Despicable Balfour: A story of betrayal

balfour-britain-and-israelBy Stuart Littlewood

The 2 November marks the centenary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which began the still-ongoing colonisation of Palestine and sowed the seeds of an endless nightmare for the Palestinian people, both those who were forced to flee at gunpoint and those who have managed to remain in the shredded remains of their homeland under Israel’s brutal military occupation. 

A movement called the Balfour Declaration Centenary Campaign is urging action and wants an apology.

We call on the international community and all peace and justice loving people to join the campaign to call on the government and parliament of the United Kingdom to:

1. Reject the Balfour Declaration, including its role as an instrument of displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian people;

2. Issue an official apology to the Arab Palestinian people for their role in issuing the Balfour Declaration and making possible the displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian people;

3. Acknowledge their historic, legal and moral responsibility for damages sustained as a result of the implementation of the Balfour Declaration

4. Institute reparations to the Palestinian people in accordance with the provisions and principles of international law, justice and equity, which guarantee the right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the right of self-determination.

A century of ethnic cleansing and denial of Palestinian rights

In his excellent book, Blood Brothers, David Hazard charts the life of Father Elias Chacour, a remarkable Christian Palestinian who grew up on the shores of Galilee and saw his beautiful world shattered by the Israeli occupation. Like countless others, he was made a refugee in his own country.

Mr Hazard describes an encounter he had with a young Palestinian, one of millions who suffer daily persecution, harassment and humiliation at the hands of Israeli soldiers and settlers.

A seventeen-year-old girl trembling with grief and rage told me how she witnessed her teenage cousin being shot through the head by Israeli soldiers. They had been walking to school together and the soldiers were taunting him. In response he had picked up a rock. She accused me and all Americans of knowing about these daily abuses against Palestinians but not caring. I tried to tell her that most Americans do not know about these tragedies, and that we would never support those who perpetrate them. But her belief that the average American is savvy about international politics was as strong as it was naive. “Of course Americans know we’re suffering over here,” she retorted.“You’re the most powerful nation on earth. And everyone has a television. I know you know.”

Americans aren’t alone in ignorance of their complicity. British people too seem largely unaware of how tragedy was allowed to overtake the Palestinians, and how this once-peaceful province of the Ottoman Empire, renowned for its antiquities and culture, became a land scarred by conflict, where everyday the humiliation of illegal occupation stokes the fires of hatred. You cannot get in or out, or move around, without running the gauntlet of Israeli customs, baggage searches, roadblocks and checkpoints under the sneer of contemptuous, sun-glassed troops. Even in the remote countryside you’ll run into one of six or seven hundred armed checkpoints. And that’s what visitors have to put up with. Imagine what it’s like for residents.

The so-called “Israel Defence Forces” is largely made up of conscripts – men and women – teenagers drafted in and trained to use lethal force. They have a reputation for being trigger-happy. Of course, they don’t all wish to play the thug or necessarily agree with their orders.

The truth about Palestine doesn’t sit well with Britain’s now crumbling reputation for fair play. Its name has been airbrushed from maps and purged, like a dirty word, from the diplomatic lexicon. Even today the subject is only haphazardly taught in our schools. For older generations like mine it was never on the curriculum. To understand why, one must at least dip a toe into the complicated history of the last 100 years. To help readers over this hurdle, I offer this “potted” version. At least it will explain why, 10 years ago, I went to see Palestine for myself.

For centuries long our land enslaved
by Turkish kings with sharpened blade.
We prayed to end the Sultan’s curse,
the British came and spoke a verse.

“It’s World War One, if you agree
to fight with us we’ll set you free.”

The war we fought at Britain’s side,
our blood was shed for Arab pride.

At war’s end Turks were smitten,
our only gain, the lies of Britain.

Stephen Ostrander’s simple verse manages to cut through a mountain of rhetoric to the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There was a Jewish state in the Holy Land some 3,000 years ago, but the Canaanites and Philistines were there first. The Jews, one of several invading groups, left and returned several times, and were expelled by the Roman occupation in 70AD and again in 135AD. Since the 7th century Palestine has been mainly Arab. During World War I the country was ‘liberated’ from Turkish Ottoman rule after the allied powers, in correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein ibn Ali of Mecca in 1915, promised independence to Arab leaders in return for their help in defeating Germany’s ally.

At the same time, however, a new Jewish political movement called Zionism was finding favour among the ruling élite in London, and the British government was persuaded by the Zionists’ chief spokesman, Chaim Weizman, to surrender Palestine for their new Jewish homeland. Hardly a thought, it seems, was given to the earlier pledge to the Arabs, who had occupied and owned the land for 1,500 years – longer, say some scholars, than the Jews ever did.

The Zionists, fuelled by the notion that an ancient Biblical prophecy gave them the title deeds, aimed to push the Arabs out by inserting millions of Eastern European Jews. They had already set up farm communities and founded a new city, Tel Aviv, but by 1914 Jews numbered only 85,000 to the Arabs’ 615,000. The infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917 – actually a letter from the British foreign secretary, Lord Balfour, to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledged assistance for the Zionist cause with apparent disregard for the consequences to the native majority. Calling itself a “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations”, it said:

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 and non-Jewish communities…

Balfour, a Zionist convert, later wrote:

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now occupy that land.

There was opposition. Lord Sydenham warned:

The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied. What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.

The American King-Crane Commission of1919 thought it a gross violation of principle:

No British officers consulted by the commissioners believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. That, of itself, is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme.

There were other reasons why the British were courting disaster. A secret deal, called the Sykes-Picot Agreement, had been concluded in 1916 between France and Britain, in consultation with Russia, to re-draw the map of the Middle Eastern territories won from Turkey. Britain was to take Jordan, Iraq and Haifa. The area now referred to as Palestine was declared an international zone. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration and the promises made earlier in the McMahon-Hussein letters all cut across each other. It seems to have been a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right was doing in the confusion of war.

Some distinguished Jews opposed a “national home” in Palestine

After the Russian Revolution of 1917 Lenin released a copy of the confidential Sykes-Picot Agreement into the public domain, sowing distrust among the Arabs. Thus, the unfolding story had all the makings of a major tragedy. Subsequent crimes – on both sides – flow from this triple-cross. The Zionist organisation asked permission to submit its proposal for Palestine to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, hitching a ride on the British request to be granted a mandate over Palestine in order to implement the Balfour Declaration. The Zionist case included the statement that

the land itself needs redemption. Much of it is left desolate. Its present condition is a standing reproach. Two things are necessary for that redemption – a stable and enlightened government, and an addition to the present population which shall be energetic, intelligent, devoted to the country, and backed by the large financial resources that are indispensable for development. Such a population the Jews alone can supply.

Prominent US Jews opposed to this move handed President Woodrow Wilson a counter-statement objecting to the Zionists’ plan, and asked him to present it to the peace conference. It said the scheme to reorganise the Jews as a national unit with territorial sovereignty in Palestine

not only misrepresents the trend of the history of the Jews, who ceased to be a nation 2,000 years ago, but involves the limitation and possible annulment of the larger claims of Jews for full citizenship and human rights in all lands in which those rights are not yet secure. For the very reason that the new era upon which the world is entering aims to establish government everywhere on principles of true democracy, we reject the Zionistic project of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Foreseeing the future with uncanny accuracy, it went on to say:

We rejoice in the avowed proposal of the Peace Congress to put into practical application the fundamental principles of democracy. That principle, which asserts equal rights for all citizens of a state, irrespective of creed or ethnic descent, should be applied in such a manner as to exclude segregation of any kind, be it nationalistic or other. Such segregation must inevitably create differences among the sections of the population of a country. Any such plan of segregation is necessarily reactionary in its tendency, undemocratic in spirit and totally contrary to the practices of free government, especially as these are exemplified by our own country.

The counter-statement quoted Sir George Adam Smith, a noted biblical scholar and the acknowledged expert on the region, who had said:

It is not true that Palestine is the national home of the Jewish people and of no other people… It is not correct to call its non-Jewish inhabitants “Arabs”, or to say that they have left no image of their spirit and made no history except in the great Mosque… Nor can we evade the fact that Christian communities have been [there] as long as ever the Jews were… These are legitimate questions stirred up by the claims of Zionism, but the Zionists have not yet fully faced them.

America, England, France, Italy, Switzerland and all the most advanced nations of the world, it said, are composed of representatives of many races and religions. “Their glory lies in the freedom of conscience and worship, in the liberty of thought and custom which binds the followers of many faiths and varied civilisations in the common bonds of political union… A Jewish state involves fundamental limitations as to race and religion, else the term “Jewish” means nothing. To unite church and state, in any form, as under the old Jewish hierarchy, would be a leap backward of two thousand years…

We ask that Palestine be constituted as a free and independent state, to be governed under a democratic form of government recognising no distinctions of creed or race or ethnic descent, and with adequate power to protect the country against oppression of any kind. We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organised as a Jewish state.

But Wilson apparently failed to put the document before the Conference.

In 1922 the League of Nations placed Palestine under British mandate, which incorporated the principles of the Balfour Declaration. Jewish immigration would be facilitated “under suitable conditions” and a nationality law would allow Jews taking up permanent residence to acquire Palestinian citizenship (in sharp contrast to the Jews-only law now operated by a dominant Israel). But the high commissioner was soon recommending a halt to Jewish immigration for fear that it would create a class of landless Arabs. That same year the British government, aware of Arab concerns that the Balfour Declaration was being interpreted in an “exaggerated” way by Zionists and their sympathisers, issued a White Paper to clarify the position.

“The terms of the Declaration referred to,” it said,

do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish national home, but that such a home should be founded “in Palestine”. In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development…

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organisation may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.

“It is necessary,” said the White Paper with masterly ambiguity,

that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment.

However, the White Paper flatly denied that a promise had been made to the Arabs ahead of the Balfour Declaration.

It is not the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty’s Government gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine. This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October 1915 from Sir Henry McMahon, then His Majesty’s High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sharif of Mecca to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir Henry McMahon’s pledge.

Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty’s government to foster the establishment of a full measure of self-government in Palestine. But they are of the opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages…

From then on, the situation would go from bad to worse.

In 1937 the Peel Commission declared that British promises to Arabs and Zionists were irreconcilable and unworkable. Too late, Britain dropped its commitment to the Zionists and began talking about a Palestinian state with a guaranteed Arab majority and protection for minorities.

The Zionists reacted furiously. Their underground military wing, the Haganah, and other armed groups, unleashed a reign of terror in the run-up to World War II. They continued their attacks on the British after the war and tried to bring in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees.

In 1946 they blew up the south wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the British mandatory government, killing 91. This terrorist act was ordered by David Ben-Gurion in retaliation for the arrest of Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang members suspected of attacks on the British. He then thought better of it and cancelled the operation but Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun, went ahead. Both Ben-Gurion and Begin, who had a big price on his head as a wanted terrorist, became Israeli prime ministers.

Throughout this period the United States was reluctant to allow Jews fleeing Europe to enter the empty spaces of North America, preferring to play the Zionist game and see them funnelled into Palestine. In 1945 the new US president, Harry Truman, offered Arabs this excuse: “I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of those who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

However, Truman was frequently exasperated by the Zionist lobby and on one occasion had a delegation thrown out of the White House for their table-thumping antics. He wrote:

I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath.

American author Gore Vidal provided an intriguing insight.

Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. “That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.” As neither Jack nor I was an anti-Semite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.

By now this monster Britain had breathed life into, was running out of control. The Arabs, tricked and dispossessed, were outraged. The collision has been fatally damaging to the West’s relationship with Islam ever since. As the violence escalated, Gandhi was moved to comment:

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English. They [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism.

With the mandate about to expire in 1948 an exhausted Britain handed over the problem to the United Nations and prepared to quit the Holy Land, leaving a powder-keg with the fuse fizzing. The newly-formed UN thought it would save the situation by partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states and making Jerusalem an international city. But this gave the Jews 55 per cent of Palestine when they accounted for only 30 per cent of the population. The Arab League and the Palestinians of course rejected it.

Map 1: 1947 UN Partition of Palestine

Map of 1947 UN Partition Plan

Under the UN Partition Plan the Jews received 55 per cent of the country (including both Tel Aviv/Jaffa and Haifa port cities, the Sea of Galilee and the resource-rich Negev) although they accounted for only a third of the population (548,000 out of 1,750,000) and owned only 6 per cent of the land. The Jewish community accepted the Partition Plan; the Palestinians (except those in the Communist Party) and the Arab countries rejected it.

The UN partition of Palestine never did stand close scrutiny. At that time, as some commentators have pointed out, UN members did not include African states, and most Arab and Asian states were still under colonialist regimes. The UN was pretty much a white colonialist club. The Palestinians themselves had no representation and they weren’t even consulted.

The first vote failed to reach the required two-thirds majority: 25 for partition, 13 against and 19 abstentions. To ensure success in the second vote, a good deal of arm-twisting was applied to the smaller countries, but again it fell short. At the third attempt France was persuaded to come “on board” after the US threatened to withdraw desperately needed post-World War II aid, and on 29 November the UN voted to partition Palestine into three parts: a Jewish state on 14,000 sq km with some 558,000 Jews and 405,000 Palestinian Arabs; and an Arab state on 11,500 sq km with about 804,000 Palestinian Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem, including major religious sites, would be a corpus separatum, internationally administered.

Map 2: Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories

Map of 1949 Israeli-Arab armistice line

By the end of the 1948 war Israel controlled 78 per cent  of the country, including half the territory that had been allocated by the UN to the Palestinians. Around 750,000 Palestinians living in what became Israel were made refugees: only 100,000 remained in their homes. More than 418 villages (two-thirds of the villages of Palestine) were systematically destroyed by Israel after their residents had left or been driven out. The Arab areas were now reduced to 22 per cent  of the country, the West Bank was taken by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt. The 1949 Armistice Line (the “Green Line”) remains the de facto boundary of the state of Israel until today. Since 1988, when the Palestinians recognised Israel within that boundary, it has been the basis of the two-state option.

This ludicrous carve-up was quickly followed by shameful incidents at Deir Yassin, Lod and Ramle. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and lands and to this day are denied the right to return. They received no compensation, and after their expulsion Jewish militia obliterated hundreds of Arab villages and towns. No sooner had Britain packed its bags than Israel declared statehood on 14 May 1948 and immediately set about expanding control across all of Palestine.

The following day, 15 May, is remembered by Palestinians as the Day of Al-Nakba (the Catastrophe), which saw the start of a military terror campaign that forced three-quarters of a million Palestinians from their homeland to make room for the new Jewish state. Some 34 massacres were allegedly committed in pursuit of Israel’s territorial ambitions.

An event permanently etched on the Palestinian memory is the massacre at Deir Yassin by Zionist terror groups, the Irgun and the Stern Gang. On an April morning in 1948 130 of their commandos carried out a dawn raid on this small Arab town with a population of 750, to the west of Jerusalem. The attack was initially beaten off, and only when a crack unit of the Haganah arrived with mortars were the Arab townsmen overwhelmed. The Irgun and the Stern Gang, smarting from the embarrassment of having to summon help, embarked on a “clean-up” operation in which they systematically murdered and executed at least 100 residents – mostly women, children and old people. The Irgun afterwards exaggerated the number, quoting 254, to frighten other Arab towns and villages. The Haganah played down their part in the raid and afterwards said the massacre “disgraced the cause of Jewish fighters and dishonoured Jewish arms and the Jewish flag”.

Deir Yassin signalled the ominous beginning of a deliberate programme by Israel to depopulate Arab towns and villages – and destroy churches and mosques – to make room for incoming holocaust survivors and other Jews. In any language it was an exercise in ethnic cleansing, the knock-on effects of which have created an estimated 4 million Palestinian refugees today.

By 1949 the Zionists had seized nearly 80 per cent of Palestine, provoking the resistance backlash they so bitterly complain about today. Many Jews condemn the Zionist policy and are ashamed of what has been done in their name.

UN Resolution 194 had called on Israel to let the Palestinians back onto their land. It has been re-passed many times, but Israel is still in breach. The Israelis also stand accused of violating Article 42 of the Geneva Convention by moving settlers into the Palestinian territories it occupies, and of riding roughshod over international law with their occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

But expulsion and transfer were always a key part of the Zionist plan. According to historian Benny Morris, no mainstream Zionist leader was able to conceive of future co-existence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, is reported to have said:

With compulsory transfer we have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.

He showed astonishing candour on another occasion when he remarked:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it is true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti- Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.

General Moshe Dayan, hero of the 1967 war, made it known to Palestinians in the territories that “you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave, and we shall see where this process will lead.” That appears to have been the general attitude ever since.

In 1967 Israel used a number of Arab threats designed to check Zionist ambitions, including a blockade of their Red Sea port, as a pretext to launch war. In a series of pre-emptive strikes against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Israel succeeded in doubling the area of land under its control, seizing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, violating both international law and the UN Charter, which says that a country cannot lawfully make territorial gains from war. It was reported that Israel demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes in the West Bank and detained some 300,000 Palestinians without trial.

The UN issued Security Council Resolution 242, stressing “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calling for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. It was largely ignored, thus guaranteeing further discord in the region.

Israel’s most notorious prime minister, Ariel Sharon, made a name for himself in 1953 when his secret death squad, Unit 101, dynamited homes and massacred 69 Palestinian civilians – half of them women and children – at Qibya in the West Bank. His troops later destroyed 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 12,000 people and deporting hundreds of young Palestinians to Jordan and Lebanon.

Then in 1982 he masterminded Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in a massive death toll of Palestinians and Lebanese, a large proportion being children. An Israeli tribunal found him indirectly responsible for the massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and removed him from office. But he didn’t stay in the background for long.

By the end of 1967 there were just three illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. By the end of 2005 the total was 177. “When we have settled the land,” the then chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces, Rafael Eitan, remarked in 1983, “all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle”.

By 2015 there were 196 illegal Israeli settlements in addition to  232 settler outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to the Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem, and upwards of 750,000 settlers residing there.

Apartheid and occupation: “in practice there is little difference”

So what sort of person was responsible for this misery and mayhem in the Holy Land – the “running sore” Lord Sydenham predicted? At Cambridge Arthur Balfour read moral sciences (no, seriously!). Much good it did the poor Palestinian Arabs he helped dispossess.

Described as born lazy, aloof and having an attitude problem, he was convinced of his personal superiority and wished to keep the vulgar world at arm’s length. Balfour famously remarked: “Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all.”

He had been prime minister (1902-05) and was regarded as weak. At the time of the Declaration blunder he was foreign secretary. In the words of one commentator, Balfour’s career “stretches before our eyes in a flat and uneventful plain of successful but inglorious and ineffective self-seeking”. He was said to be a man who would make almost any sacrifice to remain in office. In this case, he sacrificed the Arab homeland. In 1922 the League of Nations put Palestine under British mandate, which incorporated the principles of the Balfour’s Declaration.

How have things turned out?

John Dugard, Professor of International Law and former Special Rapporteur to the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, explained on Aljazeera the differences and similarities between apartheid South Africa and apartheid Israel.

Of course, the regimes of apartheid and occupation are different. Apartheid South Africa was a state that practised discrimination against its own people. It sought to fragment the country into white South Africa and black Bantustans. Its security laws were used to brutally suppress opposition to apartheid. Israel, on the other hand, is an occupying power that controls a foreign territory and its people under a regime recognised by international law [as] belligerent occupation.

However, in practice, there is little difference. Both regimes were/are characterised by discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation (that is, land seizures).

Israel discriminates against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in favour of half a million Israeli settlers. Its restrictions on freedom of movement, manifested in countless humiliating checkpoints, resemble the “pass laws” of apartheid. Its destruction of Palestinian homes resembles the destruction of homes belonging to blacks under apartheid’s Group Areas Act. The confiscation of Palestinian farms under the pretext of building a security wall brings back similar memories. And so on. Indeed, Israel has gone beyond apartheid South Africa in constructing separate (and unequal) roads for Palestinians and settlers.

Apartheid’s security police practised torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.

Apartheid South Africa seized the land of blacks for whites. Israel has seized the land of Palestinians for half a million settlers and for the purposes of constructing a security wall within Palestinian territory – both of which are contrary to international law.

Dugard suggested there is sufficient evidence for a legitimate enquiry into the question of whether Israel violates the prohibition of apartheid found in the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute.

Sydenham’s “running sore” has been festering for a century, crippling the Middle East and turning the Holy Land into an abomination. Balfour and his fellow Zionist stooges in the corridors of British power clearly had no understanding of the true purpose and base methods of Zionism.

This is also true of present-day Christian-Zionists. Some Christian churches have rejected Zionist doctrine as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation. They deplore the cosy relationship between Christian Zionist leaders and the governments of Israel and the United States that impose their pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. And they condemn the teachings of Christian Zionism that support those policies as they encourage racial exclusivity and perpetual war.

In other words, no Christian with a functioning brain cell should touch Zionism with a bargepole. Yet the upper echelons of our government and many Western churches are riddled with Zionist sympathisers. Unless they are smoked out, a hundred years from now an outraged civil society will still be calling for government apologies for the actions of that lunatic Balfour and his successors.

REDRESS

  • 5thDrawer

    More people are talking these days … against the ‘hired detractors’ of supposed ‘Anti-Semitic’ thought-lines … (a pervasive force for much too long in itself) … although too often people still think that ‘simply everyone’ actually knows what the world is doing elsewhere, when the education levels have dropped everywhere – more due to there not being enough time to absorb everything about ‘New-Tech’ even to make a living with it – and going over history is not a money-making job (unless there’s some ability to write of it, and have a printed book sold.)
    ‘Asking’ for monetary reparations, from something (death) that can’t be reversed is some liberal lunacy, of course.
    BUT, there could be some ‘going forward’ if the true history was known, and understood to be wrong to be allowed to continue.

    • Hind Abyad
      • 5thDrawer

        He was not a ‘Balfour’.

        • Hind Abyad

          How so????
          Churchill-Balfour!

          “The Churchill White Paper (also known as The British White Paper of 1922) of 3 June 1922 was in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots in which growing tensions between Arab and Jewish populations in Palestine came to a head. Although the attacks were primarily facilitated by the Arabs, -the ‘British White Paper’ concluded that the violence was sparked by resentment towards Jewish Zionists and the perceived favoritisme towards them by the British, as well as Arab fears of subjugation.
          The paper emphasized that “the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian”, that the Balfour Agreement did not support “the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine”, and that British intended to “foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine”.[1] In response, the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to “the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals” in order to reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in the region.[2] This was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement.[3]”
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper

          • 5thDrawer

            Yes, we know even ‘the balfour’ wasn’t followed to the letter – in wording OR the general intent of it. And America didn’t like translating English as written. :-)))

          • Hind Abyad

            That’s not an answer…

            “The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. It 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.”

          • Hind Abyad
        • Hind Abyad

          Tripotes. We are talking about World War One.
          Not the “battle of Britain”- World War Two.

          • 5thDrawer

            I don’t really see how we can separate them. 20 years of economic ‘strife’ for everyone in between ‘the war times’ doesn’t divide ‘WARS’ very well. And of course, many little wars just keep going on in between the ‘biggies’ … the only real result being the ‘tech views’ – an advancement in ability to add more numbers who could be dying from them.
            ‘Humans’ finally got to drop 2 bombs which made them sit back and think a VERY little about doing more of that sort of thing … although they also did (& DO) ‘testing’ to REFINE/make even bigger/improve the delivery systems/& raise the planet’s fog of background radiation … even if it’s fairly easy to extrapolate the resulting destruction of all Life-forms if they used even a quarter of the stocks now ‘available’.
            Sitting back, we could say, was a ‘wise’ decision.

            Even the ‘peaceful applications’ of splitting atoms has added to that ‘FOG’ of the brains.
            (if not also to the cancers caused by one part of a body ‘mutating’ against the myriad poisons it faces in a genetic life-span (for it’s own survival) – which harms all the ones around it which can’t yet mutate (generally the organs – the already fantastic systems evolved for the purpose of survival, and adaptations needed to improve the odds in the environments of this changing planet. Of which, one was skin-colour.))
            And YES, there ARE actually people who would use BIG ones.
            And you and I would have no ‘say’ when a button was pushed. For the moment. Those spatulate stubby fingers have been controlled – but only for less than the blink of an eye in the time-span of a life-giving galaxy.

            BUT WARS didn’t actually stop even then. Did they. !!!
            For some of us on the planet, it has been a relatively ‘nice’ 70 years of attempting ‘peaceful co-existence’. And many have lived an actual human life-span without the sounds of the bombs and guns constantly ringing in the ears. Seemed a better ‘concept’ to me – perhaps not so many feel the same way … it’s another evolutionary thing, that.
            Which doesn’t mean I wouldn’t defend myself and those I love or feel close to – but more often here, it has become a need to defend against the so-called ‘liberal thinkers’ who think nothing is better than blowing MY tax-dollars on fruitless endeavours (like a carbon-tax to make ‘green’) while they raise their own pay-cheques and promise impossible things to grab a ‘vote’, and then blow more after lawyers point out the errors of their ways – while never actually confessing to themselves that they are idiots, who BELIEVE they are as capable of ‘running everything’ – JUST like an ASSad or a Balfour or (any of a long list…) – AND ‘WE’ vote for them to attempt it. Where does that place a ‘majority’ who give them that ‘one chance’ to prove themselves, and then can’t get rid of them when they warp enough minds against a ‘system’ for a collective ‘all’?
            (Ontario has recently been a classic example of a dumbed-down populace…)

            AND people have no idea in ‘The West’ about how close they were to experiencing the ‘Pearl-Harbour Suite’, because they think ‘WAR’ was ‘so far away’. We had a ‘Coast Guard’ for a reason – tales are rarely told.
            Recently, an earlier (smaller) German U-Boat was found in the Great Lakes. No-one can explain it. Let’s imagine the Canadian Shield rocks punched a hole in it.
            More likely, they just didn’t know there were no gas-stations handy over here, so they got out to walk over to a ‘POW camp’ we had going … camps which were quite comfortable relative to some others … and happily spent the rest of ‘the duration’ planting gardens.

            Conclusion (for the moment) … Don’t just stick up for a ‘lesser’ megalomaniac … they are all of the same tribe when it comes to making people suffer. A few thousand humans, or even a million here or there, is a numbers game for the ‘power-hungry’ seeking control. And there’s only one way to eliminate ‘them all’ … which would mess up everything anyway. Pick on ALL of them … Kubla Khan to Netanyahu – it’s the ‘mind-sets’ which need some education about having ‘happiness’ in a life.

          • Hind Abyad

            The BALFOUR Declaration was in the Middle East.
            Not in the West.
            Diverting it to your culture not Balfour business (as good English Canadian Allie).
            http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-balfour-declaration

          • 5thDrawer

            Ok .. my culture .. not French or Leb or Euro. Canadian.
            Next time we want to attack someone, let me know.
            (must be the reason there’s no belief in what I say … dang)
            A guy in Lebanon said I must be an Isralei Spy – simply because I’m Canadian.
            Didn’t hang around him too long either … my culture says ‘GTF out fast’. :-)))

          • Hind Abyad

            I repeat Balfour caused everything we live in the ME today, it’s consequences was CHAOS. Palestine is gone, Lebanon invaded because of Palestinian refugees, Iraq is destroyed, Libya, Syria. Christians massacred, give me a bloody Break. Canada is fine.

          • 5thDrawer

            And how can anyone ‘go back’ to make it right – no matter how we record it?

          • Hind Abyad

            Nobody can make it right..the powerful West don’t care for suffering and blood rivers it serves their interests since WW1.

          • 5thDrawer

            At least, for now, we have the freedom to say that 😉
            Convince people to look for the right things to vote for … if you can.

          • 5thDrawer

            And today, if what you want is to bomb Brits because of what a few of their people did in the past, you’d have to take out a lot of Muslims too, because a few of their people convinced them it would be great to move. 😉

          • Hind Abyad

            The Allied Powers bomb Syrianarmy, arm ISIS foreigners, publish fake news.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZyHUr9YWM

          • 5thDrawer

            Maybe they staged a ‘staging’ …. everyone seems to be into propaganda. 😉

          • Hind Abyad

            Except State Dept liars.;-)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv7p1RBOOXM

          • 5thDrawer

            Which was one of those ‘new Inventions’, as it turns out … the “Double-Tap” on a roof.
            😉

          • Hind Abyad
          • Hind Abyad

            Sham Aleppo Hospital Canadian entry of the car bomb and blow up the building in 2012-2013
            (Al Kindi Hospital blamed on Assad by the west)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhekM9c8ifo

          • 5thDrawer

            And if you want to talk about more recent ‘Income Destroyers’, you need to do all the reasons for this one too …
            Taliban and at what costs … TO ‘Their own’ people ….
            https://sputniknews.com/asia/201611061047121724-afghanistan-taliban-losses/

          • Hind Abyad

            I know nothing of the Tali Bans

          • PatienceTew

            Thanks, really, only to a wide ocean.

          • 5thDrawer

            And some cooler beaches. 🙂

          • PatienceTew

            How I enjoy Junieh!

          • Hind Abyad
          • Hind Abyad

            The guy in Lebanon in what year?
            Canadians were favorites in the World before Harper.

          • 5thDrawer

            2008 – I guess ‘we’ gave $ to Israel ??
            Anyway, the long scar down the side of his head, and the eyes, told me something was missing. :-)))
            There was, however, also a guy who told me he could get me a ‘hit-man’ for $200. Only.
            In retrospect … ;-)))

        • Omega

          Hitler, Churchill and Stalin were puppets to the same masters. It’s the people who fought/killed each other in bloody wars.

  • Nasdaq7

    Just a bunch of nonsense.

    1. Google Nelson Mandela spent 18 of his 27 years, along with over 3,000 political prisoners during their fight to end Apartheid.
    2. Google Deaths in detention | South African History Online
    Less than 100.

    • Omega

      Don’t forget the Boers Republic saga (instigated by the same people behind Israel) in your comment that says absolutely nothing and your attempt to sound semi-intelligent.

      The Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 was more than the first major military clash of the 20th century. Pitting as it did the might of the globe-girdling British Empire, backed by international finance, against a small pioneering nation of independent-minded farmers, ranchers and merchants in southern Africa who lived by the Bible and the rifle, its legacy continues to resonate today. The Boers’ recourse to irregular warfare, and Britain’s response in herding a hundred thousand women and children into concentration camps foreshadowed the horrors of guerilla warfare and mass detention of innocents that have become emblematic of the 20th century.

      http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p14_weber.html

      Try to do better than Wikipedia next time.

      • 5thDrawer

        He was correct about that ‘Native’ part of it, however …
        “The Dutch, Huguenot and German ancestors of the Boers first settled the Cape area of South Africa in 1652.” Before that there was really no-one … it wasn’t an ‘easy’ land to settle in.

        • Omega

          What’s the relevance to my point?

          Did you read the article I posted? The case of the Boers was not any different than WW2 and today’s Palestine: instigated by the same, done the same way and lied the same way.

          • 5thDrawer

            “The basic principle behind Lord Kitchener’s tactics has been to win, not so much through direct operations against fighting commandos, but rather indirectly by bringing the pressure of war against defenseless women and children. (the Boers)
            … This violation of every international law is really very characteristic of the nation which always plays the role of chosen judge over the customs and behavior of all other nations.”
            Almost, shall we say ‘American’ … 😉

          • 5thDrawer

            It is also interesting to note the ‘Propaganda’ section … although slower to produce in those days, than on twittering feeds, it nevertheless existed for the same purposes.
            “A widely shown newsreel film purported to show Boers attacking a Red Cross tent while British doctors and nurses treat the wounded. Actually this fake had been shot with actors on Hampstead Heath, a suburb of London.”
            When people (like Mark Twain) began to notice, it was a little too late. As usual.
            “Accordingly, the [pro-British] South African League was formed, and Mr. Rhodes and his associates — generally of the German Jew extraction — found money in thousands for its propaganda. By this league in [British] South Africa and here [in Britain] they have poisoned the wells of public knowledge. Money has been lavished in the London world and in the press, and the result has been that little by little public opinion has been wrought up and inflamed, and now, instead of finding the English people dealing with this matter in a truly English spirit, we are dealing with it in a spirit which generations to come will condemn …”

          • 5thDrawer

            Those on the side of the ‘Labourer’ may well understand this from 1900.
            “The war is a capitalist’ war, begotten by capitalists’ money, lied into being by a perjured mercenary capitalist press, and fathered by unscrupulous politicians, themselves the merest tools of the capitalists … As Socialists, our sympathies are bound to be with the Boers. Their Republican form of Government bespeaks freedom, and is thus hateful to tyrants …”

          • 5thDrawer

            SO … Britain actually ‘Lost Face’ as the Boers finally capitulated.
            And now, can we get back into ‘Balfour’?? It’s a repeat.

  • Nasdaq7

    Mandela and De Klerk signed a different contract and agreement in 1990 – the white and black factions didn’t make it an all or nothing over every inch of land. That’s why so many people are dying in Israel. The whites could move and migrate and do business everywhere in the entire African continent where their skills were and continue to be in high demand. So the land issue is not as big an issue as in Israel. There’s more than enough land in the entire Africa. So just become tolerant of Jews in the entire Middle East and your problems will be solved.

    • Hind Abyad

      Mandella and De Klerk nothing to do with Balfour

    • 5thDrawer

      Jews were always in the Middle-East anyway, with Christians & Muslims … read the history.
      It is Zionists who are tolerant of no others, and target any other supposed ‘faith’.

      • O’Matrix

        To have it clear on the term “Jews” – you are referring to Jews not to the Khazars that converts to judaism, correct?

        You do not describe the Zionists as a questionable fact, but you leave the description to the term “Jews” as a religion…..

        Is that why you allow yourself to point out that “Jews were always in the Middle-East anyway, with Christians & Muslims… read the history.”?

    • Hind Abyad

      Jews have dual citizenship around the World… So just become tolerant of Arabs in entire Middle East and your problems will be solved.

      • Y K

        “Jews have dual citizenship…”

        I hope they denied you Canadian citizenship, you repulsive hag. 🙂

        • O’Matrix

          Dual citizenship is common in many countries – we have German Turks who have shown loyalty only to the Turkish Sultan…

          Jews can’t have dual citizenship around the World, only when they are in Israel.

        • Hind Abyad

          Repulsive Yakov, no wonder people dislike Zionists what do you do for a living, trolling is your full time job, vulgar idiot?

          ‘Discussion on Ya Libnan News
          Discussion on Israellycool
          Discussion on Elder of Ziyon
          Discussion on Spectator Blogs
          Discussion on The Spectator
          Discussion on Euromaidan Press
          Discussion on Horrific Ventures
          Discussion on Russia Insider
          Discussion on ValueWalk
          Discussion on The Hill
          Discussion on PalestineRemix
          Discussion on The Daily Star
          Discussion on KyivPost
          Discussion on Newser
          Discussion on THE CONSERVATIVE
          Discussion on uatoday.tv
          Discussion on TorrentFreak
          Discussion on Middleeasteye
          Discusion in vice news’

  • Barry

    Lots of words. Lots of stupidity.
    Sorry, Israel is not going anywhere.

    • 5thDrawer

      Too much TRUTH in one article, Barry ??

      • Barry

        Too many lies to refute.
        A broken clock is right twice a day. But it is wrong the rest of the day.

        • 5thDrawer

          Yes, we see it is broken … and you’ve thrown it out, instead of attempting to fix it.
          Waste of the ‘modern age’, in method and intent, burying even the 2 hours when it’s correct. But on it’s face, the numbers are still right.

        • Hind Abyad

          Point out ‘Too many lies to refute’.

        • Omega

          Too many lies to refute.

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          • Y K

            Don’t shit your pants in over-excitement, retard. It’s your only good pair.

          • Hind Abyad

            Don’t shit your pants in over-frustration. It’s your only good pair.

          • 5thDrawer

            hehehehehe … emulation, without the epithets … very good. 😉

      • Y K

        Not nearly enough, mate. To get the WHOLE TRUTH one needs to follow your insightful comments from times immemorial. 🙂

  • Hind Abyad

    Irgun terrorist Menahem Begin- Deir Yassin massacre-founded the Likud Party in 1950

    The Stern Gang- Lehi- murdered Churchill best friend Lord Lemoyne and Swedish UN envoy Count Bernadotte- Yitzhak Shamir, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44d3f9b1deb99a155867ea01067feaf15ce80854ca01c5e067748e395e85cd39.jpg became Prime Minister of Israel forty years later..

  • Hind Abyad

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement & Betrayal of the Arabs and of Colonel Lawrence..

    “In the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between Britain and France, “parts” of Palestine would be under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sherif of Mecca.
    This Anglo-French agreement already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sharif Hussein, and without his knowledge.

    Lord Curzon remarked that the boundary lines drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement indicated “gross ignorance” and he assumed that it was never believed the agreement would be implemented. Prime Minister Lloyd George considered the Sykes-Picot Agreement foolish and dishonourable, but it was nonetheless implemented after the Allied victory.”

  • Hind Abyad

    The Sykes-Picot Agreement & Betrayal of the Arabs and of Colonel Lawrence..

    “In the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between Britain and France, “parts” of Palestine would be under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sherif of Mecca.
    This Anglo-French agreement already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sharif Hussein, and without his knowledge.

    Lord Curzon remarked that the boundary lines drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement indicated “gross ignorance” and he assumed that it was never believed the agreement would be implemented. Prime Minister Lloyd George considered the Sykes-Picot Agreement foolish and dishonourable, but it was nonetheless implemented after the Allied victory.”

    • johngilbert

      The Flag of the Arab Revolt was a flag used by the Arab nationalists during the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
      Soldiers in the Arab Army during the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918. They are carrying the Arab Flag of the Arab Revolt and pictured in the Arabian Desert

      The flag was designed by the British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes, in an effort to create a feeling of “Arab-ness” in order to fuel the revolt.[1] Although the Arab Revolt was only very limited in scope and concerted by the British rather than by Arabs themselves, the flag influenced the national flags of a number of emerging Arab states after World War I. Flags inspired by that of the Arab revolt include those of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Palestine, Somaliland, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Libya.

      The horizontal colors stand for the Abbasid (black), Umayyad (white) and Fatimid (green) Caliphates. The red triangle refers to the Hashemite dynasty.[2][3]

      The Hashemites were allies of the British in the conflict against the Ottoman Empire. After the war ended, the Hashemites achieved or were granted rule in the Hejaz region of Arabia, Jordan, formally known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, briefly in Greater Syria, and Iraq.

      Greater Syria was dissolved after only a few months of existence, in 1920. The Hashemites were overthrown in the Hejaz in 1925 by the House of Saud, and in Iraq in 1958 by a coup d’etat, but retained power in Jordan.

      A 98.5 foot by 197 foot version of the flag currently flies from the Aqaba Flagpole, currently the sixth tallest freestanding flagpole in the world, located in Aqaba, Jordan.[4]

      Description[edit]
      The flag contains the four Pan-Arab Colors, black, white, green and red there are three horizontal stripes; black, green, and white, going down the flag. There is also a red triangle on the hoist side of the flag

      • Hind Abyad

        Wikipedia is edited, all that regards Middle East history are lies.

        “The Flag of the Arab Revolt was a flag used by the Arab nationalists during the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I.”

        Colonel Lawrence was instructed to unite the Arabs in order to help the Alien Allies oust the Turks. Aliens could not fight in the DESERT!

        “..Soldiers in the Arab Army during the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918. They are carrying the Arab Flag of the Arab Revolt and pictured in the Arabian Desert”

        The Alien Allies called what they created: “The Arab Revolt” to win WWI Haha… Arabs never united, without Lawrence of Arabia leadership it would have never succeeded and it against promesses of independence.

        “The Hashemites were allies of the British in the conflict against the Ottoman Empire. After the war ended, the Hashemites achieved or were granted rule in the Hejaz region of Arabia, Jordan, formally known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, briefly in Greater Syria, and Iraq.”

        “formally known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”
        (didn’t exist before 1925). They achieved nothing, the British figured they could use popular Arab sentiment for independence to their advantage, in 1924 Hashemite control over Hejaz was coming to an end, in 1925, the British helped illiterate Bedouins Wahhabi tribe Ibn al Saud, conquer Hejaz and Arabia from them.. Sheriff Hussein and his people had to leave in 1925 they were given Palestinian territories from British Mandate for Palestine, the “East Bank of Jordan River” now Jordan Hashemite Kingdom.
        The Rothschilds consolidated their control over Arabia and the old World
        oil resources.

      • Oh Yeah

        The Flag of the Arab Revolt was a flag used by the Arab nationalists during the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4499c149e382b9eb64051e166b863594a90435cd55a8994cc281d2b1b50a5271.jpg
        The flag of the Arab revolt- in Aqaba 2006…

  • Hind Abyad

    Article says; “In 1937 the Peel Commission declared that British promises to Arabs and Zionists were irreconcilable and unworkable. Too late, Britain dropped its commitment to the Zionists and began talking about a Palestinian state with a guaranteed Arab majority and protection for minorities.

    The Zionists reacted furiously. Their underground military wing, the Haganah, and other armed groups, unleashed a reign of terror in the run-up to World War II. They continued their attacks on the British after the war and tried to bring in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees..”

    (Not to be Not to be confused with Balfour Declaration of 1917).

  • Adam Yonatan Ben Yoel

    No editorial bias here then…

    • 5thDrawer

      Nope. Only in the comments section.

      • Y K

        You implying your wise comments are being censored? 🙂

        • 5thDrawer

          Considering the latest news on what bill C51 meant for reporters here, I’d believe we are all being ‘censored’ …. and this ‘site’ would be a favourite for the spies, for sure.
          The ‘Yanks’ got into the country. 😉

  • Omega

    IsraHell is the machination/creation of the same oligarchies behind the world’s chaos, invasions, wars and geo-political changes of the past three centuries. For some reasons, they do not believe in peaceful and mutually beneficial relationships. The end result is always the same: betrayal, mass-killing, lies, theft, destruction and chaos so that they can continue enriching themselves.

  • Rudy1947

    “Deir Yassin signalled the ominous beginning of a deliberate programme by Israel to depopulate Arab towns and villages “.

    Deir Yassin held a strategic position and was an armed to defend it. It doesn’t take anyone older than five years old to understand the high ground. The town also overlooked a strategic supply road. I’m sure the Arabs were quite aware of the towns importance as did the Israelis.

    • 5thDrawer

      And five-yr-olds do know the ‘King of the Hill’ games of a sandpile. The only problem comes from a kid who who ‘believes’ he has a ‘right’ to hold it with brutality.

      • Rudy1947

        Nerf guns are a recent invention and were not employed in the 40s.

        • 5thDrawer

          True … In the 40’s, either there would eventually come along a kid who was more brutal – we would stand in awe watching those two – but more often than not, we would just leave the game and let him have the dirt. Alone.

          • Rudy1947

            That’s sweet. But was really going on was a fight between Arabs and Jews over control of a strategic location. The Jews won that battle, a couple of Arab journalists called it a massacre(which backfired and admitted to) and the Jews held that position.

          • 5thDrawer

            Yes, it’s not a kid’s game. And apparently after that, it was decided to take over every other hill to be seen anywhere …. and then level it.

          • Rudy1947

            Not level it, utilize it. That’s just smart warfare.

          • 5thDrawer

            If the hill was best place for the forest of Olives, I hardly think it’s smart to plant walled fortresses on it instead.
            Towns were built higher originally where shepherd’s could watch the flock feeding on the better lower ranges for them, and also where more pure sources of water could be bubbling up, for people building ‘low-rise’ homes.
            One would need to be aware now, of course, of the purity, almost anywhere in the world – thanks more to those ‘smarts’.

          • Rudy1947

            “Deir Yassin was built on the eastern slopes of a hill, with an elevation of roughly 800 meters (2,600 ft) above sea level and commanding a wide view all around it. ”

            That’s a long way for a shepherd to watch his flock, but a strategic location to watch the surrounding area and an important road.

          • 5thDrawer

            Ok … I give up … go do a war there if you wish.

          • Rudy1947

            It’s already happened. You’re trying to change a battle that occurred 7 decades ago.

          • 5thDrawer

            I attempt to find some actual ‘sense’ in the whole event, beyond ‘holding’ a strategic location and making sure weapons are removed, which might be utilized IF anyone actually wanted to. It didn’t result in any ‘peace’ beyond that of the tomb.

          • Omega

            We’re supposed to learn something from real histories … not keep them repeating.

            His kind repeats mass-killing, theft, destruction and then lies about how it happened.

          • johngilbert

            It happened. In a war, it’s kill or be killed. Once is a while a 2000 year old loser wins something passing the buck down to someone else. Someone stronger (Europe) beats you up. Then you beat up someone weaker (Middle East) than you. However, the Middle East wasn’t really weaker, it just assumed itself to be just as strong as Europe which it wasn’t.

          • Omega

            Gullible imbecile.

          • Omega

            Gullible fool. Europe did not want Palestine; a few banking oligarchies did. They happen to run the economies of both England and the USA.

          • Rudy1947

            Who funded the Ottomans?

          • Omega

            Elon Musk did.

          • Hind Abyad

            Palestinians or Middle East are not responsable for Dreyfus affair nor the Holocaust nor anti-Semitism – they are Semites-, not responsable for Jews troubles in Fascist Nazi Germany Europe, nor the Talmud who calls Jesus a monkey his mother a whore.

          • johngilbert

            It repeats because humanity and history look like a common connected body while ignoring that newborn generations come up that are inexperienced and do not learn from the past only to repeat the same things.

          • Omega

            I’ll reiterate: gullible idiot.

            It repeats because the same ruling class perpetuate (via their through descendants) their modus operandi to reach a unilateral world.

          • Hind Abyad
          • Omega

            He’s not changing anything you despicable, lying, idiot. THe Deir Yassin incident was a massacre. Something admitted by Haganah official who were there.

          • johngilbert

            See Hadassah medical transport massacre for Arab response to it.

          • Hind Abyad

            Hadassah no Hadassah. Palestinians didn’t come to you, you came to Palestine!

            “How Britain Destroyed the Palestinian Homeland”
            http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/britain-destroyed-palestinian-homeland-161102054348710.html

          • johngilbert

            The Yishuv was there.

          • Hind Abyad

            You still talking to cul de sacz..zz

          • Omega

            Un trou du cul et de sac.

          • Omega

            Don’t argue with this lying asshole.

            Here: http://www.israel-palestina.info/deir-yassin-the-evidence/

          • 5thDrawer

            “The village was separated from the Jerusalem road by a high ridge, and villagers could only reach the main road through Givat Shaul. There was no possibility of controlling the main road or firing on the main road from the village.”

          • Omega

            Sitting your lazy, dumb ass in a barrack in Germany is not participating in warfare you know. Thus, how would you know what “warfare” is?

          • Omega

            But was really going on was a fight between Arabs and Jews over control of a strategic location.

            Lie, again.

            It has been contended, chiefly by Uri Milstein, that prior to the establishment of the state, both sides fought with underground armies. They operated under the shadow of the British, and could take no prisoners. Therefore terror tactics became the norm. Indeed, there were numerous raids and reprisal raids, and prisoners were not taken. For example, the 35 people (“lamed heh”) send to relieve Gush Etzion were massacred. While I do not recall that Israeli sources have treated the massacre of the thirty-five with any large degree of understanding for the necessities of underground warfare, in the case of Deir Yassin, however, the logic certainly does not seem to apply:

            1. It was not a reprisal for anything in particular.

            2. The villagers were not engaged in active combat, so freeing prisoners was not going to free enemy soldiers who would fight another day.

            3. The large number of children and women who were killed could not possibly be considered combatants.

            http://www.israel-palestina.info/deir-yassin-the-evidence/

            a couple of Arab journalists called it a massacre(which backfired and admitted to)

            They were controlled opposition. Not the first not the last time an Arab was disloyal to his kind.

          • johngilbert

            It was a massacre in revenge for previous massacres.

          • Omega

            Are you dumb?

            It has been contended, chiefly by Uri Milstein, that prior to the establishment of the state, both sides fought with underground armies. They operated under the shadow of the British, and could take no prisoners. Therefore terror tactics became the norm. Indeed, there were numerous raids and reprisal raids, and prisoners were not taken. For example, the 35 people (“lamed heh”) send to relieve Gush Etzion were massacred. While I do not recall that Israeli sources have treated the massacre of the thirty-five with any large degree of understanding for the necessities of underground warfare, in the case of Deir Yassin, however, the logic certainly does not seem to apply:

            1. It was not a reprisal for anything in particular.

            http://www.israel-palestina.info/deir-yassin-the-evidence/

          • Omega

            Are you trolling?

            in the case of Deir Yassin, however, the logic certainly does not seem to apply:

            1. It was not a reprisal for anything in particular.

            2. The villagers were not engaged in active combat, so freeing prisoners was not going to free enemy soldiers who would fight another day.

            3. The large number of children and women who were killed could not possibly be considered combatants.

            http://www.israel-palestina.info/deir-yassin-the-evidence/

          • Rudy1947

            But the Arabs lost that position and the reporters who originally claimed some kind of useless massacre revealed their report was a total lie and a lie that back fired. Now your saying they were controlled? Gee, I wonder who.

          • Omega

            Deir Yassin is a village where Palestinians lived – they did not hold a position to defend. They were attacked and massacred by Jewish terrorists. Haganah officials’ testimonies show it.

            Now your saying they were controlled?

            Where did I say the reporters in question were not controlled opposition for you to lie and say that “now” I say otherwise?

            Most importantly, you clearly made it evident that you had/have no clue what controlled opposition was/it when you wrote: What in the h e double hockey stick is that supposed to mean..

          • Rudy1947

            Oh yes they did. I’m appalled that you would render your Arabs to such s2pidity. Perhaps it’s just you that is totally unaware, but I’m sure the residents and defenders of Deir Yassin knew exactly what they had.

          • Omega

            You’re “appalled”? Did you really just write that? (laughing) Jewish terrorists killing civilians (with a large number of children and women) in a village that’s not theirs is the only appealing thing. You despicable, immoral animal.

          • Rudy1947

            You have no faith in the intelligence of your Arabs. To think that the residents of Deir Yassin didn’t have the intelligence of a five year old is appalling and to think you would agree with that. Despicable you dumbshit, totally despicable.

          • Omega

            I wrote: You despicable, immoral animal.

            You reply: Despicable you dumbshit, totally despicable.

            Very original Roodie, bravo. Tap your shoulder now monolithic idiot.

          • Rudy1947

            No thanx for that. Just imitating you.

          • Omega

            Go ahead and tap your shoulder now Roodie and trim that goatee; you will aweful.

          • Rudy1947

            Huh?????

          • 5thDrawer

            Has nothing to do with intelligence. Has to do with ‘trust’.
            A Peace agreement was made, and in force – by the citizens of that town.
            They believed it was the right thing to do, all things considered.
            One ‘group’ had no honour and broke it so badly that it is well-remebered, and covering it up and ‘revising’ it SET THE TONE of all the years since then. End of story.

          • johngilbert

            The Arabs were not helpless because of this nor after this. They managed the Hadassah convoy massacre in revenge for it.

          • 5thDrawer

            Didn’t have the same USA backing for follow-ups, I guess. ;-))
            Or the Yanks were still working on taking down Brits economically, perhaps.

          • johngilbert

            The British were helping the Egyptians, Trans-Jordanians and Iraqis at the time while the French were helping the Syrians and Lebanese at the time. The U.S. did not fully help Israel until after 1967. Actually, most arms was bought from Czechoslovakia by Israel at the beginning (1948).

          • Rudy1947

            No one said the Arab were helpless, the comment was about one battle.

    • Omega

      You’re nothing but a despicable, lying, monolithic idiot. The Deir Yassin incident was a massacre.

      There can be no doubt at all that large numbers of civilians were killed unjustifiably at Deir Yassin. Mordehai Gihon, intelligence officer of the Haganah Etzioni Brigade, wrote in his report, submitted April 10 1948:The murder of falachim and innocent citizens, faithful allies of the western sector, who kept faith despite pressure from the gangs, even during the conquest of Sharfa, {Mt Herzl} may lose us the trust of all those Arabs who hoped to be saved from destruction by agreements with us.

      Uri Milstein, who has tried to minimize the massacre and involve the Haganah, wrote “nobody denies: most of the dead in Deir Yassin were old men, women and children, and only a few of them were young men who could be classified as warriors,

      The evidence that the Irgun and Lehi perpetrated a massacre at Deir Yassin is overwhelming. It comes from numerous independent sources, Jewish and Arab, Haganah and dissidents and it is recorded on film.

      http://www.israel-palestina.info/deir-yassin-the-evidence/

      • Rudy1947

        Hazem Nusseibeh, editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service’s in 1948, tells the BBC how a press report was compiled, falsely claiming that atrocities had occurred at Deir Yassin.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ

        Whenever Arabs lose a battle it becomes a massacre.

        • Omega

          Controlled opposition for a controlled crowd (the likes of you).

          • Rudy1947

            What in the h e double hockey stick is that supposed to mean.

          • Omega

            Controlled = determine the behavior or supervise the running of.

            Opposition = resistance or dissent, expressed in action or argument.

            Even a idiot like you can do the math.

          • Rudy1947

            Thanx for the definition, but who, what, when and where?

          • Omega

            You know the who, what, when and where. Enough with your dumb questions.

          • Rudy1947

            You don’t seem to know and you’re the one with the definition.

          • Omega

            Sure do and answered.

          • Rudy1947

            Where?

          • Omega

            It’s there. You can do monolithic idiot.

          • Rudy1947

            Twilight Zone theme………

          • Omega

            Engaging your modus operandi? Step 1: diversion.

          • Rudy1947

            Still waiting……

          • Omega

            I know. That’s all you’ve been doing all your life: waiting.

          • Rudy1947

            Still waiting !

          • Omega

            You shouldn’t. It’s already covered.

          • Rudy1947

            Still waiting!!

          • Omega

            Let me guess: you were the dumb kid in the class – every year.

          • 5thDrawer

            (they move south …) 😉

          • Hind Abyad

            Yarienàfaire

    • johngilbert

      The Arabs got even with the Hadassah medical transport massacre.

      • Y K

        Not to mention the massacre of Kfar Etzion.

  • Rudy1947

    “There was a Jewish state in the Holy Land some 3,000 years ago, but the Canaanites and Philistines were there first. The Jews, one of several invading groups, left and returned several times, and were expelled by the Roman occupation in 70AD and again in 135AD”.

    But then from the 7th Century “Palestine” was Arab. Now how did “Palestine” become Arab? What was “Palestine” from 135AD to the 7th century? Now there was never any invading groups…..right?

    • 5thDrawer

      Must have been a pack of people just brushing up on their ‘religions’ peacefully. 😉
      Or it was another ‘dark ages’ with a boring time for all. ;-))

    • Omega

      Why do you care about “Holy”? Aren’t you “Atheist”? Almost forgot: you’re a selective atheist.

      • Y K

        Don’t you claim to be some kind of “Christian”, pal? I mean, “the Jooz killed Christ” kind? 🙂

        • Omega

          I lost count of how many millions Christians the Jews killed. Tens of millions in Russia, few millions in the Ottoman Empire, …

          • Rudy1947

            Don’t be shy, tell us how many were killed.

          • O’Matrix

            Had no idea that Jews are so powerful and can kill so many millions Christians and tens of millions in Russia, few millions in the Ottoman Empire….

            Now it starts to become clear why the Arabs fear the Jews so much.

            The Arabs dare to attack Jews only verbally, apart from some suicide Arab….

          • Omega

            You don’t have an idea of much OhYeah/Matrix.

            The tens of millions of Christian Russians were killed by the Jewish Bolshevik government.

            The millions of Christian Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were killed by the crypto-Jewish Young Turk Party government.

            Coincidentally, Bolshevism/Communism and the Young Turk Party were financed by the same Western (mostly Jewish) bankers.

          • O’Matrix

            You don’t have any idea of “OhYeah/Matrix”, Arschloch.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/deb092eb795f5bfaffe121c3fd41e385c1e2fa0e54f74bdb6656b5ff7a57bcc9.jpg
            I have not seen a single written answer you got from “Oh Yeah”.

          • Omega

            I sure do: Oh Yeah = Matrix = O’Matrix = God knows what else.

            No need to tell me that you will ignore my comment with your latest O’Matrix username – you already did under Oh Yeah and Matrix.

          • Omega

            Already did.

          • Rudy1947

            Translation: you don’t know.

          • Omega

            Sure do and answered. Read again, idiot: tens of millions, few millions.

          • Rudy1947

            Who, when, where?

          • Rudy1947

            Still waiting………

          • Y K

            Don’t forget the zillions killed during the Mongol invasions….

          • Omega

            The Mongolian invasions were not financed by those who financed Bolshevim, Communism and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

          • Hind Abyad

            You never miss an opportunity to prove you’re irrelevance and use insults from the gutter to masque your ignorance.
            “Since 1,500 years, although Mongols, Tatar, and Hulago have crossed in the region, we did not stop from praying on this land of Iraq (Mesopotamia), in our Churches..
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA_d9sD__zA

          • Y K

            “You never miss an opportunity to prove you’re irrelevance and use insults from the gutter to masque your ignorance.”

            I frequently miss an opportunity to call you genetic garbage, a worthless piece of crap, a moron, an Arab Nazi schizo, and an embarrassment to the great nation of Canada. Using every opportunity to do so would take up all of my time. 🙂
            ,

    • johngilbert

      Ever since the Crusades which is around 1000 years ago, the holy land has not been under Arab rule. There were the Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans, British, etc. The fact that an earlier injustice was ignored and swept under the rug for so long which was the destruction and displacement of the Judeans by the Romans, other injustices later occurred in the process of dealing with the earlier one. When something is stolen and remains so for some time, the last owner out of many changing hands pays the biggest price on recovery by the former owner. This article ignores the fact that there were several anti-Jewish riots in the holy land against the Jews there by the Arabs in the 1930’s and these mostly affected the old Jewish communities that were there from before Balfour and Zionism. It is a fact that the Arabs found it easier to attack the old Jewish communities that were living among them for a long time than the Zionists. This is where they erred and the Zionist have taken full advantage of this fact. One thing that isn’t mentioned is that the old Jewish community paid the price in Hebron and Jerusalem with the destruction of the old Jewish Quarters in the Old City of Hebron and Jerusalem in 1936 and 1948 in which 2/3 of their culture was totally wiped out since they had most of their holy things there.

      • Omega

        Ever since the Crusades which is around 1000 years ago, the holy land has not been under Arab rule. There were the Crusaders, Mamluks, Ottomans, British, etc.

        Why don’t you go back to the Bronze Age while you are it and talk about your Neanderthal grandmother? Truth the matter is that the Palestinians inhabited the land for centuries – they were Muslim, Jewish and Christian. The Brits (read: the bankers who ran England) appeared in the late 1800s – early 1900s only.

        The fact that an earlier injustice was ignored and swept under the rug for so long which was the destruction and displacement of the Judeans by the Romans, other injustices later occurred in the process of dealing with the earlier one. When something is stolen and remains so for some time, the last owner out of many changing hands pays the biggest price on recovery by the former owner.

        10 of the 12 (13 technically) Tribes were combat units who conquered the land and then lost it. The only theft that occurred is the one of the land where Palestinians inhabited for centuries by European, Eastern European and ROW Zionists.

        This article ignores the fact that there were several anti-Jewish riots in the holy land against the Jews there by the Arabs in the 1930’s and these mostly affected the old Jewish communities that were there from before Balfour and Zionism.

        The incidents of the 1920s/1930s were local and between Muslim and Jewish Palestinians. It’s completely irrelevant to Balfour and Zionism.

      • Hind Abyad
    • johngilbert

      From Roman to Byzantine Christian at that time before the Arabs.

  • Y K

    Looks like “YahoodiLibnan” doesn’t really like the Jooz after all. Maybe the owners read Dumbyad’s (and her boyfriend Omega’s) comments and made a last ditch-attempt to redeem themselves. 🙂

    • Scradje

      Article reads like something from Giorgi G’Allah-Weih.

      • Y K

        I strongly doubt Gorgeous George is capable of writing an actual article, even a crappy one. He’s more of a speaking engagement kind of guy.

        • Scradje

          Well it’s certainly a classic piece of misinformation, misdirection, ‘victimhood’ and paliprop that is right up his trash-littered alley. Or of course that of the evil troika of CorbLenin, McDonnell and Milne.

          • Omega

            Impossible to the beat the Talmudic Tribe when it comes to victimhood.

          • Hind Abyad

            They’re the victims, the executioners?
            “A century after Balfour, the UK should face uncomfortable home truths”
            http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/balfour-anniversary-uncomfortable-truths-434454888

          • 5thDrawer

            The ‘Memo’ of the one Jewish guy is interesting …
            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Montagumemo.html

            “… acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain”

          • Hind Abyad
          • Rudy1947

            The title goes to Arabs. So many massacres or should we say defeats, so much whining and so much inner conflict. But that’s OK, there always someone else to blame for their inadequacies and policy failures.

          • Omega

            Oh no – someone called out the “Jews”.

            What “so many massacres” are you talking about exactly? Do tell. I seriously hope you’re not referring to the mythical 1400 years old Shia vs Sunni bs told in Western media to cover up the West’s criminal involvement in the ME since the 60s-70s.

          • Rudy1947

            And the Whining Omega to the …..rescue…….

          • Omega

            Where do you see whining despicable liar?

          • Rudy1947

            Every time you comment!!!!

          • Omega

            Show me, despicable liar. The only one I see whining and squealing every time the Talmudic Tribe is brought up and/or called out is you.

          • Rudy1947

            I rest my case.

          • Omega

            You never had a case to rest it.

          • Hind Abyad

            Huh..he should rest and stop spamming.

          • Hind Abyad

            Every time you comment you lie

          • O’Matrix

            On this forum I see the ugly face of antisemitism a la Arabia, as if it wasn’t enough with the growing antisemitism at home since the Muslim community (mainly Arabs) is growing rapidly.

            Side effects:
            National Front, PEGIDA, Jobbik, AfD, Golden Dawn etc.

            I’m fed up with the Arab-antisemitism, claiming they are not antisemitic just anti-zionist.
            https://vimeo.com/16779150
            Not all Jews are Zionist!
            There are around 16 million Jews around the world only about 6 million of them live in Israel.

            The biggest zionists are the brainwashed evangelical ones.

            As to “A story of betrayal”…
            The UN Partition Resolution did not take Arab land.
            It did not give any Arab land to the Jews.
            The UN simply drew a boundary.
            On one side of the boundary, most of the people were Jews.
            On the other side of the boundary, most of the people were gentiles.
            No one’s private property was affected by the Partition Resolution.

            Arabs did end up losing land, but that was only because they started a war against the Jews in 1947.

            It is still popular – Blame it on the Jews.

            Alfa Omega….
            “The tens of millions of Christian Russians were killed by the Jewish Bolshevik government.

            The millions of Christian Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were killed by the crypto-Jewish Young Turk Party government.

            Coincidentally, Bolshevism/Communism and the Young Turk Party were financed by the same Western (mostly Jewish) bankers.”

          • Hind Abyad

            “We should bomb Syria for Ukraine” that’s why you troll on YaLibnan.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pitIhaIaf5U

          • 5thDrawer

            Wow .. a female promoted THAT ?? (maybe hermaphrodite…)

          • Hind Abyad

            ..and who do you think owns US Government, Zionists..and her name is mademoiselle Slaughter!

          • 5thDrawer

            … figures … 🙁

          • Rudy1947

            I remember an Enos Slaughter. Is that the same family?

          • 5thDrawer

            No .. that was the guy who advertised stomach-acid salts.
            Listen to the video first … you’re interrupting …

          • Rudy1947

            He was a baseball player.

          • 5thDrawer

            Too many ‘Franks’ and mustard …

          • Rudy1947

            You forgot the sauerkraut.

          • Y K

            This sexy thing is a “former US State Department Director” (whatever the hell that mneans)?? She can’t be older than 25. Wow, those youngsters really do make lightning careers nowadays. 🙂

          • Hind Abyad
          • Y K

            This guy is definitely far less attractive than the damsel in the previous video (not that I ever look beyond the screenshot). 🙂

          • 5thDrawer

            And good that they improved her office greatly, since the ‘first days’.

    • Omega

      Pick up your prolapsed rectum off the floor and man up. Facts are facts.

      • Hind Abyad

        yarienàfaire c’est un Nazi

        • Y K

          There’s always something to do, sisya. You could try to beat me up. 🙂