A few comments criticized my post on Syria for comparing the Russian-Chinese Security Council veto on the resolution condemning Assad’s repression of the anti-government protest to American vetoes on resolutions criticizing Israel. See, for example, this strange blog post, which in the usual spirit of right-wing propaganda, accuses me of opposing the UNSC resolution on Syria myself.
This, of course, is complete nonsense – I specifically wrote that even more should be done to remove Assad from power, and a Security Council resolution would have only been a first step. Still, I noted that the Russian and Chinese are no different from the American administration in protecting their regional allies even when they abuse human and civil rights – a fact I don’t really think is debatable.
Let’s go back to the issue of the veto: Jadaliyya published a list of American vetoes from the last forty years, and it doesn’t make the State Department look very good: except for killing any attempt to recognize the Palestinians’ basic human and civil rights, until the mid-1980s, the administration was busy blocking resolution against South Africa’s apartheid.
Some examples:
Year Resolution Vetoed by the United States
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
Read the full list here.
February 10, 2012
5:38 pm
Passerby nothing you’ve posted has altered the text of the Ahdut Ha’avodah Charter, the conclusions of the King-Crane Commission or the published remarks of Dr Eder. They all amply demonstrate that leading Zionists came to Palestine demanding the dispossession of the Palestinians.
February 10, 2012
6:18 pm
The Palin Commission Report on the 1920 riots concluded that Zionist indiscretion, aggression, and exaggerated statements and writings were largely responsible for the crisis. Those findings were repeated by the Haycraft Commission and were the “unauthorized statements” about a wholly Jewish Palestine that were cited in Churchill’s 1922 White Paper. Palin reported:
.
(c) Misapprehension of the true meaning of the Balfour Declaration and forgetfulness of the guarantees determined therein, due to the loose rhetoric of politicians and the exaggerated statements and writings of interested persons, chiefly Zionists.
.
(d) Fear of Jewish competition and domination, justified by experience and the apparent control exercised by the Zionists over the Administration.
.
(e) Zionist indiscretion and aggression, since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears.
…
2. That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Palin_Report
February 11, 2012
12:04 am
You know, Hostage, it’s funny to see you trying to squirm out of your mistakes and simply glossing over the ample evidence I provided of how most Zionists viewed their enterprise early on.
——–
You do realize that you’re speaking to someone who places little confidence in any actions taken by the British between 1915 – well, to the present? I mean, they promised Palestine to both Jews and Arabs. They gave Transjordan to the Hashemites. They sponsored and supported Haj Amin al Husseini. They constantly went against their own promises and their mandate in their treatment of the Zionists. They took care of their own interests first and foremost and cared little for the interests of any other residents of the region. For heaven’s sake, they literally drew the map of the Middle East that we see today.
———
So when you quote British commissions once the war ended and they didn’t feel they needed Jews so much any more, you don’t really expect me to accept what they say at face value, do you? Why would you take it at face value, particularly when you only quote a pro-Palestinian source that only quotes segments of the report, none of which address what the Arabs did?
———-
In 1920 Haj Amin Al Husseini, the soon-to-be-appointed-by-the-British Grand Mufti of Jerusalem played a key role in instigating riots against Jews in what was to become Mandatory Palestine. He was found guilty of the instigation, but then just as quickly was pardoned and received title of Grand Mufti from the British who had convicted him in the first place (a gift that kept on giving as Jews had to deal with the fallout of almost 30 years of his instigations).
———
At the time of these 1920 riots, the best estimates are that Jews were about 15% of the population. This significant minority was attacked violently, with intent to murder them, by the vast majority Arabs. And yet, this significant minority to that point viewed their enterprise as one which would include Arabs as partners.
———-
These riots came about because of the manner in which things that Zionists said and did were presented by Arab leaders as well as some British, and not just because of things Zionists were saying. Eder spoke after both the 1920 and 1921 riots, and was in disagreement with other heads of his group.
———
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The point is the riots were instigated by the Arab side, led and started by the Arab side and as a consequence led to a significant breakdown in the faith many Zionists had that they could establish a homeland for Jews peacefully with the Arabs.
——
These events also brought about the development of Jewish militias, particularly the Hagana and helped Jabotinski form many of his theories as well as a militia and a political group that evolved into a number of right-wing strands of Zionism.
——–
I really don’t understand why this fundamental, basic history for which I’ve provided evidence and quotes, is something you continue to debate, but let’s stop until you actually bring something material to the discussion. This is History of the Yishuv 101.
February 12, 2012
2:45 am
Passerby I simply conveyed a direct quote from the Ahdut Ha’avodah Charter which is documented by Shabtai Teveth, not the British. Here is yet another link to Google books which confirms that you were lying, not mistaken.
https://www.google.com/search?q=shabetia+teveth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=There+was+no+doubt+that+the+idea+stood+in+utter+contradiction+to+the+founding+charter+of+Ahdut+Ha%27avodah%2C+which+called+for+the+establishment+of+a+Jewish+socialist+republic+in+all+of+Palestine+and+demanded+%22the+transfer+of+Palestine%27s&pbx=1&oq=There+was+no+doubt+that+the+idea+stood+in+utter+contradiction+to+the+founding+charter+of+Ahdut+Ha%27avodah%2C+which+called+for+the+establishment+of+a+Jewish+socialist+republic+in+all+of+Palestine+and+demanded+%22the+transfer+of+Palestine%27s&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=35166l47889l7l50335l270l15l0l0l0l9l810l4490l0.1.1.0.3.3.1l15l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b0d3ae180366ed3d&biw=1024&bih=442
.
The King-Crane Commission documented the same Zionist attitude, and it was an American undertaking, not a British one.
.
Your inability to respond honestly to either the findings or statements contained in the Palin Commission, Haycroft Commission, or the Churchill White Paper is risible and an example of Hasbara 101.
February 12, 2012
3:25 pm
Hostage, how long did it take you to find that snippet? And it still doesn’t show what you claimed and certainly not on the page you claimed. Yet you call me a liar for not finding what you claimed was there all along.
Find the language of the charter and show it to me please. I’d like to see it and I’d like to understand where it comes from since there are so many quotes available, some of which have been provided to you here, by leaders of these movements saying the opposite of what you claim.
In the meantime, you have no answer to the basic and fundamental issue at hand which is that the Arabs attacked the Jews when the Arabs were a vast majority in the land. As a result, the Jews’ approach to the entire process of Zionism changed dramatically and the foundation for the Hagana as well as Revisionist Zionism came into play. That you think the violence was warranted because of what the Zionists sought is unfortunate. The fact that you deny that the violence changed how the Zionists approached the situation is also unfortunate. But these are basic and irrefutable facts. Sorry.
As to the “honest response” you are seeking to these commissions, I’ve already given it to you. The British government always acted on the basis of its own self-interest, not that of the Arabs or the Jews. If you need more evidence than their conviction and almost immediate pardon and then granting of Grand Mufti title to Haj Amin al Husseini, after he played a key role in the 1920 pogrom attempts by the Arabs, then you will obviously never be satisfied by the facts.