[News] Israel has never had any intention of honouring either the 1947 Partition Plan or 1967 borders

Anti-Imperialist News news at freedomarchives.org
Thu Oct 10 15:13:00 EDT 2019


  Israel has never had any intention of honouring either the 1947
  Partition Plan or 1967 borders

Thomas Suárez - October 10, 2019

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised to annex parts of the 
occupied West Bank if re-elected in last month’s General Election, 
eliciting outrage from world leaders. However, that “promise” to usurp 
not just the West Bank, but all of Palestine, is century-old news, an 
ongoing promise being kept, and no international outrage has ever really 
mattered in any case.

A well-worn chapter of Israel’s creation myth explains its conquests 
thus: When in November 1947, the United Nations proposed partitioning 
Palestine into two states (General Assembly Resolution 181), Israel’s 
founders embraced the offer with gratitude, whereas the Palestinians 
scoffed at it and attacked the fledgling “Jewish state”.

The result of this alleged Palestinian intransigence? The “fundamental 
fact”, as the pro-Israel spin-doctors at CAMERA put it 
is that had the Palestinians accepted partition, there would have been a 
Palestinian state since 1948, “and there would not have been a single 
Palestinian refugee”.

This is more than bizarre rationalisation for seven decades of 
imperialism and ethnic cleansing; it is historical invention. The 
Zionist movement never had any intention of honouring any agreement that 
“gave” it less than all of Palestine. Mainstream leaders like the 
“moderate” Chaim Weizmann and iconic David Ben-Gurion feigned acceptance 
of partition because it handed them a weapon powerful enough to /defeat/ 
partition: statehood.

When Britain agreed to become Zionism’s benefactor, codified with the 
ambiguous 1917 Balfour Declaration, its negotiators knew full well that 
the Zionists planned to usurp and ethnically cleanse Palestine, and that 
the Declaration’s assurance to the contrary was a lie. As Lord Curzon 
complained, Zionism’s propagandists “sang a different tune in public” — 
a tune that the major media continue to hum today.

By 1919, activists like Weizmann were already exasperated at Britain’s 
failure to establish a Zionist state from the Mediterranean Sea to the 
River Jordan— as a start — and so pushed for “a comprehensive emigration 
scheme” of non-Jews to get the ethnic cleansing over and done with. The 
public lie remained safeguarded; British Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen 
assured Weizmann that the true plan is “still withheld from the general 
public”. Nor was the public informed when the USA’s King-Crane 
Commission went to the region that year and discovered for themselves 
that “the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete 
dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.” The 
Commission Report was buried.

It was in 1937 that the turmoil caused by dispossession first led the 
British to propose partitioning the land. Ben-Gurion saw partition’s 
hidden potential: “In the wake of the establishment of the state,” he 
told the Zionist Executive, “we will abolish partition and expand to the 
whole of Palestine.” He made the same promise to his son Amos.

When Ben-Gurion, Weizmann and others met in London in 1941 to discuss 
future plans, the cynical disconnect was chilling. Would “Arabs” have 
equal rights in the “Jewish state”? Of course, but only after there were 
none left. Would partition be acceptable? Certainly, if the line were 
the River Jordan (meaning 100 per cent of Palestine for Israel), 
expandable into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan itself. One attendee 
challenged the Zionists; the industrialist Robert Waley Cohen accused 
them of following Nazi ideology.

By 1944, the British knew that opposition to partition had “hardened 
throughout all shades of Jewish [Zionist] opinion,” and new resolutions 
among the settlers’ leaders placed “special emphasis on the rejection of 
partition.” But partition’s failure would become the Palestinians’ 
problem. The British would go home.

Ben-Gurion described statehood as a “tool”, not an “end”, a distinction 
“especially relevant to the question of boundaries,” which would instead 
be determined by “seizing control of the country by force of arms.” 
Scarcely any pretence was made outside the UN’s walls: Zionist 
Organisation of America President Abba Silver publicly condemned any 
mention of Partition and demanded an “aggressive and militant line of 
action” to take all of Palestine. The Jewish Agency’s militias were busy 
doing precisely that, frenetically establishing strongholds in areas 
that the UN was expected to allocate to the Palestinians.

“The peace of the world,” warned future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem 
Begin at the UN in the summer of 1947 — after Zionist terrorism had 
already reached Europe and Britain — will be threatened if “the Hebrew 
[Biblical] homeland” is not given in full to the Zionists. “Whatever 
might be signed or pledged” at the United Nations, the /Jewish Standard/ 
warned, would be annulled by the “power and passion opposed to 
Partition” of “uncompromising resolve.”

This mass fanaticism to “restore” an ancient kingdom and be its imagined 
population was the result of what might fairly be described as 
brainwashing. Already by 1943, US intelligence warned that Zionism was 
nurturing “a spirit closely akin to Nazism, [to] regiment the community 
[and] resort to force” to achieve its goals. Similar warnings of 
Zionism’s fascistic stranglehold over Jews came from individuals in the 
midst of it, among them J.S. Bentwich, Senior Inspector of Jewish 
Schools, and Hebrew University president Judah Magnes.

The day before Resolution 181 was passed, the CIA warned again that the 
Zionists will ignore partition and “wage a strong propaganda campaign in 
the US and in Europe” for more territory. Then as today, though, 
Americans were kept uninformed: “Americans,” noted US intelligence 
figure Kermit Roosevelt in 1948, do not realise “the extent to which 
partition was refused acceptance as a final settlement by the Zionists 
in Palestine.”

Ironically, it was /because/ the UN never believed that the Zionists 
would honour partition’s borders that it “gave” them a 
disproportionately large land area, hoping this might delay their 
inevitable aggression. But barely was the ink dry when the mayor of Tel 
Aviv —the presumed capital of the new state — announced that his city 
“would never be the Jewish capital”. It would be Jerusalem, a direct 
breach of the UN Partition resolution, which had designated it as an 
international zone. The Jewish Agency also said that “a number of 
national institutions” would be in Jerusalem.

The duplicitous attitude toward their UN “victory” was barely veiled. 
Whether the “liberal” /Haaretz/ or the Zionist newspaper /Haboker/, the 
message was indistinguishable: “The youth of the Yishuv must bury deep 
in their hearts the fact that the frontiers have not been fixed for all 
eternity,” as /Haboker/ put it. However long it takes, the rest will be 
“returned to the fold”.

Israeli statehood assured, CIA warnings grew more ominous: Zionist 
operatives were now impersonating US military and American Airlines 
personnel. Former US Senator Guy Gillette was openly working for the 
terror gang Irgun and pushed for blanket recognition of Israeli 
sovereignty over any lands that its militias could conquer.

Jerusalem remained Israel’s most urgent concern. Whereas land under 
“Arab” rule could eventually be usurped, a Jerusalem administered by the 
UN might not. And so when UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte composed a 
new plan for peace in the autumn of 1948, the terror gang Lehi warned 
him against a “non-Jewish administration” there. However, Bernadotte 
kept Resolution 181’s international zone, and the next day Lehi, under 
future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, assassinated him.

By the end of 1948 Israel had stolen more than half of the land it had 
“agreed” to leave for the Palestinians, and refused to budge. This was 
the origin of the misnomer “1967 borders”; in truth they are the 
ceasefire line. Partition was a charade, and Palestinian negotiators 
were right to dismiss it, but their honesty was, from the Machiavellian 
standpoint, a tactical blunder which the Zionists were counting on. In 
short, Israel has never had any intention of honouring either the 1947 
Partition Plan or the 1967 borders. So-called Greater Israel across all 
of historic Palestine and beyond has always been Zionism’s objective.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not 
necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20191010/46ddc72c/attachment.html>

More information about the News mailing list