Some Gems from Morrison's 'Address to the Sydney Institute'

The complete text may be accessed at pm.gov.au, 15/12/18:

Look at this sentence from Morrison's lengthy (and thoroughly USraeli) tirade against the UN General Assembly and tell me what it means:

"We won't turn a blind eye to an anti-Semitic agenda masquerading as defence of human rights as a nation like Australia."

Here he plays the Doc Evatt card (without of course mentioning the former Labor foreign minister's name):

"We proudly recall that it was Australia that chaired the Committee that recommended to the UN General Assembly the creation of the state of Israel and then voted in favour of the partition of Mandate Palestine."

To begin with, Evatt's Committee (UNSCOP) didn't recommend "the creation of the state of Israel." It recommended that Palestine be divided into Jewish and an Arab states. And there was no implication that the said Jewish state was anything other than those parts of Palestine where Jewish settlers had congregated. In fact there were almost as many Arabs living in the proposed 'Jewish' state as there were Jews - with no implication, of course, that they would be ethnically cleansed, as indeed they were the following year.

And another thing: to the extent that Evatt involved Australia in recommending that Palestine be partitioned over the heads of its people, we were complicit in depriving the Palestinian Arab majority of its right to national self-determination, in violation of the UN Charter, and in setting the scene for Zionist terror gangs to create the Palestinian refugee problem, still unresolved to this day.

Speaking of which refugee problem:

"And we continue donations to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East of $41 million in 2017-19."

Which begs the question: why is Morrison touting this as some kind of virtue when, in fact, thanks to Evatt, Australia was complicit in creating the very Palestinian refugee problem which UNRWA was set up to deal with?

"Though a two state solution remains the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the obstacles, we must admit, to achieving such a solution are becoming insurmountable."

And they are? Morrison shies away from telling us. Elsewhere in his speech, however, we find this clue: "[Israeli] settlements undermine peace - and contribute to the stalemate we now see." But, hey, you wouldn't expect a rapture-ready fool to see, let alone forthrightly state, the bleeding obvious, would you?

Now here's a curious thing. For Morrison, while the General Assembly is a seething hotbed of anti-Semitic bullies, the Security Council (with its trusty US veto!) is quite another matter:

"I also required that their [ie, departmental secretaries from Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Defence and Home Affairs] deliberations respect Australia's obligations under international law and UN Security Council resolutions - two things that are fundamental, I think, to Australia's interests in in a rules-based order... respect for UN Security Council resolutions is a relevant factor for Australia that we can't put to one side as we consider our position on these issues. Now, Australia is subject to UN Security Council resolutions that apply to the Jerusalem issue, including Resolutions 478 and 2334."

Indeed, but is Morrison aware that Security Council resolution 478, adopted (14-0) in 1980 in response to Israel's illegal annexation of occupied East Jerusalem, included a call for "those states that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City"? And if so, does he really think that his ploy of a "Trade & Defence Office in West Jerusalem" passes muster as "respect" for a resolution containing these words?

As for resolution 2334 (2016), which condemned (14-0) Israeli settlements as a "flagrant violation" of international law, does he really expect his mealy-mouthed talk of "insurmountable obstacles" to a two state solution to fool anyone?

"At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you believe in."

Well, he's right there. Without doubt, Morrison is the most Zionist prime minister this country has ever had.

Make One, Two, Three, Many Guatemalas*

Sorry, but I can't rest on this subject. Even the Lowy Institute is giving the embassy shuffle the thumbs-down:

"Moving the Australian embassy when no other first world country is would dilute the unity of Western effort further and reward Israel without getting anything in return. No wonder Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was effusive in his praise of the proposal - he probably never thought he would get two Guatemalas in his time in office." (Jerusalem embassy move is down and out on three counts, Rodger Shanahan, The Australian, 22/11/18)

Two Guatemalas? And Australia is the second! Ay caramba! So let's check out the first:

"'We have had an excellent relationship with the people of Israel since the foundation of the State of Israel,' President Jimmy Morales told CBN on Wednesday. His Central American country, now the most heavily evangelical nation in Latin America, was an early supporter of Israel's independence in 1948 and the first to establish an embassy in Jerusalem in the late 1950s. (It was later one of 13 nations that withdrew their embassies from the disputed city due to a 1980 United Nations resolution.)... Citing prayer and prophesy as their motivation, Morales and Vice President Jafeth Cabrera officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital last year and pledged to return Guatemala's embassy there. 'People in Guatemala pray for the peace in this region, pray for Jerusalem, and they are excited,' said Sarah Angelina Solis, Guatemala's ambassador to Israel, in an interview with CBN. 'I feel this is a gift from God. I know that a lot of blessings will come after this decision. This is a promise in the Bible, in Genesis...'" (Blessed through Israel: how Guatemala's evangelicals inspired its embassy move, Kate Shellnutt, christianitytoday.com, 17/5/18)

This millenarian madness, of course, is continent-wide, but the rot appears deepest in Central America, particularly in Guatemala:

"As once Catholic-dominated nations in Central and South America see the rise of evangelicos, particularly from Pentecostal and charismatic traditions, they've also grown more supportive of Israel as a political state and a holy land, keen to the Lord's words to Abraham: 'I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.' (Gen. 12:3 NIV). Guatemala and Honduras - which have undergone the most dramatic declines in Catholic identity (down nearly 50% in 45 years, according to the Pew Research Center) - were among just a handful of countries to side with the US when the UN voted to condemn its decision to recognize Jerusalem again... Guatemala's third evangelical president, Morales has prioritized Israel since his election in 2015, making the country his first official visit outside of the Americas." (ibid)

But the Lord's 'blessings' now being showered on Jimmy Morales' Guatemala actually go back to the 70s and 80s:

"Even in the midst of the endless misery and cruelty of Central America, Guatemala stands out as a country where those in power have been fighting the powerless with an unusual degree of ruthlessness and bloodiness. Over the years, reports of the horrible realities of Guatemala have been numerous and the judgments harsh. What is unique is the extent to which those who carried out the deliberate policies of endless killings have proclaimed their indebtedness to Israel, as the source not only of their hardware, but of their inspiration. Israel became the main support of the Guatemalan military regimes, as attested to by both General Romeo Lucas Garcia and General Efrain Rios Montt in no uncertain terms. It was Rios Montt, born-again Christian and dictator of Guatemala in 1982-1983, who explained the ease with which he took over in March 1982 simply: 'Many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis' (Greve, 1984) [...] In Guatemala, Israeli advisers are not just instructors: 'Israeli advisers - some official, others private - helped Guatemalan internal security agents hunt underground rebel groups' (Cody, 1983, p 7). They have been directly engaged in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Indian communities." (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms & Why, 1988, pp 79-81)

The genocidal Indian-fighter Rios Montt, it seems, is something of a role model for Morales:

"Rios Montt died in Guatemala City on April, 2018, of a heart attack at the age of 91. The government of Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales lamented his passing." (Efrain Rios Monttt - Wikipedia)

In fact, Guatemala's love affair with Israel goes back even further, as a young British officer, stationed in Mandate Palestine at the time the Irgun and Stern gangs were strutting their stuff, noted acidly in his memoir:

"This was the day, 16 June [1947], which heralded the arrival of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. This travelling circus, under its self-appointed ringmaster, Jorge Garcia-Granados, a Guatemalan whose country had little to learn about oppressing indigenous peoples, passed five weeks in the Holy Land, adding not a jot to its preconceived ideas. His personal conclusion was that Palestine was a police state, because, thanks to terrorism, it had been forced to spend $2,000,000 a month on security, or P7,010,000 per year. Necessity, the need to support a subjective viewpoint, in this case became the mother of invention." (Philip Brutton, A Captain's Mandate: Palestine 1946-1948, 1996, pp 99-100)

Garcia-Granados went on to pen his own memoir, which concludes thus:

"Yes, it was true, the birth of Israel had taken place in the agony of war. I was convinced that this war need not have been... Nonetheless, bloodshed had come, and we recognized the realities of the situation. Despite this unnecessary tragedy, we, who had considered  the needs and problems of Palestine and its peoples, knew that Israel would live. It must live! Its existence was the first step toward the achievement of security and peace and a new awakening in the lands of the Middle East. How far from Guatemala to Israel - and yet, how near! In a world of many peoples, the struggle was one." (Jorge Garcia-Granados, The Birth of Israel: The Drama as I Saw It, 1948,  pp 290-91)

Just how well that worked out we can see today in the smoking ruin that passes for the Middle East, and just how near Guatemala is to Israel today can hardly have been imagined by the deluded author of these words.

[*With apologies to Che. I have, of course, borrowed his memorable injunction, 'Make one, two, three, many Vietnams', to describe Netanyahu's attempt to circumvent apartheid Israel's pariah status.]

When Doc Evatt Did a Job on Palestine 4

This is the final aspect of the 1947 session which I would like to address. I find it the most significant in terms of what I believe it reveals of Evatt's bias and of the deliberate subversion of proper procedure in this case as a result of his bias.

We have already seen that the case of Palestine was a challenge and a proving ground for the new UNO. However, the partition resolution of 1947 was only a recommendation, although it carried "tremendous moral force" in Evatt's words (Freilich, p 161) and was exploited by the Zionists to lend an air of legitimacy to their future actions in Palestine. The UN of course had no means at its disposal to implement such recommendations, and all participants were well of this fact. The Arabs, for instance, said that they would continue to resist the Zionist settlers regardless of what the UN decided.

In the interests of sustaining this "moral force" it could well be argued that Evatt should not have steam-rolled the partition decision through a weary and often resentful Special Committee in order to finish the deliberations in November. The Jews and Palestinian Arabs had been fighting for two decades anyway, and some tired delegates argued to Evatt that a few more months would make little difference. But Evatt was adamant. (Evatt, p 148)

His opposition to a proposal to put some of the legal problems before the ICJ for a ruling was perhaps part of the unseemly haste which he imposed on proceedings, and worse, perhaps it also reveals his real opinion as to the legality of the proceedings. I can think of no other reasons for this opposition, because Evatt had emerged as one of the leading supporters for a major role for the ICJ in all UN problems.

At the San Francisco conference he had championed the concept that the ICJ must become a key UN institution. In an address given shortly after the conference to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, he said: "The future working of the world organisation would be greatly helped if access to the ICJ is made possible wherever international disputes of a legal or justiciable character are not disposed of by conciliation or direct negotiation... By such means the Court would be given an opportunity of developing a code of sound international law and practice which could help greatly in balancing the Security Council." (Australia in World Affairs, 1946, p 20)

As Sir Frederic Eggleston commented in 1946: "Dr Evatt advocates not only an expansion of the ambit of international law but also an extension of the power of the ICJ." (26. ibid, Preface)

I have already noted that during October 1947 while Evatt was rushing the Special Committee through its agenda, he found time to deliver lectures at Harvard Law School on Frankfurter's invitation. In these lectures, published soon after, Evatt described his own role in pushing for a more democratic UN structure. One of his nine main objectives had been "to declare that justice and the rule of law shall be principles guiding the actions of the Security Council, and for this purpose to require the maximum employment of the Permanent Court (ICJ) in determining the legal aspects of international disputes." He continued: "Faults have become apparent in the working of the UN. The International Court has so far been denied almost totally the opportunity of working..."

In his third lecture, he repeated this theme: "Article 96 (of the UN Charter) provides that the General Assembly or the Security Council may seek advisory opinions from the Court on any legal question... Yet to date not a single advisory opinion has been sought from the Court... It is clearly necessary to make every effort to ensure the fullest possible use of the functions assigned to the Court. To this end Australia has introduced an important resolution into the present Assembly, seeking a recommendation that each organ of the UN and each specialized agency should regularly review the difficult and important questions of law which have arisen in the course of their activities and which involve questions of principle which it is desirable to have settled." (27. The Task of Nations, p 42)

This resolution, inspired by Evatt, was actually adopted on November 14 by UNGA in plenary session while its sponsor was apparently doing his best to see that the Palestine 'hot potato' did not in fact come before that. august body.

For at one of the late night sittings of the Special Committee in the last week of November, the proposals to refer several matters concerning Palestine to the ICJ came to the vote. Evatt wrote in his memoirs of that occasion: "The only matter on which there was any substantial disagreement was whether the UN itself had jurisdiction to reach a decision as to the future government of Palestine. The voting on this point was very close but the proposal for its reference to the Court was defeated. As to the validity of the action proposed to be taken by the UNGA, I never had any doubt... " (28. pp 155-6)

He himself had decided that some of the points which the Arab delegates wanted to refer to the ICJ were "patently absurd, for instance whether or not the Balfour Declaration was a legally binding declaration. Obviously it was political in essence and in character... " (29. p 157)

Precisely - yet the Balfour Declaration, promising a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, had been explicitly written into the text of of the British Mandate as if it were a legally binding declaration (with the aid of Frankfurter, as we have seen). The policies of British rule in Palestine had been based on the "authority" of the 1917 Balfour Declaration in this way. Evatt himself wrote that one of the main arguments against the Arab proposal for a unitary state was that "the promises of the Balfour Declaration would have been dishonoured."

The ICJ would very likely have handed down a ruling that the Balfour Declaration was legally invalid, and perhaps that the Mandate which imposed Jewish migration on the unwilling indigenous inhabitants was also invalid.. Any such ruling would have been disastrous for the Zionist cause at that time, and would have made the partition vote even harder to swing.

Furthermore, regarding Evatt's pronouncement on the validity of the partition resolution, obviously it was not Evatt's opinion that was being sought by a number of members of the Special Committee, but that of the body designed and set up to give the legal judgements which they felt were needed in order to help them in their deliberations.

A spokesperson for this group was the Pakistani representative, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, a distinguished lawyer who himself later became a judge on the ICJ. He wrote that by the end of the sittings of Evatt's Special Committee he no longer believed in the good faith of the delegates. He analysed the voting pattern concerning referral to the ICJ: "As to our legal questions, the Committee rejected the resolutions on all the first 7 questions, but on the eighth question, i.e. whether the UN had any legal authority to do what they were proposing to do, the resolution to the effect that it had the authority was passed by 21 votes to 20. It is interesting to analyse those figures. In all, the Committee were 57. Only 21 who gave a positive vote were satisfied that the UN had authority to do what they were proposing to do and 36 were not satisfied." (30. Khalidi, p 716)

Evatt was highly satisfied that the ICJ, the instrument of international law whose 'maximum employment' he so ardently sought in theory, and whose prestige was a matter of such concern to him, was once again bypassed on this occasion. Yet idf ever a learned opinion and a considered judgement by the top legal authorities of the UNO was appropriate, it was in the case of Palestine in 1947.

This brings this paper to its conclusion, though there are other important aspects to consider such as the actual outcome of the decision. Evatt's attitude to the Arabs and the Palestinians, and his double standards on the issue of migration (in the case of Australia, he was a firm supporter of the White Australia policy and the right of Australians to have complete control over immigration policy, a right he wanted to deny to those inhabitants of Palestine who were opposed to Jewish immigration.

I conclude with a brief postscript.

Evatt was elected to the Presidency of the UNGA for the 1948 session, which was held in Paris.

In Palestine itself, violence had erupted almost immediately after the UNGA vote was announced.

In India, where partition was actually being enacted as the Special Committee was sitting, 225,000 people had been killed by inter-communal violence by October, 1947. Mahatma Gandhi believed that generations to come would continue to pay the price for the mistake of partition.. By the same token he came out strongly against the partition of Palestine: "... Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct... The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them." (31. Khalidi, p 367)

By the middle of 1948 there were already over 800,000 homeless Palestinian refugees and the state of Israel had been proclaimed. The UN-appointed Count Bernadotte, a patrician Swedish idealist, as its mediator in Palestine. His brief was to recommend final border plans for Israel, which had already occupied more land than had been allotted to it in the partition plan. He reported to the UN that "it would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish emigrants flow into Palestine." (32. David Gilmour, The Dispossessed, p 74)

On September 17, Count Bernadotte and his aide, Colonel Serot, were assassinated by members of the Stern Gang in Palestine. This occurred on the very day on which Evatt commenced his reign at the UN. At this fateful moment, "the flag-draped coffins of Count Bernadotte and Colonel Serot, gunned down in Jerusalem, arrived at the airport on the day that the President of France handed over the golden key of the Palais de Chaillot and declared it United Nations territory for the time of the Assembly. The two coffins lay at the airport, a reminder of what came of the United Nations intervention." (33. Tennant, p 232)

When Doc Evatt Did a Job on Palestine 3

The Question of UN Competence

This question did not interest me quite so much as the more personal one of Evatt's bias and the influences on Evatt - also I am no expert on international law. However this is, of course, the more important question in terms of legal principles. I will merely attempt to raise some of the issues and quote from some contemporary critics.

Certainly the Arabs have never accepted UN competence any more than they accepted the legality of the Balfour Declaration and the British mandate over Palestine. As the Arab states saw it, legality was subverted at each step along the road to the partition resolution. Nor were the Arabs alone. Many legal experts and diplomats agreed. Ambassador Loy Henderson, Director of the US Office of Near Eastern & African Affairs, wrote a confidential memorandum to the State Department in November 1947: "What is important is that the Arabs are losing confidence in the integrity of the United States and the sincerity of our many pronouncements that our foreign policies are based on the principles of the Charter of the United Nations." (22. Henry Cattan, Palestine & International Law, 1973, p vii)

Or international legal expert Pitman Porter, writing for the American Journal of International Law in 1948: "The United Nations has no right to dictate a solution in Palestine unless a basis for such authority is worked out, such as has not been done thus far... it might be held that the Mandate is still in force and that supervision thereof has passed to the United Nations, which is somewhat hazardous juridically. The Arabs deny the binding force of the Mandate, now or ever, as they deny the validity of the Balfour Declaration on which it was based, and again they are quite correct juridically." (23. Cattan, p 77)

Palestine was referred to the UNGA under Article 10 of the UN Charter, which empowers the UNGA to discuss questions and to make recommendatins, but does not empower the UNGA to create new states or to recommend the partitioning of a country. Decisions as to the future form of government clearly lay with the people of Palestine, if we are to take seriously Article 1 (2) of the UN Charter.

After the League of Nations was dissolved, the UN Charter became the paramount instrument of international law. At the San Francisco Conference which framed the Charter, Evatt had been happy to support the inclusion of the phrase "based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" as a basis for Article 1(2) of the Charter. (24. Hassan bin Tallal, Palestinian Self-Determination, 1981, p 81) In spite of some argument over obscurities in the formula, subsequent practice has treated self-determination as a right, and of course it was later enshrined in the two Covenants of 1966.

Cattan has written: "In accordance with the principle of self-determination of peoples recognised by the Charter, the people of Palestine were entitled to affirm their national identity and to preserve the integrity of their territory. The carving out of a substantial area of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish state and the subjection of part of the original inhabitants to its dominion was a patent violation of this principle." (24. p 79)

Evatt himself had previously spoken out in support of the principle of self-determination in 1945, in support of the case for Indonesian independence from Dutch rule. He then stated: "Political aspirations of peoples who are fit for self-government... Not only have the sympathy of the vast majority of the peoples of the democracies but the Charter of the United Nations recognises the legitimacy of the claim for Self-Government... and imposes on the present Nations a sacred trust to assist them." (25. Renouf, p 167)

There was never an attempt to argue that the Palestinian population of 1947 was unfit for self-government and in fact the old Class A Mandate which the British operated gave Palestine "provisional recognition" as an "independent nation."

Obviously the inhabitants of Palestine in 1947 should have decided by referendum which for of government they would choose to live under- there is no other way to implement the principle of self-determination. It is inconceivable that Evatt could have been unaware of the ways in which the partition resolution circumvented the very principles espoused by international law and by himself personally. The case of Palestine was a complex one, admittedly- for all manner of reasons. Therefore - by way of introduction to the final section - it seems all the more strange that the matter never went before the highest level of authority of the UNO- the body set up to deliberate on precisely such important problems of international law- the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Next installment: Failure of the Special Committee to Refer to the ICJ

When Doc Evatt Did a Job on Palestine 2

Evatt's Bias

One key legal principal is that a person or body required to make decisions in accordance with the rules of natural justice must not have an interest in the causes which might prevent impartial decisions. It is common and accepted practice for persons with interests, including acquaintance and/or friendship with one party in a dispute, or a known bias, to disqualify themselves from a tribunal. This kind of interest is less clearcut than the grosser forms of interest, e.g. pecuniary; however the failure of a biased tribunal  member to disqualify him/herself can leave it open to the complaint to show that the decision of the tribunal or administrative body against her/him was vitiated by bias. This may not necessarily render the decision void, but at the very least it casts a dubious light on the proceedings. (6. D Benjafield & H Whitmore, Principles of Australian Administrative Law, 1971, Ch. VII)

Was Evatt "interested" in promoting the partition of Palestine, in the legal and technical sense of interest? And, if so, should he have disqualified himself from chairing the Special Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine?

Oddly enough, critics of the UN partition decision, like the Palestinian lawyer Sami Hadawi, for example, suggests that Evatt was doing the bidding of the British and Americans, in a general sense, in his role as chairman; but no-one to the best of my knowledge has ever raised the problem of Evatt's strong relationship with prominent Zionists and his prior support for their tactical goal of partition. Evatt was known as a supporter of partition both by the leaders of the international Zionist movement and by at least some of his associates.

For example, Alan Renouf, one of Evatt's first diplomatic cadets, wrote: "The issue was close to Evatt's heart. Near associates recall him as saying, as early as September 1945, that the Jewish people had to have a permanent home, where they could live with dignity and self-respect, and that they had full historical rights to Palestine. If the Arabs refused this, the United Nations had to decree and guarantee it." (7. Let Justice Be Done: The Foreign Policy of H.V. Evatt, 1983, p 247)

From the late 1930s Evatt had become friendly with one of the most influential and effective American Zionist leaders, Professor Felix Frankfurter. Frankfurter had worked on behalf of the Zionist project in Palestine since the turn of the century, in tandem with his uncle, the famous and greatly respected liberal judge Louis Brandeis, a personal hero of Evatt's. Brandeis had been a close counsellor and friend of President Wilson and had also had a hand in drafting the 1917 Balfour Declaration, through which the British government supported a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. (8. J.M.N Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 1939, p 244)

Frankfurter had been a consultant to President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference and helped to draft the wording for the British Mandate over Palestine, which incorporated the promise of the Balfour Declaration. (9. Walid Khalidi, From Haven to Conquest, 1971, p 195) Though Brandeis died in WW2, Evatt was befriended by Frankfurter and they were very close, at least until the 50s. (10. Kylie Tennant, Evatt: Politics & Justice, 1970, p 146)

In 1938, Evatt visited Harvard, where Frankfurter was Professor of Law, while on leave from the Bench. Frankfurter invited Evatt, as an eminent and progressive Australian lawyer, to give the Oliver Wendell Holmes series of lectures, and Evatt's biographer Kylie Tennant gives us some idea of the impact that the Harvard/Frankfurter interlude had upon the gauche but ambitious Australian: "He felt, in the freedom of that university, as if all his life he had been exiled in a foreign country. Felix Frankfurter insisted that he meet Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and each man recognised a nature cordial to his own... After such encounters Evatt found the tedium and the small hostilities of the High Court almost intolerable..." (11. Tennant, p 102)

Back in Australia, Evatt wrote to Roosevelt analysing the composition of the US Supreme Court and recommending that Frankfurter should be appointed to make it "more progressive." (He was in fact appointed on Bradeis' retirement, though Evatt's letter probably did not help him in any way). (12. A. Renouf, p 16)

Evatt left the High Court for Parliament in 1938, and as Minister for External Affairs he sent an urgent telegram to Felix Frankfurter after the fall of Singapore in 1942, asking that its contents be passed on to Roosevelt. Frankfurter obliged. (13. Renouf pp 65-66)

Then, in 1947, in the period when he was actually chairing the Special Committee on Palestine at the UN at Lake Success, Frankfurter once again invited Evatt to give the prestigious Oliver Wendell Holmes series of 3 lectures at Harvard, which he did on October 17, 20 and 24.

Though this friendship was based on shared legal and social views, and though Evatt did not at first share the Frankfurter-Brandeis passion for the Zionist project, since he knew little if anything about the Middle East and its history, it would be surprising if Frankfurter failed to influence Evatt towards the Zionist goal of partition.

In 1943, an Australian Zionist deputation was given an audience by Evatt and received the promise of his "utmost support... When the time comes"- somewhat to their surprise as they had imagined that he would have been influenced against Zionism by his old acquaintance Sir Isaac Isaacs: the judge and later Governor-General, and a lifelong Jewish opponent of Zionism. (14. Freilich, p 114)

By 1944, Max Freilich, a leading Australian Zionist, could claim that he had developed a "warm personal friendship" with Evatt "during the critical and historic days for Zionism... when the partition of Palestine was dealt with by the United Nations at Lake Success..." (15. Freilich, pp 114)

Freilich and the Zionist Federation organised a reception for Evatt before he left Australia to attend the 1946 Peace Conference, and a welcome home reception on his return. In 1947 Freilich was able to tell Zionist leaders in London, members of the World Zionist Executive, that Dr Evatts "was in sympathy with Zionist aspirations." (16. Freilich, p 114-5)

After another meeting with Evatt just before he left for the 1947 UNGA session, Freilich recalled: "We left Dr Evatt with the confident feeling that the Australian Government would support the recommendation to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states." (17. Freilich, p 155)

These are just a few examples of Evatt's open support for partition. There were other indications of bias, such as his private meetings with leaders of world Zionism who had arrived in the US to witness the progress of the Palestine question in the UN and to speak in the Special Committee hearings chaired by Evatt. (18. Freilich, p 197)

The Zionist movement hoped that the partition resolution would be put before the UN before the end of the 1947 session, thus allowing an immediate expansion of immigration into Palestine. Therefore they did not want the matter referred to the International Court of Justice, which would have caused a perhaps lengthy delay and an uncertain outcome. Also, they were entirely opposed to the unanimous UNSCOP recommendation which proposed an international solution to the problem of the Jewish refugees (i.e. a plan for all UN member states to take a quota, thus relieving the pressure on Palestine). They did not want the question of Palestine to be considered as part of a more general solution, as this obviously would draw attention to the fact that a Jewish state in Palestine was not the only panacea for European Jewry. (19. Khalidi, pp 491-4)

President Roosevelt favoured a plan for a world budget for resettling all displaced persons, including all Jews, with each nation taking a share of immigrants. (20. Khalidi, pp 529-30; Dr Alfred Lilienthal writes that in 1946 secret instructions were given to Jewish advisers in the occupied German zone to prevent Jews going anywhere except Palestine. The Zionist Connection, 1978, p 124) Although no surveys were taken about the wishes and hopes of Jewish DPs, it was estimated by officials on the spot that a majority did not want to go to Palestine. The Chief of UNRRA operations in Europe, 1945-6, wrote that "in reality, there were few among the travellers who, of their own free will, would have gone elsewhere than to the USA".

But of course neither the Indigenous Palestinian Arabs not the "displaced" victims of European anti-semitism were systematically canvassed as to their choices about their own fates. Meanwhile, Evatt fulfilled Zionist hopes for the outcome of the Special Committee on Palestine to the letter.

I have not the space to detail Evatt's total opposition to European fascism or his sympathy with its victims (with a liberal this can be taken for granted). On the other hand nor have I been able to detail his opposition, along with the rest of the ALP Cabinet, to a non-Zionist Jewish proposition to settle some 50,000 of the Jewish refugees in the Kimberleys in 1944, pleasing the Zionists but not, I imagine, the 50,000 hopeful immigrants. (21. See M. Blakeney, Australia & the Jewish Refugees, 1985)

To conclude this section: Evatt's bias towards partition was quite widely known an appreciated from at least 1945, both in Australia and overseas. It was therefore most improper, and contrary to the principles of natural justice, for Evatt to have accepted the chair of the body which had the duty of deliberating and deciding upon the UNSCOP partition recommendation in 1947.

Next installment: The Question of UN Competence

When Doc Evatt Did a Job on Palestine 1

Over the next few days I intend posting - in 4 parts -  an important critique  - Justice Evatt & Palestine: The Limits of Justice - of Australian Labor Party icon, Herbert Vere Evatt's role in the United Nations' partition, and therefore criminal destruction, of Arab Palestine, in 1947. It was written in the 80s by Caroline Graham, Lecturer in Politics, Faculty of Humanities, University of Technology in Sydney. I am not aware, apart from my own posts on the subject of Evatt, of any other attempt to take Evatt to task on this subject. Given that pro-Zionist Labor politicians invariably cite Evatt's deplorable role in the partition of Palestine, and hence the creation of the state of Israel, with pride, Graham's critical analysis should be read by everyone. Here is Part 1:

"To his old man Foreign Affairs was big time. Heroic figures. A conversation on that subject nearly always led to talk of Herb Evatt, his father's only Australian hero, to talk of his work for the UN, and how Robert Menzies had finally destroyed him."

That quotation from a short story by Greek Australian Angelo Loukakis encapsulates the strong feelings of reverence, combined with sympathy, aroused by Evatt in most progressive Australians. He was our hero, destroyed by the forces of darkness and reaction.

On the question of Palestine, added to Evatt's status and martyrdom has been the fact of bipartisan and broad support for the state of Israel, and so it is easy to understand why no serious critique of Evatt's leading role in the UN's 1947 decision to partition Palestine has been attempted.

It is an unpleasant task to highlight the mistakes of a national hero, but perhaps it is time to take a closer look at what was in my view the greatest blunder of his career, in both a moral and a legal sense. His active promotion of the partition of Palestine was the action in which he swung furthest away from his own ideal of a reign of international law and justice, implemented through the UNO.

The decision itself and the process at the UN by which it was reached actually subverted international law and basic legal principles. This did not go unremarked - a number of eminent international lawyers and diplomats, amongst others, expressed serious reservations and criticisms at the time.

With the benefit of hindsight we also have to add that partition has never been implemented. It is and always was unworkable without the support, however lukewarm, of the parties to the conflict. Then as now, neither Jewish nor Palestinian leaders have supported partition except for temporary tactical reasons and Evatt's "fair and just solution" still lies on the drawing board of history.

Before embarking on a detailed critique, I will summarize Evatt's role in what he once called "the Palestine job." It is well known that Evatt, as Minister for External Affairs in the Curtin-Chifley Labor government from 1941-9, had thrown himself wholeheartedly into the postwar formation of the UNO. By the late 40s his reputation there was such that he knew he could achieve the honour of becoming President of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Indeed, he won the presidential election of 1948. That he regarded this as the crowning point of his career is emphasised by the epitaph on his gravestone in Canberra Cemetery, which reads simply : "President of the United Nations General Assembly." None of his other distinctions rates a mention.

He had been a candidate for the 1947 presidential term but had narrowly lost out to Dr Aranha of Brazil. Evatt made it known that he would stand for 1948, and Dr Aranha wanted to assist him. Naturally it would be in Evatt's interest to take some prominent and helpful role in the UN arena in the lead up to the next presidential election. He was already chairing the UN Atomic Energy Commission in 1947, but the urgent problem of Palestine emerged early in that year as the most dramatic and high profile issue facing the UN in the next UNGA session.

In April 1947 the British Labour Government, unable to stem the violence in Palestine dumped the problem in the lap of the UN. The UNGA immediately convened a Special Session to confront this development. After a fortnight of hearing from Palestinian, Arab and Jewish leaders a Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was appointed to investigate further and to recommend a solution to the next regular UNGA session in September. (It's important in this narrative to know that the UNGA's regular annual session are from September to the end of November, and that it is obviously extremely difficult to convene at any other times.)

UNSCOP consisted of representatives from 11 middle ranking or third world nations, including Australia. After conducting hearings in Palestine, boycotted by Palestinians and other Arabs in accordance with their rejection of the UN's competence to decide on the future of Palestine, it completed its report on 31st August.

"It recommended unanimously that the mandate should be terminated and independence granted at the earliest possible date; that the economic unity of Palestine should be preserved; that the sacred character of the Holy Places should be safeguarded and access to them assured; and that the General Assembly should immediately make an international arrangement for solving the urgent problem of the 250,000 displaced European Jews in Europe... A majority of 8 members proposed the partition of Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish  States and an International City of Jerusalem, to be administered under permanent United Nations trusteeship... A minority of 3 members [India, Iran Yugoslavia], all with substantial Moslem populations, called for an independent federal government with Jerusalem as [its] capital and for Arab and Jewish states having jurisdiction over such matters as education, social services, public health and agriculture... The Arab Higher Committee rejected both partition and a federal state. The Jewish Agency accepted UNSCOP's majority proposal as an 'indispensable minimum'." (1. Margaret Arakie, The Broken Sword of Justice, 1973, pp 55-58)

The significance of the partition proposal for both Arabs and Jews is clearly spelt out by British historian David Hirst:

"For the Zionists, the Partition Plan ranked, as a charter of legitimacy, with the Balfour Declaration which., in their view, it superseded and fulfilled. Certainly, it was a no less partisan document. Palestine comprises some 10,000 square miles. Of this. the Arabs were to retain 4,300 square miles while the Jews, who represented one-third of the population and owned some 6% of the land, were allotted 5,700 square miles. The Jews also got the better land; they were to have the fertile coastal belt while the Arabs were to make do, for the most part, with the hills. Yet it was not the size of the area allotted to the Jews which pleased them - indeed, they regarded it as the 'irreducible minimum' which they could accept - it was rather the fact of statehood itself. Conversely, it was not merely the size of the area they were to lose, it was the loss pf land, sovereignty and an antique heritage that angered the Arabs. The Partition Plan legitimized what had been, on any but the most partisan interpretation of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, illegitimately acquired. The past was, as it were, wiped out. Overnight, the comity of nations solemnly laid the foundations of a new moral order by which the Jews, the great majority of whom had been in Palestine less than 30 years, were deemed to ave claims equal, indeed superior, to those of the Arabs who had lived there from time immemorial." (2. The Gun & the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the middle East, 1977, p 132)

Equally important, as Hirst points out, "the proposed Jewish State was... to contain more Arabs - 509,780 - than Jews - 499,020." (ibid, p 133)

On receiving the UNSCOP's recommendation the General Assembly formed a special Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question (on which all member states were represented) to reach a conclusion on the recommendation as soon as possible. Divided into 3 sub-committees, the first (consisting of 9 member states, including the US and the Soviet Union) supported partition. The second (composed of the 6 Arab states, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Colombia) drew up plans for a unitary state. The third focused on the forlorn hope of reconciliation.

Evatt was elected chairman of the committee. In his own words: "This committee was to be a committee not of any limited character but comprising everyone of the 57 nations. Accordingly its decisions would probably determine the final UN Assembly vote on the Palestine question and indeed this proved to be the case... (Dr Aranha) assured me that they were all anxious that I should accept the responsibility: " I tell you most sincerely that the future of the Assembly depends on the success of the Palestine Committee and in the interests of the United Nations I ask you to do the job." ... I was also alive to the fact, and Dr Aranha did not attempt to conceal it, that the Palestine job was the "hot potato" in the Assembly and that quite a few of the delegates were expressing the opinion, perhaps the hope, that the proceedings of the committee would end in deadlock... I was greatly impressed by Aranha's point of view. He was tremendously keen on success of the 1947 Assembly. It seemed to me that if the United Nations could reach a fair and just solution of the Palestine question, it would greatly increase its own power and prestige; it would make history well worth making." (3. H.V. Evatt, Task of Nations, 1949, pp 129-131)

As history shows, the Special Committee was expertly and energetically chaired by Evatt, often holding as many as 3 meetings a day in order to rush proceedings through by the end of November. This time the Palestinians and other Arabs decided not to boycott the process, and the committee heard from a lengthy line-up of speakers from both sides.

Towards the end of November the committee began to vote on a number of divisive issues. First came the question of whether the UN had jurisdiction to reach a decision on the future government of Palestine - this was only narrowly won. A proposal that the whole question of jurisdiction should be put before the International Court of Justice was narrowly lost.

Then came the vital vote on the UNSCOP partition plan. Of the 57 votes, 25 were in favour and 13 against, with 19 abstentions. Thus the partition proposal went forward to the UNGA and it was a foregone conclusion that this voting pattern would be closely repeated in that forum, with exactly the same membership. However, in accordance with UN by-laws, this was a vote on a substantive issue and so would require a majority of two-thirds of the votes of the plenary Assembly.

It is not within the scope of this paper to describe the pressures which were now exerted on a small and dependent member states like Haiti, the Philippines and Liberia to change their votes. This scandal has been documented by a number of writers and participants. The taking of the vote was postponed by the UN Secretary General Trygve Lie apparently for no other reason than to allow the arm-twisting to continue behind the scenes. At the last possible moment before the 1947 UNGA session was adjourned, partition won by 33 votes to 13, with 10 abstentions.

In Australia, Evatt has received voluminous praise for his role in all this. For example, Alan Renouf has written: "no better testimony exists to Evatt's pursuit of justice than the part he played in the establishment of the state of Israel." (4. Let Justice Be Done: The Foreign Policy of H.V. Evatt, 1983) The Zionist lobby were especially fulsome: for example, Rieke Cohen, then president of the Women's International Zionist Organisation branch in Australia, called Evatt "an instrument of God for the rebirth of the Jewish state." (5. Quoted in Max Freilich, Zion in Our Time: Memoirs of an Australian Zionist, 1967) Evatt's biographers - Kylie Tennant, Alan Renouf, and Allan Dalziel - do not suggest that there could be another side to the story, let alone that Evatt may have erred.

However I will take up three issues surrounding the case, and Evatt's role, which I think call for critical analysis. These are the problem of Evatt's bias or interest in the outcome; the question of UN competence to recommend partition of a country; and the question of the failure of the Special Committee to refer the case to the International Court of Justice. (Evatt was in a position to exert a major influence in deliberations on the latter two issues).

Next installment: Evatt's Bias

Look What the Doogue Dragged In

More Geraldine Doogue-facilitated Zionist propaganda pedalled at the ABC (11/11/17):

Elisabeth Asbrink (Swedish journalist and author of 1947: When Now Begins): ... Johann von Leers is one of the people who then settled in Buenos Aires and he works on a paper there that is created in 1947 and becomes a very important link between the Nazis in Latin America and the Nazis in Europe, and the interesting thing... with him is that he also builds very strong connections to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was close to Hitler and close to the Nazi ideas*, and when Johann von Leers had to leave Buenos Aires he goes to Egypt, invited by the Mufti and there he becomes the chief propagandist against Israel, working for the Egyptian government. So here are ties going together, merging in a very strange way...

[Oh dear, what would the Zionists do without - drumroll! - the Mufti of Jerusalem!]

Geraldine (interrupting): So let's go to Palestine because you have a very strong link with this, and Britain, as you say in 1947, has spent 80m pounds in the previous 2 years trying to sort out what Churchill called "a senseless, squalid war with the Jews in order to give Palestine to the Arabs." So Britain, the colonial power effectively handed the challenge back to the UN and we're still very much dealing with the consequences. So when you look back at all this, what strikes you when you re-examine the history?

[Churchill, of course, was a Zionist, with zero regard for the Palestinian Arabs, but of course we won't go into that... ]

Asbrink: I learnt a lot reading about this and the process leading up to Israel's birth and I think the main insight is that Britain just backed down. They had created a situation for decades and then when it became too complicated and too expensive they just handed it over to the UN and said we don't want any part of the solution, just do whatever you want with it. And what did the UN do? They put together a committee and this had 4 months to solve the problem. Well, we know what happened and I follow this process so I think I also learnt that it was so much more random. It was never fixed...

[That's it? That's your main insight? No mention of the UN Charter-defying, Palestinian self-determination-violating UNGA Partition Plan? No mention of the American-Zionist arm-twisting of UN delegates to get it passed?]

Geraldine (interrupting): History's a lot less systematic when you examine it in the present tense, and in Egypt of course it spawned the Muslim Brotherhood - well, sort of, which was developing, and Hasan al-Banna, its founder, had an extra impact on history. What struck you when you re-examined it?

Asbrink: Well it surprised me that he was so decisive for what we're living with today He picks up this old word - jihad - which has sort of been sleeping and not being used and he inserts what he himself calls 'the art of death,' which actually is the love of death and the idea that dying is also a victory [...] and so this is a consequence of the way the British handled Palestine the way they did...

[No Nakba. No Palestinian refugees. Go straight to... jihadis!]

[*From the only book worth reading on this subject: "By focusing on Arab-Nazi ideological 'affinity,' writers have misrepresented the central goal of Arab nationalist cooperation with the Axis: the defeat of a common enemy." (The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin Al-Husayni & the Palestinian National Movement, Philip Matar, 1988, p 100)]

Bob Hawke's Crazy Love

In an Australian Financial Review op-ed published yesterday, former Labor PM and die-hard "friend of Israel," Bob Hawke, confesses to being worried about "the danger of Israel being blinded to the threat to its very soul and the vision of its future."

In Time to recognise the state of Palestine, he describes a meeting he had with former Israeli PM Golda Meir, at the end of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973:

"I listened with admiration and in total agreement as this wonderful woman, still traumatised with grief, looked into my eyes and said there could be no peace for Israel until there was an honourable settlement of the aspirations of the Palestinian people."

"Soul"? "Vision"? We're dealing here with a-worse-than-apartheid-state for God's sake, with no other "vision" than to cram in as many Jews as possible, and knock off as many Palestinians as circumstances allow. As for that "wonderful woman," Golda Meir, wasn't she the one who said, "There is no such thing as Palestinians"? (See my 17/8/08 post The Zionist La Passionara.)

Unfortunately, despite all his free time and a taxpayer-funded retirement package an aged pensioner could only dream of, he still hasn't taken the time or trouble to revisit, research, revise and apologise for his youthful infatuation and where it led him.

Clearly, the old codger's still not over it.

The only thing, it seems, which perturbs his rosy vision of an imagined Israeli golden age, is the current "sentiment of Israeli political leadership" as exemplified in "the inexorable expansion of Jewish settlement in the West Bank," where "some 580,000 Israelis live in 123 government-authorised settlements and about 100 unauthorised outposts on the West Bank and 12 major neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem." Not to mention those recently announced.

"The least we can do," he concludes, "in these most challenging of times, is to do what 137 other nations have already done - grant diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine."

The appalling thought arises: Will this be it? Will Hawke's be the one and only opinion piece in the lead-up to Netanyahu's visit in the Australian press that deviates from the usual, bipartisan kowtowing to Israel?

Perish the the thought.

But there's more to Hawke's piece than meets the eye. Something quite astonishing in fact. This:

"It was our great foreign minister Dr H.V. Evatt who chaired the UN Special Committee on Palestine and it was the resolution of that committee that authorised the partition of Palestine into two states. It was on the basis of this resolution that the state of Israel was established in 1948. The resolution gave the already settled and the newly arriving European Jewish settlers - who by then constituted a third of the population and owned less than 6% of the land - exactly 56.47% of the Palestinians' best cultivated land and cities. The two-thirds population of indigenous Palestinians who owned more than 94% of the land were given 47% of their own country."

Think about it...

If:

a) Evatt had a hand in proposing that the indigenous Palestinians be divested of 56.47% of their patrimony, to be handed over, lock, stock, and barrel, to a minority of recently-arrived European settlers who had purchased only 6% of it (and he did);

b) and if the partition proposal enshrined in the UNGA's resolution of 29 November, 1947, was as draconian as has been described (and it was);

c) and if said partition resolution was, at least in part, Evatt's legacy in Palestine (and it was), then how the hell can Hawke describe Evatt as "our great foreign minister"?

In fact, it was the partition resolution of 1947 that gave Zionist fanatics such as David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir all the excuse they needed to embark on the military offensive they'd been preparing for for decades, drive out the indigenous Palestinian population, occupy 78% of their ancestral homeland, destroy hundreds of their villages, steal their land, and strew it with settlements (called at the time kibbutzes).

If Hawke really wanted to make a statement at this time, the very least he could have done would be to repudiate Evatt's legacy in Palestine, demand Israel withdraw to its 1947 partition borders, and call on it to implement all relevant UN resolutions, particularly UNGA resolution 194, enshrining the right of Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 to return home.

The Road Not Taken

From beginning (1917) to end (?), Palestine and its people have been comprehensively shafted by the international order. Arguably, the worst ever milestone in this process was UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which proposed the partitioning of British Mandate Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

It should rightly be viewed as the most shameful resolution ever passed by the United Nations in its now entire 71-year history, and today marks the 69th anniversary of its passing.

But the UN didn't have to go down the road to partition/ perdition in Palestine. If the UN had voted to refer the matter of Palestine's future to the International Court of Justice, as recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)'s Sub-Committee 2 (instead of settling for partition, as advised by Sub-Committee 1), the Palestinian people would, in all likelihood, have been spared the agony they have gone through now for the past 60 plus decades, and are still going through today.

Here is the first part of the concluding section of Sub-Committee 2's Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to The International Court of Justice. The next time you here a Zionist banging on about Partition Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, remember this document: 

The General Assembly 

Considering that the Palestine question raises certain legal issues connected, inter alia, with the inherent right of the indigenous population of Palestine to their country and to determine its future, the pledges and assurances given to the Arabs in the First World War regarding the independence of Arab countries, including Palestine, the validity and scope of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, the effect on the Mandate of the dissolution of the League of Nations and of the declaration by the Mandatory Power of its intention to withdraw from Palestine,

Considering that the Palestine question also raises other legal issues connected with the competence of the United Nations to recommend any solution contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Charter of the United Nations, or to the wishes of the majority of the people of Palestine,

Considering that doubts have been expressed by several Member States concerning the legality under the Charter of any action by the United Nations, or by any Member State or group of Member States, to enforce any proposal which is contrary to the wishes, or is made without the consent, of the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine,

Considering that these questions involve legal issues which so far have not been pronounced upon by an impartial or competent tribunal, and that it is essential that such questions be authoritatively determined before the United Nations can recommend a solution of the Palestine question with the principles of justice and international law,

Resolves to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court on the following questions:

(a) Whether the indigenous population of Palestine has not an inherent right to Palestine and to determine its future constitution and government;

(b) Whether the pledges and assurances given by Great Britain to the Arabs during the First World War (including the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918) concerning the independence and future of Arab countries at the end of the war did not include Palestine;

(c) Whether the Balfour Declaration, which was made without the knowledge or consent of the indigenous population of Palestine, was valid and binding on the people of Palestine, or consistent with the earlier or subsequent pledges and assurances given to the Arabs;

(d) Whether the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine regarding the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine are in conformity or consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations (in particular Article 22), or are compatible with the provisions of the Mandate relating to the development of self-government and the preservation of the rights and position of the Arabs of Palestine;

(e) Whether the legal basis for the Mandate for Palestine has not disappeared with the dissolution of the League of Nations, and whether it is not the duty of the Mandatory Power to hand over power and administration to a government of Palestine representing the rightful people of Palestine;

(f) Whether a plan to partition Palestine without the consent of the majority of its people is consistent with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and with the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine;

(g) Whether the United Nations is competent to recommend either of the two plans and recommendations of the majority or minority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, or any other solution involving partition of the territory of Palestine, or a permanent trusteeship over any city or part of Palestine, without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine;

(h) Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine,

Instructs the Secretary-General to transmit this resolution to the International Court of Justice, accompanied by all the documents likely to throw light upon the questions under reference.

SMH: Lightweight. Increasingly.

As the Sydney Morning Herald shrinks, almost too light now to even reach one's front lawn, so too does the quality of its editorials. For example:

"Back decades... Labor foreign minister, attorney-general and eventually leader H.V. (Bert) Evatt played a key role in establishing the UN... He helped develop the Universal Declaration of Human Rights* and counted the creation of Israel among his greatest contributions at the UN." (Turnbull makes serious blunder rejecting Rudd, 30/7/16)

IOW, our Bert created Israel.

OFFS!

Here is what actually happened at the time:

In 1947, Evatt was chair of the UN's Ad hoc Committee on Palestine. When, on 25 November 1947, the Committee voted to recommend to the UN General Assembly that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states, Australia/Evatt voted for partition. The final Committee vote was 25 for, 13 against with 17 abstentions. That is, of the 55 votes cast only 25 favoured partition.

Some arm-twisting of UN member states (by the US at the behest of the Zionists) had, therefore, to be undertaken in order to line up the required majority of votes for partition before the UNGA met to decide on the matter on 29 November. I have dealt with this thuggery in several posts, accessible under the label 'Palestine partition'. The point I wish to make here, however, is that the Herald's ZIONIST hyping of Evatt's role in the sordid affair of partitioning Palestine over the heads of its people cannot be allowed to stand.

To put Evatt's role in perspective, I offer this summation by one of Australia's leading Zionists of the time, Max Freilich:

"On 18th December the Zionist Federation gave a dinner reception to Dr. Evatt paying tribute to him for the skilful way in which he had conducted the meetings of the Ad hoc Committee on Palestine so that it was made possible for the United Nations Assembly to arrive at the decision for the partitioning of Palestine into Jewish and Arab States." (Zion in Our Time, 1967, p 199)

So much for Evett creating Israel.

Having said that, Evatt still needs a retrospective caning for, in Freilich's words, "conducting the meetings of the Ad hoc Committee on Palestine so that it was possible for the United Nations Assembly to arrive at the decision for the partitioning of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states."

[*There is no mention of Evatt's name in relation to the development of the UDHR in the Wikipedia entry for this subject. More hype?]

The Land of the Profoundly Blind

This is a most interesting development:

"Tel Aviv's mayor on Thursday blamed Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories for a deadly attack carried out by two Palestinian gunmen that left four Israelis dead in the Mediterranean city. Labour Mayor Ron Huldai, 71, told Israeli army radio that the occupation was to blame for Wednesday evenings attack when two armed Palestinian men from near Hebron in the southern West Bank walked into a popular cafe and opened fire on revellers. 'We might be the only country in the world where another nation is under occupation without civil rights,' he said. 'You can't hold people in a situation of occupation and hope they'll reach the conclusion everything is alright... There has been an occupation for 49 years, which I was part of and I know the reality... We have to show our neighbours that we have true intentions to return to a reality of a smaller Jewish state with a clear Jewish majority'." (Tel Aviv mayor blames Israeli occupation for deadly cafe attack, middleeasteye.net)

OK, so Ron Huldai's still wedded to the racist idea of a Jewish majority in the rest of occupied Palestine, but still, credit where credit's due. Maybe, in recognition of the mayor's incredible achievement in iterating the bleeding obvious, we should consider rephrasing Erasmus' famous dictum to: 'In the land of the blind known as Israel Ron Huldai should be king.'

The grim reality, however, is that in Israel it's the profoundly blind who have always ruled the roost, and who are responsible for the 49-year-old occupation and colonisation of the Palestinian territories. For example:

"I promise that all those involved in yesterday's deadly terrorist attack will not escape punishment." Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Lieberman: Israel will hunt down all behind the Tel Aviv attack, Tovah Lazaroff, The Jerusalem Post, 6/10/16)

The Palestine Problem Simply & Directly Explained

The two blackest dates in the Palestinian calender fall in November.

The first is November 2, the day in 1917 when the British government - in the infamous Balfour Declaration - promised Palestine to the Zionist movement.

On that day, Britain paved the way for the coming eviction of the Palestinian people from its ancestral homeland.

The second is today, November 29, the day in 1947 when the UN General Assembly, in the infamous Resolution 181, proposed the partition of Palestine into 'Jewish' and Arab states.

On that day, the UN gave its blessing to the eviction of the Palestinian people from its ancestral homeland.

When the next smug Zionist propagandist reminds you, as he surely will, that but for their intransigence, the Palestinians could have had their own state in 1947, remember these words:

"I recall a visit to our house by Dr Ralph Bunche [1903-1974], then deputy chairman of the UN Special Committee on Palestine. He had arrived as member of a commission and I said to him, 'Would you permit me to explain the problem simply and directly? I do not wish to enter into the political intricacies nor to review the history and consequences of the problem. All I want to say is this: 'I own this house and cannot understand why I should renounce or surrender it; nor can I be convinced that any law in the world or any international resolution can make me me consent to hand it over to foreigners, even if they have no house. I do not understand my responsibility in this regard. This is my house, I am here, and I do not wish anyone to share it with me.' With a pained expression Bunche answered, 'Believe me, dear lady, this simple statement of yours is more convincing to me than the great pile of documents stacked on my desk'." (Memoirs of an Early Arab Feminist: The Life & Activism of Anbara Salam Khalidi, 1978/2013, pp 144-45)

In 1977, the United Nations (in belated recognition of its role in evicting the Palestinian people from its homeland 30 years earlier?) designated November 29 the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

Palestine Had No Chance

Prolific Zionist propagandist and scribbler Michael Burd - *sigh* - had the following letter published in yesterday's Australian under the incredible heading Palestine had its chance. In it, he seeks to divert the reader's attention from Israel's total contempt for international law and its serial violations of UN resolutions by trotting out the old Zionist saw that the Palestinians could have had a state of their own today if only they hadn't petulantly rejected the UN "umpire's decision" to divvy up Palestine between Jews and Arabs in 1947:

"Israel basher Jake Lynch (Letters, 11/9) claims Israel's occupation is the obstacle to peace ignoring the reality that when Israel pulled out of Gaza, it was reciprocated with even more terror attacks by Palestinians - which certainly doesn't give Israelis the confidence to make any more concessions. Lynch likes to cite international law and UN resolutions when it suits him. How about the original UN resolution 181 in 1948 [sic: 1947] declaring one state for the Jews and one state for the Arabs which to this day has never been accepted by the Arab-Muslim world? Had this umpire's decision been accepted by the Arabs, the Palestinians would have had their state by now."

The oft-repeated lies of Zionist propagandists such as Burd on the subject of Resolution 181 are easily exposed. A good place to start is with political analyst Jeremy Hammond's 2010 essay, The Myth of the UN Creation of Israel.

Hammond's paper makes it abundantly clear why no Palestinian Arab in his right mind could possibly have accepted UN Resolution 181, arguably the most outrageous and disgraceful resolution in UN history. As an appetizer, here is the conclusion to Hammond's essay:

"The partition plan put forth by UNSCOP [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] sought to create within Palestine a Jewish state contrary to the express will of the majority of its inhabitants. Despite constituting only a third of the population and owning less than 7% of the land, it sought to grant to the Jews more than half of Palestine for the purpose of creating that Jewish state. It would, in other words, take land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews.

"The inherent injustice of the partition plan stands in stark contrast to the alternative plan proposed by the Arabs, of an independent state of Palestine in which the rights of the Jewish minority would be recognized and respected, and which would afford the Jewish population representation in a democratic government.

"The partition plan was blatantly prejudicial to the rights of the majority Arab population, and was premised on the rejection of their right to self-determination. This is all the more uncontroversial inasmuch as the UNSCOP report itself explicitly acknowledged that the proposal to create a Jewish state in Palestine was contrary to the principle of self-determination. The plan was also premised upon the erroneous assumption that the Arabs would simply acquiesce to having their land taken from them and voluntarily surrender their majority rights, including their right to self-determination.

"UN General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer.

"When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented.

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

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

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

November 29: Australia's Day of Shame

Today, November 29, is the 66th anniversary of the day the United Nations General Assembly, then more of a white man's club than a body which truly represented the people of the world, voted for the partition of Palestine, without consulting its people, into a 'Jewish' and an Arab state. (This kind of decision, of course, would be inconceivable today.)

Not for nothing has November 29 been designated by the UN as International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.

November 29 should be seen by Australians in particular as a day of shame because of the vital role played in the partition of Palestine by Australia's then foreign minister, Dr Herbert Vere Evatt (1945-49).

As chairman of the UN's Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, Evatt voted against referring the Palestine problem to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion and voted for partition when the matter came before the UNGA on November 29.

Evatt, who went on to become President of the UNGA, is viewed today an 'icon' of the Australian Labor Party. And don't we just love our icons? God knows why, but in our naivety, we often assume that they act out of some kind of superior knowledge or wisdom intrinsic to themselves. How wrong we are. In fact, Evatt knew virtually nothing of Palestine or Palestinians, and cared even less.

What explains his shameful role in the dismemberment of Palestine is those who had access to him, those who had his ear. Meet Max Freilich and friends:

"In my capacity as President of the Zionist State Council and member of the Department for Zionist Policy, I was actively associated with this public relations effort. But perhaps more than any of my Zionist colleagues I realised that such public relations activity is a long-term educational process, a process not conducive to, or capable of, getting immediate results. As victory for the Allies was in sight and the war's end was drawing nearer I was deeply persuaded that to be effective and to achieve immediate results we must aim for a direct and short-cut approach to the political leaders of the country. I often had occasion to discuss this problem with my friend Abram Landa, Labor Member of the NSW Parliament, who agreed with my viewpoint. Abe was a close friend of Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, Minister of External Affairs in the Labour Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and Dr Evatt was the logical Cabinet Minister to approach. The executive of the Zionist Council, as far back as August 1942, at my suggestion, decided that Dr Evatt be requested to receive a deputation which would put to him the Zionist case... A deputation led by Saul Symonds, President of the NSW Jewish Advisory Board, was received eventually by Dr Evatt, presenting to him the Zionist case and the tragedy of European Jewry. Dr Evatt received us most cordially, assured us of the Commonwealth Government's deep sympathy and promised his utmost support 'when the time comes'. The formal approach to the Government and the result, favourable as it certainly appeared to be, did not satisfy my sense of urgency... The opportunity for personal contact with members of the Government of the day came to me in mid-1944 when the Commonwealth Government decided to hold a referendum on amendments to the Constitution... Through the good offices of Abram Landa I was able to serve in some small measure the cause of the Government. This brought me into contact with Mr Ben Chifley, then Federal Treasurer, and Dr Evatt, Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General in John Curtin's Cabinet... [M]y association with Dr Evatt developed into a warm personal friendship during the critical and historic days for Zionism in the pre-state period, when the partition of Palestine was dealt with by the United Nations at Lake Success." (Zion In Our Time: Memoirs of an Australian Zionist, 1967, pp 114-115)

Not for nothing did AIJAC's Daniel Mandel call his 2004 book on Evatt, H.V. Evatt & the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist.

And speaking of undercover Zionists, our current crop have just sided in the UN with Israel, the United States, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau to vote against the adoption of a UNGA resolution declaring 2014 as International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (110 for, 56 abstaining).

The Politics of Partition 2

As anyone who reads this blog regularly will know, one of the worst crimes in my book is lying about, misrepresenting, or otherwise distorting the historical record.

This habit, of course, is second nature to those with a vested interest in propping up the false historical narrative of political Zionism, and explains the need for, and motivation behind, blogs and websites such as this, which seek to combat Zionist (and Islamophobic) spin as it arises - alas, far too frequently - in the MS media.

Unfortunately, and I find this particularly troubling, such spin, though not necessarily Zionist in motivation, can also crop up in government-endorsed online resources for Higher School Certificate Modern History.

Take, for example, the following highly dubious treatment of the November, 1947 partition of Palestine in a document called Arab-Israeli conflict 1948-1996: 1948: A Year of myth or miracle? by Stephen Dixon of Kirrawee High:

"The United Nations (UN) vote for the partition of Palestine... illustrates well the public and private faces of Israeli policy during the period 1947-49. As the relieved and joyous crowds danced in the streets of Tel Aviv, there was talk of the hand of God miraculously delivering his people."  (HSC Online, hsc.csu.edu.au)

One wonders why, in 2013, Dixon is invoking such a musty Eurocentric metaphysical concept as "the hand of God delivering his people" when the Zionist movement of the time was wholly secular in outlook, and in fact, just another European settler-colonial implant in the non-European world.

And where, one wonders, is there mention of the Palestinian Arabs, still the overwhelming majority of Palestine's population at the time? Doesn't it matter what they were thinking, and why?

To continue:

"On a more terrestrial level, the success of the Zionist enterprise can be attributed to the work of seasoned political in-fighters such as Golda Meir, Abba Eban and, above all, David Ben Gurion. Two examples serve to show how the establishment of the Jewish state was not left to chance or divine whim. As the date for the UN vote neared, the Arabs showed their naivety by eschewing the back-room deals and corridor meetings that are part and parcel of Western diplomacy. Not so the Zionists. Sustained and encouraged by the personal sympathy of President Truman of the USA and the powerful Jewish lobby of the eastern American seaboard, they began a process of intense behind-the-scenes lobbying to maximise the vote in favour of partition. Pressure was placed on the ambassadors of less committed small countries, such as Cuba, Haiti and Liberia, whose votes would help determine the decision. In the case of Liberia, the owner of the American Firestone Rubber Company, which held huge economic interests in the African country, was enlisted to pressure the Liberians to vote for partition." (ibid)

Now I suppose, one should be grateful that the student reading this is at least apprised, however sketchily, of the pressure tactics employed by the usual suspects to get their way. Be that as it may, Dixon's framing of the issue here is hugely problematic.

First, there is no hint here that our "in-fighters" were actually the ruthless Indian fighters who would go on to ethnically cleanse as much of Palestine as they could lay their hands on, leaving the partition resolution far behind in their wake. Nor is there a hint that Truman was motivated at the time largely by the desire to secure Jewish votes in a hard-fought election campaign.

But that's really the least of it.

The Arabs, in Dixon's construction, are simply assumed to have the same clout in the matter as the US Zionists whose dupes, in particular Clark Clifford and David Niles, were strategically positioned in the White House to ensure compliance with Zionist demands. If only these lackadaisical Arab klutzes had hopped off their camels long enough to get down and dirty in true Western style seems to be the gist here.

It appears that Dixon didn't pause long enough to consider whether the Arabs even had such useful things as a direct line to Firestone Rubber. No, they were just plain, bloody clueless!

Finally, the student who consults this text can surely be forgiven, in light of Dixon's presentation of the issue, for taking home the message that any low tactic is permissible in the world of statescraft. To hell with international law, ethical standards, and public probity.

Good one, Mr Dixon!

The Politics of Partition 1

"Having cut Palestine up in that manner, we shall then put its bleeding body upon a cross forever." Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, Pakistan's UN representative, speaking at the UN against the partition of Palestine, 29 November, 1947

Second (but only in the chronological sense) to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in paving the way for the disappearance of Palestine, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November, 1947, which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, warrants more scholarly scrutiny than it's so far received.

In fact, it amazes me that no reputable scholar has, to my knowledge, devoted an entire book to it. Given Resolution 181's appalling repercussions, which are still with us today, its scandalous nature, both in terms of its content and the events surrounding its passage, its devastating blow to the credibility of the United Nations so soon after its creation in 1945, and its persistent use in Zionist propaganda, not least in this country, here is surely a subject in search of an author. (A suggested title: 'Giving the Zionists an Inch: The Politics of the Palestine Partition Resolution.)

Although I've posted on the subject before (simply click on the 'Palestine partition' label below), I keep coming across so many missing pieces of the partition jigsaw that I've decided to post them as I find them under the above heading.

The following reflection on the resolution as an act of "inter-continental aggression," comes from Anglo-Indian journalist G.H. Jansen's 1971 study, Zionism, Israel & Asian Nationalism:

"In that final vote [of 29/11/47] only Liberia and the Philippines among Afro-Asian countries voted affirmatively; China and Ethiopia abstained; and of the 13 negative votes, 11 were Afro-Asian, the other two coming from Cuba and Greece.

"No further evidence is required to prove that the Jewish State was thrust into Asia, against the wishes of Afro-Asia, by other continents - Europe, and North and South America. A clear case of inter-continental aggression.

"On this issue Europe, east and west, communist and anti-communist, was united. In order to get the British out of a particularly sensitive area of the Middle East, Russia and her junior partners switched from their established, doctrinal hostility to Zionism to a policy favouring partition and the creation of a Jewish State. No sooner was the state created than they switched back to opposition.

"From the Afro-Asian viewpoint the real villains of the piece at the United Nations were not the Europeans or the North Americans but the Latin Americans. The European and North American vote can be explained, though not excused, as an expiation of their anti-Semitic guilt. But that explanation does not apply to South America. A Zionist author has ascribed South American pro-Zionism to a belief in humanitarianism, Catholicism, the self-determination of peoples, the sovereign and juridical equality of states, and universality of UN membership. If this explanation is true the Latin Americans can be accused of the most insufferable hypocrisy. Perhaps the most charitable explanation is to say that with their Hispanic background they are more susceptible than most to quixotry. Yet, quixotic or not, their vote was decisive: a Zionist publication was quite correct when it described their support as 'the spinal column of the pro-Zionist bloc in the United Nations'.

"It should be made clear that not all the Latin American states were pro-Zionist. Cuba voted against and Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico abstained.

"The Colombian delegate was one who clearly saw the vote as inter-continental aggression: 'No wonder,' he said, 'that the plan has had to come across the Atlantic in search of the supporters it has failed to find in the countries adjoining Palestine in the eastern Mediterranean, in western Europe, or in the distant Asiatic mainland.'

"Not only the Latin Americans but almost all the pro-Zionist delegations at the UN in 1947 can be brought under the charge of hypocrisy. During the debates on the future of Palestine a resolution was put forward which asked all states to admit Jewish refugees on a quota system. It was defeated by a vote of 15 affirmative, 18 negative* and 22 abstentions. The geographical distribution on this humanitarian vote was almost the exact opposite of the political vote on partition. Those countries that voted for partition abstained on accepting Jewish refugees; and those delegations that voted against the Jewish State voted for accepting Jewish refugees. It was only the latest expression of an apparent correlation: anti-Semites are often pro-Zionist, anti-Zionists are often pro-Semites. The Zionists had no complaints about this outcome: 'It (the resolution) was denounced as gambling with the bitter lot of the refugees' wrote [Jewish Agency liaison officer with UNSCOP] Horowitz." (pp 201-202)

[*I don't have the documentary proof of Australia's vote on the vital third recommendation of this particular resolution (GA/PAL/85, 24/11/47) - the creation of a quota system for Jewish refugees - but I'd bet my bottom dollar that we voted against it.] 

The Unpalatable Truth About Martha Gellhorn 4

In the West Bank (under Jordanian rule at the time), Gellhorn, who had hearted Republicans in 30s Spain, uncharacteristically finds herself warming to monarchists:

"In Jordan, a refugee's education and self-reliance showed at once in his politics. The better educated, the more able do not waste their time on thoughts of violent revenge, and give their loyalty to King Hussein. The more ignorant and less competent nourish themselves with a passion for Nasser, war, and Return."

In Israel itself, she seeks out "the [Palestinians] who stayed behind, the non-refugees," interviewing a Christian Arab schoolteacher in Galilee who informs her that "[i]n the 1948 war, the next village was bombed by the Jews; when we saw that, we knew we had no hope."

Gellhorn responds with the following parenthetical comment to the reader: "(Pause for breath: the Jewish Air Force at the time consisted of 19 Piper Cubs, a nice little plane, not a bomber...)"

In fact, the fledgling AIF had "25 Avia S-199s (purchased from Czechoslovakia, essentially Czechoslovak-built Messerschmitt Bf 109s) and 62 Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk IXEs (also purchased from Czechoslovakia)... Many of the first IAF's pilots in 1948 were foreign volunteers (both Jewish and non-Jewish) and World War II veterans... As the war progressed more and more aircraft were procured, including Boeing B-17s, Bristol Beaufighters, de Havilland Mosquitoes and P-51D Mustangs..." (Wikipedia)

The following conversation ensues, with Gellhorn displaying a mastery of Zionist talking points, an appalling condescension and racism, and a palpable impatience with an interlocutor who sounds suspiciously like the proverbial straw man:

"'The Arab Kings [says the teacher ] were not the true representatives of the Arab peoples when they made war against Israel. Now all the refugees should come back and we should have Palestine.'

"At this point, I decided to make one long, determined stand to see whether there was any meeting ground of minds on a basis of mutually accepted facts and reasoning.

"'Please bear with me and help me,' said I. 'I am a simple American, and I am trying to understand how the Arab mind works, and I am finding it very difficult. I want to put some things in order; if I have everything wrong, you will correct me. In 1947, the United Nations recommended the Partition of Palestine. I have seen the Partition map and studied it. I cannot tell, but it does not look to me as if the Arabs were being cheated of their share of good land. The idea was that this division would work, if both Jews and Arabs accepted it... The Jews accepted this Partition plan; I suppose because they felt they had to. They were outnumbered about two to one inside the country, and there were the neighboring Arab states with 5 regular armies and 40 million or more citizens, not feeling friendly. Are we agreed so far?'

"'It is right.'

"'The Arab governments and the Palestinian Arabs rejected Partition absolutely. You wanted the whole country. There is no secret about this... The Arab governments never hid the fact that they started the war against Israel. But you, the Palestinian Arabs, agreed to this... And you thought... that you would win and win quickly. It hardly seemed a gamble; it seemed a sure bet. You took the gamble and you lost. I can understand why you have all been searching for explanations of that defeat ever since, because it does seem incredible. I don't happen to accept your explanations, but that is beside the point. The point is that you lost.'

"'Yes.'  It was too astonishing; at long last, East and West were in accord on the meaning of words.

"'Now you say that you want to return to the past; you want Partition. So, in fact you say, let us forget that war we started, and the defeat, and, after all, we think Partition is a good, sensible idea. Please answer me this... If the position were reversed, if the Jews had started the war and lost it, if you had won the war, would you now accept Partition? Would you give up part of the country and allow the 650,000 Jewish residents of Palestine - who had fled from the war - to come back?

"'Certainly not,' he said, without an instant's hesitation. 'But there would have been no Jewish refugees. They had no place to go. They would all be dead or in the sea.'

"He had given me the missing clue. The fancy word we use nowadays is 'empathy' - entering into the emotions of others. I had appreciated and admired individual refugees but realized I had felt no blanket empathy for the Palestinian refugees, and finally I knew why... It is hard to sorrow for those who only sorrow over themselves. It is difficult to pity the pitiless. To wring the heart past all doubt, those who cry aloud for justice must be innocent. They cannot have wished for a victorious rewarding war, blame everyone else for their defeat, and remain guiltless. Some of them may be unfortunate human beings... But a profound difference exists between victims of misfortune... and victims of injustice. My empathy knew where it stood, thanks to the schoolteacher... He has never seen even a corner of a real big war; he cannot imagine it. He thinks war is something that lasts a few weeks... you run away for a bit and then come home to your undamaged houses and lead a good life, indeed a better material life than before. None of these Arabs has suffered anything comparable to what survivors of modern war know; none can imagine such catastrophe."

So the Palestinian nakba, the ethnic cleansing of 85% of the population of Palestine overrun by Zionist forces in 1948, the Israeli refusal to allow their return as demanded by international law and the United Nations, the theft of their homes, lands, businesses and bank accounts, and the consignment of around 750,000 people, all indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, to exile in perpetuity, is a mere "misfortune" which cannot even begin to compare with the "injustice" suffered by European Jewry.

But it gets worse. Gellhorn (whose knowledge of Arabic is zero) plumbs new depths of calumny and racist abuse with this outburst:

"Arabs gorge on hate, they roll in it, they breathe it. Jews top the hate list, but any foreigners are hateful enough. Arabs also hate each other, separately and en masse. Their politicians change the direction of their hate as they would change their shirts. Their press is vulgarly base with hate-filled cartoons; their reporting describes whatever hate is now uppermost and convenient. Their radio is a long scream of hate, a call to hate. They teach their children hate in school. They must love the taste of hate; it is their daily bread. And what good has it done them?"

In fact, today's Islamophobic banshees, such as Oriana Fallaci, Pamela Geller, and Melanie Phillips have nothing on Gellhorn:

"Victory over a minor near enemy is planned as as the essential first step on a long triumphant road of conquest. A thousand-year Muslim Reich, the African continent ruled by Egypt, may be a mad dream, but we have experience of mad dreams. We cannot be too careful. The echo of Hitler's voice is heard again in the land, now speaking Arabic."

But, as the following data indicates, there's more, much more, to Gellhorn's Atlantic Monthly hatchet-job on the hapless victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing than meets the eye:

"In the early 1960s the American Zionist Council's (AZC) [AIPAC's parent organization] Magazine Committee met regularly with writers to prepare articles for top US magazines such as Reader's Digest, the Saturday Evening Post, and Life. In its program for 'cultivation of editors' and 'stimulation and placement of suitable articles in the major consumer magazines,' the committee pushed lighter subjects with prepared texts such as the 13th anniversary of Israel's founding while killing investigative pieces at such publications as the Christian Science Monitor. The committee confronted two major news items challenging Israel: fallout from the 'Lavon Affair' (a cover up of failed false-flag Israeli terrorist attacks on US government facilities in Egypt) and American peace proposals calling for the return of some expelled Palestinian refugees to their homes and property in Israel. The Israeli government and its US lobby invested heavily in arguing against the return of Palestinian refugees through The Atlantic, according to yet another secret AZC report: 'The Atlantic Monthly in its October issue carried the outstanding Martha Gellhorn piece on the Arab refugees, which made quite an impact around the country. We arranged for the distribution of 10,000 reprints to public opinion molders in all categories. Acting on information that anti-Israel groups were bombarding the Atlantic with critical letters, we stimulated a letter campaign designed to counteract their impact... Interested friends are making arrangements with the Atlantic for another reprint of the Gellhorn article to be sent to all 53,000 persons whose names appear in Who's Who in America... The November issue of the Atlantic carried a special 64-page Supplement on Israel, with articles by some of Israel's top names... Our Committee is now planning articles for the women's magazines for the trade and business publications'." (The Israel lobby swims The Atlantic, Grant F. Smith, antiwar.com, 17/8/10)

To be continued...