logic.

          I wouldn’t say that the state of Israel is “illegal” by any means, any more than I would say that the U.S. is “illegal” (after all, the U.S. also came into being through acts of ethnic cleansing – worse, outright genocide – and territorial expansion by war). This is not the point. Israel is here to stay, and the people of Israel have an equal right to self-determination and a right to live in peace and security. However, the rights of Israelis do not come at the expense of the rights of their neighbors, and this is the problem, and the reality, both historical and present, that we must recognize and deal with. There is an international consensus that two states should exist, based upon UN resolution 242 and the establishment of the pre-June 1967 armistice lines as borders, with minor and mutually agreed upon revisions. The P.A. has accepted this two-state solution. Hamas has accepted it (contrary to popular belief). The single most important reason why this solution isn’t implemented is because Israel and the U.S. reject it (despite nice-sounding but meaningless rhetoric to the contrary).

          Your question of “Why can the Jews create a state, transcendign people’s right, and others can’t?” is a good one. I would ask that question of those who I’ve seen argue that the Palestinian’s attempts to seek international recognition are “invalid”, “illegal”, etc. The hypocrisy of such Zionists who make such arguments is truly astonishing.

          On selfishness, I agree with you, but caution against conflating “Jews” with “Zionists”. Many indigenous Jews (which is to say, the “Jewish Palestinians”) were actually opposed to the Zionist goals of a “Jewish state”, joining their Arab brethren in their opposition. And non-Zionist Jewish communities in Palestine got along well with their Arab neighbors, even throughout peaks of conflict between the two peoples.

          Thanks very much for your comments and questions. I always enjoy having meaningful and reasonable discussions with others about important topics. It’s actually kind of a rare thing, unfortunately. So sincere thanks.

          • AYM

            I very much appreciate your comments and answers, Jeremy. It really helps me build up weight for any further arguments I might have with my friend (or anyone) regarding this subject. As for my friend, I want to clarify that he is not in any way a supporter of the Nazi regime or Hitler. He actually defends the creation of Israel because he believes that as a people who have been prosecuted throughout history they have a “right” to have their own homeland. To this argument I always answered that even though they might have the right, Palestinians also had the right to their land. This is when he issued the argument that the creation of Israel was made under British Mandate and therefore in no way Zionists’ fault. The rest of the story you know already.

            Going off on a tangent here I wanted to know if you had articles addressing the conflicts between Hezbollah and Israel and also between Iran and Israel.
            Also I would like to know your opinion on a few subjects:
            Do you think the creation of the State of Israel was a means for the US to have an ally which would destabilize the middle-east?

            I mean, since the creation of Israel the incidence of suicide attacks has increased and (I believe) it is being exploited by the US and Israel to justify war and also to make people believe that Islam is evil, that Islamic extremism must be eradicated, that government and religion should be seperated (more so if it’s an Islamic government ie: Iran).

            In reference to the last many people ignore that Israel is self proclaimed as a Jew nation meaning that the religion of the state and government is Judaism (correct me if I’m wrong).

            As for the suicide attacks, people might be interested to know that most suicide attacks between 1980 and 2001 were perpetrated by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (a Marxist/Leninist influenced group in Sri Lanka). But of course this doesn’t suit the powerful nations and so it is not diffused by mass media.

            Moreover and bearing in mind that:
            -The Talibans in Afghanistan recieved weapons and funds from the US Gov. during the cold war
            -That this same government provided the weapons for Iraq to fight Iran

            I wouldn’t at all be surprised that the creation of Israel were all part of a bigger plan for the middle-east.
            This reminds me of the fact that “all of a sudden” some suicide attacks have turned on Christians (especially in Iraq and Egypt).

            Coincidence? How come they weren’t attacked until just a few months back? If suicide attackers are extremists, they are extremists from the start and thus (from what is expected) they should have attacked Christians much earlier. But they didn’t. Why?

            I believe this is all a plan to prove and justify the false argument that Islamics and Christians (religions in general) cannot live together. They have for the better part of 1000 years (excepting the Crusades obviously), and now mass media wants to erase history and make us believe that it can’t happen. Look no further, Lebanon might be in a political crisis right now, but Christians, Muslims and even Jews live together… but guess what? Mass media don’t focus on that, they focus on Hezbollah and stating that they are an Islamic terrorist group that threatens Israel. Were Israel to engage in a war with Hezbollah you can bet Christians will be affected, one way or another.
            At some point there will be no more Arab Christians left.

            Maybe I’ve just seen too many conspiratorial movies but to me it does make sense. I’d like to hear some opinions on this subject.

            Again, Jeremy, thanks for answering back.
            I’m looking forward to your answer to this reply.

            Cheers!

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            I don’t write much on Hezbollah, but I did write this piece after the ’06 summer war:

            http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2006/09/26/escalating-terrorism-u-s-policy-and-the-israel-hezbollah-war/

            On Iran, I mostly write about it with regard to U.S. foreign policy, but since U.S. policy alignes with Israel’s, you might find my work relevant. You can find my articles on Iran from the navigation menu. There are too many to list here.

            You are right that Israel is declared as a “Jewish state”. That does have the implications you state, though I suppose it’s open to some interpretation.

            As for the rest of your comments, I think you are making a valid point about the ridiculousness of the “Clash of Civilizations” view of the world and international relations. As far as I’m concerned, this is nothing more than propaganda from Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, et al.

        • Trish

          Modern Jewish immigration into Palestine began in 1882. The Ottoman Government was aware of this influx from the outset, and decided to oppose Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1881, some months before the increased flow of Jews got under way. There was a great pressure from the European on Ottoman Empire to accept Jews to settle on the east bank of the River Jordan, because neither the ruler nor the people of the empire desired to have Jews in their land.

          In November 1881, in response to the Anglo-German group’s approach, the Ottoman Government announced that: “Jewish immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout the Ottoman Empire, excluding PALESTINE.” *

          For more information on this subject please read the following book:

          * Neville J. Mandel, “The Arabs and Zionism”, 1980

          However, Herzl said that Palestine should be granted to the Jews with the great power protection but Abdulhamid II, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire rejected. He did not want the flow of Jewish immigrants into Palestine and ordered Jewish immigrants to be shipped to America. Herzl’s exchange for Palestine was “to regulate the whole finances of Turkey” * since the empire was in trouble financially. Abdulhamid told Herzl:

          “I cannot sell even a foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people.”

          Now, we know how Israel was created after the demise of the Ottoman Empire and regime change in Turkey to ‘create’ homeland based on ethnic cleansing and stolen land of Palestine.
          Balfour declaration did not support Partition of Palestine and creation of a ‘Jewish state’. In fact Britain did not vote for the PARTITION of PALESTINE. Balfour clearly said:

          {Dear Lord Rothschild,
          “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
          I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Balfour }

          Balfour declaration’s objective WAS establishment of a national home in PALESTINE, not a ‘jewish state’.

          So Balfour believed in:
          [T]o facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..]

          • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

            Yes, I cover the Balfour Declaration and other early documents in my book “The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination”
            http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/books/

  • I

    Thank you for that well researched, factual and informative article!

  • John Hillary

    What a a most enlightening historical voyage! I had already learned a few things from talknic, but now even more from you. You in effect correct or counter his view that says the partition lines are legal as they were affirmed in the Israeli Declaration of statehood.

    Perhaps you can help me with a particular issue. That is,the legality or otherwise of, and the apparent Palestinian agreement to, the 1949 armistice lines. Palestine is going for the 1967 lines in September, so either Arafat or Abbas must have signed something to that effect. Otherwise they would surely be going for the 1947 partition lines Israel affirmed in its 1948 Declaration does not belong to it. So, has Palestine and the UN actually accepted the extra 26% Israel holds from the 1947-49 war? As you know, that is contrary to international law as such. But maybe that is over-ridden if all affected parties agree to it.

    Anyway, hope you can clarify this as I have been in a quandary about it since the push for UN status. Thanks.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      The Palestinians have already conceded not only the territory originally proposed for the Jewish state in 181 in 1947, but also the territory Israel captured during the war and ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. One hears of Israeli “concessions”, but the fact is Israeli concessions are nonexistent, and it is the Palestinians who have already made enormous concessions of land. All they are asking for now is to have their state recognized on what remains of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They will be going to the UN in September to pursue the two-state settlement as per the international consensus, which is based upon the universal right to self-determination as recognized by the UN Charter and Resolution 242 of ’67, which called upon Israel to withdraw from all the territories it occupied and for the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries.

  • John Hillary

    Thanks Jeremy, for such a fast answer.

    It appears therefore, that although the partition lines have no legality, Israel’s unilateral declaration has no legality, and the spoils of the 1947-49 war have no legality, yet the world, including the Palestinians, accept them. The mind boggles!

    Yet it may be relevant to remember what happened elsewhere during that period. That is, the redrawing of boundaries and the transfer of peoples at the end of and soon after World War 2, especially in Europe and India-Pakistan.

    The Israeli-US opposition to Palestine UN recognition and entry may well succeed. The fact is, their stonewalling and stealing have rendered the two state solution so unviable. However, such a UN failure may have a silver lining, in that the one state solution will have to be faced by all parties because, as Obama said, “the status-quo is unsustainable”.

  • http://www.rachelgolem.com Rachel Golem

    The Zionists send out secret mind control waves, causing Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Afghans and Pakistanis to kill each other.

    And Americans don’t like people crashing planes into their tall buildings because the Zionist controlled media tells them to feel that way.

  • Marian

    Minor point: the Palestine Mandate was, as you wrote, “issued” in July 1922 to Britain — who had been administrating the territory from the time its army swept up out of Egypt in 1918, arrived in Jerusalem, and then went through what became Transjordan onto Iraq –but this Mandate did not legally go into effect until the formal surrender of Turkey in 1923 [Lausanne Conference].

    After the Second World War, Britain wanted to divest itself of this responsibility, and turned to the newly-formed UN, as you write.

    More major point: The Proclamation of the State of Israel on 14-15 May 1948 was based in part on the “Partition Plan” UNGA Resolution 181 of November 1947. Yes, as you say, it was a recommendtion, which was not accepted at that time by both parties: “It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not“.

    And, as you write, the U.S. soon turned to another idea, that of Trusteeship, and soon gave that idea up as well.

    But, some four decades later, in November 1988, the PLO Declaration of Independence was issued and ratified at a Palestine National Council [PNC] meeting in Algiers, and it, too, relied in part on UNGA Res 181 — however unjust it had been, as the PLO declaration noted — as part of its legal basis for proclaiming a State of Palestine.

    This is the point that both parties are considered to have given their agreement to the partition of the territory.

    The same PNC meeting in Algiers ratified, in a separate decision, the PLO leadership’s decision to establish the State of Palestine within the territory occupied by Israel in the June 1967 war [and by this moven, the PLO gave up any claim on title to the land lying between the 1947 Partition Plan demarcation and the 1967 lines]…

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Yes, the PLO has long accepted the international consensus on a two-state solution based on Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 lines, with minor and mutually agreed revisions to a final border. Hamas, too, has for many years declared its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the ’67 borders. It is the U.S. and Israel who alone defy the international consensus with their rejectionist policies.

      • http://www.israelunlocked.wordpress.com israelunlocked

        Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to discuss your article in its entirety, so I’ll have to restrict my response to this comment.

        The PLO has indeed officially accepted a two-state solution based on the 1949 armistice lines. The key word here, however, is “officially.” Numerous factors indicate that this acceptance was insincere. For instance,
        • Arafat himself stated that the Oslo Accords were equivalent to the Treaty of Hudaybiya, which Muhammad signed but abrogated shortly thereafter
        • Arafat also made a number of other post-Oslo statements to the effect that the Palestinians would continue to fight until all of “Palestine” was “liberated”
        • The PLO’s symbol continues to display a map of the entire State of Israel
        • The PLO refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state
        • And, of course, there’s the PLO charter’s continued call for Israel’s destruction

        Hamas is even more open about its refusal to accept Israel’s existence in any form. In May 2011, for instance, Hamas agreed to establish a Palestinian state on 1967 borders – but not to recognize Israel along those borders, because “a formal recognition would cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands.” In the same month, Hamas announced its intent to “bring an end to the Zionist project” and restated that it would not recognize “the Zionist entity.” And, of course, Hamas’ constitution not only precludes co-existence with Israel, it also glorifies the murder of Jews generally.

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          “Arafat himself stated that the Oslo Accords…”

          Which has what, exactly, to do with the two-state solution? Apart from being the US-Israeli means by which to block its implementation, that is?

          “The PLO’s symbol continues to display a map of the entire State of Israel”

          Perhaps you mean all of Palestine.

          “The PLO refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state”

          Rightly so. This also has nothing to do with the two-state solution. But why should Palestinians accept Arab-Israelis as second class citizens and renounce their right of return?

          “And, of course, there’s the PLO charter’s continued call for Israel’s destruction”

          You mean continued call for the unity of Palestine. A rather hypocritical criticism, given the Zionists’ actually having destroyed Palestine, unilaterally declaring the state of Israel and ethnically cleansing the land of its Arab inhabitants, and to this day continuing to occupy Palestinian soil beyond the Green Line.

          As for Hamas, it has repeatedly declared its willingness to accept a state of Palestine alongside Israel on the ’67 borders.

          • http://www.israelunlocked.wordpress.com israelunlocked

            See my response below.

  • http://www.israelunlocked.wordpress.com israelunlocked

    Which has what, exactly, to do with the two-state solution?

    It has everything to do with the two-state solution. The PLO officially recognized Israel as part of the Oslo process, but Arafat did not consider that recognition to be binding. This is because the PLO considers the two-state solution to be a mere tactic, employed until a newly formed Palestine is strong enough to withdraw recognition from Israel and set about destroying it.

    Perhaps you mean all of Palestine.

    No, I meant Israel.

    Rightly so. This also has nothing to do with the two-state solution.

    Again, it has everything to do with the two-state solution. The two-state solution is meant to result in one Jewish state (Israel) and one more Arab state (Palestine). If there is no Jewish state, there is no need for an Arab state. Consequently, anyone who doesn’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state cannot support a two-state solution, but supports a single-state solution instead.

    But why should Palestinians accept Arab-Israelis as second class citizens and renounce their right of return?

    Arab-Israelis are full Israeli citizens, and Palestinians don’t have a “right of return.”

    You mean continued call for the unity of Palestine. A rather hypocritical criticism, given the Zionists’ actually having destroyed Palestine, unilaterally declaring the state of Israel and ethnically cleansing the land of its Arab inhabitants, and to this day continuing to occupy Palestinian soil beyond the Green Line.

    So we’re going to discuss the entire conflict, then, are we?

    The Zionists didn’t destroy Palestine – Palestine did not exist as a state at any time in history; logic dictates that it therefore could not have been destroyed. In contrast, the State of Israel does exist, and the PLO Charter calls for its destruction.

    There was no ethnic cleansing of Arab inhabitants. There was a war, which, like all wars, resulted in refugees – both Jewish and Arab. In contrast, the Arabs did ethnically cleanse the Jews of Gaza, Hebron, and other areas during the early 20th century. In addition, Israel retained a sizable Arab population following the 1948 war, while Egypt and Jordan made Gaza, Jerusalem, and Judea and Samaria “Judenrein.” Numerous other Arab countries also ethnically cleansed their ancient Jewish communities during the same period, resulting in nearly one million Jewish refugees.

    With regard to the “occupation” – contrary to popular belief, the term “occupation” does not apply to Judea and Samaria because those areas did not formerly belong to an independent state. However, even if one insisted on calling it an occupation, the occupation of land during war is completely legal according to international law. An occupation legally continues until the two sides can reach a peace agreement. In this case, the Arabs have rejected every offer of peace, resulting in the legal continuation of the so-called “occupation.”

    In contrast, the Arab targeting of Israeli civilians by rocket fire, suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings, etc. are blatant violations of international law.

    As for Hamas, it has repeatedly declared its willingness to accept a state of Palestine alongside Israel on the ’67 borders.

    December 14, 2011: Hamas leader Haniyeh: “Resistance is the way and it is the strategic choice to liberate Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea and to remove the invaders from the blessed land of Palestine.” Look it up.

    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Here are the facts:

      1) The “peace process” is the process by which the US and Israel prevent implementation of the two-state solution.

      2) The right of persons to return to their own land is an guaranteed under international law and Palestinians’ right of return is internationally recognized.

      3) Palestine was not an independent state, but it doesn’t follow that it shouldn’t be, that its inhabitants’ right to self-determination should not be recognized and respected (which it wasn’t, which is the root of the conflict).

      4) 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

      5) All of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are occupied Palestinian territories.

      6) UNSC Resolution 242 emphasized the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by force and called upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel remains in violation of that and numerous subsequent resolutions.

      7) Indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza are a war crime. Israel’s war crimes are on an incomparably greater scale, e.g. Operation Cast Lead.

      8 ) Hamas has repeatedly declared its willingness to accept a state of Palestine alongside Israel on the ’67 borders. Look it up. See my “The Rise of Hamas in Gaza”, for example.

      • http://www.israelunlocked.wordpress.com israelunlocked

        You can call them ‘facts,’ Jeremy, but that doesn’t make them facts.

        1) The “peace process” is the process by which the US and Israel prevent implementation of the two-state solution.

        This is pure opinion. I’m not going to respond to this.

        2) The right of persons to return to their own land is an guaranteed under international law and Palestinians’ right of return is internationally recognized.

        The right of return is most definitely not guaranteed under international law, and the international community has provided Palestinians with alternative remedies to return, including compensation and resettlement.
        Note that the existence of an internationally guaranteed right of return would guarantee the right of Jews to return to their homes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, the Golan, Jerusalem, and the many Arab countries from which they were forced to flee.

        3) Palestine was not an independent state

        Great. I’m glad we agree on something – Palestine was not a state, and therefore the Zionists could not have “destroyed Palestine.”

        but it doesn’t follow that it shouldn’t be

        Of course it doesn’t follow. Whether or not a state called Palestine should be created is an entirely different discussion.

        that its inhabitants’ right to self-determination should not be recognized and respected (which it wasn’t, which is the root of the conflict).

        You are mistaken – self-determination is irrelevant to the conflict: Arab attacks on Palestinian Jewish communities began long before Palestinian Arabs began to even consider the possibility of self-rule (e.g., Safed Massacre 1834)

        4) 750,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

        There was no ethnic cleansing of Arab inhabitants. There was a war, which, like all wars, resulted in refugees – both Jewish and Arab. In contrast, the Arabs did ethnically cleanse the Jews of Gaza, Hebron, and other areas during the early 20th century.
        In addition, Israel retained a sizable Arab population following the 1948 war, while Egypt and Jordan made Gaza, Jerusalem, and Judea and Samaria “Judenrein.”
        Numerous other Arab countries also ethnically cleansed their ancient Jewish communities during the same period, resulting in nearly one million Jewish refugees.

        5) All of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are occupied Palestinian territories.

        Contrary to popular belief, the term “occupation” does not apply to Judea and Samaria because those areas did not formerly belong to an independent state.
        However, even if one insisted on calling it an occupation, the occupation of land during war is completely legal according to international law. An occupation legally continues until the two sides can reach a peace agreement. In this case, the Arabs have rejected every offer of peace, resulting in the legal continuation of the so-called “occupation.”

        6) UNSC Resolution 242 emphasized the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by force and called upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel remains in violation of that and numerous subsequent resolutions.

        International law prohibits the acquisition of territory through wars of aggression, a principle that is meant to discourage war by removing incentive. When a country fights a war of self-defense, this principle is not applicable.
        Res 242 states that Israel should withdraw “from territories,” not “from the territories,” an intentional omission, according to those involved with the resolution’s formation – Israel was expected to retain part of the territory it had acquired.
        It’s interesting that those who hold anti-Israel views tend to forget that the Arabs also had responsibilities under this and other resolutions, and have never complied with them.

        7) Indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza are a war crime. Israel’s war crimes are on an incomparably greater scale, e.g. Operation Cast Lead.

        Again, we agree. Hamas, Fatah, and other terrorist groups commit war crimes on a regular basis.
        In contrast, “During operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare.” – British Colonel Richard Kemp

        8 ) Hamas has repeatedly declared its willingness to accept a state of Palestine alongside Israel on the ’67 borders. Look it up. See my “The Rise of Hamas in Gaza”, for example.

        It’s amazing how you will insist on this mistaken belief of yours, when Hamas has repeatedly, clearly, and emphatically stated otherwise.
        In May 2011, for instance, Hamas agreed to establish a Palestinian state on 1967 borders – but not to recognize Israel along those borders, because “a formal recognition would cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands.” In the same month, Hamas announced its intent to “bring an end to the Zionist project” and restated that it would not recognize “the Zionist entity.” And, of course, Hamas’ constitution not only precludes co-existence with Israel, it also glorifies the murder of Jews generally.
        December 14, 2011: Hamas leader Haniyeh: “Resistance is the way and it is the strategic choice to liberate Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea and to remove the invaders from the blessed land of Palestine.”

        • Jeremy R. Hammond

          You are right, me calling something a fact doesn’t make it true, just as you can deny facts, but that doesn’t make them untrue.

          1) It is as I’ve said.

          2) The right of return, as I’ve said, is internationally recognized and codified in international law. http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2011/12/13/newts-invented-history-of-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/. Yes, of course it applies to Jews, too. Jews weren’t ethnically cleansed from Palestine, though, Arabs were.

          3) The root of the conflict is the rejection of the right of the Arabs to self-determination. That you reject that they have such a right, and/or that it doesn’t apply is instructive as to your prejudice.

          4) 750,000 Arabs were ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

          5) All of the West Bank and Gaza are “occupied Palestinian territories” (quoting the International Court of Justice) under international law. This is absolutely noncontroversial.

          6) There is no such exception to the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and the Zionists weren’t fighting a defensive war. They were on the offensive. It was the Arabs who were defending the political and property rights of the majority Arab inhabitants whose land the Zionists unilaterally declared for themselves and then ethnically cleansed them from.

          This argument about the “the” is asinine. It’s true, it says “territories occupied”, not “the territories occupied”–but also not “some of the territories occupied”, as you would have it be interpreted. The absence of the definite article has no effect on the meaning of the resolution and doesn’t determine the extent of the withdrawal called for. Resolution 242, emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, calls for Israeli withdrawal from “territories”, plural, that it occupied in June 1967. The Syrian Golan Heights, Egyptian Sinai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank are all “territories”, plural, that Israel occupied, and thus, which it must withdrawal from under 242. The only authoritative interpretation of U.N. resolutions is that of the Security Council itself, and the intent of the Council was that Israel fully withdrawal, a point the French delegate made when he told Abba Eban that, anyway, the French text, equally authentic as the English, does contain the article, so the point was moot.

          7) Kemp is a moron and a UN Watch stooge. His remark that you quoted is prima facie nonsense. The war on Gaza itself was a criminal act of aggression, and Israel committed numerous grave war crimes during its operations, including its direct attack upon civilians and civilian objects (e.g. homes, schools, hospitals, etc.), indiscriminate attacks including the use of white phosphorus over populated areas, deliberate destruction of the civilian infrastructure, etc. Also completely noncontroversial outside the Wonderland of Washington and Tel Aviv.

          8 ) You are conflating the issue. Hamas does not recognize that Israel has a “right to exist”, nor should it, for the reasons already given. Nevertheless, Hamas does recognize that Israel does exist, and has long and repeatedly expressed its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the ’67 borders.
          http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2010/01/20/the-rise-of-hamas-in-gaza/
          http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2009/05/06/hamas-leader-reiterates-goal-of-palestinian-state-neighboring-israel/

          • http://www.israelunlocked.wordpress.com israelunlocked

            1) You’re entitled to your opinion.

            2) The Arabs certainly did ethnically cleanse Jews from Gaza, Judea & Samaria, and “eastern” Jerusalem during the first half of the 20th century. Jews were only able to return to these areas after Israel gained control of them in the course of 1967 Six Day War.
            International law requires that the issue of refugees be settled “justly,” and the international community offered alternatives to return, including compensation and resettlement. The sources you cite do not support your argument because they aren’t relevant to the situation.

            3) The root of the conflict is anti-Semitism, as evidenced by the fact that Palestinian Arabs attacked Palestinian Jewish communities long before self-determination in Palestine was even an issue under discussion, e.g. Safed massacre 1834.

            4) There was no ethnic cleansing of Arab inhabitants. There was a war, which, like all wars, resulted in refugees – both Jewish and Arab. In contrast, the Arabs did ethnically cleanse the Jews of Gaza, Hebron, and other areas during the early 20th century.
            In addition, Israel retained a sizable Arab population following the 1948 war, while Egypt and Jordan made Gaza, Jerusalem, and Judea and Samaria “Judenrein.”
            Numerous other Arab countries also ethnically cleansed their ancient Jewish communities during the same period, resulting in nearly one million Jewish refugees.

            5) Contrary to popular belief, the term “occupation” does not apply to Judea and Samaria because those areas did not formerly belong to an independent state.
            However, even if one insisted on calling it an occupation, the occupation of land during war is completely legal according to international law. An occupation legally continues until the two sides can reach a peace agreement. In this case, the Arabs have rejected every offer of peace, resulting in the legal continuation of the so-called “occupation.”
            Note: The International Court of Justice is not the decisive authority on international law

            6) There certainly is an exception when a war is fought in self-defense, for the reasons I explained. The Six Day War was the clearest example of a war fought in self-defense – it began with the Arab countries’ mobilization on Israel’s borders and Arab threats to “wipe Israel off the map.”
            Re: Res 242 – If the French and the English texts are equally authentic, the French text is not more authentic than the English, and a number of those involved in the resolution’s formation have made it clear that the omission of the word “the” in the English version was deliberate.

            7) Kemp’s statement was right on the money. Cast Lead was fought in self-defense to stop rocket-fire from Gaza into Israeli civilian centers. It was fought in civilian areas because Hamas chose to station its militants and weaponry in civilian areas (homes, schools, hospital, etc.), making these legitimate and necessary targets. Even so, Israel did its utmost to prevent civilian casualties when at all possible. Sometimes it was not possible. That’s war.
            In contrast, Hamas, Fatah, and other terrorist groups commit the gravest of war crimes on a regular basis by targeting civilians, dressing as civilians, etc.

            8) Your articles simply support what I’ve written:
            Hamas agreed to establish a Palestinian state on 1967 borders – but not to recognize Israel along those borders, because “a formal recognition would cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands.”
            With this in mind, Hamas’ mention of a “long term truce” with Israel makes sense: A truce is not a peace agreement. A truce is a temporary cessation of violence – until Hamas is ready for its final attack.
            In May 2011, Hamas announced its intent to “bring an end to the Zionist project” and restated that it would not recognize “the Zionist entity.”
            In December 2011, Hamas leader Haniyeh stated: “[Armed] Resistance is the way and it is the strategic choice to liberate Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea and to remove the invaders from the blessed land of Palestine.”
            And, of course, Hamas’ constitution not only precludes co-existence with Israel, it also glorifies the murder of Jews generally.

            We will not persuade each other, Jeremy, and my intent was not to get into a discussion with you about every aspect of this conflict. It appears that the best we can do is agree to disagree.

          • Jeremy R. Hammond

            1) Yes. My opinion happens to be supported by the facts, though, unlike yours.

            2) Jews were not ethnically cleansed from Palestine. 750,000 Arabs were.

            3) The root of the conflict is the rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination.

            “[T]here is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” — British Commission of Inquiry into the May 1921 riots

            4) 750,000 Arabs were ethnically cleansed from Palestine

            http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1525/jps.2006.36.1.6

            5) All of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are “occupied Palestinian territory” under international law. This is absolutely non-controversial, your delusion to the contrary notwithstanding.

            6) There is no exception, and Israel started the June ’67 war on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Egypt. The facts on Resolution 242 are as I stated them. The universal will of the Council was that Israel fully withdraw to the pre-June 5 lines, historical revisionist accounts to the contrary notwithstanding.

            7) It was Israel, not Hamas, that violated the cease-fire. Israel committed grave war crimes, including attacks on civilians and civilian objects such as homes, schools, hospitals, UN sites, etc. Repeating Israeli lies about Hamas using “human shields” to attempt to justify these war crimes does not help your case.

            8) Like I said, Palestinians rightly do not recognize that the Zionists had a “right” to steal their land and ethnically cleanse Palestine, but Hamas has for a long time repeatedly expressed its willingness to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel on the ’67 borders. You seem to have conceded this point, so I’ll leave it at that.

  • http://www.israelunlocked.wordpress.com israelunlocked

    *Apparently, the number 8 next to a parenthesis shows up as an emoticon with sunglasses – who knew?*

  • http://www.samibedouin.wordpress.com Sami, the bedouin

    They perfectly knew what they were doing …. wasn’t it like this: President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it in 1942, (6 years before the actual ethnic cleansing of Palestine): “I actually would put a barbed wire around Palestine, and I would begin to move the Arabs out of Palestine…. I would provide land for the Arabs in some other part of the Middle East…. Each time we move out an Arab we would bring in another Jewish family…” …. and it was far more violent than that !! @

    http://samibedouin.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/29/

  • Pingback: HAMMOND: The myth of the UN creation of Israel 25Jan13 | Australians for Palestine

  • Pingback: GPJA #453: GAZA REPORT – Hear UK documentary maker & activist Harry Fear Thursday Feb 7 « GPJA's Blog

  • Blake

    Yep. UN cannot create states. Can only recommend a solution.
    “The Partition Plan” was UTTERLY ILLEGAL and a violation of the UN Charter, because the UN had NO RIGHT OR POWER to take land from one people and give it to another. It was never ratified by the Security Council, and so does not exist in law, which means the UN played no role in the creation of Israel. Israel was created illegally. The UN Charter Article 73,b. says the UN is mandated to only build nations with SELF RULE, not to build nations with immigrant rule.

  • Mark

    Give it up. The UN is an anglo-american-zionist entity. Zionists dictate the rules. You can’t beat them at their own game, because the system is rigged against you from the start.

    The UN did create Israel, whether arbitrarily or not.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      Several problems with that: Zionists do not control the U.N.; I’m not playing their game; and, no, the U.N. really did not create Israel, “arbitrarily” or otherwise.

  • http://www.palestinematters.com Vacy Vlazna

    Superb research and valuable information. Thank you Jeremy.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      You’re welcome!

  • http://www.palestinematters.com Vacy Vlazna

    Jeremy, your article deals thoroughly with the illegality of the partition plan so why did the UN vote for the recognition of the State of Israel and for its membership in the UN?

    Isn’t this recognition the actual UN creation of the State of Israel?

    And what legal right does a people have to declare a state in a land that has not legally been established as their own?

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      The UN recognition of the state of Israel in granting Israel membership was also a violation of Charter principles. To gain membership, the UN had to recognize Israel as a peace loving state. Which the UN did, even though three quarters of a million Palestinians had just been ethnically cleansed and Israel was refusing to permit the refugees to return to their homes. As for your third question, the answer is “none”. There was no legal foundation for the declaration of the existence of the state of Israel.

  • gay o’connor

    I always felt there was something intrinsically wrong with the UN “creating” Israel – giving the majority of the land to the minority. I didn’t know just how wrong that concept was. Thanks you Jeremy for increasing my understanding of the whole sorry sad saga

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      You’re welcome!

  • gay o’connor

    You refer to the UN recognising Israel as a peace loving state. It went further than that – based on Israel’s agreement to abide by resolution 194 (to allow the refugees back or pay just compensation) Israel was given membership of the UN by res. 273. I once heard someone say that the reason Israel broke her promise was because res. 194 had a proviso – that Israel allow the refugees back providing they – the refugees – agreed to live in peace with Israelis – and, it was said, they refused to do that. This rationale means the 750,000 Palestinian refugees were all if they agreed to live in peace and they all said “no”. What nonsense that attempted justification is. Though I must say I haven’t heard it recently – I assume whoever promulgated it has seen how silly it sounds.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond

      The right of return of refugees is not a conditional right, and UNGA res 194 accordingly contained no such provision. So, yes, that is a silly justification indeed.

    • HarryFeldman

      Actually, UNGAR 273 does not enjoin Israel to comply with 194, nor did Israel agree to do so. On the contrary, in 273, the GA recalled ‘its resolutions of 29 November 1947 [181] and 11 December 1948 [194] and’ took ‘note of the declarations and explanations [http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/1db943e43c280a26052565fa004d8174?OpenDocument#Mr.%20EBAN%20%28Israel%29%20understood%20tha] made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions’. The ‘declarations and explanations’ Mr Eban had provided six days earlier, on 5 May 1949, interpret 194 ‘the earliest practicable date’ as intending for repatriation to take place after a regional peace and declaration of borders, which of course have not been achieved to this day. He also argued, considerably less plausibly, that the Arab countries were responsible for the refugees’ flight and should therefore accept responsibility for their resettlement. Whatever the merits of his arguments, the GA took note of them and must have found them persuasive, because they immediately proceeded to decide ‘that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations’ and to admit it to membership. Note that Israel ‘accepts the obligations contained in the Charter’ specifically, and not in GA resolutions. Lebanese representative, Mr Malik, argued on 5 May that under the circumstances, ‘Admission of Israel…would be tantamount to the revocation of the previous Assembly decisions’, an interpretation I find much more plausible than protestations that International Law™ requires Israel to repatriate the refugees. Eban argued, and this may have been decisive, that 181 and 194 were irrelevant to Israel’s admission, citing ‘the General Assembly resolution of 8 December 1948 (197 (III)[http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/RES/197(III)&Lang=E&Area=RESOLUTION]), which stated that juridically no State was entitled to make its consent to the admission of an applicant dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter.’ (‘Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.’)

      What this makes clear is, for one thing, lawfare is not a new item on the hasbara menu and that its 21st Century adherents have not surpassed Mr Eban’s efforts 64 years ago. Furthermore, since International Law™ is inevitably subject to interpretation and the hasbaristas’ interpretations are at least as soundly reasoned and convincing as their interlocutors’, is it really useful to appeal to International Law™ (particularly when broadly construed, as in common parlance, to include UNGARs, ICJ advisory opinions, etc.) as part of a struggle against colonialism or oppression? In my view, it’s immaterial whether Israel’s actions are ‘illegal’ or not. What if some judicial instrumentality that International Law™ advocates regard as legitimate were to hand down a ruling that upheld the Israeli interpretation – that circumstances had rendered 181 and 194 moot (or that 273 annulled them), that Israel had ‘withdrawn from territories’ as required by UNSCR 242 by relinquishing the Sinai, that Israel had not ‘transferred or deported’ its population into the West Bank, etc.? Wouldn’t we still know that racism, colonialism, ethnic cleansing…are wrong and wouldn’t we still have to fight them? Indeed, 65 years down the track, it might be time to admit that nobody is ever going to enforce the refugees’ right of return just because 194 says they should. It’s going to require a completely different kind of struggle.

  • HarryFeldman

    Thanks for this useful perspective. You point out aspects of 181 I hadn’t considered before. (e.g. http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/mighty-effort.html; http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com.au/2007/04/land-for-peace.html) I’ll be taking them into consideration next time I broach the subject.

    I think it’s worth considering, in light of your research and your argument, whether it matters whether or not 273 violated Charter principles or not, whether there is any legal foundation for the State of Israel, etc.

    • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

      Watch for the next issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs! It just so happens I wrote a piece discussing that. http://www.wrmea.org

      • HarryFeldman

        I look forward to it. When does it come out?

        A couple of minor points I omitted yesterday –

        - In his discussion of 273. Mr Malik seems to have been in no doubt that ‘Israel had actually been created in November 1947 by a resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II))’. For whatever that’s worth.

        - Khalidi cannot be right to assert that ‘the partition resolution’ (not the UNSCOP proposal, per se) recommended ‘that the Arab state be constituted from only 45.5 percent of the whole
        of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded 55.5 percent of the total
        area for their state’. The proportions would have had to sum to less than 100%, not more, although not much less – just reckoning by eye, the proposed corpus separatum would have encompassed some 100 sq km, about 0.4% of the 27,300 sq km of Mandatory Palestine.

        • http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ Jeremy R. Hammond

          You’re quite right, it can’t be 55.5 and 45.5%. I double checked the source to see whether this was my mistake, but indeed that is what the source states. I assume Khalidi meant 44.5%. Thank you for pointing out my repetition of this error.

          I’m not sure when the next issue of WRMEA is to come out, but I’ll be sure to announce it on my blog when it does.

          • HarryFeldman

            MERIP claims 56%/43%: http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/un-partition-plan-pal-isr.html

            But if you’re rounding to one decimal place, 56.0%/43.5% would probably be closer, to account for the corpus separatum. That said, as far as I can tell, nobody knows the proportions with sufficient precision to justify representing fractions of a percent. It would probably be more honest to express it as ‘about 56%/44%’ (the proportion allocated to the corpus separatum would round to 0%).

  • Pingback: The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel | band annie's Weblog