Israel Past & Present — A Post Settler-Colonial Apartheid State - Part 1
This is the first part of a major series of articles. This piece covers the history of Palestine. It's not meant to be a definitive history but should provide a foundation for further study.
The making of the State of Israel
On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was recognised that night by the United States and three days later by the USSR (Source: The Jewish Virtual Library).
The above Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel followed the passing of Resolution 181 on 29th November 1947 at the United Nations General Assembly, calling for the establishment of a Jewish State. The declaration continued:
The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the In-gathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
The process towards the new state begun with the British Mandate of Palestine, which had been created by the League of Nations following the defeat and breakup of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The US recognition of the State of Israel (National Archives) explores the background in some detail. The Balfour Declaration, recognised Jewish support of the British against the Turks during World War I. In 1922 Britain was appointed to rule in Palestine.
In the 1930's as Nazi persecution against Jews expanded, many left for the Middle East. This created tension between Jews and Arabs, which led to Britain restricting Jewish Immigration into the area.
Unhappy with British policy, the Jews turned their attention to the US for support. The US was initially reluctant to take a definitive position at the time. However Zionist influence was growing (see below). Eventually as the National Archives article notes:
Britain and the United States, in a joint effort to examine the dilemma, established the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry." In April 1946, the committee submitted recommendations that Palestine not be dominated by either Arabs or Jews. It concluded that attempts to establish nationhood or independence would result in civil strife; that a trusteeship agreement aimed at bringing Jews and Arabs together should be established by the United Nations; that full Jewish immigration be allowed into Palestine; and that two autonomous states be established with a strong central government to control Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the Negev, the southernmost section of Palestine.
British, Arab, and Jewish reactions to the recommendations were not favourable. Jewish terrorism in Palestine antagonized the British, and by February 1947 Arab-Jewish communications had collapsed. Britain, anxious to rid itself of the problem, set the United Nations in motion, formally requesting on April 2, 1947, that the U.N. General Assembly set up the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). This committee recommended that the British mandate over Palestine be ended and that the territory be partitioned into two states. Jewish reaction was mixed - some wanted control of all of Palestine; others realized that partition spelled hope for their dream of a homeland. The Arabs were not at all agreeable to the UNSCOP plan. In October the Arab League Council directed the governments of its member states to move troops to the Palestine border. Meanwhile, President Truman instructed the State Department to support the U.N. plan, and, reluctantly, it did so. On November 29, 1947, the partition plan was passed in the U.N. General Assembly.
The State of Israel was barely 24 hours old when war broke out with its neighbours. Why the immediate backlash towards the new country? The answer to this question can be traced back to the geopolitical turmoil of World War 1.
O
n November 2, 1917 the Balfour Deceleration was issued. This was a statement of British support for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.’ It was made in a letter from Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, to Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild. The full text reads:
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:
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 should bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
This was the catalyst that led to the creation of the state of Israel. Background to the declaration was published in Foreign Policy Journal, What Was the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and Why Is It Significant?
The declaration stems from the activities of the Zionist movement, who’s remit was the establishment of a Jewish state. The movement cultivated a relationship with the British Government that accommodated the racist and colonialist tendencies of Britain. They saw Britain as having the power to influence the imposition of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
The region was occupied by the Ottoman Turks. Following the outbreak of World War 1, Britain was at war with the Ottoman Empire. This triggered the activities of the Zionist lobby. Their efforts paid off:
Politicians whose favor they elicited included future Prime Minister Lloyd George, future High Commissioner of Palestine Herbert Samuel, Chief Secretary of the War Cabinet Mark Sykes, and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour.
Anti-Semitism was rife in Europe at the time:
The prospect of Jews flocking out of Europe and into Palestine was met with great enthusiasm by Western governments.
There was a problem though. The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915, was interpreted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that if they supported the war effort, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to them. The agreement was premised on a declaration by Britain that an Allied victory in the war would ensure independence for Egypt, the Sudan, and the Arabia Peninsula. The Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, who controlled much of the Arab territories had written to Sir Henry McMahon, ‘intimating his willingness to side with Britain in the war’. Hussain believed that Arab independence also included Palestine. However, behind the scenes, a covert agreement was taking shape between France and Britain. It outlined that:
Palestine, with the Holy Places, is to be separated from Turkish territory and subjected to a special regime to be determined by agreement between Russia, France and Great Britain.
Known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it came to light following the Russian revolution. The new incumbent Communist Government published the agreement, exposing the arrangement only weeks after the Balfour declaration was issued.
A year later, Britain and France were waxing lyrical about the emancipation of the Arabs from the yolk of oppression from the Ottomans. In a proclamation delivered by the two countries, they insisted that:
Far from wishing to impose on the populations of these regions any particular institutions, they are only concerned to secure by their support and by adequate assistance the regular working of Governments and administrations freely chosen by the population themselves.
With the end of war in June 1919, the League of Nations was established. The Treaty of Versailles, signed at the Paris Peace Conference, established the framework. Article 22 laid the foundation for the Mandate system that would apply to Palestine:
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principle consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
But once again, the conniving duplicity of the British along with its colonial allies would be exposed. Having been kept under wraps since 1919, the Editor & Publisher published the King-Crane Report on December 2, 1922, which then subsequently found its way into the New York Times the following day. It commented that Balfour’s endorsement of the Zionist aspirations in Palestine constituted:
the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.
The report concluded:
If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. . . . [T]here was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were [sic] more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people’s rights, though it kept within the forms of law.
Set up by US President Woodrow Wilson, the King–Crane Commission, officially called the 1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, set out to establish a more nuanced approach to the post war situation. But the US was effectively left on its own as Britain and France swerved to avoid a conflict of interest with their policies on the issue.
On April 25, 1920, the San Remo Resolution appointed Britain as the Mandatory Power over Palestine. This was followed by the signing of Treaty of Sèvres between the Allied Powers and the defeated Ottoman’s, on August 10, 1920. This sealed the fate of Palestine. Foreign Policy notes:
The treaty provided that, in accordance with Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, Syria and Iraq were to be recognized “as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone”.
For Palestine, on the other hand, self-determination was totally rejected. Instead, Britain would be “responsible for putting into effect” the Balfour Declaration, the text of which was incorporated into the treaty.
The legacy of Balfour is summed up:
The racist, colonialist attitudes of British policymakers predisposed them to look with favor upon establishing an occupation regime in Palestine. The rights of Palestine’s inhabitants were of negligible concern, factoring on only when requiring British officials to periodically spout lofty rhetoric in attempts to engineer the Arabs’ consent for their own disenfranchisement. An occupation regime in Palestine would enable the British to hold back the “barbarians” and gain a foothold in the oil-rich Middle East.
…The Balfour Declaration was a propaganda tool intended to gain Jewish support for Britain’s war effort while retaining the Arab support they needed to succeed in their campaign against the Ottoman Empire. The document’s true significance is that it set Great Britain on a policy course premised on the rejection of the human rights of the Arabs, and which ultimately facilitated the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of them from their homes in Palestine.
On the centenary of the declaration in 2017, UK Prime Minister Theresa May stated she would celebrate the Balfour declaration with ‘pride’:
“We are proud of the role that we played in the creation of state of Israel and we will certainly mark the centenary with pride.
I am also pleased that good trade relations and other relations that we have with Israel we are building on and enhancing.”
It’s our land
The prevailing narrative from the Zionists is the belief that the Jews have a God given right to occupy the land ‘from the Jordan river to the sea’ - traditionally known as the holy land.
The focal point of the land was Jerusalem - a city with great significance for Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Both Israel and the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there. The importance of Jerusalem to the major religions is based on historic claims and interpretations.
For the Jews, it’s the belief that King David conquered Jerusalem, establishing the city as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel. This forms the basis of the Israeli claim to the city and the surrounding territories.
For Muslims, the significance of Jerusalem is that it formed the destination of the Prophet Mohamed at the end of His night journey (a physical and spiritual journey, regarded as His most important), which ended with His ascension to Heaven.
The Christian significance lies in the crucifixion of Christ and the events leading up to that moment, including the last supper. Jesus also spent much of His life in Jerusalem.
Analysis of historical, archaeological and anthropological records indicates that the Jewish historical connection is not exclusive. The land has been the focal point of many ethnic groups over the ages, as the graphic below shows.
The history of the region outlines that prior to the occupation and conquest of the Israelites, the land was inhabited by the Canaanites. Evidence indicates settlement in the region during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic period, dating back to about 10,000 years.
Other communities had moved into the region over the years, including the Egyptians. But it wasn’t until about 1250 BCE that the Israelite’s began to settle into the area. The Israelite’s were initially opposed by the Canaanites, but with the additional invasion of Philistines into the area, the Israelites began to consolidate their hold over the region. In the 10th century BCE under King David, the Israelites pushed out the Philistines and conquered the Canaanites, taking over Jerusalem in the process. Canaan had effectively became the Land of Israel. It is reckoned that Hebrew was derived from the Canaanite language.
A research project published in Science, details a genetic investigation into the origins of the Canaanites. The results confirm the historical record indicating that:
about 50% of the Canaanites’ genes came from local farmers who settled the Levant about 10,000 years ago. But the other half was linked to an earlier population identified from skeletons found in Iran. …The researchers estimate these Eastern migrants arrived in the Levant and started mixing with locals around 5000 years ago.
Christianity would assert itself in the holy land as the reformation dawned, it would mark the beginning of European influence in the region. It all began in Rome in 1095 when Pope Urban 2 declared the first crusade. His speech was effectively a propaganda rouse as he 'denigrated the Muslims, exaggerating stories of their anti-Christian acts, and promised absolution and remission of sins for all who died in the service of Christ.'
The occupation of Jerusalem by the crusaders was accompanied by the wholesale slaughter of thousands of Arab and Jewish residents, who had lived together in peace for centuries.
Muslim and Christian interests fluctuated in the region until 1517 when the Ottoman Turks took control. That remained the case until after world war 1, when British interests took over in 1917 following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
As world war 2 loomed, it became apparent that Britain's mandate over Palestine was becoming something of an albatross around it's neck. Jewish immigration into the area continued apace and would increase exponentially as anti-Semitism rose in Europe, particularly in Germany with the rise of Nazism. At the same time riots erupted alongside a general strike in 1936 in Palestine, as a backlash against Jewish settlement. The British solution to the problem was to restrict levels of immigration, but this generated anti British sentiments amongst the Jews as well as the Arabs. Both sides felt that the British had dishonoured them. Given that the situation in Palestine was becoming intractable, the only thing left was military intervention. The situation led to the establishment of the Peel Commission, which investigated the unrest. The Peel Report was published on 7th July, 1937:
The Royal Commission which was established to investigate the situation denied the theory of equal obligations to Arabs and Jews, arguing that the Mandate had been predicated upon the supposition that the Palestine Arabs would accept the Jewish National Home. Since they had not done so, the Commission reached the conclusion that the Mandate had become unworkable and must be abrogated. It suggested Partition. A Jewish State would include Galilee, the Plain of Esdraelon and the coastal plain; an Arab State, most of the rest of Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Permanent mandates were proposed for the Jerusalem area and certain Christian Holy Places.
There was contention amongst Jews and Arabs over the plan and subsequent proposals, but the outbreak of world war 2 suspended the process.
Post War Pandora's Box
After world war 2, the eyes of the world became preoccupied with the Nazi holocaust in Europe. In order to deal with the Palestine issue, the Report of the Anglo-American Committee of enquiry regarding the problems of European Jewry and Palestine was published in 1946. It was an attempt to resume the process started by the Peel Commission, whilst accounting for the post war situation regarding Jewish refugees and immigration to Palestine. Amongst its recommendations was a partition plan to create an Arab and Jewish state. But the situation in Palestine was deteriorating and Britain’s empire was declining. Ultimately the Palestine question would be decided within the newly created United Nations.
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created on 15 May 1947, following a UK government request that the UN General Assembly ‘make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine’. The Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364) documents the UNSCOP report to the General Assembly. The response to this report was the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947. The key elements of the resolution were:
The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
A Commission shall be set up consisting of one representative of each of five Member States. The Members represented on the Commission shall be elected by the General Assembly on as broad a basis, geographically and otherwise, as possible. The administration of Palestine shall, …be progressively turned over to the Commission.
In addition the following stipulations were cited:
Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired.
Freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, shall be ensured to all.
Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.
The State shall be bound by all the international agreements and conventions, both general and special, to which Palestine has become a party.
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.
There are further considerations within the resolution concerning boundaries within Palestine and Jerusalem. This was effectively the recommendation that approved the partition of Palestine. However it was just a recommendation and the maneuvering that followed due to intense political lobbying from Zionists poses some important questions. Firstly, the text of the UN Charter, Articles 73 & 74:
Article 73
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, and, to this end:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
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, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
to further international peace and security;
to promote constructive measures of development, to encourage research, and to co-operate with one another and, when and where appropriate, with specialized international bodies with a view to the practical achievement of the social, economic, and scientific purposes set forth in this Article; and
to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subject to such limitation as security and constitutional considerations may require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating to economic, social, and educational conditions in the territories for which they are respectively responsible other than those territories to which Chapters XII and XIII apply.
Article 74
Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.
Next is these points from Article 11:
The General Assembly may consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both.
The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.
The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security.
Relevant also is the following articles from Chapter 12:
Article 75
The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements. These territories are hereinafter referred to as trust territories.
Article 77
The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:
territories now held under mandate;
territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.
It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.
Article 79
The terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the trusteeship system, including any alteration or amendment, shall be agreed upon by the states directly concerned, including the mandatory power in the case of territories held under mandate by a Member of the United Nations, and shall be approved as provided for in Articles 83 and 85.
Article 83
All functions of the United Nations relating to strategic areas, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment shall be exercised by the Security Council.
The basic objectives set forth in Article 76 shall be applicable to the people of each strategic area.
The Security Council shall, subject to the provisions of the trusteeship agreements and without prejudice to security considerations, avail itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship Council to perform those functions of the United Nations under the trusteeship system relating to political, economic, social, and educational matters in the strategic areas.
Secondly, it wasn’t just lobbying the Zionists were engaged with. Jews who had previously fought in the war along side the British now used their military background to form terrorist groups, which would engage in terrorist attacks in order to further their expansion aims in the region and against British control.
The terrorists were Zionist extremists, prepared to go to any lengths in order to ensure the establishment of an Israeli homeland. Irgun Zvai Leumi, (Hebrew: National Military Organization) was the name of the Group. They broke off from the Haganah - a Jewish militia group (forerunner to the IDF). After the creation of the State of Israel, Irgun's last units disbanded and took the oath of loyalty to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Politically, it was the precursor of the Ḥerut (Freedom) Party, one of Israel's most militant right-wing groups, which later merged with the Liberals into the Gahal Party.
It was this backdrop that forced the British hand. In 1947 the British government announced it would withdraw from Mandatory Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.
The driving force behind this decision was the real threat of terror reprisals from Igrun and another group, the Stern Gang, at home. This is documented in a book from Calder Walton, Empire of Secrets - an excerpt from which is reproduced by Foreign Policy in the article How Zionist Extremism Became British Spies' Biggest Enemy. The article documents how the Zionist terror groups threatened British security at home by directly targeting the UK Government:
Recently declassified intelligence records reveal that at the end of the war the main priority for MI5 was the threat of terrorism emanating from the Middle East, specifically from the two main Zionist terrorist groups operating in the Mandate of Palestine, which had been placed under British control in 1921. They were called the Irgun Zevai Leumi ("National Military Organization," or the Irgun for short) and the Lehi (an acronym in Hebrew for "Freedom Fighters of Israel"), which the British also termed the "Stern Gang," after its founding leader, Avraham Stern. The Irgun and the Stern Gang believed that British policies in Palestine in the post-war years - blocking the creation of an independent Jewish state - legitimized the use of violence against British targets. MI5's involvement with counterterrorism, which preoccupies it down to the present day, arose in the immediate post-war years when it dealt with the Irgun and Stern Gang.
High ranking British politicians were targeted:
In March 1947 an Irgun operative left a bomb at the Colonial Club, near St Martin's Lane in the heart of London, which blew out the club's windows and doors, injuring several servicemen. The following month a female Irgun agent left an enormous bomb, consisting of 24 sticks of explosives, at the Colonial Office in London. The bomb failed to detonate because its timer broke. The head of Metropolitan Police Special Branch, Leonard Burt, estimated that if it had gone off it would have caused fatalities on a comparable scale to the King David Hotel bombing - but this time in the heart of Whitehall. At about the same time, several prominent British politicians and public figures connected with Palestine received death threats from the Stern Gang at their homes and offices. Finally, in June 1947, the Stern Gang launched a letter-bomb campaign in Britain, consisting of 21 bombs in total, which targeted every prominent member of the cabinet. The two waves of bombs were posted from an underground cell in Italy. Some of those in the first wave reached their targets, but they did not result in any casualties.
But the most devastating blow against Britain took place at the very heart of the British administration in Palestine:
On July 22, the Irgun dealt a devastating blow, codenamed Operation Chick, to the heart of British rule in Palestine when it bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the offices of British officialdom in the Mandate, as well as serving as the headquarters of the British Army in Palestine.
The bombing was planned by the leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, later to be the sixth prime minister of Israel and the joint winner of a Nobel Peace Prize. On the morning of July 22, six young Irgun members entered the hotel disguised as Arabs, carrying milk churns packed with 500 pounds of explosives. At 12:37 p.m. the bombs exploded, ripping the facade from the southwest corner of the building. This caused the collapse of several floors in the hotel, resulting in the deaths of 91 people. In terms of fatalities, the King David Hotel bombing was one of the worst terrorist atrocities inflicted on the British in the twentieth century. It was also a direct attack on British intelligence and counterterrorist efforts in Palestine: both MI5 and SIS - the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6 - had stations in the hotel.
Another revelation was the collaboration of the Groups with the IRA, who helped them mobilise effectively within the British mainland. Other Zionist sympathisers in Ireland and the UK and beyond created difficulties for British authorities. In particular the US became a hotbed of Zionist support:
The stance taken by the U.S. government over Palestine, and in particular the position of Jewish-Americans, sometimes made it difficult for MI5 to obtain cooperation from U.S. authorities on issues of Zionist terrorism. The unambiguous support shown by the U.S. administration toward Zionist aspirations was one of the main factors which led in February 1947 to the British government's decision to hand the entire matter of Palestine over to the United Nations. More specifically, MI5 knew that some extremist Zionist groups operating in the United States, such as the "Bergson Group" and the "Hebrew Committee for the Liberation of Palestine," were raising funds and logistical support for the Irgun and the Stern Gang, with explosives and ammunition sometimes being sent in food packages to Britain. MI5 established a useful working relationship with American military (G-2) intelligence in occupied zones of Europe over clandestine Jewish migration to Palestine and Zionist terrorism, but in general the relationship between British and U.S. intelligence over Zionism was difficult.
This was despite widespread opposition within US Government circles to the UN partition plan, as reported by CounterPunch. However, with an election on the horizon, President Harry Truman acceded to Zionist pressure and decided that the Jewish vote was more important than foreign policy concerns.
It was clear the Palestine problem had became a burden on Britain. Foreign Policy continues:
any settlement would be unacceptable either to Jews or Arabs. Britain found itself in a situation that was rapidly becoming ungovernable. In 1947 100,000 troops - one-tenth of the military manpower of the entire British empire - were tied down in Palestine, a financial burden that London could not afford.
So the UN picked up the baton and through UNSCOP the State of Israel was established, on the back of ethnic cleansing driven by terrorists and a UN resolution that had no legal force, in contradiction to the UN Charter.
Israel's new neighbours refused to recognise Israel. The Arabs had always opposed the UN plan for an Israeli state. So it was then that the 1948 Arab Israeli war broke out.
The World Zionist Organisation
The Zionist Organisation was founded in 1897. It became the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1960. Its key objective was the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The current aims of the WZO were enshrined in the Jerusalem Program 2004 (Such aims are periodically revised by the WZO).
Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future. The foundations of Zionism are:
The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation
Aliyah [immigration] to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli Society
Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people, rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world
Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education, fostering spiritual and cultural values and teaching Hebrew as the national language
Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation, representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism
Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism.
Although the movement wasn't formally established until 1897, the roots were already there. The Zionists had been clamouring for a homeland for some time and this culminated in a first wave of Jewish immigration into Palestine, known as the First Aliyah. This would be followed by further waves of immigration.
The Palestinians would take the position that their troubles began during the first wave of Jewish settlement. But it is important to make a distinction here between Zionism and Judaism.
This article from the Neturei Karta, defines the difference between Zionism and Judaism:
The Zionist movement created the Israeli state. The latter is a persuasion less than one hundred years old. Its essential goal was and is to change the nature of the Jewish people from that of a religious entity to a political movement. From Zionism's inception the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people stood in staunch opposition to it.
To this day Torah Jewry remains forever loyal to its faith. Zionists want the world to believe that they are the representatives of the entire Jewish people. This is false! The Jewish people never chose them as their leaders.
The Zionists have deceived many well meaning Jewish people via terror, trickery and false propaganda. They have at their disposal the use of a nearly universally subservient media. Whoever attempts to criticize them puts his livelihood and, at times, his very life in danger.
From a religious perspective, Jews accept that their exile from - or diaspora - from the Holy Land was because of their sins and believe that the return of the Messiah will redeem them. The State of Israel is therefore rejected as a legitimate Jewish State, as is summed up in the article:
Torah true Jewry waits patiently for the Messianic redemption. They have nothing to do with any kind of pseudo "Jewish State" and its aggressions against other peoples. They have a deep sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians who have suffered the most from Zionism's false teachings and barbaric actions. The Zionist state is not a Jewish state. The Zionists alone are the only ones responsible for their actions. Authentic Jewry has and will continue to oppose the very existence of this blasphemous state.
The roots of Zionism were cultivated by Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in his book The Jewish State (translated from ‘Der Judenstaat’), published in 1896. Herzl envisaged that the Jewish State would take 50 years to establish. He was a year out with his prediction. He had previously wrote in his diary:
We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border, by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
Part of that process would be carried out by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), established at the 1901 Fifth Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, which was set up to acquire land in Palestine ‘to be held as the “inalienable” property of the Jewish people’ (Foreign Policy Journal). The roots of this belief has its origins in the Bible - the laws of Moses (mitzvot in Hebrew, in Leviticus 25):
The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord.
A 1984 paper published in the Journal Middle Eastern Studies, The Jewish National Fund: Land Purchase Methods and Priorities, 1924-1939 outlined the processes on how land was acquired and how important this was in laying the foundations for the Jewish State.
Initially the JNF was a small player in Palestine, but by the 1930s it had come into its own. It worked with the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which by then had future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion at the helm.
The JNF’s success in acquiring land along with other agencies initially was based on a good understanding of the prevailing culture within Palestine. Every land purchase was legal and above board albeit circumspect. And many landowners were willing to sell due to poor economic conditions at the time. Anonymity was guaranteed by the JNF, as land was becoming increasingly political, especially once the British tightened the rules over the land purchases. But the JNF found ways to circumvent these. This type of scenario was relatively common:
the Arab seller borrowed a sum of money from the JNF and failed to repay the loan when due by pre-arrangement. The land courts in Palestine were 'forced' to have the seller put his land up at public auction in order to satisfy the debt. Then, the JNF bid on and purchased the land in question. In 'forcing' a sale through the courts, the Arab seller blamed the British for forcing him to sell his land to the Zionists. The seller in such an instance received the money from the court-ordered sale, paid the JNF what it was due, and then received an additional sum from the JNF for participating in such a ruse. By using such a method the JNF actually paid more for the land than was fixed at the public auction, but paid a tax on a lesser amount since the tax was based on the under-registered land size from the court-ordered sale. Since this was a court-ordered sale, no compensation was legally due to the occupying tenants until the early 1930s. Hence, the rights of Arab tenants were legally circumvented. But more often than not the JNF provided monetary compensation to tenants even when not legally bound to do so.
The purchase of land followed a pattern of keeping Jewish communities together and focusing on productive areas of land for agriculture and settlement. This process would lay the foundations for the post-war forced displacement of the Palestinians. Indeed as this paper, published in the Journal of Palestine Studies, documents:
JNF holdings began to increase steadily, from 22,363 dunums in 1920 to 278,627 in 1930, 515,950 in 1940, and 936,000 by May 1948.
Then there was the ‘miracle evacuation’, or ethnic cleansing, of Palestine during the post-war era. As a result, large swathes of land were available for ‘redemption’. The paper goes on to incorporate quotes from Agrarian reform and the record of Israel (A. Granott):
Since for security as well as development reasons this so-called "abandoned land" could not be left unattended, the government appointed a Custodian of Abandoned Property who "acted in the place of the former owners, ... collecting and recording the property and freezing it under one authority." At the same time, to avoid having the action "interpreted as confiscation of the abandoned property," the government created "a sort of legal fiction" and established an "independent" Development Authority to which the Custodian transferred, but did not sell, the abandoned land.
The ‘Authority’ was never established. It was the JNF that became the purchaser of the land. What followed was the dissolution in 1953 of the original company registered in England. The JNF was then re-organized as an Israeli company under the name Keren Kayemet LeYisrael (JNF-KKL).
In 1961 a covenant was set up between the JNF and the State of Israel, forming the Israel Lands Administration and a Land Development Administration. Its remit ‘was to manage in accordance with an agreed uniform land policy all state and JNF lands’, overseeing the ‘reclamation, development and afforestation’ of the lands. As such:
the JNF and the state would each retain title to its lands, and that the JNF "shall continue to operate, as an independent agency of the World Zionist Organization, among the Jewish public in Israel and the Diaspora, raising funds for the redemption of land... and conducting informational and Zionist-Israel educational activities...."
The foundations for this was laid down in 1920 at the WZO conference in London, where it was formally confirmed that ‘the JNF was to be "the instrument of Jewish land policy."'
As the process became more political, especially after the 1937 Peel Commission proposed partition of Palestine, the JNF began to “acquire land in areas excluded from the proposed Jewish state and to form settlements there."
During the war, the British imposed restrictions on land acquisition. However the JNF managed to circumvent those restrictions. They were poorly enforced anyway. One method the JNF used to acquire land was to register the land under specific individuals, ‘who would give the JNF an irrevocable power-of-attorney.’ This would be something that would dictate JNF tactics following the creation of the state of Israel, finding more tricks up its sleeve as the situation demanded.
Haaretz reports on land acquisition post 1967. It revolves around a subsidiary of the JNF, Himnuta, which was founded in 1938. The company was registered in Jordan, which allowed it to operate in wider territories, ‘to carry out complex and discreet transactions.’ Much of these involved land adjacent to the Green Line. The role of Himnuta appears to be similar in many ways to that of individuals noted above. However as the article notes:
One of the main reasons for the dearth of information on the subject is the great secrecy that has characterized Himnuta's work. Prof. Alexander Kedar, a specialist in property law at the University of Haifa who has studied JNF activity after the establishment of the state, calls Himnuta, "the Sayeret Matkal (an elite IDF commando unit) of the JNF in the realm of land purchase."
The Israeli Government also uses Himnuta’s services when it comes to awkward transactions of property or land. Recently in 2022, Himnuta was exposed as playing a central role in Palestinian expulsions from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and other parts of East Jerusalem. At the same time the JNF was coming under fire in the UK after its UK head, Samuel Hayek, posted Islamophobic comments in social media. This stemmed from comments he made in a Jerusalem Post article in which he predicted, ‘Jews do not have a future in England’. His comments appeared to resonate with the far-right great replacement theory when he stated, “the process is the white Christian majority is shrinking. It shrinks to a degree where there is a point it cannot protect itself anymore." Even the the Board of Deputies (BoD) of British Jews condemned his remarks and called for his resignation. The case is being investigated by the charity commission.
This raises important questions. Is the state of Israel an illegal entity? And has the land been stolen from the Palestinians? What is apparent from the evidence presented above is that the role of the JNF - particularly in the early days - was to legitimise the acquisition of land. It was initially above board. But that changed with the Peel Commission. After world war 2, the Palestinians would be removed from their land by force. In 1947, the JNF only held about 7% of land in Mandated Palestine. There is also a religious dynamic at play here. It would appear that the entire process of building a Jewish state is predicated on the Bible, as noted above. As it is Old Testament, it is regarded as pre-Christian, defined as the the Hebrew Bible - specifically the first five books that forms the Torah. It forms part of Christian beliefs also, viewing it as the prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ. This then provides the basis for Christian Zionism, which considerably predates modern Zionism. This is elaborated upon in a paper published in Journal of Palestine Studies from H. S. Haddad (St. Xavier College, Chicago), The Biblical Bases of Zionist Colonialism. In short (referring to the Bible):
This collection of myths, legends, historical narratives, poems, prophetic and apocalyptic pronouncements is the primary reference for the beliefs, conditions and attitudes that produced Zionism and eventually led to the occupation and transformation of Palestine.
Ben-Gurion described the Bible as a "sacrosanct title-deed to Palestine" (from his book, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel). This underlines the fundamental Zionist belief system and is what makes Israel different from other colonial settlement states. It also forms the basis for the restoration movement during the reformation period - essentially the re-restoration of the historic land of Israel. The paper makes a key point in relation to Christianity:
To deny the "historic right" of the Jews to Palestine is to challenge the scriptures. This is an article of faith to some Jews, but it also becomes a very effective public relations tool to influence the Christian world.
The overall interpretation revolves around the Torah as the defining account of the covenant, that returning to the "Promised Land" is “the divine mission” of the "Chosen People.” This makes it difficult for non-Zionist Jews to counter the divine word of sacred scriptures. As such, the biblical belief is so deeply entrenched it is sacrosanct, even above international law. Ben-Gurion left no doubts:
"The rights to Palestine do not, as in other countries they do, belong to the existing settlers, whether they be Jews or Arabs. The crux is the Right of Return of Jewry Dispersed" (Ibid).
The territory of the land is outlined in the bible and this has formed the basis for the occupation of Greater Israel, with Jerusalem at the centre:
Without the land, the covenant will have no earthly basis and an important part of the Torah and the Prophets will become meaningless.
Put simply, settlement in the land ‘becomes an act of piety, of righteousness, of religious fulfilment, placed above legal and humanistic consideration.’ It is this back drop that authorised the JNF to acquire Palestinian land as the "inalienable property of the whole Jewish people.”
Of course the Israelites weren’t the original inhabitants of the land. As noted above that was the Canaanites. Haddad quotes several passages from the Bible that advocates for their complete annihilation. Effectively the Bible lays out a plan for "the final solution of the Canaanite question." Where have we heard that before? In short:
This text leaves no doubt about the religious nature of the abuse of the Canaanites. Loving the Lord and hating the Canaanites are closely linked. If narrowly interpreted, such texts in the Bible make racial prejudice almost an article of faith.
The occupation and treatment of Palestine and the policies of Israel are a carbon copy of the fate of Canaan. This can be viewed as extreme ethnocentrism and anti-goyism. As such, this paper has provided a vital insight into the motives and reasons that has created the current situation in the historic Holy Land and the fact that Israeli impunity with international law and rules reflects service to a higher power. This poses serious questions to the modern legitimacy of the state of Israel. Indeed as if to settle the argument once and for all, the whole legal position surrounding the demographic and political identity of the State of Israel was settled by the Israeli Supreme court in a landmark judgement in 2012. Essentially the Court decreed that Israeli Nationality does not exist:
In its 26-page ruling, the court explained that doing so would have "weighty implications" on the state of Israel and could pose a danger to Israel's founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people.
The decision touches on a central debate in Israel, which considers itself both Jewish and democratic yet has struggled to balance both. The country has not officially recognised an Israeli nationality.
So, if Israeli nationality doesn't exist then can Israel be defined as a pseudo State? It also suggests that if nationality doesn't exist then neither can democracy. An Israeli nationality would mean that ethnic minorities could define themselves as Israeli. And that would mean universal equality for all - including the Palestinians. Zero nationality is tantamount to a decree for racial discrimination, reflected in the scriptures. This poses another question, if the UN was responsible for giving the green light to Israel’s creation did the UN act illegally?
At the beginning of the article I referred to the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. This declaration contradicts the fundamental premise that formed the basis for the foundation of the State. The claim ‘it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel’ is the complete opposite to what the Bible actually states - as shown above. Also the legal chicanery that took place following Resolution 181 renders the ultimate legally of the new state based on the principles of international law at the time as highly suspect.
This then is the situation even at the present day. It is therefore not surprising that the new state was not recognised by its neighbours. With its survival under threat within hours of its birth, Israel would have to survive its 'War of Independence'.